John Lewis leads sit-in on House floor over guns

[Howler63]

The point is that there are some weapons that even the most extreme gun rights advocate doesn't want average people to be able to buy. There are also weapons that even the most extreme pacifistic doesn't want to be banned.

Everyone agrees that there are weapons that should be banned and some that should not. EVERYONE The argument isn't that there should be a line, it's where and how we should draw it. Arguing for the right to own an assault rifle (or arguing against) is stupid without an argument for where that line should be.

And if I think the line is beyond the MCX than I'm an advocate for suitcase nukes?

 

[JoeTrumps]

These are actual adults.

 

[jimbo]

wrong
we need nationally what NY and CT did for their citizens
the elimination of military grade high rate of fire weapons from the public sector

AR 15 style weapons are by no means military grade.

They just look skeery.

 

[Henrin]

Perhaps they are demonstrating their highest and best use.

All they need is diapers, pacifiers and bottles. The only problem is that congress doesn't have any formula or women willing to give them their breast milk. :/

Maybe we should all pitch in to the get congressmen some formula fund to help get them some formula.

 

[Mithros]

And if I think the line is beyond the MCX than I'm an advocate for suitcase nukes?

You haven't acknowledged that a line should even exist.

 

[Howler63]

You haven't acknowledged that a line should even exist.

Sure i have, right before we get to tanks and suitcase nukes.

 

[Renae]

well other than 49 who were dancing at pulse just the other day

some people can pretend reality does not exist. that is not a gift

The gun didn't kill them. An evil man did. One with intent.

Now, here's a simple thought exercise, let's see if you can keep up:

The Orlando Shooter legally bought his weapons.
Your solution is to make it illegal for him to purchase those weapons.
Would this have stopped the shooter?

Let's analyze:
The shooter broke many many laws that day, murder being the most foul of course.

How likely is it that the laws against committing the mass shooting he did commit, of which there are many deterred him in ANY WAY at all?

So the insanity of suggesting "If he'd been denied that purchase legally!" would have stymied his rage is absurd.

He could have obtained weapons through the black market. Since he was intent on an illegal act, to break one so weak as a gun law wouldn't have been an issue.

So really, you're screaming and wailing an insulting people for not supporting your absurd position that starts with an unconstitutional premise and descends from there into ineptitude.

We applaud you wanting to do something productive. Making law abiding citizens easier targets isn't productive, it's insane.

 

[ludin]

I think the people who were gunned down in Orlando would take issue with your notion of punishment. Those who could still speak would probably argue that they've paid a huge sacrifice to ensure that other peoples hobby isn't disturbed.

Their emotional argument is just that an emotional argument. not that I don't sympathize with what happened, however the millions of gun owners out there that legally use their guns should
be punished for committing no crime. nor should they have their rights stripped away.

]
Just apply a little bit of critical thinking here.

There are guns that you cannot currently buy. Do you feel like your rights are being infringed because an average citizen can't pluck down a few thousand to buy a 50 cal turret? Or would you agree that your rights are being protected because you don't have to worry about the threat of someone pulling up to your house in a cargo van, opening the rear door, and opening with thousands of armour piercing rounds. Exactly how many mass shootings involved an M2? What about an RPG?

yes actually. The constitution is clear on the rights of people to bear arms. it is legal to own a cannon and many people do as long as you have the permit.
if someone is going to do that they are going to do it regardless of what laws you pass as they don't care. drive by shootings happen every day.
gangs all over the US have technically illegally owned guns. so why is your laws not stopping them? ol yea they don't care.

mass shootings amount to 1% of all murders according to the FBI.

And no one is suggesting that we ban all guns.

what is the difference between
CARBON 15 FLAT TOP CARBINE bushmaster .223 REM 30R
and
Remington Model 750 Synthetic Centerfire Rifle

for some reason no one can answer this simple question.

So if you're a sane individual you realize that a line must be drawn somewhere, between guns that an average citizen can buy and a gun that would require more permission. The only fair way to do this is on intended usage. Weapons intended for self defense, hunting, and target shooting should be available for civilian purchase. What is the purpose of an AK47 or AR15?

you appeal to emotion is just that. I am perfectly sane to realize that a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic no matter what you want to attempt to call it.
they are used for self defense, hunting, target shooting, and shooting competitions. you just said what they are used for.

 

[Moon]

Most productive thing they've done in years.

 

[Henrin]

The point is that there are some weapons that even the most extreme gun rights advocate doesn't want average people to be able to buy. There are also weapons that even the most extreme pacifistic doesn't want to be banned.

Everyone agrees that there are weapons that should be banned and some that should not. EVERYONE The argument isn't that there should be a line, it's where and how we should draw it. Arguing for the right to own an assault rifle (or arguing against) is stupid without an argument for where that line should be.

Never say never and never say everyone agrees with ______. People should be able to buy whatever they please.

 

[Mithros]

AR 15 style weapons are by no means military grade.

They just look skeery.

$380 for 1k rnds of 223 penatrator
250$ for an auto trigger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr0rSaFgZE

Doesn't matter how big you want to talk, staring down the wrong end of that is scary.

 

[JoeTrumps]

$380 for 1k rnds of 223 penatrator
250$ for an auto trigger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr0rSaFgZE

Doesn't matter how big you want to talk, staring down the wrong end of that is scary.

luckily the odds of you or I "staring down" that weapon is the same odds as being hit by lightning. so don't have too many nightmares over it pet.

 

[Mithros]

Their emotional argument is just that an emotional argument. not that I don't sympathize with what happened, however the millions of gun owners out there that legally use their guns should
be punished for committing no crime. nor should they have their rights stripped away.

yes actually. The constitution is clear on the rights of people to bear arms. it is legal to own a cannon and many people do as long as you have the permit.
if someone is going to do that they are going to do it regardless of what laws you pass as they don't care. drive by shootings happen every day.
gangs all over the US have technically illegally owned guns. so why is your laws not stopping them? ol yea they don't care.

mass shootings amount to 1% of all murders according to the FBI.



what is the difference between
CARBON 15 FLAT TOP CARBINE bushmaster .223 REM 30R
and
Remington Model 750 Synthetic Centerfire Rifle

for some reason no one can answer this simple question.



you appeal to emotion is just that. I am perfectly sane to realize that a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic no matter what you want to attempt to call it.
they are used for self defense, hunting, target shooting, and shooting competitions. you just said what they are used for.

My appeal is not to emotion. I've been making the point that the discussion isn't about banning or not banning assault rifles, but determining how and why we draw the line between legal for average citizens and those requiring special permits.

The only appeal to emotion I see here is fear of "dem cummin to taek owr guuuns".

 

[tres borrachos]

They are literally sitting on the floor like a bunch of 1st graders.

Imagine the headlines if the Republicans had done this after the Dems passed the ACA and Dodd-Frank.

 

[Mithros]

luckily the odds of you or I "staring down" that weapon is the same odds as being hit by lightning. so don't have too many nightmares over it pet.

I'm not your pet.

 

[justabubba]

WOW... can you be any less honest?

the you are opposed to allowing suspected terrorists buy legal guns when their names appear on the no flay/watch lists

choose one side or the other

 

[tres borrachos]

How is it a problem? That same weapon is owned by thousands of gun owners who've not shot up night clubs must be banned due to the nuts? How many people in America have died by these types of weapons in the past 5 years as opposed to say...alcohol? Or heroin? Or knives? or bare hands?

Are we to outlaw all of them as well?

Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and a U-Haul to blow dozens of little children to bits.

 

[justabubba]

Really? Did you know it's illegal to craeate bombs out of pressure cooker?

And yet.

you know, we have speeding and licensing restrictions combined with all kinds of car safety regulations
and still people get killed and maimed in car accidents
but those imposed limitations succeed in limiting the car carnage
the same would be true of better, appropriate gun regulations
such as not allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy guns

 

[danarhea]

I thought Republicans just offered up two proposals and the Democrats shot them down?

Actually, in the Senate, the Republicans did offer up two proposals, in addition to the Democrats two proposals, and then voted down their own proposals, as well as the Democrats proposals. A few Republicans just wanted to look like they were doing something, when they were actually doing nothing at all. LOL.

 

[Henrin]

Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and a U-Haul to blow dozens of little children to bits.

To be fair he didn't actually know there was children in the building. He didn't however feel sorry about killing the children, but just noted that people die.

And frankly for the two cases he was pissed off about heads needed to roll, but instead everyone involved kept their jobs and retired with pensions. If the FBI going onto someones property and killing everyone doesn't piss you off, well, that's on you, but for me, oh yeah, it pisses me off. The fact that those animals didn't get punished at all is absolutely outrageous.

 

[jimbo]

$380 for 1k rnds of 223 penatrator
250$ for an auto trigger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr0rSaFgZE

Doesn't matter how big you want to talk, staring down the wrong end of that is scary.

Do you have a point that addresses my post?

But I'll bite a little. I know what ammo costs. I buy more than my share.

I don't know what an automatic trigger is. Never seen one. If you are talking about a bump stock or bump trigger, they have been around for years. I'm not aware of either being used in the commission of a crime.

Neither ammo in a box or a trigger is particularly skeery to most people.

 

[danarhea]

you know, we have speeding and licensing restrictions combined with all kinds of car safety regulations
and still people get killed and maimed in car accidents
but those imposed limitations succeed in limiting the car carnage
the same would be true of better, appropriate gun regulations
such as not allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy guns

Simple solution. Ban pressure cookers. LOL.

 

[Samhain]

the you are opposed to allowing suspected terrorists buy legal guns when their names appear on the no flay/watch lists

choose one side or the other

Since you finally realized they are only suspected, what other rights do you want to suspend based on that suspicion?

 

[Renae]

the you are opposed to allowing suspected terrorists buy legal guns when their names appear on the no flay/watch lists

choose one side or the other

I thought this was a childish position you took, then I learned it was marching orders from the HQ so I'll forgive you for the dogmatic way you barrel through this one thoughtlessly. You were told to use this line, and once told you need not think about it.

I choose the Constitution and Civil Rights.

I'll play your game:

FRIENDS!!! Will you join Justabubba in denying without trial or due process the Constitutionally protected Civil Rights of American Citizens or will you stand with those of us who believe our RIGHTS are worth fighting for??

Are you for Civil Rights? Or against them? CHOOSE NOW.

 

[Mithros]

Sure i have, right before we get to tanks and suitcase nukes.

No you didn't. But I'll take that as at least tacit acknowledgement that there should be a line somewhere.

And for the record, re-banning assault style rifles presents a ton of issues, even if it's the right thing to do. First and foremost, what do we do with all of the weapons currently out there? And even then, banning them doesn’t' mean keeping them out of peoples hands. It means making it harder for people to get them. It's impossible to make and enforce laws making it illegal to buy/make a few machined bits of metal that happen to connect to form an upper receiver.

A ban wouldn't really ban anything, but it would make it more difficult for people that are less knowledgeable about guns to use them. Again.. not an advocacy of anything, just a realization that the problem is actually complex.