Assault weapons
-
It's OK if I disagree with you, right? I'm OK if you disagree with me.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about what is factually correct. You seem to be implying that because it is in the constitution it can't be undone. I'm simply tell you that is wrong. Nothing to do with opinions. The prohibition of alcohol was a constitutional amendment which was then undone by a subsequent one.
-
Assault weapons need to be illegal, period. Let's at least start there. And no, it's not a slippery slope, at least I hope not.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
No such thing as an "assault weapon". And of course, you're wrong about both banning them, and that it won't be a slippery slope.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I think that if the 18th century constitution writers could have foresee the kind of weapons we have to day and mass shootings, the second amendment would probably be very different, if there at all.
-
It's when "The ting goes skrrrahh, pap, pap, ka-ka-ka Skibiki-pap-pap, and a pu-pu-pudrrrr-boom Skya, du-du-ku-ku-dun-dun Poom, poom" Then it's an assault rifle.
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
} -
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about what is factually correct. You seem to be implying that because it is in the constitution it can't be undone. I'm simply tell you that is wrong. Nothing to do with opinions. The prohibition of alcohol was a constitutional amendment which was then undone by a subsequent one.
-
Justin Bieber's voice.
This space for rent
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
so it's naive to think it wouldn't be a slippery slope.
The difference is we have the Constitution that allows the right to own guns. So, yes, as I stated it could be a slippery slope but because of the Constitution, I don't think it actually would be.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
011111100010 wrote:
we have the Constitution that allows the right to own guns
The Constitution doesn't allow anything. It's purpose was to limit the powers of the federal government. The states wouldn't ratify the Constitution unless certain rights were enumerated (again, these rights are intended to limit the federal government).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
No such thing as an "assault weapon". And of course, you're wrong about both banning them, and that it won't be a slippery slope.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
No such thing as an "assault weapon".
Explain further.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
hat it won't be a slippery slope.
Even if it is, would you rather continue to have more mass shootings then? Do you have a solution? What is more likely, that our government will turn on its citizens or that another mass shooting will take place?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
The Centrist wrote:
if there at all.
It would definitely be there but possibly altered some.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Contrary to popular belief among far-right, gun-nuts conservatives, gun control is not about removing the second amendment or to take away their guns. This has been explained a lot.
-
011111100010 wrote:
we have the Constitution that allows the right to own guns
The Constitution doesn't allow anything. It's purpose was to limit the powers of the federal government. The states wouldn't ratify the Constitution unless certain rights were enumerated (again, these rights are intended to limit the federal government).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Contrary to popular belief among far-right, gun-nuts conservatives, gun control is not about removing the second amendment or to take away their guns. This has been explained a lot.
The Centrist wrote:
Contrary to popular belief among far-right, gun-nuts conservatives, gun control is not about removing the second amendment or to take away their guns. This has been explained a lot.
OK? Was this a reply to my comment? I'm not seeing the connection.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
The Centrist wrote:
Contrary to popular belief among far-right, gun-nuts conservatives, gun control is not about removing the second amendment or to take away their guns. This has been explained a lot.
OK? Was this a reply to my comment? I'm not seeing the connection.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Me neither :laugh: :laugh: Didn't get my coffee yet.
-
In the UK someone went on a shooting spree with a rifle so they banned rifles. Then someone went on a shooting spree with a pistol so they banned pistols too, so it's naive to think it wouldn't be a slippery slope. The only gun you can realistically own legally now is a shotgun which farmers needs. But more important than that clay pigeon shooters need them, which is an upper class sport, the like that politicians enjoy so they're not going to ban things that affect themselves. Since handguns were outlawed over 20 years ago there hasn't been a single school shooting in the UK. I think most Brits would say that's a good compromise but that's us, Americans have the RIGHT to own guns. The RIGHT!!!!! and RIGHTS must NEVER BE COMPROMISED!!! America is too far gone to ban any kind of gun in anything but a long period. What do you do with the guns that are already out there? The UK had to compensate owners but there weren't that many guns in the first place.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The only gun you can realistically own legally now is a shotgun
Shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, target pistols. Antiques of all sorts.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
clay pigeon shooters need them, which is an upper class sport
No it isnt. Also actual pigeon shooters use shotguns.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
there hasn't been a single school shooting in the UK
They use machetes in stead.
-
Define an assault weapon.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Short barrel, automatic fire. The first was the German sturmgewehr, the most famous the AK 47, M16. They are for one thing. Killing people, that is why they should be banned.
-
No such thing as an "assault weapon". And of course, you're wrong about both banning them, and that it won't be a slippery slope.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
No such thing as an "assault weapon".
He probably means 'assault rifle", but you know that of course.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The only gun you can realistically own legally now is a shotgun
Shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, target pistols. Antiques of all sorts.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
clay pigeon shooters need them, which is an upper class sport
No it isnt. Also actual pigeon shooters use shotguns.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
there hasn't been a single school shooting in the UK
They use machetes in stead.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, target pistols. Antiques of all sorts.
Apart from shotguns (which I mentioned) and antiques, the rest are banned in mainland UK too. Even our Olympic shooting team had to leave the country to practice.
-
We had laws that allowed people to own guns. What's the difference? Oh right...constitutions can't be amended so the second amendment can't ever be undone :doh:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Oh right...constitutions can't be amended so the second amendment can't ever be undone
Ignorance is eveidently bliss. There are in fact two ways to amend the Constitution. 0) Congress, by 2/3 vote of both the house and senate, could approve amendments. Given our current political disparity, neither side would likely get the votes they need to pull that off. Amendments 11-27 were created in this way. 1) Convene an "Article V Convention". This has never happened before, probably due to the inherent danger it poses to the Constitution itself. An Article V Convention itself is a slippery slope, in that the convention can do ANYTHING to the constitution that the majority of the delegates approve, including - but not limited to - changing or outright repealing of existing amendments. Sure, the delegates can claim they're only going to do this or that, but there are no rules or laws that say they have to abide by their stated agenda. A convention can be called when 34 states (or 2/3 of the states) call for one. However, delegates are appointed rather than voted for, so the people's wishes are not likely to be fully/accurately represented. Congress has no authority other than to call the convention when 34 state applications have been submitted. I am steadfastly opposed to an Article V Convention. Advocates claim they need one to better control the government, but my position is that the Constitution does a good job of that as it is. All we have to do is force our elected representatives to be constrained by it, as intended.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Not own guns... but rather bear arms. Consider the difference between a gun (sporting/hunting) and arms (military weapons). Just saying, you are redefining the Constitution for your own agenda and thinking that is not a slippery sloe. The same thing is being done with Freedom of Religion being redefined, and even Freedom of Speech - both of which are much more important to me. But I am not naive enough to think the whole issue isn't related.
Without a way to defend those rights, the 1st Amendment can be stripped away at the whim of your elected representatives.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Oh right...constitutions can't be amended so the second amendment can't ever be undone
Ignorance is eveidently bliss. There are in fact two ways to amend the Constitution. 0) Congress, by 2/3 vote of both the house and senate, could approve amendments. Given our current political disparity, neither side would likely get the votes they need to pull that off. Amendments 11-27 were created in this way. 1) Convene an "Article V Convention". This has never happened before, probably due to the inherent danger it poses to the Constitution itself. An Article V Convention itself is a slippery slope, in that the convention can do ANYTHING to the constitution that the majority of the delegates approve, including - but not limited to - changing or outright repealing of existing amendments. Sure, the delegates can claim they're only going to do this or that, but there are no rules or laws that say they have to abide by their stated agenda. A convention can be called when 34 states (or 2/3 of the states) call for one. However, delegates are appointed rather than voted for, so the people's wishes are not likely to be fully/accurately represented. Congress has no authority other than to call the convention when 34 state applications have been submitted. I am steadfastly opposed to an Article V Convention. Advocates claim they need one to better control the government, but my position is that the Constitution does a good job of that as it is. All we have to do is force our elected representatives to be constrained by it, as intended.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
There are in fact two ways to amend the Constitution
So there was no ignorance in my post ergo your first remark was kind of silly, no?
-
You mean I could be banned after I eat beans??!?
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X