Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bob Costas' Soap Box

29 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='boostownsme' timestamp='1354541626' post='2028950']

This gets me every time. Assault weapons are already banned. Those rifles that people clamor about being "assault weapons" are merely semi-automatic hunting rifles with a pistol grip and larger magazine.
[/quote]

I agree 100% man. But there are those people that think my semi automatic AR is an "assault" weapon.

It's just a large capacity hunting rifle that you can put poo loads of bells and whistles on it. Lol I've heard the "well you can put a grenade launcher on it though" BS! Haha yea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Mister Love' timestamp='1354515608' post='2028805']
Outlawing guns will never stop violent crimes

[i]Root of the problem isn't that simple[/i]
[/quote]


Actually you could not be more incorrect.

Our per capita non gun related violent crimes are on par with other civilized countries. When we add in gun violence our violent crime rate skyrockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Hoplomachus' timestamp='1354508167' post='2028643']
I agree with what you said OP; guns are just tools...they just happen to be very effective tools. Guns allow people to easily inflict massive amounts of damage in a very short amount of time; so yeah Belcher could have used a lesser tool like a knife, baseball bat, or his bare hands but the gun made it a lot easier for him to end that woman's life.

Assault rifles need to be banned. Other guns should just be more difficult to obtain.
[/quote]
While I don't agree with Costas, the line of thought that someone will just do the same thing with a different weapon is asinine. Guns remove much of the human element from inflicting harm on someone. It can be done from a distance and it is the bullet doing the damage, not the actual person. Stabbing or bashing someone's brains in is a lot more brutal. For some people that doesn't matter because they are truly sick in the head, but for a lot of others, they never would have committed the crimes they did without the assistance of a gun.

Shooting someone is easy. You keep your hands clean and its often one shot and done. That's not the case with other weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Tensor' timestamp='1354548118' post='2029057']
While I don't agree with Costas, the line of thought that someone will just do the same thing with a different weapon is asinine. Guns remove much of the human element from inflicting harm on someone. It can be done from a distance and it is the bullet doing the damage, not the actual person. Stabbing or bashing someone's brains in is a lot more brutal. For some people that doesn't matter because they are truly sick in the head, but for a lot of others, they never would have committed the crimes they did without the assistance of a gun.

Shooting someone is easy. You keep your hands clean and its often one shot and done. That's not the case with other weaponry.
[/quote]

Ok....so you essentially make the same points that I did, but in a better way. Read my post again; I said that he could have used another weapon, but the gun made it easier.

I like how some of you guys are playing word games. Sure an AR-15 may technically be classified as a " semi-automatic hunting rifle"....but we really know it is not. AR-15 has two modes: safe or semi-auto; the M16A2 has safe, semi-auto, or 3 round burst. None of the weapons in the M16 family except for the obsolete M16A1 (this family includes AR-15s) has a fully automatic mode of fire. So the only real difference between the AR-15 and the other weapons in that family is 3 round burst; that difference is not enough to classify one as a hunting rifle and another as an assault rifle...they are essentially the same thing. And that's just talking about the ARs and not the other assault rifle type weapons that are out there.

Also FYI the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired March 2, 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If Mr. Belcher did not have a relationship with this woman, she would probably still be alive.

Ban interpersonal relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Awesome d/p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='GAme' timestamp='1354540548' post='2028936']
He's right. We should just magically take away all the guns so battles are fought with melee weapons and explosives.
[/quote]

I'm good with light saber duels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='YourMomsLover' timestamp='1354513901' post='2028791']
No weapon should be banned. Assault rifles especially. The 2nd amendment states the citizen militia should have the same firepower as the tyrannical government.

God this country is becoming fuging sissified, and disgraceful.
[/quote]

Agreed. If I have a few million dollars lying around and I want to buy a tank I should be able to dammit.

And who is the government to tell me I cant buy enriched uranium? This is america, I thought this was a free country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I thought we were talking about banning handguns?

Tanks and uranium....what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i'm pretty ambivalent on the gun control issue as i see significant pros and cons to either one, but if we're going to analyze the constitutional aspect of it it's important to note that the second amendment was written in a historical context where a firearm was a muzzle-loading musket or flintlock pistol, taking at least thirty seconds between shots to reload (and that's if you're a trained expert.) There's not a technological equivalency between that and a semiautomatic handgun or rifle, and that's something important to keep in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='PhillyB' timestamp='1354556749' post='2029255']
i'm pretty ambivalent on the gun control issue as i see significant pros and cons to either one, but if we're going to analyze the constitutional aspect of it it's important to note that the second amendment was written in a historical context where a firearm was a muzzle-loading musket or flintlock pistol, taking at least thirty seconds between shots to reload (and that's if you're a trained expert.) There's not a technological equivalency between that and a semiautomatic handgun or rifle, and that's something important to keep in mind.
[/quote]

While I understand the sentiment of what you're getting at... it does say...

[quote]"[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [b]the right of the people to keep and bear arms[/b] shall not be infringed."[/size][/font][/color][/quote]

It does not say keep and bear GUNS... and what I mean by that is equivalency... if it was written in the time of knives and arrows, would it really matter?

If the gov't or some other entity had automatic weapons and the people had rocks it wouldn't do the people much good.

Note that the previous comment is in no way advocating we should be allowed to have automatic weapons... I'm just saying that if we are allowed by the constitution to "bear arms" they need to be reasonably equivalent to the standard of arms in the world at any given time.

In 200 years from now when there are (insert futuristic weapon here), will the second amendment still be relevant?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='nc_biscuit' timestamp='1354557213' post='2029268']I'm just saying that if we are allowed by the constitution to "bear arms" they need to be reasonably equivalent to the standard of arms in the world at any given time.

In 200 years from now when there are (insert futuristic weapon here), will the second amendment still be relevant?
[/quote]

yeah this is exactly the point i was trying to make. there has to be a reasonable equivalency to continue using the second amendment as the foundational argument for firearms proliferation; it's going to get to a point where that argument will need new legs to stand on entirely or lose credibility (which, fortunately for most of the gun nuts, won't matter as most of them don't care too much about factual credibility and willingly insulate themselves from it in favor of ideological justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites