And no, your kind does NOT believe in responsible ownership of firearms, you just demonstrated that. Until ridiculously unnecessary firearms are banned you will see that incidences like this are only the beginning. The media coverage and outcry in society are pure orgasms to those with legal access to assault rifles and the intend to harm.
LGBT - Terror
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
You don't know shit about my kind, whatever that means, but go on and convince yourself otherwise.
You didn't answer my question. How will you eradicate weapons you disapprove of already in possession of the law abiding, responsible citizens after you ban them? Simple question. There are several possible answers. Maybe I can learn something about "your kind", based on your answer.
You can ask to hand them in for a reasonable amount in compensation. Some will hold on others will turn them in. Once banned any shooting range will prohibit the use of such assault rifles in order to comply with the new law. Violations will be dealt with harshly. Will it eliminate all assault rifles? No but it will less likely get into the hands of those later who never possessed weapons before. The problem with your kind is that you argue that just because perfection cannot be achieved we should not even try. That is an incredibly poor line of reasoning and goes completely contrary to the American mindset and cultural heritage. The 2nd amendment never entitled anyone to bear assault weapons in the same way that it never entitled the ownership of nukes. So that argument is also flimsy at best
Again, you don't know my kind. If so, describe your perception of "my kind". You will be at least partially wrong because you don't know me personally. If you mean "pro gun", you are correct in that respect, though contrary to your apparent belief, I'm not for unlimited possession. There should be restrictions based on a number of factors, which I'm sure won't matter to you.
I do, however, hate losing rights I have because of the actions of others. I don't know how you equate that with trying to achieve perfection. You'll have to explain that to me in more detail. I just think its wrong to punish all because of a few.
Could you show me in the constitution where magazine capacity is mentioned? We didn't have nukes back then, either, so I don't have a clue where you are trying to go with that one? I'll sleep on it and meet you back here tomorrow. Can't wait to hear your responses.
PS. You really think the gov will pay reasonable money for banned weapons? I guess we were talking about joking earlier.
Peace
LOL
It's kind of hard to argue with you when you cannot follow simple lines of reasoning. But let me still explain in more detail. Precisely you are right, nowhere in the constitution is it spelled out which firearms were meant. So why do you think nukes are prohibited from owning? Clearly the 2nd amendment does not convey the right to own or carry nukes. If you think about that a little deeper then you pretty much come to the same conclusion about assault weapons. But I give you two further hints: (a) definition and purpose of assault vs hunting and defense. (b) the right to not be harmed by others' expression of their interpreted freedom ranks pretty much on top among any supreme Court Justice and also reflects the intent of the forefather. If you would hold your breath for just a minute and dropped your left vs right mindset for just a moment then it would become perfectly apparent to you that assault weapons where never intended to be in the hands of the common man. I rest my case
