613 replies to this topic

[ladypanther]

As I said before in another thread. I'm not comfortable with government being able to own weapons that the public cannot. I believe in the idea that the public, should be they be able to afford to purchase it, should be able to own any weapon that those who rule over them can own.

If it's too dangerous for the public to own, then it's too dangerous for those who make the laws to own. Otherwise what is there for us to resist against oppression?

I would gladly support a ban on all projectile weapons, so long as the government, local PD and up, unilaterally disarm as well.

Floppin...I like a lot of your posts but this one is bad. This kind of thinking has no place in a civilized society today. It represents paranoid, backward thinking. Give nutcases the same access to weapons that the screened military/public officials have. Explain that to the people in Conn who lost a loved one.

[CatofWar]

And it continues to be ignored. You are a joke, like this thread. Don't bitch about a lack of response just because you disagree with it.

Douche.

[Happy Panther]

No one has yet given an argument against banning these weapons.

That is not why we make laws.

I don't NEED a motorcycle either but I don't want the government banning them just because I don't have a great reason against it.

Many more people die from motorcycle deaths than they do from assault rifles.

[stirs]

Okay OP.

What type weapon are you wanting to ban and why? You will have to be more specific than WMD

[Floppin]

Floppin...I like a lot of your posts but this one is bad. This kind of thinking has no place in a civilized society today. It represents paranoid, backward thinking. Give nutcases the same access to weapons that the screened military/public officials have. Explain that to the people in Conn who lost a loved one.

Who's giving nutcases anything? I'm not saying to not background check someone. But if all things check out, I should be able to purchase anything that similarly approved military personnel can.

And it's not backwards thinking. The public has to protect itself from government and government abuse. There always comes a point when government function breaks down, where the system no longer works. What happens then? You end up with regimes like that in Sudan, North Korea, China, etc. Complete and total oppression.

You're living in an altruistic fantasy world in which the government can do no harm. What's to stop the US government from turning oppressive? We're certainly on that track already. Are you going to throw rocks and hold up the constitution at them when they march through the streets armed?

Is it a forgone conclusion that our government will corrupt to that point? Absolutely not, but removing all personal protection against such things just on the blind belief that they won't. Nah, no thanks, you can keep that fantasy away from me.

[CarolinaNCSU]

Sweet Jesus there is no way to explain to those parents what happened to their kids. Kids died. It's tragic, it's sad. It's also a complicated issue that a freaking ban on weapons won't fix. Criminals can still get weapons if they're banned. Sometimes as sad as it is, and its not an excuse, but poo happens that people can't control. No matter how many laws and regulations are passed, poo will continue to happen. People will continue to die tragically no matter if there are no guns sold to the public or if every citizen carries one. Your argument is based on so much emotion right now you're ignoring logic.

[ladypanther]

Sweet Jesus there is no way to explain to those parents what happened to their kids. Kids died. It's tragic, it's sad. It's also a complicated issue that a freaking ban on weapons won't fix. Criminals can still get weapons if they're banned. Sometimes as sad as it is, and its not an excuse, but poo happens that people can't control. No matter how many laws and regulations are passed, poo will continue to happen. People will continue to die tragically no matter if there are no guns sold to the public or if every citizen carries one. Your argument is based on so much emotion right now you're ignoring logic.

I am not the one defying logic. My position is data based. And it is one I have held for a long time.

The shooter in Conn was not a criminal...he had no record before the killings. He did have access to legal weapons of mass destruction. Without that access...maybe a few more kids and maybe a teacher would be alive today.

[CarolinaNCSU]

EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO WEAPONS.

I not only have an AR15 and Uzi in my house right now, but I could make a couple of phone calls and get them from freaking gang members of friends if I wanted to. You think they give a rats ass if they were made illegal? This is not me lying. This is the real world.

[CarolinaNCSU]

Btw, I'm going to be a teacher one day. You think these things don't effect me or that I don't have information or training based on these issues that the common person may not?

[FireMarshallBill]

Damn, if a handgun is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, then I guess we were justified to invade Iraq after all.

[FireMarshallBill]

Without that access...maybe a few more kids and maybe a teacher would be alive today.

Prove it

[stirs]

The one possible reason he had access to these weapons, as has been talked about extensively, is that he shot and killed the legel owner of these guns. This could happen anywhere. He had been denied the sale of a rifle a week earlier, so he shot and killed someone for their weapons.

[ladypanther]

Damn, if a handgun is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, then I guess we were justified to invade Iraq after all.

The shooter used a semiautomatic rifle ( a military weapon). He shot one child 11 times. Please explain to me why anyone needs to have a right to own that kind of weapon? Then let me know how you would explain it to the parents of the 6 or 7 year old child that was shot 11 times.

[FireMarshallBill]

The shooter used a semiautomatic rifle ( a military weapon). He shot one child 11 times. Please explain to me why anyone needs to have a right to own that kind of weapon? Then let me know how you would explain it to the parents of the 6 or 7 year old child that was shot 11 times.

a semi-auto rifle is not a military weapon. I think that you have no idea what you're talking about.
So you're saying it would have been ok if he'd used a single shot 20 gauge?

As to the last part, you keep asking that like its even relevant.

[Floppin]

The shooter used a semiautomatic rifle ( a military weapon). He shot one child 11 times. Please explain to me why anyone needs to have a right to own that kind of weapon? Then let me know how you would explain it to the parents of the 6 or 7 year old child that was shot 11 times.

For argument's sake, the pistols were also semi automatic with multi round clips. He could have done just as much damage with the other two weapons he was carrying. Just because he choose to use the rifle doesn't validate your argument.