Page 13 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Look the statement: "Oh, if we can save just one victim !!!!:"

    Kids who drown in bathtubs are victims too, and there are more of them each year than there are school shooting victims.

    The point is that there are many different ways that kids/people die unnatural deaths, and yes, it is tragic. But, in most cases, there isn't a knee-jerk reaction to run out and ban things.
    This is not knee jerk. post Columbine, this is very discussed.

    something need be done. What? THAT is the debate.

    I think even the strictest readers of the constitution would agree that private ownership of AKs, Bushmasters etc should be accompanied with some regulation.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =====================================

    Exactly




    =============================================

    Still not convinced, but what do I know.

    Seems to me if this country that is governed by the will of the people wants to change access to certain weapon classes, then a constitutional amendment is the way to go, waiting on the SCOTUS could be a long wait.

    Something should be done. And I don't think the people are ready to accept my idea of arming more people, including teachers, to reduce mass shootings.

    I think you mistook my meaning. There would be no need to wait for the SCOTUS to rule. Rush a gun grabbing bill through Congress and have the POTUS sign it. All that need happen then is for 5 Justices to be ok with it.

    It very well used to be the Justices understood their role, and that certain matters HAD to be settled by Constitutional Amendment. For example, I think it's probably universally held that women should have the right to vote. But, in 1920, the members of Congress understood that you couldn't do something like this via legislation, which is why it was done via Constitutional Amendment.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    This is not knee jerk. post Columbine, this is very discussed.

    something need be done. What? THAT is the debate.

    I think even the strictest readers of the constitution would agree that private ownership of AKs, Bushmasters etc should be accompanied with some regulation.
    Like hell it isn't knee jerk. People might have thought about the subject itself for some time, but they are throwing it out there now in reaction to what just happened.

    What cliche should we apply ? Strike while the iron is hot ? never let a good opportunity go to waste ? You never want a serious crisis to go to waste?

    Of course it's a knee jerk reaction.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Like hell it isn't knee jerk. People might have thought about the subject itself for some time, but they are throwing it out there now in reaction to what just happened.

    What cliche should we apply ? Strike while the iron is hot ? never let a good opportunity go to waste ? You never want a serious crisis to go to waste?

    Of course it's a knee jerk reaction.
    the discussion need be had....some call it knee jerk, I call it overdue.

    But we need to , as a nation, discuss gun laws. And I am for guns. I own a few.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    From a political standpoint, an "assualt weapon" is basically any weapon that looks really menacing, regardless of actual function.
    That's just some stupid **** right there. The firearms manufacturers & the NRA have been employing that argument for too long, only the stupidest and most ignorant of individuals allow it to bear any credence.

    I made an earlier post that refers to how this is a narrowly scoped idiotic mentality.

    http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/sh...&postcount=127

    If only these incidents of gun violence could somehow keep the list of victims confined to the gun rights / NRA supporters and their loved ones, then maybe while still senseless, it might at least seem a little more equitable.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    the discussion need be had....some call it knee jerk, I call it overdue.

    But we need to , as a nation, discuss gun laws. And I am for guns. I own a few.
    I'm all for discussion. You think that's what Feinstein and the Libs want or will settle for ? They don't want discussion, they want very strict gun control. You only need to look at places like Chicago, New York and DC to see that.

  7. #247
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,066
    Quote Originally Posted by movethechains View Post
    That's just some stupid **** right there. The firearms manufacturers & the NRA have been employing that argument for too long, only the stupidest and most ignorant of individuals allow it to bear any credence.

    I made an earlier post that refers to how this is a narrowly scoped idiotic mentality.

    http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/sh...&postcount=127

    If only these incidents of gun violence could somehow keep the list of victims confined to the gun rights / NRA supporters and their loved ones, then maybe while still senseless, it might at least seem a little more equitable.
    =====================================




    Defining what an assault weapon is crucial to the debate if we are to talk about restricting them.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by movethechains View Post
    That's just some stupid **** right there. The firearms manufacturers & the NRA have been employing that argument for too long, only the stupidest and most ignorant of individuals allow it to bear any credence.

    I made an earlier post that refers to how this is a narrowly scoped idiotic mentality.

    http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/sh...&postcount=127

    If only these incidents of gun violence could somehow keep the list of victims confined to the gun rights / NRA supporters and their loved ones, then maybe while still senseless, it might at least seem a little more equitable.


    Have to ask, are you familiar with Venn diagrams and how they work ?

    Related to this, the guns you are talking about would fall into the population of "weapon that looks really menacing, regardless of actual function"

    Point being, most legislation is never that targeted. Instead, they are much broader in definition and scope.

  9. #249
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,963
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =====================================




    Defining what an assault weapon is crucial to the debate if we are to talk about restricting them.
    Fair enough. We can start at the other end of the spectrum and agree that while a mini 14 could conceivably be qualified as a "hunting rifle", the same definition hardly fits when considering a Bushmaster, same caliber be damned.

  10. #250
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Fair enough. We can start at the other end of the spectrum and agree that while a mini 14 could conceivably be qualified as a "hunting rifle", the same definition hardly fits when considering a Bushmaster, same caliber be damned.
    That is b.c people get caught up in the "look" of a gun. You can get a mini 14 that looks like your grandpas hunting rifle with the beautiful wooden stock. The Bushmaster looks like a killing machine.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Fair enough. We can start at the other end of the spectrum and agree that while a mini 14 could conceivably be qualified as a "hunting rifle", the same definition hardly fits when considering a Bushmaster, same caliber be damned.
    For starters, where did someone come up with the idea that the 2nd Amend only allowed for hunting rifles ?

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Have to ask, are you familiar with Venn diagrams and how they work ?
    No I'm not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Related to this, the guns you are talking about would fall into the population of "weapon that looks really menacing, regardless of actual function" Point being, most legislation is never that targeted. Instead, they are much broader in definition and scope.
    Not sure I got your point, the remington qualifies as a hunting rifle, the AR-15 and the like should be illegal.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =============================================

    This would work, not that I agree to it at this point, in 50 to 75 years all the assault weapon owners would be dead and there guns would then need to be destroyed.

    The term assault weapon needs to be clearly defined, as I understand the military describes an assault weapon as a select fire rifle (safety, semi auto, full auto), which I believe is different then what most Americans would define an assault weapon. I am not at all sure I understand what an assault weapon is.
    Edit
    Last edited by C Mart; 12-17-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  14. #254
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,963
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    That is b.c people get caught up in the "look" of a gun. You can get a mini 14 that looks like your grandpas hunting rifle with the beautiful wooden stock. The Bushmaster looks like a killing machine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    For starters, where did someone come up with the idea that the 2nd Amend only allowed for hunting rifles ?
    Then it has to become more basic of a debate; define 'arms' and their purpose as it relates to the 21st century. The Constitution is called a living document for a reason.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by movethechains View Post
    No I'm not.



    Not sure I got your point, the remington qualifies as a hunting rifle, the AR-15 and the like should be illegal.

    Venn diagram:



    This is a basic Venn. Something not illustrated is what is called the "population". Basically, just picture a big box (named D) that surrounds all of the circles.

    Look at circle A. Part of it overlaps only circle C. Part of it overlaps only circle B. Another part of it overlaps parts of both B and C. One part of it doesn't overlap either of the other circles. Lastly, if Box D was drawn in, circle A would only encompass part of Population D. Hope that makes sense.

    Reason to even discuss this: As I said, "From a political standpoint, an "assualt weapon" is basically any weapon that looks really menacing, regardless of actual function."

    Some guns might fall into categories bounded by circles A, B, and C. Other guns might fall into AC, or BC, AB, or perhaps even A, B, or C specifically.

    In short, that a gun might actually be an "assault rife" doesn't negate the truthfulness of my statement. Say that guns that really are assualt rifles would fall into the area that A, B, and C intersect. The problem is, politicians are defining "assualt weapons" as any gun that would be in circle A, or B, or C, even though all the guns outside of that small intersection area AREN'T actually assault weapons. They just might share some characteristic such as how they look, i.e. something purely cosmetic.

  16. #256
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,506
    Any weapon that can shoot several rounds rapidly should be banned. The only thing they can be used to hunt is people. A hunting rifle is one thing, but any gun that can kill a lot of people in rapid succession should be illegal.

    If you are going to use the argument of protecting your home from a burglar, a plain single fire shotgun will get the job done, unless you think your home will be invaded by a army.

    Also, gun legislation needs to cover the mentally ill. If you or someone living in your home is mentally ill, you should not be allowed to have guns. If a gun owner has a mentally ill person living, he/she should be held responsible for anything done with those guns. (Meaning, if you own a gun and your kid takes it to school and kills a bunch of people, than you should be charged with the murder)

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    Then it has to become more basic of a debate; define 'arms' and their purpose as it relates to the 21st century. The Constitution is called a living document for a reason.
    Get even more basic. The Constitution is called a "living document" by people who don't want to be troubled by having to go through the difficulty of trying to amend it to change it's meaning.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by jetman67 View Post
    Any weapon that can shoot several rounds rapidly should be banned. The only thing they can be used to hunt is people. A hunting rifle is one thing, but any gun that can kill a lot of people in rapid succession should be illegal.

    If you are going to use the argument of protecting your home from a burglar, a plain single fire shotgun will get the job done, unless you think your home will be invaded by a army.

    Also, gun legislation needs to cover the mentally ill. If you or someone living in your home is mentally ill, you should not be allowed to have guns. If a gun owner has a mentally ill person living, he/she should be held responsible for anything done with those guns. (Meaning, if you own a gun and your kid takes it to school and kills a bunch of people, than you should be charged with the murder)

    I have a 12 gauge shotgun that can put out 7 shells in under 1 minute with no problem at all. Each of those shells contains 12 pellets that are larger than the .223's that were used.

    Not to be morbid, but if I wanted to clear a room, that would be my weapon of choice.

    Even with a simple double barrel or an over/under shotgun, I can easily shoot 10 rounds per minute, again, with each round consisting of 12 .33 caliber pellets.

    Let's go even further. A freaking 5 shot revolver can shoot several rounds rapidly.

    So what are you suggesting ? That the only guns that can be legal have to be muzzle loaders or something ?

  19. #259
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,066
    Quote Originally Posted by jetman67 View Post
    Any weapon that can shoot several rounds rapidly should be banned. The only thing they can be used to hunt is people. A hunting rifle is one thing, but any gun that can kill a lot of people in rapid succession should be illegal.

    If you are going to use the argument of protecting your home from a burglar, a plain single fire shotgun will get the job done, unless you think your home will be invaded by a army.

    Also, gun legislation needs to cover the mentally ill. If you or someone living in your home is mentally ill, you should not be allowed to have guns. If a gun owner has a mentally ill person living, he/she should be held responsible for anything done with those guns. (Meaning, if you own a gun and your kid takes it to school and kills a bunch of people, than you should be charged with the murder)
    ================================================

    All due respect JetMan, you don't know much about guns or gun laws.

    Not to mention the threat of home invaision.

  20. #260
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Get even more basic. The Constitution is called a "living document" by people who don't want to be troubled by having to go through the difficulty of trying to amend it to change it's meaning.
    It's a pragmatic view of the world. Arguing that the intent and practicality of something that was written over 200 years ago and then insisting that it should remain static is contrarian.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us