why a ban on assault weapons doesn't make things safer

myp said:

Well that is your opinion. I think the data might suggest otherwise. But first I'd like more data, anyway.

But I thought your argument was also that it is unconstitutional, which is also arguable. But when such argument arises it is up to the courts to decide. So let them decide.

Click to expand...

The courts disobey the constitution at their own peril.

myp said:

Why do you not understand this? What you think is constitutional, everyone does not. What makes you an expert on the constitution over me or anyone else including an actual constitutional scholar?

Click to expand...

The only person disagreeing is you.

The constitution doesn't need scholars, its very direct. Must not be infringed, by infringing they are infringing.

You don't understand.

myp said:

Why do you not understand this? What you think is constitutional, everyone does not. What makes you an expert on the constitution over me or anyone else including an actual constitutional scholar?

Click to expand...

You are incapable of arguing this with me because you don't even know what an assault weapon is, you can't, because it is a fabricated meaningless term.

this isn't about safety this is about taking rights away. Because if I simply modify cosmetics of a gun it is no longer an assault weapon.

You don't even understand what that word means. So this is pointless.

No assault weapon will ever be banned, because it is fictitious. Its like banning unicorns or leprechauns they will simply retitle things. Because this is about oppression by the dictator in office.

Nothing you can say will change that so just stop.

tecoyah said:

The door swings both ways on this.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. there if no interpretation that would say that must not be infringed = must be infringed, any more than the court could order the nation to be catholic.

If there are limits on the type of arms people can bear, I am willing to discuss that rationally. But emotional buzz words based on lack of knowledge, I am a brick wall

If you want to discuss this on an intellectual level will be happy too. I will start.

As defined an "assault weapon" is a rifle pistol or shotgun.

With combat equipment on it, meant for use in combat. No lets look at this rationally.

Does a wrist grip stock make bullets fly slower, safer and less frequent?

Does a bayonet ring make bullets fly faster and more accurately and more deadly?

An assault weapon is not anything but a rifle, exactly the same as a hunting rifle. I don't understand the idea that they are more deadly. They are just the same as any other gun

tecoyah said:

I well understand your position clax...hard not to.
Though I personally do not agree with your interpretation I accept your opinion as a very deeply help belief...thus my comment about the door swinging both ways was in reply to this:





Once you made this statement the debate ended...as you actually requested.

Click to expand...

That was with myp, you are capable of discussing this. Please help me understand what makes an salt weapon different or more dangerous than any other. I would like to understand your position even if I may not agree.

tecoyah said:

These weapon types were designed and used for the express purpose of killing humans en mass during military operations and are being used to do so in a civilian setting at this time. I feel that our society does not need to make it easier for the worst acts of violence to take place, and any means of lessening the prospect should be seen as a positive step.
I also believe the 2nd allows for gun ownership, and do not have a problem with this. Certain aspects of our constitution are periodically adjusted as the society evolves which is one of the reasons our form of Government and society are uniquely positioned to survive world changes and cultural growth.
It is a simple fact, that a weapon firing 50 rounds will cause more damage than one firing 10...indisputable logic. It is also an accurate statement that these weapons were developed as human killing machines.
I do not see a reason to put the pleasure of firing these guns, or a possibly misguided need for personal protection above the obvious and real need to protect society from the damage they inflict when obtained by those intent on destruction.

Click to expand...

The guns referred to as "assault weapons" are not military weapons, they are actually modern sports rifles. You can't get the guns the military has, aside from a .50 rifle.

I also don't know of a gun that has a maximum amount of rounds that it can fire, a quick reload will keep the gun firing for however long you want.

And these rifles are just like any other, the para military look is just a look. Its banning an idea to me.

tecoyah said:

You are free to have any opinion you wish, just as others are free to disagree. Though it is true civilians do not have access to the self same weaponry the military does, we do have access to weapons meant to do the same things. They may be "Modern Sporting Rifles", but the designation you use does not remove the purpose intended by such a weapon...you seem intent on dismissing the term Assault rifle stating it does not exist, yet decide to redesignate these weapons under a new moniker which basically does exactly what you seem to be against.

Secondly, trying to diminish the obvious danger of these weapons by expressing the basic need to reload, rather than the issue of initial capacity is a very weak attempt at avoiding reality. You will certainly fire more rounds from a clip of 50 than a clip of 10, to think otherwise is to deny the truth.

And lastly...these weapons are most certainly NOT like every other, They were designed for a very singular purpose, and are very good at it. Pretending a weapon of War is the same as a weapon used to hunt is a statement of ignorance, and to be honest seems confused.

Click to expand...

No they are not designed for anything but to fire ammunition, that is what all guns are designed for. AR 15s are hunting rifles, I know several people that hunt with them, were the designed to be gutting rifles, no, no gun is all find are designed to fire ammo on this aspect they are exactly the same.

You load a round, you aim you pull the trigger and repeat that us exactly the same on all guns no matter what you call them.

What is different?

Stonewall said:

Unless a good guy with a gun...10 or 50 round clip irrelevant...interferes with the shooters insanity....and shoots the shooter.

To deny that is denying the truth.

Once again, the automatic weapon has been around for a long time. This nation's history includes the second amendment and law abiding citizns have always had the right to own and carry weapons. They weren't walking onto schools and shooting our children. How many rounds you can carry in any clip is the political small issue fighting Democrats have suddenly warmed to.....the reality is these laws would have done nothing to save any child's life, changed the realities in Newton or movie theatres, Major Hasan or the Virginia Tech victims.

To deny that is to deny the truth as well.

Click to expand...

Its definitely our culture 99% maybe .000001% our ability to purchase weapons. Anybody who doesn't think its our culture, just take a job in corrections for one month you will learn so much about the reality of this. And further more our treatment of folks with mental health issues

Stonewall said:

Agreed.

I also think these bans or clip counting is political and disingenuous. Here we have a nation where inner city crime, drug and gang infestation, gun violence, and children dying every week are rampant......it takes an event like this in Newtown to motivate those supposedly responsible to do something about this. Note, there is nothing to address treating the mentally disturbed, nothing to address culture.

Click to expand...

Its so much easier to blame a scary black gun than to look at the wasteland that or culture has become.

Mental health has seemed to be a bit more catchy lately, many commercials about addiction, finally it seems that folks are understanding that is mental.

Just take a trip to the nearest city and find the poorest district. Thus isn't created by rich people per SE. But by the collective desire to ignore this problem. Its just to hard for politicians to give a damn so they pull this crap about super dooper extra dead murder guns or assault weapons so they can continue to ignore the problem. Nothing will change because the problem us being avoided.

I say screw these idiots ranting and raving about death rays and red herrings. Politicians are never the solution to problems. If we all just walked into the ghetto and start, at least start by not being scared, and end the dehumanization of the poorest parts of our nation the most neglected kids that would make so much more of a difference than thus crap about murder weapons.

If we commended people for seeking help or let them know that we care about those in sanatariums maybe, just maybe mental health would be considered similar to physical health.

If we didn't recoil in fear or disgust when the encounter with a person that is mentally handicapped they might not feel the need to keep their problems bottled up until they explode.

All we have to do is love just a little bit more, show just a tiny bit of compassion.

Think of how hard life would be if people were disgusted or scared of you.

The problem is us, not the ill, we drive them nuts by not reaching out, but freaking out.

Is so very sad, my heart is breaking that this is the state in which our own American brothers and sisters live in. I just wish I could do more.

myp said:

Actually you don't. You read it as A. I read it as B. It is that simple. We read it differently. Now you can say I am wrong just because you think you are right, but that isn't any way of proving anything because I can say just the opposite. You saying it says A because I read it as A does not mean anything.

Click to expand...

If you read anything other than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed." You are wrong.

It does mean something if you choose to reject reality, have a happy delusion, don't expect me to be deluded also.

I am done talking to you about this.