What if we all needed a permit to purchase gun accessories like bullets and gun powder and shells, do you think that would be a way to control guns?

@sunrisehawk doing it on college campuses

@sunrisehawk Do people immediately die as a result of free speech ? Hate speech, possibly, but most speech doesn't result in injury or death, whereas most shootings do [b]by design[/b].

@bijouxbroussard If the risk of dying is the only reason to destroy the 2nd amendment that is a poor reason in my view. I personally would be willing to risk death to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights; without the second, it would be a pointless sacrifice.

@sunrisehawk nah let's sacrifice 16 instead

@MasterLee bad joke.

@sunrisehawk who was joking

@sunrisehawk Do you understand that gun control and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment are [b]not[/b] actually synonymous ? That's why many [b]gun owners[/b] support controls. Even Trump, bless his opportunistic heart, is trying to get on board with federal legislation to ban "bump stocks", which people have used to turn semis into full-fledged murder machines. It's a [b]start[/b], we just closed that loophole in my state. Owning a gun is too big of a responsibility to [b]not[/b] have some controls. You have to earn a driver's license to legally operate a motor vehicle---and they're not [b]designed to wound or kill people[/b].

@bijouxbroussard If as you posted, bullets were to cost $5,000 that would be an effective ban.... Just responded as per your post. By the way there are a great many controls already in place at the federal level and a variety of controls at state and local levels. Motor vehicles are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Firearms are... The times that any of our rights have been threatened, those guns have been there to protect them; from outside and internal forces.

@sunrisehawk True. [b]But[/b] the types of firearms that were mentioned at the time of the Bill of Rights are certainly not the ones available today, right ? Assault rifles would've been as foreign to the authors of the Bill of Rights as any motor vehicle.

@bijouxbroussard Actually that isn't true. The average American had a rifle and the military of the day was armed with muskets. Serious advantage to the rifle.

Your argument of assault rifles is also flawed as military assault rifles are not available to the public except with the proper federal licenses and permits. Weapons that look like but do not function the same as, are not assault rifles.

Lastly, changes in technology have added new layers to all of the Bill of Rights, but it has not obsoleted any of them. Shows the wisdom and foresight of the Founders.

[quote]By the way there are a great many controls already in place at the federal level and a variety of controls at state and local levels[/quote]
Then why don't you argue these rather than the ridiculous way you and your idiot (I'm looking at you @MasterLee cronies) are arguing.

@sunrisehawk [quote]Your argument of assault rifles is also flawed as military assault rifles are not available to the public except with the proper federal licenses and permits.[/quote] and what would somebody want with one of these weapons, outside of the military? (The clue is in the name!)

@sunrisehawk [quote]The average American had a rifle and the military of the day was armed with muskets. Serious advantage to the rifle. [/quote]

Yes, but they didn't have AR-15s, which seems to be the go-to weapon nowadays (Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Sutherland Springs), just as the government didn't have nuclear weapons back them. You [b]can[/b] buy semis and you can buy assault rifles, because people still [b]do[/b]. The kid who just shot up his former school bought his weapons [b]legally[/b], even though he'd been identified as having emotional problems. Supposedly mental illness is the problem that the gun lobby wants addressed---but they're not even willing to restrict gun access to the mentally ill.

@bijouxbroussard Can't discuss when people don't listen. You can not buy an assault weapon... semi-automatic firearms are not assault weapons. Just because a weapon looks big and scary, doesn't mean it is any different that any other civilian gun.

@sunrisehawk So all those people are not actually dead, then ? You are so right. It's impossible to have a discussion where people [b]don't listen and miss the freaking point.[/b]

@sunrisehawk Nonsense semantics.

"The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers."

"A semi-automatic like the Bushmaster AR-15 XM15-E2S has a maximum effective rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute, according to its manual."

@room101 civilian weapon

@MasterLee And what need does a civilian have for a weapon that can fire 45 rounds per minute? Oh yeah, self defence because you lot live under the constant threat of your government becoming a dictatorship.

What a load of crap!

@room101 hey we have strict control on needles. That has worked wonders

@MasterLee Yet another bout of false equivalence. Seems to be an epidemic in the pro-gun, pro-orange moron cadre.

@room101 must suck to be a liberal. Fear of tools, speech, people, places, races, colors...

@MasterLee The only fear I have is that idiots like you can actually reproduce and create even more idiots. Oh wait, you can!

FML 😖

@room101 at least you admit it. One small step.

@MasterLee How could I deny it? We inhabit the same planet do we not. Clearly not the same realm of existence (fuck knows what realm you exist in) but certainly the same planet.