Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[Sparko]

You are far too intelligent under normal circumstances to think that makes sense. Rope has thousands of peaceful, useful things that it can be used for. It is a necessary element of modern life. It can be turned into a means of murder if some one choses to do so, but the so can almost any object or substance on the planet, including things necessary for life like water.

Exactly. If people want to kill someone else, they will use whatever means they have at hand. So banning guns is not going to stop murder any more than banning rope would.

First, im not proposing banning guns. I am proposing a system of gun control measures that restrict access to guns for the people most likely to misuse them, and very strict controls on guns like the ar15 which, if they do get into the wrong hands can kill tens or scores in just a few seconds.

Jim

The effect is still the same, keeping guns out of the hands of the people, banning certain types of guns. And the result is the same, they will use something else. Bombs, Knives, Poison. or get guns illegally.

[Sparko]

Again, you just are not thinking these comments through. A trained and disciplined military needs sufficient weaponry to defeat its enemies. I am talking about weapons rhat give untrained, undisciplined and in many cases mentally unstable people the same power as that traIned, disciplined military person in a civilian setting. And it is too much power, too many people in the general population too unstable mentally or morally to allow that.

If your goal is a backdoor civilian army. Which is essentially what the 2nd amendment is about, then in our day you must compensate for the order of magnitude more lethality of the weapons and the increased number of people that are not capable of wielding that power responsibly.

Jim

The revolutionary army wasn't trained or disciplined when they started the war. They were untrained, undisciplined farmers and civilians.

you do understand that the 2nd amendment was written exactly for the reason of allowing citizens to arm themselves against the government or any outside forces? And the supreme court supported self-defense as a valid reason for the 2nd amendment?

And it specifically says that the government cannot abridge that right?

Just like the constitution gives everyone the right to free speech, even if they use it stupidly. And the right to vote, even if they are completely ignorant.


Except most people who actually get guns, actually get training and practice with them at the range. I know that seems incredible to you, but it is a fact. So your argument about masses of ignorant people shooting off AR15s is nonsense. And we already have background checks to weed out the known criminals and mentally unstable. They just need to enforce them better.

And you dodged my question: if the founding fathers had AR15s, would they have used them or would they claim they were too dangerous?

[oxmixmudd]

Exactly. If people want to kill someone else, they will use whatever means they have at hand. So banning guns is not going to stop murder any more than banning rope would.




The effect is still the same, keeping guns out of the hands of the people, banning certain types of guns. And the result is the same, they will use something else. Bombs, Knives, Poison. or get guns illegally.

One cant enter a school with a knife and kill 20 people before they are subdued. One cant get a vantage poit over a crowd a hundred yards away and kill 60 people hurling knives or even shooting arrows before one is subdued. Neither would that have been possible using tte firearms known or anticipated at the time the 2nd amendment was created.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

There are limits on free speech.

False. If it is limited then it is not free speech by definition. What is prohibited is criminal speech, such as defamation, or inciting a riot.

Similarly, the right to bear arms is (or should be) without limits. What is prohibited are criminal uses of arms, such as murder, or armed robbery.

[Sparko]

One cant enter a school with a knife and kill 20 people before they are subdued. One cant get a vantage poit over a crowd a hundred yards away and kill 60 people hurling knives or even shooting arrows before one is subdued. Neither would that have been possible using tte firearms known or anticipated at the time the 2nd amendment was created.

Jim

First of all yeah someone could kill 20 people in a closed classroom with a knife or sword. Second if they want to take out a crowd in public, they could easily make a bomb. Or use poison. And they could easily use arrows if they were in a defensible spot. Are you going to rush someone with a bow and arrow unless you had a gun? In fact in all of the scenarios you mentioned they could easily mass murder people unless subdued by someone with a GUN.


And you still dodged my question: if the founding fathers had AR15s, would they have used them or would they claim they were too dangerous?

[lilpixieofterror]

One cant enter a school with a knife and kill 20 people before they are subdued. One cant get a vantage poit over a crowd a hundred yards away and kill 60 people hurling knives or even shooting arrows before one is subdued. Neither would that have been possible using tte firearms known or anticipated at the time the 2nd amendment was created.

Jim

A group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China on Saturday, killing at least 29 people and injuring more than 130 others in what Chinese officials called a terrorist strike, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/3...g-spree-n41966

Guess this never happened.

[lilpixieofterror]

Again, you just are not thinking these comments through. A trained and disciplined military needs sufficient weaponry to defeat its enemies. I am talking about weapons rhat give untrained, undisciplined and in many cases mentally unstable people the same power as that traIned, disciplined military person in a civilian setting. And it is too much power, too many people in the general population too unstable mentally or morally to allow that.

If your goal is a backdoor civilian army. Which is essentially what the 2nd amendment is about, then in our day you must compensate for the order of magnitude more lethality of the weapons and the increased number of people that are not capable of wielding that power responsibly.

Jim

Government failure lead to many of these shootings, so the solution is allow the failures even more power so they can than disarm those that are responsible enough to weld firearms so those that are not can do so without interference. Great plan!

[Mountain Man]

Government failure lead to many of these shootings, so the solution is allow the failures even more power so they can than disarm those that are responsible enough to weld firearms so those that are not can do so without interference. Great plan!

"Criminals are using guns to commit crimes... what to do... what to do... I know, let's create laws that will only affect responsible and law abiding gun owners! Brilliant!"

[oxmixmudd]

A group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China on Saturday, killing at least 29 people and injuring more than 130 others in what Chinese officials called a terrorist strike, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/3...g-spree-n41966

Guess this never happened.

i suppose that in your mind a GROUP of men is the same as ONE man?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

False. If it is limited then it is not free speech by definition. What is prohibited is criminal speech, such as defamation, or inciting a riot.

Similarly, the right to bear arms is (or should be) without limits. What is prohibited are criminal uses of arms, such as murder, or armed robbery.

Do you suppose that giving certain kinds of speech different names is not the same as limiting free speech?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

First of all yeah someone could kill 20 people in a closed classroom with a knife or sword. Second if they want to take out a crowd in public, they could easily make a bomb. Or use poison. And they could easily use arrows if they were in a defensible spot. Are you going to rush someone with a bow and arrow unless you had a gun? In fact in all of the scenarios you mentioned they could easily mass murder people unless subdued by someone with a GUN.


And you still dodged my question: if the founding fathers had AR15s, would they have used them or would they claim they were too dangerous?

And some can manufacture their own gun. We do control very carefully access to poisons and explosives. And it does generally, at least so far, make it harder to get these things.

Your and pixies special case examples do not negate my point, otherwise each of you would have no trouble contenting yourselves with similar knives instead of an ar15 as an instrument of self defense.

Jim

[rogue06]

And some can manufacture their own gun.

I've noted repeatedly how Afghan tribesmen have a tradition of manufacturing firearms, including copies of the most sophisticated fully automatic military models, using techniques that date back many thousands of years.

[Mountain Man]

Do you suppose that giving certain kinds of speech different names is not the same as limiting free speech?

No.

[oxmixmudd]

First of all yeah someone could kill 20 people in a closed classroom with a knife or sword. Second if they want to take out a crowd in public, they could easily make a bomb. Or use poison. And they could easily use arrows if they were in a defensible spot. Are you going to rush someone with a bow and arrow unless you had a gun? In fact in all of the scenarios you mentioned they could easily mass murder people unless subdued by someone with a GUN.


And you still dodged my question: if the founding fathers had AR15s, would they have used them or would they claim they were too dangerous?

1) if the people in the classroom fight back, they have a chance with a person with a knife, not so much the ar15.
2) the school resource officer will have a gun and can kill or otherwise disable the fellow with the knife far easier than the fellow with the ar15.

3) no, i did not ignore your question. They would use what the military required.

I do believe that had the constitution been written in the world as it is today, we would not have the 2nd amendment as it currently exists. It is simply too obvious modern weaponry is simply too powerful for what they were hoping to accomplish to be practical.

Jim

[rogue06]

1) if the people in the classroom fight back, they have a chance with a person with a knife, not so much the ar15.

Interestingly there have been a few studies as well as televised tests which indicate that someone armed with a long bladed weapon (sword, machete etc.) is more deadly (can kill more people at a faster rate) at melee distance (close proximity) than someone with a firearm.