BAN semi-automatic weapons

[indahook]

Quote from killthesunshine:

Ok, those that have never committed a crime get access to "own whatever I want to shoot" ..great

obviously we need to define what a "criminal" is because YOU have singled this group out.

What is a criminal?

Thats right. Why would I restrict access to anybody thats never been arrested, sentenced and jailed? I believe they call it "innocent until proven guilty" in the USA. I will assume that if you have never been a criminal you are a law abiding citizen until you prove society otherwise.

NO, federal and state laws have singled out criminals. I agree with them. Any law about firearms ownership that can be thought of is already on the books.

A criminal is defined by federal and state laws.

Whats next?

 

[tomdavis]

Quote from killthesunshine:

I am NOT anti-gun but I think we need to take a hard look at phasing some of this stuff out that serves no use but may be excessively deadly in the wrong hands. that's all I'm saying, and semi-auto RIFLES fall into this category. (as do full auto)

What evidence do you have that banning semi-auto rifles would reduce crime? There is none. There is not a shred of evidence on your side of the argument. Gun-bans only disarm law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't give up their guns. Criminals don't obey the law. That's what makes them criminals.

Drugs are illegal, yet cocaine, meth and heroine are available on every inner city street corner. Prostitution is illegal, yet there are more prostitutes today then ever before in the history of our country. Who benefits when drugs are made illegal? The drug dealers, of course. Who benefits when prostitution is made illegal? The pimps. Who benefits when you make guns illegal? The criminals. It makes their life easier!

You want evidence? Take a look at the results of the gun ban in England in 1997. After 13 years of disarming honest citizens, violent crime has increased by 13% and over 50% of burglaries now take place while the occupants are in their homes because the criminals can be sure that their intended victimes are unarmed.

I'll ask you one more time: Provide PROOF that banning semi-auto rifles will reduce crime.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from indahook:

Thats right. Why would I restrict access to anybody thats never been arrested, sentenced and jailed? I believe they call it "innocent until proven guilty" in the USA. I will assume that if you have never been a criminal you are a law abiding citizen until you prove society otherwise.

NO, federal and state laws have singled out criminals. I agree with them. Any law about firearms ownership that can be thought of is already on the books.

A criminal is defined by federal and state laws.

Whats next?

So, if you were busted for unlawfully setting off fireworks, for instance, you shouldn't own a weapon?

 

[indahook]

Quote from killthesunshine:

So, if you were busted for unlawfully setting off fireworks, for instance, you shouldn't own a weapon?

Yup. Thats the only truly fair way. If the law exists then you broke it and you now have forfieted your personal rights. If blowing off fireworks is illegal in your state and thats something you want to do then your A- shit out of luck or B - you move. That is if the law makes it unlawful to own firearms post misdemeanor in your state.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from tomdavis:

What evidence do you have that banning semi-auto rifles would reduce crime? There is none. There is not a shred of evidence on your side of the argument. Gun-bans only disarm law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't give up their guns. Criminals don't obey the law. That's what makes them criminals.

Drugs are illegal, yet cocaine, meth and heroine are available on every inner city street corner. Prostitution is illegal, yet there are more prostitutes today then ever before in the history of our country. Who benefits when drugs are made illegal? The drug dealers, of course. Who benefits when prostitution is made illegal? The pimps. Who benefits when you make guns illegal? The criminals. It makes their life easier!

You want evidence? Take a look at the results of the gun ban in England in 1997. After 13 years of disarming honest citizens, violent crime has increased by 13% and over 50% of burglaries now take place while the occupants are in their homes because the criminals can be sure that their intended victimes are unarmed.

I'll ask you one more time: Provide PROOF that banning semi-auto rifles will reduce crime.

what evidence do you have that a widespread ban on the bazooka or handheld SAM reduce crime?

 

[Banjo]

http://www.zazzle.com/chimp_if_guns_kill_people_does_that_mean_penci_tshirt-235000592716985705

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from indahook:

Yup. Thats the only truly fair way. If the law exists then you broke it and you now have forfieted your personal rights. If blowing off fireworks is illegal in your state and thats something you want to do then your A- shit out of luck or B - you move. That is if the law makes it unlawful to own firearms post misdemeanor in your state.

That's interesting that you WEIGHT all criminal activity the same...but what evidence (as you asked of me) do you have to show that those convicted of minor infractions (that involve NO violence, eg local firecracker law)) should have their rights stripped for life from owning anything that shoots, as you put it? Where do YOU get this right?

 

[tomdavis]

Quote from killthesunshine:

what evidence do you have that a widespread ban on the bazooka or handheld SAM reduce crime?

You're the one proposing a ban on semi-automatic weapons. You're the one making claims that banning semi-automatic weapons will reduce crime. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from tomdavis:

You're the one proposing a ban on semi-automatic weapons. You're the one making claims that banning semi-automatic weapons will reduce crime. The burden of proof is on you.

So, you think bazookas for sale in WalMart are a great idea too LOL

i hope you are kidding, for god sakes i hope :eek:

 

[indahook]

Quote from killthesunshine:

That's interesting that you WEIGHT all criminal activity the same...


but what evidence (as you asked of me) do you have to show that those convicted of minor infractions (that involve NO violence, eg local firecracker law)) should have their rights stripped for life from owning anything that shoots, as you put it?

Where do YOU get this right?

No I dont.

Check your state or federal laws for further clarification. They are all there in writing. And already in existence for you to peruse.

I`m not the one who started a thread about stripping somebody the right to own a legal firearem because they personally think its too much. Who are YOU to assume anything is too much?

You are one funny dude...arguing about legal personal rights.