Ban guns!

[LBHalos17]

I'm just kidding... Just curious on the thoughts in here regarding the knee-jerking politicians wanting to ban the "scary, black, assault rifles"  (and most every other gun eventually).

I am pro-gun; mostly because of the proliferation of illegally-armed criminals/psychos.  I believe the thought of running into a sane and trained, legally-armed citizen would give criminals pause.

Do you watch any of the National news shows?  I enjoy laughing at Britains Piers Morgan, because he thinks he knows what's best for Americans.

[Broad Street]

Piers Morgan is an idiot.

[arch stanton]

Piers Morgan knows what's best for Piers Morgan. That's getting his name mentioned in a national debate and on the side which would best connect him to his target audience. 

[Futch Winkleman]

We need to arm teachers and students and average Joe's on the street, because the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

When purchasing a gun, everyone should be required to check a box indicating if they're a "good guy" or "bad guy".  It's real simple... if they indicate they're a bad guy, don't sell them a gun (duh).

 

I agree with LBHalos17, that a "sane and trained" society is good for us.  For example, look at all the training the LAPD and Torrance PD have received.  If we can only have more people act in a similar manner, we will be a f*cking utopia!

 

Yay Guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

[Jay]

no and no

[Jason]

Gun restrictions work great!

-Chicago

[Glen]

Obama's gonna take our guns, and then implement socialism!

[nate]

Explain this to me, Gun Nuts.  I was watching a show on National Geographic about a gun auction and they were in Colorado.  A guy sold a Mack 10 with a suppressor on it.

 

So why is a fully automatic text book sized sub machine gun that is nearly silent legal?

[Futch Winkleman]

"Tragedies like Newtown and Aurora are OK every once in a while, as long as the rest of us can shoot shit up on weekends with a high capacity magazine."

 

-Gun nuts

[arch stanton]

Explain this to me, Gun Nuts.  I was watching a show on National Geographic about a gun auction and they were in Colorado.  A guy sold a Mack 10 with a suppressor on it.

 

So why is a fully automatic text book sized sub machine gun that is nearly silent legal?

Why would it not be legal? There's no need to wake the neighbors while you fend off the invading horde or just get those damn javelinas out of your garbage cans.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I am divided on this issue. I am not for an outright ban. For something like that to work, it would have had to have been implemented over 200 years ago. Removing guns from the streets simply isn't realistic. However, the founding fathers had no intention, IMO, of private individuals being armed like small countries, and they had no intention of the general public having open access to weapons they could not have dreamed of when the Second Amendment was written. The purpose of the amendment was for the citizenry to have weapons in case they were called into battle as a "well organized militia" - not to arm the entire populace to the teeth.

[Blarg]

no and no

So you are for banning all guns? The second poll question is phrased in a way that it is either all or just one specific type.

[Lifetime]

VHF- I think you are reading the 2nd Amendment incorrectly or incompletely.

[floplag]

Explain this to me, Gun Nuts.  I was watching a show on National Geographic about a gun auction and they were in Colorado.  A guy sold a Mack 10 with a suppressor on it.

 

So why is a fully automatic text book sized sub machine gun that is nearly silent legal?

 

why shouldnt they be is the better question?  nd dont even try to say it will stop crime, it wont.. and even these tragic acts arent likely to be affected.  there is zero evidence to support either claim.

[Scott34]

I just don't see the purpose of a 30+ round drum/magazine/clip.  I'm not yet sure of my stance on restricting the actual gun, but there is no reason to hold large amounts of bullets.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

VHF- I think you are reading the 2nd Amendment incorrectly or incompletely.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

It seems very clear that the main intention is to arm the people for creation of a militia. That is the opening statement. The fledgling country did not have much of an army, and citizens might have been called upon to fight. I don't see much there to misinterpret or read "incorrectly" or "incompletely".

[Lifetime]

You should read the USSC rulings on the subject as well as most state constitutions on this subject.

[Lifetime]

I just don't see the purpose of a 30+ round drum/magazine/clip. I'm not yet sure of my stance on restricting the actual gun, but there is no reason to hold large amounts of bullets.

what is the reason to prevent it?

[Scott34]

what is the reason to prevent it?

 

Human life.  If James Holmes, for example, had only the Glock gun there is no way 70 people would have been shot.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

You should read the USSC rulings on the subject as well as most state constitutions on this subject.

 

Since people cry "constitutional right" on this issue, I am more interested in the intentions of the people who wrote the amendment than the interpretations of those applying it two centuries later to a context far different from the one for which it was written. I am looking at it from the perspective of the authors of the amendment. They could not have possibly imagined AK-47s and high capacity handguns when they wrote this. Weapons were flintlock and had to be loaded one round at a time when this was conceived. Killing dozens of people in a short period of time with a firearm was impossible.

 

IMO, if you need an assault rifle for home defense, you are either an incredibly bad shot who will undoubtedly injure or kill uninvolved people in the process, or your home is being invaded by Navy SEALS, in which case you're screwed anyway.

 

I'm not trying to take your guns. I just believe that there are some that should be confined to military and law enforcement use. This isn't the 1700s.

[Lifetime]

Human life. If James Holmes, for example, had only the Glock gun there is no way 70 people would have been shot.

so you think restricting or banning the legal possession of them will stop that?

[Scott34]

Completely stop? No. 

[Lifetime]

Since people cry "constitutional right" on this issue, I am more interested in the intentions of the people who wrote the amendment than the interpretations of those applying it a century or more later to a context for which it was never written. That isn't the entire picture, I grant you, but I am looking at it from the perspective of the authors of the amendment. They could not have possibly imagined AK-47s and high capacity handguns when they wrote this. Weapons were flintlock and had to be loaded one round at a time when this was conceived. Killing dozens of people in a short period of time with a firearm was impossible.

IMO, if you need an assault rifle for home defense, you are either an incredibly bad shot who will undoubtedly injure or kill uninvolved people in the process, or your home is being invaded by Navy SEALS, in which case you're screwed anyway.

I'm not trying to take your guns. I just believe that there are some that should be confined to military and law enforcement use. This isn't the 1700s.

well then, you would be happy to know that the Constitution is the primary focus of the USSC.

[Lifetime]

Completely stop? No. 

what makes you think it would have any impact at all?

[arch stanton]

Sure, there's many ways to interpret the 2nd amendment but there are eight words that leave little doubt about their intent. "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed". This implies a singular (the right) that "shall not" be infringed. If you don't like it then change it but don't try to play semantics with the very clear language.