No non-sworn civilian should own any device that is DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently

[uponit7771]

No non-sworn civilian should NOT own any device that is DESIGNED or can be altered comparatively with ease to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently

This statement has been working on gumpers and gumper sights for a second for me.

The usually come back with silly semantic arguments but hyperbole for effect snuffs those out ... and then they cut and run.

The gumper arguments for owning devices that are designed to kill a lot of humans are getting sillier and the NRA is beatable...

The phrasing of the argument has been missing for a while though IMHO


Your take?


thx in advance

[Orrex]

1. But Thomas Jefferson commanded me to own twelve AR-15s.

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

[uponit7771]

3. lol...+1, they'll fall back to the constitution but the SC has already weighed in on that. These...

... weapons are rarely called what they should; crowd killers ... or something

[Squinch]

11. I'm my own militia!!!!

But really, Thomas Jefferson was also a slaveholding pedophile, and most of his good ideas are cribbed from Madison, so there's that... Never liked the guy.

(Sally was 15 or younger when he started in on her.)

[WayBeyondBlue]

2. Conditional agreement

As long as you account for the police somewhere in your statement. Demilitarization of the cops should include some thought about their weapons too.

[uponit7771]

6. Police and military are sworn's ... everyone else are civilians. I do get the point though, the poli

... police shouldn't be armed up as much as the military... there's something wrong with their policing if they are

[Jim Beard]

12. I agree that they should not be BUT they became more armed because the

citizens were becoming more armed like the military. Remember that shooting scene in California where those two punks were mowing down cops and they had to go to a gun store to get something that would stop them.

[WayBeyondBlue]

14. So then it might be reasonable

to consider rolling back their weapons as well. That's what I was getting at, but police tech is a golden cow and many folks will fight this idea to the death. Figuratively, of course.

[uponit7771]

52. Yeah.. wow, didn't know about the gun store part... then this should be done in phases. non-sworn

... first then sworns to certain point.

FBI etc should be able to own the devices but not the avg citizen

[Duckhunter935]

64. And if you do more research

Civilians with their weapons helped take out the Texas tower sniper.

[uponit7771]

72. That's great, they shouldn't own devices designed to kill massive amounts of humans either regardles

... of the good they've done with them so far.

[Jim Beard]

240. I remember seeing a few using their

rifles to shoot at the tower. It did more to keep him distracted as the cops climber to thr top of the library ans shot Whitman.

He was shooting people a far distance from the Tower.

[Jim Beard]

243. Cops didn't have enough firepower, Crooks too much

LAPD initially outgunned in thwarted bank robbery shown on live TV

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIF. — A wild street shootout between Los Angeles police and automatic-weapons-wielding bank robbers has opened a new chapter of self-examination for local law enforcement in America's second largest city.

The initial outgunning of the police during Friday morning's gunfight was played out in vivid color on live television. At the height of the crisis, several officers had to resort to the arsenal of a nearby gun store to commandeer nine rifles with enough firepower to pierce their assailants' protective clothing.

[uponit7771]

266. Thats crazy

[Kingofalldems]

4. Let the swarming begin.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Might go over better without the insults

[uponit7771]

7. The statement doesn't have any insults in them I hope... gumper is mine, feel free to use at will

[Duckhunter935]

9. I try not to insult groups of people

You can keep it.

[TipTok]

263. Most seem physically incapable...

... of discussing the subject without.

I'm impressed that the OP managed to leave out some sort of sexual reference or penis joke.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Original intent means they can own as man flintlocks as they want.

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

[Duckhunter935]

10. And you typed this on some kind of

Movable type printing press

[Agnosticsherbet]

78. Legal doctrine of original intent was written by quill.

In candal light.
Without original intent, they very idea of the second is open to question.

[uponit7771]

19. +1, yeap...

[Just reading posts]

26. So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to radio, tv, or the internet?

Exactly the same logic.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Don't confuse them with facts

They think the are so cute with that one

[uponit7771]

51. Red Herring, the point being intent is subjectively selected by gumper crew

[Just reading posts]

53. How is it a red herring? If the technological limit of the 18th Century applies to the 2nd

Amendment, why wouldn't it apply to the 1st?

[uponit7771]

65. The intent of the 2a wasn't for non-sworns to have devices DESIGNED to kill as many people as possib

... or the 1st for folk to scream "kill all the gumpers" in a crowded theater.

There were limits to both, just gumpers have word whipped the 2a to mean what they want

[Just reading posts]

73. You proposed limiting the Constitution to 18th Century technology. Why would it not apply to

the 1st Amendment?

And there are already substantial limits to the 2nd Amendment, are there not?

[uponit7771]

76. Strawman, this is false on its face... I said "... RELATIVELY efficiently..." so that covers your...

... argument too.

I've argued this point on gumper sights near and far and obfuscations is about all people have... no different here

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. A declaration that you've covered his argument is not axiomatic

[uponit7771]

141. What is axiomatic is the attempts at obfuscations from folk who advocate for near open ended 2a

[Duckhunter935]

147. Nearly open ended, lol

Thousands of federal, state and local regulations on who and who may possess firearms and of what type. Do you know what a prohibited person is?

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. You are dodging the question: Does the First Amendment apply to electronic media?

[Duckhunter935]

82. You really expect an answer?

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Not really, but it does help the intellectual vacancy behind the panic mongering

The Right has dimwitted panics about brown people, abortions, and Muslims.

The Left prefers dimwitted panics about gun and gun owners.

[uponit7771]

144. Not all... next? tia

[Duckhunter935]

81. The second was for civilians

To have the same type of weapons the military had. They were designed to kill as many people as possiblee in as short of time possible. In the 1930s this was reasonably adjusted to limit fully automatic weapons as they were not in general use st the time for lawful purposes.

[truebluegreen]

110. Codswallop.

The civilian militia was the military, armed so that they could be called up as needed. That was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The closest current equivalent, now that we have a standing army, is the National Guard.

Or are you one of those who think the Framers inserted the 2nd Amendment so the people could rise against a tyrannical government? If so you might want to read up on the Whiskey Rebellion: a tax revolt, no less, it started only a couple of years after ratification and resulted in George Washington leading an army to put down the insurrectionists. So apparently overthrowing the government was not the Original Intent. Neither was having the right to randomly shoot a bunch of fellow citizens, family members or government officials.

Just out of curiosity, didn't your parents ever teach you that bad behavior by a few could ruin things for everybody? We as a society are at, and well past, that point.

[Duckhunter935]

116. All you have to do is change it

It's easy

[truebluegreen]

244. Easier to re-intrepret it,

as was done with Heller; a bad decision that needs to be reversed. Citizen's United was a bad idea, so was Buckley v Valeo, so was Plessy v Ferguson. Throughout its history the Court has not been immune from the influence of public opinion, and has periodically taken steps to address past mistakes. We are overdue for some adjustments. And it could happen.

Especially since apparently Hillary will completely change the Supreme Court...actually, I think this is one area where changes for the good might occur there. OTOH she may appoint corporatists who think protecting profits is more important than protecting citizens. It will be interesting to see.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. Your post is both ignorant about the militia and misleading about your interlocutor

The civilian militia was the military, armed so that they could be called up as needed. That was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The closest current equivalent, now that we have a standing army, is the National Guard.

False- that would be the unorganized militia:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim

10 USC Ch. 13: THE MILITIA

311.

Militia: composition and classes.

312.

Militia duty: exemptions.
§311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You also imply sentiments to Duckhunter that he did not, in fact express:

Or are you one of those who think the Framers inserted the 2nd Amendment so the people could rise against a tyrannical government?.... So apparently overthrowing the government was not the Original Intent. Neither was having the right to randomly shoot a bunch of fellow citizens, family members or government officials.

Google "strawman argument"; your posts will be much stronger without them...

[jmg257]

129. Hmm...i think, since the constitutional militias were well-regulated,

(Or supposed to be), according to congressional mandates, that they'd be considered closer to the NG then the current unorganized people at large.

The NG definitely took their place, even though they do serve as federal reserves.

Sure the people are thrown a bone, but no govt entity seems to care if they are organized or armed or disciplined.

[truebluegreen]

242. Are you implying that a link that doesn't work to a page that doesn't exist

was what the Framers intended 1789? Interesting theory.

But you did use some big words so I'm sure you're smart.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

137. Except the supreme court said the 2nd amendment meant individuals...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

Decision[edit]
The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
---------------------------

Not to mention, pretty much every other one of the top 10 amendments were to restrain government from infringing on individuals. Not sure how you suddenly decide to read one backwards.

[truebluegreen]

238. Going to address the points I raised?

If you know anything about so-called originalist Scalia, you know he cherry-picked the times he actually adhered to original intent, according to his own ideology.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is always right? Bad idea. Go back to wiki for Plessy v Ferguson, or Dred Scott.

[friendly_iconoclast]

245. If he doesn't, I will- the Supremes reaffirmed Heller 8-0 a couple of months ago, in Caetano v....

...Massachusetts, and gave a sharp rebuke to those who think as you do:


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Also, don't count on this being overturned anytime soon:

Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices to the SC, that would still
leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...

[Duckhunter935]

246. Ouch, that had to hurt, 8-0

[friendly_iconoclast]

247. I'm sure it did, and I'm glad of it. Just wait for the first firearms permit denied in MA...

...to someone with the means and/or connections to take on our 'may-issue' laws.

[gladium et scutum]

127. Not really the case

The military used a 69 caliber smoothbore, muzzle loaded musket, that would accept a bayonet. The civilians owned a muzzle loaded rifled weapons that would range from 32 to 50 caliber. They would not take a bayonet. The military weapon had an effective range of about 50 yards, the civilian rifle about 250-300 yards. Both employed a flint lock, the military weapon could be loaded and fired 3 times a minute, the civilian rifle maybe 2 shots a minute at best. These are significant differences between those weapons used in our army and those available to civilians at the time

[uponit7771]

151. +1, so even then .. .relatively speaking... non sworn's did not have access to weapons that could...

... kill a at the rate of sworn persons weapons.

This should or should've been a position in the USSC in regards to these kinds of weapons.

[oneshooter]

219. The majority of the Malitia were armes with smoothbore weapons.

The rifled arms were carried by the backwoods hunters and trappers. They were generally used to pick off British officers and NCO's. This was considered as "bad sportsmanship" by the Brits and most all riflemen that were captured were hung as killers. It was considered to be "against the rules of combat" to deliberately fire at officers.
as for the accuracy of the Longrifle just look at the Battle of Kings Mountain, October 7th, 1780.

ww.history.com/this-day-in-history/battle-of-kings-mountain

[uponit7771]

145. Balderdash !!!

[Duckhunter935]

60. You are an expert with the insults

I will give you that. Interpretation of the amendments, not so much.

[uponit7771]

68. K, what is insulting... tia

[Duckhunter935]

75. Gumper for one

I think you knew it though

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. If 'gumper' is not insulting, than 'Dunning-Kruger survivor' would also not be, IMO.

[oneshooter]

223. How about "hoplophobe".

Would that be considered insulting?

[Duckhunter935]

224. yes, and I have never used it

[uponit7771]

162. Gumper is term of endearment no? ;-)

[Duckhunter935]

169. As much as some other words I can think of

But will not post here as they would get this post hidden like yours should be.

[uponit7771]

172. OK... why is gumper offensive? ... I'll stop using it if you give a reasonable reason...

... or not cause it sounds like an apt description.

Gun Thumper ... is... well... not a bigge in my book...

let me know

[Duckhunter935]

176. I have to give a reason, no

it is offensive to me, OK!!!!! I have asked you very nicely to stop with the insults

[uponit7771]

178. You've not stated why its offensive ... let me know... I'm not trying to insult anyone... just have

... a spirited debate on non sworn's being able to own devices that are designed to kill massive amount of humans.

Now folk are moving to CR territory ... there's no CR that says non sworn's should be able to own devices that are designed to kill massive amounts of humans either so this should be good

[Duckhunter935]

188. And you can do that without the insults

I do it all the time

[Duckhunter935]

191. I am sworn, I guess I am good then

[uponit7771]

197. ok... ok, I'll refine the statement... someone found this down thread though... also a person

... who swears has "sworn" also...

little twisted by similar

[Duckhunter935]

202. Keep moving those goalposts

I figure I am still good as I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution when I was hired.

[uponit7771]

205. No goal post move, just a continuance on narrowing who can own these devices designed or could be

... easily altered to kill massive amounts of humans relatively easily

[Duckhunter935]

206. Lol. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. No crimson fish here, we are simply pointing out your special pleading

https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[uponit7771]

74. What has been left out? tia

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. You propose that one part of the Constitution moved along with technology, but not another

[uponit7771]

173. This is false, and not all com tech can be allowed under the 1a

[friendly_iconoclast]

226. Really? What communications technology isn't covered by the First Amendment?

[doc03]

118. There are restrictions to the 1st Amendment n/t

[Just reading posts]

120. Yes there are. There are also restrictions to the 2nd, yes?

[Duckhunter935]

128. Indeed so

[doc03]

130. There also should be a lot more of them on the 2nd n/t

[Just reading posts]

132. Respectfully disagree. At the very least, the 1986 ban on the manufacture of transferable full auto

weapons should be repealed, and suppressors and SBRs should be removed from the NFA.

[uponit7771]

174. We agree, and that restriction should include any device DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of humans

... with relative ease.

[oneshooter]

221. Does that include cans of gasoline combined with padlocks and lenghts of chain?

Of and throw in a flare for good measure.

These items can "kill massive amounts of humans".

[Calista241]

90. The Supreme Court has already directly addressed this argument.

In Caetano v Massachusetts, which was decided 8-0, the relevant text of which is below:

We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” 554 U. S., at 582. In­ stead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

[TeddyR]

131. I see that the controllers don't have a response to this

But yes, the argument that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is, in fact, frivolous.

[hack89]

13. No thanks- I'll keep mine all the same. nt

[uponit7771]

20. You'll keep all your devices designed to kill a lot of humans efficiently? ... ok

[hack89]

25. In 35 years I have never harmed a living thing with my guns

I am not the problem. I just want to continue with my sport of competitive target shooting.

[uponit7771]

32. Anecdotal conflation, we're not talking about you or your experience just making it easier to filter

... out the nutsos.

No need to confiscate these arms either just enforce the requirement that a 10 million dollar insurance policy has to be carried by the sane folk and if caught without it there's a 10,000 minimum fine.

Something like that would do no?

tia

[hack89]

102. I have insurance and it costs a pittance

That is because like every insurance company, mine goes not pay out for criminal acts, only accidents. And there are very few actual gun accidents.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. The NRA would *love* an insurance requirement, as they sell a lot of firearms insurance to...

...their members.

[DonP]

114. Brought that up several times, still waiting for an intelligent response ... or any response

Actual facts seem to stall the ranting for a minute or two.

I think they actually are dumb enough to think that a liability policy will cost too much, so people won't buy a gun or that suddenly the insurance industry will start paying off for criminal activity?

[uponit7771]

207. I think I responded to this already, the action doesn't have to be criminal plenty of accidents and

... mental issues people who can be covered

[Duckhunter935]

211. Name one mass killing event that would be covered

Please

[uponit7771]

214. The Orlando killing for instance... this guy was fucked up in the head... anyone who wants to kill a

... massive amount of people with little to no beckoning is fucked up in the head.

NRA indicates such no?

tia

[Duckhunter935]

217. He was never found to be mentally defective

By any doctor prior to his hate crime. In fact he passed extra background checks. Try again. The only one I can think of that might fit is Virginia Tech murderer.

[uponit7771]

232. He hasn't yet, but anyone who kills massive amounts of people like that is fucked up in the head...

... he's not normal.

[DonP]

225. Wow! Your ignorance of the insurance business is only exceeded by your ignorance ....

.... of the rifles you so desperately want to ban.

Get used to losing, gun control has 20 years of it and thanks to people like you, another 20 years of failure are assured.

In the meantime violent crime continues to fall in spite of headlines to the contrary.

[uponit7771]

179. win win !!!

[Just reading posts]

29. I can't speak for the other poster, but I'm certainly going to keep my "assault weapons".

They're not going to be confiscated, despite the wishes of some here.

[uponit7771]

34. Again, no need to confiscate these devices meant to kill a lot of humans just make folk carry 10 mil

... million in insurance and if caught without it a 10,000 fine payable or a week in jail.

that better?

tia

[Just reading posts]

39. First you said no one could own them. Then they have get an unobtainable 1 million dollar insurance

policy. Now they have to get an unobtainable 10 million dollar insurance policy. Which is it?

You surely don't think for a moment that anything like this is actually going to happen, do you?

[uponit7771]

182. OK... lets settle on the 7 million... that's in the middle .. if a person who owns these devices...

... meant to kill massive amounts of people they should buy the policies for 3200... to 5000 a month

Fair no?

[Duckhunter935]

196. Name one company that sells a policy

That covers criminal acts like all of the mass murders with weapons have been.

[uponit7771]

198. No one said criminal, ... mental defects and "accidents"

[Duckhunter935]

204. So they would not have paid out for any of the mass murders committed with firears

How many were "accidents" and how many murderers were adjudicated "mentally defective" which would put them in the prohibited person class and not allowed to purchase a firearm.

[uponit7771]

209. possibly if they acts can fit under mental defect which it seems a lot of them would seeing that's..

... what the NRA wants to focus on no?

tia

[Duckhunter935]

212. Were any of them adjudicated

Mentally defective? Name one

[uponit7771]

180. Keep them all you want, just as long as they're not designed to kill massive amounts of humans...

... and if they are they're insured for the 23 - 3423 million policy or something

fair?

tia

[Just reading posts]

200. Well, I own (among others) AR-15s, an AR-10, FN-FAL, VEPR 12....which of these can I keep?

... and if they are they're insured for the 23 - 3423 million policy or something

fair?

Nope. And surely you're not under the illusion that any of these calls for mandatory multi million dollar insurance policies and confiscation programs are actually going to happen, are you?

[Duckhunter935]

208. It's called fantasy land

[oneshooter]

222. How about my 1919A4 with tripod can I keep that? n/t

[Just reading posts]

235. Abso-friggin-lutely!

Great. Now I'm jealous.

[Duckhunter935]

237. As long as you pay the taxes and the additional background checks

Required

[oneshooter]

271. It has a semi auto side plate. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

31. Mine must be defective

[R.A. Ganoush]

193. I will just because I know it tweaks you out

So go piss up a rope.

Probably going to get another one in the next few weeks too.

[Duckhunter935]

30. Me too

[Rex]

15. I agree, but some love their Precious more then they love the life of innocent people.

They have the NRA mentality and a bad case of it! Also, you would need these folks to act for the betterment of mankind and that will never happen.

No, much better to be able to assault a deer if needed.

[Mojorabbit]

85. I think there are millions of these guns out there

and they have never been used for anything nefarious except for these tragedies caused by these angry young men. My mother said today that she thinks men need to be 35 before they can own one.

[Just reading posts]

88. Hundreds of millions.

[DonP]

115. FWIW, 34.9 million people (AKA voters) now participate in organized rifle competitions

A shrinking handful of old timers still use M1A (M14 lookalike) or an M1 Garand (Real Military Issue rifle sold by a Government agency direct to Civilians).

But the vast majority use an AR15, many of which are sold directly to shooting clubs along with ammunition and magazines.

Most competitors choose to use a 20 or 10 round magazine, better for shooting in the prone position stage.

[Rex]

229. True and most likely millions will never harm anyone, thank goodness!

Just never found or been told a good reason why people need assault weapons...just because is not really a good reason imo.

[Duckhunter935]

236. I feel the same about fast cars and huge pickup trucks

Nobody needs them

[Rex]

248. Good I am glad we agree.

[-none]

89. And that is why any posting about the victims of Sandy Hook or Orlando, degenerates into specs

about the various rapid fire military knock-offs and even into pictures of gun porn. The do not want to admit their play toys are inherently dangerous to themselves and everyone else. The almost daily proof reported in the news is just background noise to them. Never mind the United States has as high a gun death rate as in many wars.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. ...while simultaneously degenerating into moral panic mongering.

Exactly which moral panic depends on where the panic pusher is on the political spectrum

The Right blames Muslims and LGBT people, the Left blames guns and gun owners.

[Just reading posts]

99. +100

[Duckhunter935]

101. So true

It is never about the one that pulled the trigger

[-none]

106. Without guns causing massacres, this thread would not exist.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. Without a belief in animism, posts like yours would not exist

Guns no more 'cause' massacres than gasoline 'caused' the Happy Land social club fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

The Happy Land fire was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club named "Happy Land", at 1959 Southern Boulevard in the West Farms section of the Bronx in New York City on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were young Hondurans celebrating Carnival,[1] largely drawn from members of the local Garifuna American community.[2][3] Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González, whose former girlfriend was employed at the club, was arrested soon afterward and ultimately convicted of arson and murder...

...The evening of the fire, González had argued with his former girlfriend, Lydia Feliciano, a coat check girl at the club, urging her to quit. She claimed that she had had enough of him and did not want anything to do with him anymore. González tried to fight his way back into the club but was ejected by the bouncer. He was heard to scream drunken threats in the process. González had recently lost his job at a lamp factory, was impoverished, and had virtually no companions.[citation needed] González returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline. He spread the fuel on a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[citation needed]

The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people escaped by breaking a metal gate over one door.

[NickB79]

16. Take it up with the US House, Senate and Supreme Court

What rights you feel Americans should have is neither here nor there, and our take on the issue is meaningless without action.

All you have to do is get an amendment passed to nullify a constitutional amendment. It was done before the end Prohibition, so you already have an example to work off of.

Good luck :wave:

[uponit7771]

22. Those rights have already been defined already and they don't include owning devices designed to...

... kill massive amounts of humans

[pansypoo53219]

17. HOW are assault weapons NOT akin to MACHINE guns. THEY ARE MACHINE GUNS. SAME PRINCIPLE.

[sarisataka]

18. True, only if

You ignore actual definitions of words.

This deception has been advocated a long time-

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons

Josh Sugarmann

[uponit7771]

24. See, semantics ... bottom line the devices like the ar-15 are designed to kill a lot of humans...

... efficiently and shouldn't be owned by a non-sworn.

That's already been decided just needs to be enforced

[Duckhunter935]

35. Point to the decision please

Post a link, somehow I bet you will not and will just post some kind of insult.

[uponit7771]

40. well regulated has already been defined and no name calling included

[Duckhunter935]

44. So you can't

200+ years of legal decision s .

[uponit7771]

55. Already done, not getting into more obfuscation via pointing out the obvious. Well regulated is...

... defined

[Duckhunter935]

57. I guess that is why

Semi-automatic rifles are legal.

[uponit7771]

139. Yes, they're also stinky... any other irrelevant information we need to add to the conversation? tia

[Duckhunter935]

143. I do not think being legal is irrelevant

But I guess that is just a minor detail

[uponit7771]

160. I'm not narrowing my position to just semi automatics and that's why I said any device .. DESIGNED..

.. to kill massive amounts of humans.

That could exclude or include some semis, for instance, depending on the design

[Duckhunter935]

167. That would be all semi-automatic rifles, just say it

[uponit7771]

171. Nope, if its designed to fire at a relatively slow rate it wouldn't or ... take a long time to reloa

... or have to have someone with an IQ over 100 to fire it.

lol...

Yes, I'm trying to exclude Daffy Dumps supporters...

Either way, outside of the box thinking on this is good

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Not done, and can be dismissed like it was presented- without evidence

[uponit7771]

140. Yeap, done... well regulated already defined... no need to go over what's already covered

[sarisataka]

126. Semantics is one thing

Accuracy is different

If you called a helicopter and a jumbo jet both aircraft you are semantically correct. But no matter how many times you call that helicopter a jumbo jet, it just is not.

[TeddyR]

134. Who decided and when?

As far as I'm aware, semi-auto rifles are still legal to own.

And "well regulated" means "well functioning," at least with respect to the Second Amendment. That is pretty much undisputed.

[Just reading posts]

23. Machine guns are fully automatic. "Assault weapons" are not.

Really, this isn't that hard.

[Duckhunter935]

37. It is for some

[uponit7771]

42. More semantics, doesn't matter if fully automatic or not if they're designed to kill a lot of humans

... efficiently they need to be well regulated

[Just reading posts]

95. Established law disagrees with you in every respect. How 'bout that?

[uponit7771]

177. This is false, poor verbiage has allowed gumpers to frame the position to cover too many devices...

... that are designed to kill massive amounts of humans.

There's no CR to own these devices that are designed to kill massive amounts of humans

[Just reading posts]

195. Weapons that ae in "common use" are, as per the Supremes, protected.

[Duckhunter935]

199. And I think the most common type

of semi-automatic rifle that has lawful uses and is in "common use" qualifies.

[pnwmom]

250. So? Assault weapons are STILL too dangerous to be in civilian hands,

even if they are not equivalent to fully automatic machine guns.

[Just reading posts]

254. The post asserted that semiautomatic weapons are machine guns. This is false on the face of it.

Assault weapons are STILL too dangerous to be in civilian hands

I disagree.

[Duckhunter935]

33. Not according to the ATF, FBI and laws and statutes

[Just reading posts]

21. Clarification, please. What firearms are you looking to confiscate?

"Assault" weapons, presumably? What about semiautomatic pistols?

Revolvers?

Pump Action Shotguns?

Bolt action rifles?

Any cartridge-firing firearm?

Cap and ball revolvers?

[uponit7771]

27. any DEVICES designed to kill a lot of human efficiently... that covers them all. No one said ...

... said confiscate them just give people who continue to own them requirment to keep million dollar insurance policies and if they're caught without them 5 years jail time

[Just reading posts]

36. So you plan to outlaw anything more advanced than a single shot muzzleloader. Got it.

Your OP stated that no one should own these devices, now you're saying they can if they have an absurdly high insurance policy.

Which is it?

[Duckhunter935]

38. An insurance policy

That will not cover criminal acts. But the NRA would love him, they are big into firearms insurance.

[uponit7771]

46. Strawman, any device designed to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently speaks for itself and..

... doesn't include something that takes that long to load.

[Just reading posts]

48. Define it, please. Saying something is ok if it takes "long" to load isn't sufficient.

What kinds of firearms do you wish to make illegal to sell or own?

[uponit7771]

56. Already defined, "... DESIGNED..." is in the statement

[Just reading posts]

63. Which. Firearms. Do. You. Want. To. Ban?

I swear, it's like pulling teeth....

[Duckhunter935]

67. They do that on purpose

Then they run away when cornered without answering even simple questions

[Just reading posts]

77. I've never been impressed by the tactic of refusing to answer a direct question because answering

openly and honestly might weaken their argument. Dodging questions hurts their credibility even more.

[Duckhunter935]

84. Yes it does

[uponit7771]

201. Not dodging at all, I think its a fairly solid position... dodging is all these strawmen and red...

... herrings.

Eiither way, I'll respond after we come back from the lake

[friendly_iconoclast]

227. Then answer the question- it's a simple one

[uponit7771]

168. Strawman, you're narrowing it to firearms my statement said DEVICE which covers all kind of shit and

... doesn't allow the gumper semantic arguments.

well... at least people try on this forum... the conservative forums they make fart noises and call Obama the N word

[Adrahil]

146. So, if I design a gun to kill deer....

...but it also happens to kill humans efficiently, then that's okay, right?

[uponit7771]

203. relatively... but that's a good counter position too... I'll refine on this point also

[Duckhunter935]

213. AKA, move the goalposts, lol

[spirald]

41. Strictly regulate semi-automatic firearms

The automatic rechambering capability is the feature that is primarily responsbible for the significant lethality increase. We need to regulate firearms with this specific capability.

You are correct in suggesting that the term "assault weapon" is worse than useless as a regulatory focus. It was probably invented by the gun lobby to confuse the debate.

[Just reading posts]

45. What do you mean by "strictly regulate"? What does it mean in practice?

[spirald]

54. They should be NFA firearms and treated as automatic weapons.

It can be argued that when the only difference between a full-auto and semi-auto is how many bullets per trigger pull, the semi-auto or a full-auto on single-shot mode will be more efficient at shot placement due to the opportunity to correct aim between shots.

It can probably be legally argued that the same rational for regulating fully automatic weapons (registration, no retail sale, transfer restrictions, etc) applies to semi-automatics due to the negligible lethality difference.

[Just reading posts]

58. So I'd have to get a $200 tax stamp and go through 6 months of paperwork for each of the dozens

of semiautomatic weapons that I own? No thanks,

And not going to happen, in any case.

[spirald]

71. Do you disagree with the machine gun laws? Or..

are you saying that your own convenience is more important than saving lives by extending an already successful regulatory regime to a class of weapons that is of equivalent lethality to what it already regulates?

[Just reading posts]

83. Yes. The 1986 law which banned the manufacture of transferable machine guns is absurd.

It's resulted in a selective fire M16 going up in price from $1000 to more like $20000 these days.

As for 1934 NFA, I'd be willing to live with reducing the waiting time for getting a machine gun to something reasonable (say, a month), and charging whatever is the true cost of doing the background check (probably $50 or so), while completely eliminating the silly restrictions on suppressors and short barreled rifles.

[Duckhunter935]

86. I agree

[spirald]

111. Do you draw the line anywhere?

Should folks be able to pick up an M1 or an M61 for a reasonable price plus a month wait and a $50 background check?

What about artillery? RPGs? Missiles?

In the industrial era of modern weaponry we have developed the ability for a single unskilled individual to commit mass murder on an unprecedented scale. This directly threatens the general welfare and right to life that the U.S. Constitution authorizes "We, The People" to protect via our system of government. Whole classes of laws exist to prevent people and institutions who gain power in some way from trampling the rights of others.

What I hear you saying, via your argument here, is that We, The People don't really have much of a right to prevent military-scale violence in our civilian habitat, and the best we can do is respond to it after-the fact.

Do feel that the right to engage in sporting activities with military-scale hardware is more essential than the right to our collective defense from sporadic assaults and mass killings with highly lethal weaponry?

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. What "right to our collective defense" would that be, and where is it encoded into law?

[spirald]

228. US Constitution - Article 1, section 8

[friendly_iconoclast]

234. Which in no way limits the restrictions on government in the Bill of Rights

[Just reading posts]

122. Sure.

Should folks be able to pick up an M1 or an M61 for a reasonable price plus a month wait and a $50 background check?


They already can, via a Destructive Device license. If I'm not mistaken, it currently takes about 6 months and a $200 stamp.

What about artillery? RPGs? Missiles?

If you can find someone to sell it to you, all of those are legal if you complete the paperwork. Each round of ammunition will require a separate DD tax stamp, though.

Do feel that the right to engage in sporting activities with military-scale hardware

The rifle the shooter used in Orlando wasn't "military-scale". It looked like a military issue rifle, but didn't function as one.

While we're on this subject....why should the fact that a weapon is military issue matter, in and of itself? Would you restrict people from owning bayonets? They are military scale hardware designed to kill people, after all.

more essential than the right to our collective defense from sporadic assaults and mass killings with highly lethal weaponry?

Where is this right to collective defense from assaults? Into what law is it encoded?

[spirald]

255. Sorry, didn't hear an answer to the question.

I'm saying the existing regulations are effective for machine guns, and that we should add semi-autos to those regulations.

You're saying that you think those regulations are inconvenient, and that you don't agree with them, even for machine guns.

The question to you is whether you think any kind of line should be drawn with respect to restricting the destructive potential of individual civilians such that We, The People can keep such potential in check?

The Federal Government is authorized to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Civilians coming under repeated surprise armed attack on a mass scale is a problem that interferes with our fundamental, self-evident rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is the basis for the US Constitution. It arguably invokes our right as "We, The People" to regulate the distribution of arms.

If the Orlando shooter only had a bayonet it is likely that he would have been stopped before killing 50 people. If he had a bolt-action rifle there would have been a much better chance of overpowering him. By "military-scale" I was referring to the destructive potential and main design goal. Some knives are designed to kill people, but can not do so on a large scale when wielded by an unskilled user. Guns that don't automatically reload are more destructive, but an unskilled user can be stopped. Machine guns are restricted because of their destructive potential. Bolt action hunting rifles aren't designed as anti-personnel weapons, machine guns are, and semi-automatics are. They are designed to allow the user to hit multiple targets in rapid succession in order to overpower an enemy attack or defense.

Automatic rechambering is the feature that enables this destructive potential. The ability of machine guns to fire continuously or in bursts is useful in a combat situation, but also reduces accuracy and efficiency, because single-shot mode allows you to correct your aim after recoil. A semi-auto or a machine gun in semi-auto mode will arguably kill more people with the same amount of ammo as a full-auto. There is no logical reason for excluding semi-automatics from machine gun regulations.

Anti-regulation folks never seem to want to follow the logical conclusion of their opposition to regulation. Why permit well funded insurrectionists to stockpile weaponry when the constitution specifically provides for the federal government to put down insurrections? It's bad enough someone can build a fertilizer bomb, why allow civilians to pack that potential in a suitcase by not regulating the purchase of high explosives? I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would love to go out in a blaze of glory after taking out a whole parade with a pickup-bed mounted M61.

It should be common sense that we should restrict and track devices that allow unskilled individuals to kill dozens of people in a few minutes. The constitution isn't a suicide pact, and the civilian population shouldn't have to go on a day-to-day war footing to protect themselves against insane people wielding mass-murder devices. You may not want to be inconvenienced in order to buy a machine gun or a semi-auto, but the lives of my family and fellow citizens is worth some inconvenience. It's not like people are clamoring to allow unlicensed drivers to drive around in untracked and uninsured cars, for instance.

I do understand that some folks want to live in a world where every home has enough weaponry to defend Paris from the Nazis. I like to ask questions about how far you anti-regulation folks would go because I NEVER get a straight answer. It's always "they should be able to buy whatever weapons they want as long as they can afford it"- which literally would allow a foreign government to finance an insurrection, and that's just not going to fly here.

[Just reading posts]

256. I wasn't sufficiently clear, I apologize. I do believe in government restrictions on some weaponry

for ordinary citizens.

No weapons of mass destruction (NBC weapons).

Other than that....everything else is that is legal right now stays legal. It's legal to buy a fully armed F-16 fighter, missiles, bombs, and all, if you fill out all the paperwork and pay all the fees. Of course, there is the minor hurdle of finding someone who has one for sale. The same applies to virtually any modern weapon: Artillery, tanks, hand grenades....they're all legal, but in practical terms impossible to own. I really don't have a problem with this.

I would repeal the 1986 law prohibiting the manufacture of transferable full auto weapons, and remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA.

So, to sum up: I want a slightly modified status quo that makes machine guns more available (but still somewhat cumbersome to buy), SBRs no different than any other rifle, and suppressors over the counter as they are in Europe.

Oh, and as long as I'm getting my wish list, national reciprocity for concealed carry.

So yes, I do want some limits on the RKBA. I think I have now answered the question fully and openly.

[spirald]

264. I think we just draw the line at a different place

It's good to know that you draw the line somewhere.

Prohibition is not a viable method of regulation, we appear to agree on this. We also appear to agree that we don't have a problem when potentially extremely destructive things are either banned or in practical terms impossible to own.

I want to extend the 1986 law to cover semi-autos in order to make them more difficult to own. If a civilian wants to equip themselves with enough firepower to take out 100 people in minutes, we should require some expense and inconvenience to ensure that they are not at risk of doing so themselves or allowing that capability to be transfered to others without the requisite commitment.

The difference between our positions is that you don't feel that semi-autos or machine guns are destructive enough when weighed against the general welfare of the people, the right of ordinary citizens to peacefully assemble and other human rights. You feel that the right to own these weapons is more important than the rights of the community that are impinged when you know that anyone who objects to your community or speech could choose to wipe out you and all your friends in minutes with an over-the-counter device they can buy down the street and not give you a fighting chance.

Unchecked proliferation of modern weaponry is incompatible with peaceful living. We can exercise our right to bear arms in a collectively responsible manner by setting a bar that responsible owners would be able to meet.

[friendly_iconoclast]

272. You *can't* extend that law. Read Caetano v. Massachusetts, a recent Supreme Court holding:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I pointed out in another thread:

Also, don't count on this being overturned anytime soon:

Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices to the SC, that would still
leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...

[uponit7771]

62. Mandate insurance policies and if caught jail time minimum a week of advocating against guns or

... working for a non NRA group or something...

Sounds progressive

[Just reading posts]

66. You do know that insurance policies can't cover criminal acts, do you not?

[Duckhunter935]

70. Pesky facts again

[jack_krass]

273. Dont stop him, he's rolling

[uponit7771]

138. Red herring, they can cover accidents and mental issues... good try, but been here already

[Just reading posts]

142. So where are the insurance companies offering a ten million dollar policy against gun accidents and

guns being used by mentally ill people....and how much do the premiums cost?

That is what's being called for in this thread, after all.

[uponit7771]

157. When the policies cost 550 a month they'll come out of the wood work

[Just reading posts]

163. $600 a year to exercise a constitional right? It would never survive a court challenge.

And is that per gun?

[uponit7771]

164. Don't see anywhere that people have a CR to own devices that are DESIGNED to kill massive amounts

... of humans.

Could you point it out of me? tia

[Duckhunter935]

150. Would it have covered any of these mass murders, no

[uponit7771]

158. Never said they would... good try though... you guys keep em comin... at least the retorts

... are though through

[uponit7771]

47. Yeap, that's why the any device designed to kill a lot of humans covers them all so they can't just

... focus on firearms without going into red herrings or strawmen

[TeddyR]

135. Before Orlando

The deadliest mass shooting was committed using 2 semi-auto pistols. Heller held that the Second Amendment protected the private right to own pistols for home defense. Do you propose banning semi-auto pistols?

[spirald]

257. Regulate semi-auto pistols as machine guns

We already have well established regulations that apply to machine guns. A semi-automatic is effectively just as lethal. Apply existing regulation to all semi-automatic weapons.

Use a good revolver or two to defend your home, or inconvenience yourself a bit for the privilege of owning a semi-auto.

[Duckhunter935]

50. Assault weapon was coined

By the gun control movement to confuse with the legal term assault rifle.

[Adrahil]

148. The "assault weapon" term was invented by gun control advocates.

It was intended to scare people. It did. But it's very unspecific.

[jmg257]

152. Or not = Gun Digest...1986

[Adrahil]

154. Looked into this....

The author of that book maintains that the term originated as a marketing tactic, though he doesn't provide any other corroborating evidence. Never-the-less I will withdraw my assertion until I know more. The earliest I can find the term used was in 1985 when a bill was introduced in California to ban such weapons in 1985. The origin seems murky.

[jmg257]

155. This one is even tricker... 1982

"Sporting Arm Assault Rifles" with "complete data on semi-autos"

[Adrahil]

161. That's not tricky...

The term Assault Rifle is well established and defined. It's a rifle using a medium power cartridge with a select-fire capability (semi-automatic or automatic). The first one was the German StG 44, built in 1944.

[jmg257]

165. And "sporting arm assault rifle"? What's the specs on that?

[Adrahil]

175. If it's not select-fire, it's not an "assault rifle"

But I'm not surprised gun companies try to sell guns using that name. Even today, they sell guns using terms like "tactical" to try and get people to imagine themselves as Tier One Special Operators. Classic commodified masculinity. It's pretty rampant in the gun industry.

[jmg257]

181. Of course..."Semi auto assault rifle" and that new one to me "sporting arm assault rifle"

use adjectives to modify or describe the noun "assault rifle" - seems just fine grammatically.. takes "select fire" feature and makes it semi-auto.

We know they are talking about semi-autos - especially Guns and Ammo because that's what it says on the magazine cover.

[jmg257]

156. BTW thanks for the info from CA 1985. nt

[BlackLivesMatter]

43. no civilian or civilian law enforcement agency should have this gun

To be fair, we can't ask civilian law enforcement agencies to de militarize if civilians are militarized

[uponit7771]

49. True, there's no need for 82nd airborne in Americas neighborhoods. The reason why non-sworn is

... there cause gumper crowd is into semantic arguments for obfuscation so it also covers the FBI and SWAT etc

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Better what you term 'obfuscation' then what I call bafflegab...

[TeddyR]

136. No organized military uses this weapon

Because it is only semi-auto. So if the military doesn't use it and civilians/cops shouldn't, do you think this gun should be completely eliminated?

[NutmegYankee]

80. Just as a note: Most Government Employees swear an Oath.

It's not just law enforcement.

[Duckhunter935]

87. Yep, I had too

[Just reading posts]

91. Hey...I'm a postal worker! That means as per the OP, I get anything I want!

Time to max out my credit card!

[DustyJoe]

159. maybe

just allow active or ex military or active or ex cop access to these 'assault' weapons as they were all extensively trained in their use, and were all sworn personnel. Ask a Marine (there are no ex Marines) if they think their oath ended on their discharge date.

[uponit7771]

166. Ok... good point, that could be narrowed to the job for instance... good point though

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. I'm sorry but "hyperbole for effect" has no effect at all. That's not why people quit responding...

They quit responding because they recognize "hyperbole for effect" and realize that it precludes any intelligent discussion on a given topic.

I notice it's something you use quite often. So, while you think you drive people off a topic with your intellectual sledgehammer tactics, understand missing responses to your posts is nothing more than a sign of having been given up on.

[pintobean]

93. Cool story

I especially like this part:

The usually come back with silly semantic arguments but hyperbole for effect snuffs those out ... and then they cut and run.

[whistler162]

103. Okay, so you want to ban all cars and trucks!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

104. Pity that this should be seen as flamebait on an allegedly "progressive" site.

I'm scared to even look at the responses to this OP.

I agree with you though, FWIW.

[hack89]

112. Because Dems don't own a lot of guns?

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

You need to get out more.

[Crunchy Frog]

123. Thanks for illustrating my point.

And no, I think I'll try to avoid spending time around mass killing instruments, and those who get off on them.

[hack89]

124. When a large proportion of the Democratic party are gun owners

it kind of makes sense why draconian gun control goes no where. Until you accept that simply reality and stop demonizing gun owners you will get now where.

[Crunchy Frog]

125. Oh, I accept the reality that we're stuck with your death toys.

I don't have to like it and I don't choose to be around it. There's nothing in the Constitution that says I have to.

I'm not getting anywhere anyhow, so I guess I can demonize who I like.

[uponit7771]

183. advocating any folk shouldn't own devices that are designed to kill massive amounts is progressive

[Crunchy Frog]

233. Agree. Sadly, a very vocal contingent on this site does not.

[cali]

107. My take is to ask you to specify what weapons precisely, you are referring to, and

what is a non-sworn civilian.

[uponit7771]

185. devices ... not weapons, not allowing the gumper semantic arguments here... any device

[cali]

267. I personally hate guns, dear. so take your fucking name calling and....

yeah, that.

I am anything but a gumper.

You remind me so much of people on another website.

[uponit7771]

268. Then I wasn't talking about you, don't be so sensitive Cali...

[cali]

269. you absolutely fucking were. It was a post directed to ME. Period.

I simply asked you a reasonable question.

forget it. attempting a reasonable discussion with YOU is fucking pointless.

and you lack any courage whatsoever with that squirmy non-denial denial.

[uponit7771]

270. wow... there was no "YOU" in my statement so now you're makin shit up... I was speaking of

... gumpers in general.

You take care

[Travis_0004]

109. At least i can keep my AR

As a notary public, I am not a non sworn civilian, so I can keep my AR.

And you guys probably thought I went through all that trouble so I could charge 3.00. Finally its paying off

[uponit7771]

186. Ah... a crack in the statement... thx for this I'll refine

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. Devices designed to kill humans shouldn't exist. K&R

[Just reading posts]

121. Devices to kill humans have existed since humans have existed. And they always will.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

184. Which says something about the awkwardness of our claims to be highly evolved.

[Just reading posts]

251. It says we're smart enough to invent weapons, unlike every other species on the planet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

258. And, kill each other. Smart?

[Just reading posts]

259. If someone is trying to kill you, the best way to prevent this is often to get them killed, either

by your own hand or someone else's. You can't always run away.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

260. Kill you with weapons designed to kill?

I'll stick with my original statement.

[Just reading posts]

261. Well...most of them are, after all. The effective ones, anyway.

[uponit7771]

187. Strawman, the statement included the word ... DESIGNED... good try though

[Just reading posts]

252. I was responding to post #113, not your OP.

[Adrahil]

149. I can't own a sword? NT

[uponit7771]

189. Swords aren't DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of humans reltively efficiently

[Adrahil]

194. Read the post I was responding to.

It said, and I quote: "Devices designed to kill humans shouldn't exist."

A sword is designed to kill humans. The poster was being more restrictive than the OP.

[uponit7771]

210. you're right

[JanMichael]

133. Oh go blow it out you ass man! We should all be packing.

Everywhere all of the time. Every woman man and child should have at LEAST a Walther PPK on their persons at all times. Tic Tac Toe bitches? Fuck you BOOM... try again slow hand Luke.

Sex will be awesome, safe, but weirdly like a crime...

[aikoaiko]

153. F@<{ that noise. Now that I've sworn can I have my AR?

[uponit7771]

190. Yeap, ... clever gets you a long way ... lol...

[ileus]

170. What about a device DESIGNED to save a lot of humans efficiently.

See my ARs were designed to save lives.

[uponit7771]

192. We'll keep those... as long as they're saving can't be switched to killing comparitively easily

[flvegan]

215. Define "a lot" and "efficiently" in this case.

Full disclosure: I own a handgun, a shotgun and a rifle. I did at one point own an AR-15 but sold it quite some time ago as I found it to be a stupid item for self/home defense. Or, for clarity, are you just suggesting banning/confiscating anything that could be called a gun/firearm/rifle/whatever?

[Waldorf]

216. If they are designed to to kill a lot of humans then Americans must be using them wrong.

Look how far down the list is for people killed with rifles...

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Thats all rifles, including those scary black rifles. All rifles are even less than shotguns.

[Duckhunter935]

218. Mine are all defective of course my bolt action

Mosin rifles may have killed quickly and efficiently in an earlier time as they were military weapons.

[Just reading posts]

253. Wonder what the OP would think of my Jungle Carbine.

Bolt action....but it has a detachable magazine (eek!) and in practiced hands can be fired quite quickly.

[jtx]

220. Cigarettes are going to be banned?

[uponit7771]

231. unnnn, it wasn't purposefully designed that way but you have a point... any device that could be use

... used by a single person to kill massive amounts of humans relatively efficiently ...

good poinit

[gopiscrap]

230. AGREED!!!!

In fact, no one should own a gun ever! All you gun humpers: If you own a gun, you are part of the problem and you have blood on your hands!

[Duckhunter935]

239. And so do you if you partake in alcohol

Or text or use your cell phone when driving.

[gopiscrap]

249. I don't drink and I definitely don't use or text my phone when drivingf

[Just reading posts]

241. Really? You should tell that to these guys:

[sarisataka]

262. I assume a sworn civillian

would be a law enforcement officer. Why should they have weapons designed to kill lots of humans efficiently? How often do we want LEOs to kill lots of humans?

[dilby]

265. So no firearms at all or a limit on rounds one can hold? N/t