Why We Should Never Compromise On Gun Rights
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
3) I stated earlier that a production-model Browning BAR in 30-06 is devastating. FMJ and into a crowd--the projectile will pass through 3-4 people. There is probably >80MM AR lowers in this country. 80% lowers? Perhaps another 4-5MM. 80% AR lowers require no NICS. The lower is the serialized part. I don't think that an AWB will stop the LV types. The 2A was written when SOTA was a flintlock. The vast majority of mass-shootings are committed by individuals with no criminal or psych record.
The mag-reload speed is the only way I see the problem being addressed. I don't have the answer.
5) It's still regressive; and I meant rebates at tax time. The problem is that the working poor need to wait for their refund. Many of these people don't have checking accounts. It could be addressed on the 1040 in terms of simple deductions or a large allowance, but these people are going to keep receipts for food.
Last edited:
So I don't like uneducated people who insist the 2nd amendment cannot be changed. It's an amendment.
I read just fine. Second sentence of my post. Allow me to re-post it for you.
Now, whether they shoot that intruder with a semi automatic weapon or a revolver or shotgun, I'm not going to go out and do all the research
I'm sure if you restrict the criteria enough and say something like "how many of them killed an intruder with a semi-automatic where the intruder was wearing a Santa hat and pink lederhosen??" then the number will surely be low. But there are thousands of cases where a homeowner kills an intruder. To suggest there aren't 10 where the intruder was using a semi-automatic rifle is just plain stupid.
Sure all the freedom to you as long as your choices don't contribute to more killings of innocent lives. You can choose to be the asshole in the room and have you and your family get punched in the head and pussy all day long if you so choose. But you can't be the asshole, and literally beg for retaliation and then at the same time want to defend yourself with some ridiculous killing tools and claim "people should have the right to choose how they live". No you cannot , not if your choices and fetishes and desires cost others their lives.
[QUOTE=" People should be able to choose how they live. Noodles would call it a choice between being a good person or living in constant fear. The rest of us would call it the choice not to be a victim and to have taken reasonable precautions to safeguard our families.
The problem is one side of the debate is insisting on their right to dictate how the other side gets to live. That offends me. I wouldn't dream of telling someone they need to have a gun, if they were uncomfortable with the idea. What gives them the right to tell me what I have in my own house?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=" People should be able to choose how they live. Noodles would call it a choice between being a good person or living in constant fear. The rest of us would call it the choice not to be a victim and to have taken reasonable precautions to safeguard our families.
The problem is one side of the debate is insisting on their right to dictate how the other side gets to live. That offends me. I wouldn't dream of telling someone they need to have a gun, if they were uncomfortable with the idea. What gives them the right to tell me what I have in my own house?[/QUOTE]
How can I deny something you won't clarify? You're intentionally being general. State a specific suggestion for a law and then it will vary significantly over how many favor and how many don't. Otherwise it's silly. "Most people are against military intervention." Well, no shit. The shades of grey come into the discussion when you provide nuance.
Hell, I favor stricter gun laws if all you are going to do is consider the age where one should be able to buy a gun.
And what is your evidence of this "fake news". Why don't you google the local news stories from the Fayetteville area of North Carolina for a start.
It's fake because he doesn't want to believe in it.
So instead of raising campaign cash and scoring political rhetoric off of gun violence, why doesn't the Democratic Party bring legislation to the floor to repeal the Second Amendment ? Go for it. There is a clearly defined road map to do it in the US Constitution.
There was a time when the Democratic Party held a super majority in the Legislative and Executive Branches of government not that long ago - why didn't Pelosi and Obama act on the Second Amendment because gun violence was worse in 2009 than it is at present ?