Youth is wasted on the young:
- Thread starter Dr. Curmudgeon
- Start date
Newsome is a mad man. He'll never win that war.
Maybe. 79% of Americans want assault weapons banned for good. People watch the News. I do agree banning assault weapons would be hard to get through Congress. However, too many guns are killing too many people.
As far as suing, it could work. Assault Weapons are designed to kill people exclusively. Under that argument, the people could win. Handguns and rifles can be used for a lot of things.
It's an easy, but perilous, argument, but it could be argued Assault Weapons could be excluded from the 2nd amendment for their exclusivity.
So you buy into the "gun violence" wordplay of the fake news media I see. Newsflash, guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. There's something called 2nd Amendment which is for people to be armed and ready to defend themselves...especially against a tyrannical, out-of-control government like this one.
Techincally, any semi automatic gun, could be called an assualt weapon. They all basically work the same way. Pull the trigger (unless of course your name is Alec Baldwin then the trigger doesn't need to be pulled) and the gun fires 1 bullet. Just because a gun looks scary (or looks like a military gun), doesn't make it any more deadly then a nice cute little gun. All guns can be used to kill someone. Although not ideal, all guns could be used for hunting. All guns could be used at the range for target practice. The gun or type of gun is not what matters. ITS ALL ABOUT WHO IS USING IT.
Hey: I totally agree with the first part of your post. Hopefully, semi-automatic weapons will become a thing of the past.
I don't agree with the 2nd part of your post. Assault weapons are built to kill people exclusively. That is a hard thing to defend in a country that has such a severe gun violence problem. In this case, type of gun matters.
Dude, watch the news. there is no wordplay. It's there for all the world to see.
As for your 2nd amendment assertion. Maybe, but it would be a d@mn great case to present.
What news? CNN = Certainly Not News? NBC = Nothing But Crap? ABC = Always Broadcasting Crap? CBS = Crap and B.S.?
LOL, since you eliminated all the neutral news sites that are impartial. It's hard to recommend any sites that WILL give you impartial news. So, I guess impartial news is not your thing. Well, just watch the same ole slop you've been watching. Question answered.
WHOA! Impartial?? An entire legacy media that was the world's largest PR campaign worker for Hillary "Hildabeast" Clinton in 2016 is somehow regarded as "impartial?" Let alone running interference in the Russia hoax among other things?? You must be @BSC911 twin brother or something.
What in the actual eff? The world is not going back to single shot rifles and pistols. You did know every pistol is a semi automatic weapon didn't you (aside from a derringer)? Almost all hunting rifles are semi automatic (save a few bolt action) and most shotguns that are not over and unders or side by sides. Where do you get your insanity through, the paternal or maternal side? 🤣 Every legal "assault weapon" is identical in function to a hunting rife. Does being black with a pistol grip trigger you somehow? 😨
You are beyond stupid. A gun doesn’t kill anyone until a human bieng decides to pick it up and pull the trigger. Crazy ass people are the reason for the loss of life whether it’s a gun, a car running into a crowd, a knifing, a bomb, a hammer and so on. Should we ban cars? Hammers? Knives?How about we start by keeping crazy ass criminals in jail!
However, hunting rifles are not built to exclusively kill people and you have accidently pointed out why the people have a case.
It does seem the word 'exclusively' is causing you problems, so I'll just say, it does look good to pursue this line of argument that Assault rifles are not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Let us leave it at that.
Please be clear, I am NOT saying the people would win. However, it is an intriguing line to pursue.
I got a kick out of your post. So, you are saying there are so many crazy people in the USA for people to have guns? (Others have said this) That is an interesting argument. After all, The United States does have a VERY severe gun violence problem. They don't have a severe hammer or car problem, though
When guns become criminalized, only criminals will have guns.
As for your bolded statement, it's neck and neck. Take away suicides, vehicles are the biggest killer. 🤣
Gun deaths and injuries
The number of U.S. deaths by firearms, which are defined as the types of guns that can be carried by a person, is higher than the number of Americans killed in motor vehicle crashes. In 2018 about 39,740 people died by firearms, down 0.1 percent from 39,773 deaths in 2017. In contrast, according to latest data from the National Highway Traffic Administration, 36,096 people died in U.S. motor vehicle crashes in 2019.I
Oh, we have loads of car problems, as one person on the board said, "we don't take away cars", but we do punish people who kill people with cars. That is all we can do.
We can eliminate Assault Weapon use. Because theoretically, having them in America meets no specific reason but to kill people. Certain folks do just like them. So, what is the trade off, we can ban Assault and semi-automatic weapons' and enact good & fair gun control laws and save thousands of lives per year or keep them around for a select few and make them available to those who would do all of us harm in great number.
Keep in mind, we are not talking about rifles and handguns.
It is an interesting argument.
Yes we are. Rifles and handguns are mostly semi-automatic. Black paint and a different stock do not an assault rifle make. "Assault" rifles are used at gun ranges 99% of the time, there is technically no difference other than looks. You could make a case for barrel length, but then pistols are short too. A "hunting" rifle is much more accurate. You can't ban something for "looking scary", when it's technically not one bit different, other than it's not as accurate of a weapon 🤣 . That in itself is idiocracy.
That is essentially the same argument you stated before. You just repeated it. I want to say I hear you. but I do not agree. I am not going to repeat my argument. I do hear you saying there is no distinction to you. I think a case can be made that there is. That is my only point. I certainly would like semi-automatic weapons to get scooped up in this, but I do not think that would be a very winnable case. In fact, it would probably would not even be heard. Let us agree to disagree about whether this could be a winnable case.
So I guess progressives are back to hating the Constitution and shitting on the 2nd Amendment? That was fast.
That's funny! Moderates and Progressives basically pay for the ACLU, which protects the Constitution. Hey, Lincoln freed the slaves and prohibition was repealed. Did they hate the Constitution?
I don't want to go into why we have the 2nd amendment other than it was put into the Constitution to appease the slave states, so slave owners could organize and hunt down runaway slaves.
But what is important, is the Constitution was never designed to be static. It was by design, written so we can keep up with the needs of the time through the amendments.
Obviously, we have a huge problem with severe gun violence in America, that's not up for debate. The 2nd amendment is going to remain under scrutiny for a long time to come out of need.
I wrote in a previous post, there is no group that wants to take anybody's regular guns away.
There is a movement to ban assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons and tighten up gun control laws, based on the needs and the survival of the people.
We just finished a conversation on this topic. I'm pretty much worn out on it.
I bet the percent is a lot higher when people are asked what is the definition of an assault rifle
What you posted is a lie. From the constitution regarding the second amendment, “shall not be infringed”. This language says nothing about the constitution needing to evolve with the times. Whoever told you that is stupid, no other way to say it.
The second amendment was written solely to protect its people from a tyrannical government.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
your statement is not true. I posted why it was included. Though, it does not fit your argument, the information is readily available in history books, including Ryan's book of American history, which I had in college at UF. The slave states wanted permission to recapture their slaves in the states that didn't depend economically on slaves. The Founding Fathers had to make the concessions about Militias and put it the Constitution or they wouldn't sign. Of course, each state had Militias already, but these were private militias to recapture runaway slaves unencumbered.
Everybody had guns in those days & that was just the way it was. However, somehow, it was written into the new Constitution specifically. That would be like writing a new constitution today and saying all citizens can carry wallets. They would wonder, why did they put that in, we already do.
Additionally, a new country trying to be formed would not tell its new citizens, hold onto your guns in case we get tyrannical on yo ass. Bad PR.
Do you have a link for the old constitution? Never heard of this before and this sounds more like your professor trying to marrying up their personal beliefs regarding the second amendment and not the true meaning behind it.
Here are a few quotes regarding the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Part of what your saying may be true, haven’t looked into it. However, the entire basis of the second amendment was to avoid a corrupt government, such as a monarchy, to control the people. Militias were formed and had taken down the world super power at the time, Great Britain.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book(quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Assault weapons are already banned by law. most egghead politicians think anything that looks like an ar15 or m16 is an assault weapon, even though they function the same way as any other semi automatic rifle or shotgun.
He doesn’t know an assault gun from a nerf gun.
Sadly, none of the gun grabbers do. The only difference between a soccer mom mini van SUV and a jacked up 4 wheel drive truck as killing machines is that the minivan is more efficient and gets better gas mileage.......and kills more people. But 4X4 needs to be banned because it likely has a Trump bumper sticker. 🤣
Define "Assault Weapon" for me please. In your answer provide specific examples of models and what features of those firearms make them "assault weapons".
TIA
This^^^Whatever rifles they have the people must be able to arm themselves with to avoid foreign invasion.
Right^^^^Tommy Guns and Machine Guns have been outlawed for decades.
This is another post that deserves more reaction scores.
Oh, one less "jogger" culturally enriching society.
Where was this? Hopefully not California. If there was less than $1000 in that cash register, there was no "robbery" as far as the Golden State is concerned.
Damn I have no idea where you get this idiocy from.
The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1791.
The states in the Union at that time were:
Delaware
PA
New Jersey
Georgia
Connecticutt
Mass
Maryland
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
New York
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Which of these 'slave states' pushed for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment?
Do you not see how you have been hoodwinked? You have been told the 2nd Amendment was added to appease slave owners so then you can be told that the origins of gun ownership in this country are racist, so that's why they must be done away with.
I'd never heard this insane spin till you just mentioned it, and I spotted the reason for it immediately.
How did you miss it?
STOP THE PRESS here! The 2nd Amendment was put in to the Constitution so that we Americans can armed enough to protect ourselves, especially from tyrannical government like this one presiding over us. You must be one of these CRT-types who've been bamboozled into thinking our right to bear arms pertained to control of slaves, which it did not. Because even blacks after emancipation were allowed that very same right to protect themselves all the same. You're not well-versed in history at all.
Didn't you hear. Some woman changed 100s of years of US history with a stroke of the pen. Our country was founded 1619 just so we could own slaves.
The lies of the 1619 Project and CRT have clouded your better understanding. This is how you brainwash people into giving away their country and their soul entirely.
That was every a bit a robbery, it doesn't matter if he strongarmed a dollar. You are confusing theft with robberies.
