Gun control in the US.
Is there a good argument for NOT limiting the weapons to which civilians have access? Like these AR-15s or whatever. How is making them illegal a bad thing?
Tell me!
Tell me!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
sunrisehawk · 61-69, M
How is making words that you don't like illegal a bad thing?
If you took the time to understand the second amendment, why it was written, and modern firearms you might reconsider your question.
1. AR-15s or whatever are not military weapons, they look like, but do not function in the same manner. When looks matter more than function, you've got a problem.
2. When the second amendment was written, the civilian population was on a whole better armed than the military (outside cannons). Today, that is not true.
3. The Founders of our nation didn't trust the government to abide with the restrictions of the Constitution and bill of rights as the government is made up of men not angels. So they inserted the second amendment so that the government could not disarm the people.
4. There are already volumes of laws that prohibit certain types of weapons, their use and more. If these laws haven't eliminated violence and crime, what makes you think that more laws will have a positive impact?
5. And lastly, when did taking something from law abiding people ever prevent the bad or evil people from doing what they are intent upon doing?
Almost every argument used to advocate for gun control (banning etc.) could be used by those who want to ban hate, unpopular, or just speech they don't like. If the Constitution can be circumvented with laws, it isn't much of a document.
If you took the time to understand the second amendment, why it was written, and modern firearms you might reconsider your question.
1. AR-15s or whatever are not military weapons, they look like, but do not function in the same manner. When looks matter more than function, you've got a problem.
2. When the second amendment was written, the civilian population was on a whole better armed than the military (outside cannons). Today, that is not true.
3. The Founders of our nation didn't trust the government to abide with the restrictions of the Constitution and bill of rights as the government is made up of men not angels. So they inserted the second amendment so that the government could not disarm the people.
4. There are already volumes of laws that prohibit certain types of weapons, their use and more. If these laws haven't eliminated violence and crime, what makes you think that more laws will have a positive impact?
5. And lastly, when did taking something from law abiding people ever prevent the bad or evil people from doing what they are intent upon doing?
Almost every argument used to advocate for gun control (banning etc.) could be used by those who want to ban hate, unpopular, or just speech they don't like. If the Constitution can be circumvented with laws, it isn't much of a document.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunrisehawk · 61-69, M
@Celine Your argument is somewhat flawed as it isn't only weapons that kill. The human mind is the greatest weapon, think pressure cookers, trucks, propane tanks, airplanes, etc. If you think that guns are the only way to kill people quickly then you're not living in the same world that I inhabit.
If you think that depriving law abiding citizens of weapons will make the world safer, once again, in my world, criminals don't obey the law and in the normal course of committing crimes, do so where there is the least risk.
The argument of why not give it a try is childish and beneath you. If you look at the history of the world you will have to search long before you see a case where the government took something away and then when it didn't solve the problem, gave it back. Yes it does happen but not very often. If you would be willing to surrender one of the rights you hold dear and trust that if it didn't fix the problem you'd get it back, then you are far more trusting of government than I.
If you think that depriving law abiding citizens of weapons will make the world safer, once again, in my world, criminals don't obey the law and in the normal course of committing crimes, do so where there is the least risk.
The argument of why not give it a try is childish and beneath you. If you look at the history of the world you will have to search long before you see a case where the government took something away and then when it didn't solve the problem, gave it back. Yes it does happen but not very often. If you would be willing to surrender one of the rights you hold dear and trust that if it didn't fix the problem you'd get it back, then you are far more trusting of government than I.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunrisehawk · 61-69, M
@Celine If you think that acquiring a firearm is easier than acquiring a pressure cooker, a propane tank, or a truck you need to understand the laws already on the books.
I'll end my discussion with a question to you. How many people have been saved by the use of guns? That is the direct harm if you ban weapons. The word quickly hasn't been defined so you're proposing a ban on all most all guns. I think that my muzzleloader would qualify as slow...but that may be debatable.
I'll end my discussion with a question to you. How many people have been saved by the use of guns? That is the direct harm if you ban weapons. The word quickly hasn't been defined so you're proposing a ban on all most all guns. I think that my muzzleloader would qualify as slow...but that may be debatable.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunrisehawk · 61-69, M
@Celine You're not really interested in a discussion are you.
Look it up, few are murdered with AR-15s or similar weapons. Most murders are the result of handguns. Do you think the gang-bangers in the inner cities are using weapons that are not easily concealed? And that is were the vast majority of murder by firearms happen. Liberal bastions where gun control is the strongest.
Trust your government at your own risk. I trust people, not faceless agencies.
Look it up, few are murdered with AR-15s or similar weapons. Most murders are the result of handguns. Do you think the gang-bangers in the inner cities are using weapons that are not easily concealed? And that is were the vast majority of murder by firearms happen. Liberal bastions where gun control is the strongest.
Trust your government at your own risk. I trust people, not faceless agencies.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment