NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

a reply to: neo96

So it is an opinion piece.

So here is my opinion.

Both the first and the second amendment should be respected.

I recall Nazi Germany saying the same sorts of things

Also the last time the American Gov wanted people to get rid of their guns, they massacred them and put them on reservations

No thank you

Here is a link to the NYT article.
End the Gun Epidemic in America
They do make a good point though back when the cop killer bullets came out they got rid of them so why not get rid of the favorite weapon of mass killers. If they don't want to get rid of them then modify them to work like a bolt action.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's only because of that vigilance that it hasn't happened.

Do you honestly believe, for a moment, that they wouldn't if they possibly could?

They can't, which isn't the same as won't.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

A little place called Wounded Knee.

a reply to: buster2010

If they don't want to get rid of them then modify them to work like a bolt action.

So that would stop violence?

a reply to: seagull

...They can't...

Exactamundo.

Which is precisely my point.

It's hogwash.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Incroyable 'isn't a word.

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1

As I said the only made up term is 'Assault Weapon' to ban scary looking guns. That had nothing to do with how they function.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: RoadCourse

A raving lunatic who cries about their guns being taken away when in reality, ie away from LaLaLand where the raving lunatic resides, their guns will never be taken away.

What do you call someone who "cries" about "Gun nuts"?




Is "Assault" a quality brand?

a reply to: neo96

I think the NYT should give up Journalism for the good of the fellow citizens.

No to mention that the term 'assault rifles' is made up.

a reply to: neo96

Ahhh you're speaking French.

Good for you.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: buster2010

If they don't want to get rid of them then modify them to work like a bolt action.

So that would stop violence?

It would cut down on people being able to walk in someplace and shoot a dozen people in a minute or so not to mention give security time to react. Nothing will ever stop violence.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You skipped right over the part the ended with an explanation that Can't doesn't mean Won't, if given the chance.

That's what paranoid gun nuts like myself do when they chat with our elected congress type critters, or state reps. We tell them they can't. This is one of the few issues they actually listen to us on...

They don't dare. Not through any great kindness on their part, or respect for the Constitution, they don't do it out of fear of consequences.

a reply to: RoadCourse

An anti gun nut.

I spelled that out in my first response.



I think it's equivalent to a " GBH" pistol, but more intense.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I also speak constitutionese, but it seems it's a foreign language to some Americans.

Go figure.

a reply to: seagull

I didn't skip it...

I purposely left it out because what's the point in "won't" if "can't" comes into play?
Nothing.


The rest is paranoia, in my opinion.


Who would take your guns from you?
Answer that one for me?

The police?
But they're their to uphold the constitution.
That can't be right.

The army?
Hell no.
They're supporters of the 2nd and would fight with the masses.
Right?



Robot zombies are gonna take people's guns from them?
Thanks Obama, you made me create a Strawman.

a reply to: buster2010

Cut down.. Hmmm

It would also cut down on freedom.

Whatever way you cut it, it would deny someone the right to do what they want.

Why would you want to curtail anothers right?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

They will just make gun ownership illegal (besides black powder or some BS) and you will have to voluntarily give up your firearms or become a felon. This is the normal procedure.

a reply to: seagull

They don't dare. Not through any great kindness on their part, or respect for the Constitution, they don't do it out of fear of consequences.

As the article clearly pointed out.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

The Clinton Era ASWB destroyed Clinton's party.

a reply to: Metallicus

And as a (often stated) "law abiding citizen" you'd just hand them right over? Amarite?

Of course not.


Not to mention to make it illegal they'd need a whole new amendment, and funnily enough I know enough about that to know they don't currently nor ever will have the congressional/senate/house numbers to pull off a re writing of the second.




So, who's gonna take em?


Aliens?
The UN?
Soviet Russian invasion?

These examples can only get more ridiculous before you lot either admit you don't trust your armed forces/police as much as you propose, or admit you like arguing this boring argument for arguments sake.

Either answer I'm fine and dandy with.