I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: JinMI


There are federal laws on the books now restricting the owning of automatic weapons, like machine guns.

And yet it has made NO difference in the shootings, so how is that working out?

Should be pretty damn obvious all this superfluous BS is nothing but slight of hand to disarm the populace over fixing the actual problem

a reply to: Willtell

Scotus is clear on that as well. This should also fill the gap between what is agenda and what is common sense:

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Now, havn't we heard that same buzz phrase used time and time again recently? Those who oppose firearms know this and wish to classify, by any means necessary, that your civilian AR-15 is a weapon of war when it is clearly not.

www.nbcnews.com...

For proof, you'll need to show me where soldiers are using civi model in the field as I've not been able to find them.

originally posted by: Willtell
Case closed
next case

Hardly.

originally posted by: Willtell
Look, they already have laws that say you can’t own a machine gun, a grenade, bazooka, or military type weapons.


Is that law against the 2nd amendment?

If you allow laws against any weaponry you can allow it on anything.

Where do you draw the line?

The 2nd amendment does not allow you to have a nuclear weapon in your basement.

Sure you could have a hand gun or a less lethal rifle and moderate wepaons

Actually, if one takes the second as literally as the first is taken, then YES, every form of arms is protected, Constitutionally.

However, second amendment supporters have already acted reasonably, more so than first amendment supporters, I'd add.

Of curse, there's always that crowd that isn't satisfied. Never enough. Too bad. We've been 'reasonable' enough.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Then you believe people should be able to own automatic weapons, a machine gun for instance.

Read what I wrote......it was clear

Of course you have to concede, if I may say the pretty crazy idea of allowing machine guns in peoples homes, because if you didn’t you’d have to concede the legal right of the government to restrict firearms ownership an absolute
contradiction to you’re 2nd amendment philosophy


I just wanted it out in the open that you think automatic weapons MACHINE GUNS, should be legal.

Are you making up your own facts or what? I didn't concede anything ....

Again I was clear. ....are you having a hard time w facts or w info or what?

Typical approach "that's right I didn't her what I wanted to so I win"

Lol no that's not how debate works.....sorry

a reply to: Willtell

The guy is an absolute idiot. For starters, we're not granted the second amendment to hunt, but TO KILL PEOPLE who try to oppress us. Be it either a foreign, or domestic threat. If he really has served in the military, he should know that.

Remember people, we're granted arms to FIGHT, not hunt!

originally posted by: Willtell
I just heard on Fox news that a doctor who treated the dead kids said if the wounds had been made with a regular gun they probably would have survived.

I’m just being a reporter on this.

I'm not sure what you mean. The .223 is designed to not do massive damage as per the Geneva Convention. A .45 handgun with hollow points...illegal in war BTW, will put a hole in you about fist size as it exits your body, lets ask the good old doctor what a fist size exit hole compares to a .223 round.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Willtell
I just heard on Fox news that a doctor who treated the dead kids said if the wounds had been made with a regular gun they probably would have survived.

I’m just being a reporter on this.

I'm not sure what you mean. The .223 is designed to not do massive damage as per the Geneva Convention. A .45 handgun with hollow points...illegal in war BTW, will put a hole in you about fist size as it exits your body.

This man knows his stuff. We were no allowed to use certain ammunition in the military. We went from m855 green tip ammo to the m855a1 ammo used in my M4 carbine. Anyone with military experience knows that the military rounds due to Geneva Convention are designed to penetrate and leave a small wound channel and lack the stopping power of the shells that hunters can purchase at Walmart.

a reply to: Aegeus

This is my primary issue with the entire debate. The second amendment is not there to guarantee hunter's rights; it's literally there to overthrow a tyrannical government. All these idiots that scream Trump is a Nazi or a fascist are a great example of the hypocrisy at play. If Trump really was a fascist and attempted to install himself as defacto leader forever and trample the Constitution and America as we know it....wouldn't they want a gun to defend themselves? I doubt platitudes, petitions, and the like from whiny protestors, pundits, and talking heads would mount an effective defense should the government be turned against us. Many that talk about restrictions and bans seem to have forgotten that the only reason why America exists to begin with is that we took our freedom by force from the most powerful military force in the world at the time.

a reply to: Willtell

I don't like guns but the problem is that if we take guns off the populace then the only people who will have guns will then be the state.

Only one of the mass casualty events of the last 20 years has to be a false flag for us to ask, what kind of government is it that does this kind of thing to its own people?? The answer to this question can only lead us to one conclusion which is:

"Government cannot be trusted and in fact may well be an organised crime gang by definition, tyrannical in nature or intent, and need to be ejected from government and put on trial for murder.

If you accept that just one of the mass casualty events of the last 20 years was a false flag then unfortunately the US population just cannot afford to take the risks involved in surrendering their guns.

I watched a video a while ago where I learned that surrendering guns did not work out well for the people of several countries.

The people of Russia, an African country, Cambodia, Yugoslavia and a couple of others, paid for this mistake with their lives by the thousands.

Given there seems to be quite a bit of sentiment in favour of population reduction in the US, at least, then a civil war is quite likely to appeal to the those in powerful positions who hold such sentiment and what does that say about their sanity?

Civil war is attractive to these people because they will not be involved because it will be effectively 'managed' to ensure the 005% are not put at risk of becoming a victim.

If there is genuine concern about population growth in the US then why not give people over 18 years a life time decent income indexed for life, if they agree to be sterilized at 18 years?

Paying people off seems to be a common means of achieving objectives in America so why not use it to achieve population reduction in a human way that provides a significantly attractive incentive that should have people signing up by the hundreds of thousands?

I have not heard one good reason why assault guns should be legal!

Name one good reason why it should?

As an Australian i have 0% fear of being shot.
As an Australian i have extremely little fear i would be hurt going out at night on the town.
As an Australian i have extremely little fear i would be harmed by others in most situations.

Whats the Americans fear % of these scenarios?

Do Americans in general like guns more than children?

Q: If you had a choice, would you rather:
a) Get ride of the guns.
b) Keep having children die so you get to keep said guns.

Theres been total of 30 mass shooting incidents have occurred as of February 14, thats almost one a day. This is crazy last Aussie mass shooting was i think Port Arthur in 1996.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Azureblue

I don't like guns but the problem is that if we take guns off the populace then the only people who will have guns will then be the state.

And the bad people who do not care about laws... lets not forget them.

It's cute that some of you guys still seem to think you could have any impact whatsoever if the Guvmint wanted to take your guns (they don't, and nor did Obama, but you sure gobbled up that NRA propaganda).

"They can have my guns if they come and take them "

Please. You'd be dead in a heartbeat if they wanted you dead.

Nobody wants your damn guns, they just want better background checks and licensing. I believe we call that common sense.

As an aside, the word "amendment" means a change, or addition. There have been many, as time has progressed. Therefore this bizarre notion that a statement from centuries ago would never need any modification whatsoever is just absolutely ridiculous.

Keep your guns, but stop this bloody ridiculous "THEY'RE COMING FER OUR GUNS" stupidity. You went on about it constantly while Obama was in, and all he did was make it harder for mentally unstable people to amass an arsenal at home unchecked. God forbid.

Read what I write: you are being played by the NRA and weapons manufacturers so you'll keep adding share-value. You fall for the propaganda EVERY time, yet blame dems/libruls for it.

"Wake up sheeple" as you'd say.

originally posted by: coomba98

Do Americans in general like guns more than children?

Boy that is a lazy and weak argument. Do people ever die in car accidents in Australia? If so do you all value the efficiently of driving faster than 25 MPH more than life? See i can do the same...

Theres been total of 30 mass shooting incidents have occurred as of February 14, thats almost one a day. This is crazy last Aussie mass shooting was i think Port Arthur in 1996.

I'm not sure what you are talking about as mass shooting? Is that more than 2 people shot at one time? Your your murder rate is about 1.5 per 100,000 and we are about 5 per 100,000, with that said we have about 10 to 15 cities were guns are basically illegal in most of them where the murder rate is 20 to 60 per 100,000, so I would think those cities skew our numbers a good deal with the gang violence that creates much of all this.

Where i live it is much lower than 1.5 per 100,000 and we have guns...lots of them...just saying...

originally posted by: fencesitter85

Nobody wants your damn guns, they just want better background checks and licensing. I believe we call that common sense.

Good back ground checks are great, but just saying as to licensing...you can't license a right can you?

As an aside, the word "amendment" means a change, or addition. There have been many, as time has progressed. Therefore this bizarre notion that a statement from centuries ago would never need any modification whatsoever is just absolutely ridiculous.

Good then change it with two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate... that is all it takes...

There has been 27 in well over 200 years...not many and the right to bear arms is #2, so kind of important in the order of things wouldn't you say...

Our forefathers were rather smart and they crafted things quite well, what do you suggest would be your big change?

a reply to: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Boy that is a lazy and weak argument. Do people ever die in car accidents in Australia? If so do you all value the efficiently of driving faster than 25 MPH more than life? See i can do the same...

[snipped]

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm not sure what you are talking about as mass shooting? Is that more than 2 people shot at one time? Your your murder rate is about 1.5 per 100,000 and we are about 5 per 100,000, with that said we have about 10 to 15 cities were guns are basically illegal in most of them where the murder rate is 20 to 60 per 100,000, so I would think those cities skew our numbers a good deal with the gang violence that creates much of all this.

Where i live it is much lower than 1.5 per 100,000 and we have guns...lots of them...just saying...

Living in dream land no? Where talking about the whole country not your little area. This is not how you collect data!! Ohh my area is this so this must be how everywhere is in my country! like WTF!

The last mass shooting in Australia was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

1996!!! And America has had what just this very year!! its 30 and its only 24.02.2018!!!

[snipped]

Coomba98

originally posted by: Willtell
If anyone is afraid of the government, therefore, we should have access to automatic firearms, or maybe drug dealers you are frightened of or whatever, we have to understand these weapons will never save you from a government gone crazy, all those guns will do is get you dead quickly and violently.

..Cause whatever big bad gun you think you have the government has one much bigger and badder!

Tell that to Vietnam, Afghanistan, ISIS, and Al Quaida.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I'd like to ban the term 'assault weapon'.

Or at least beat the people who say it with a bar of soap in a sock.

A toaster in a pillow case.

A ruger .223 with 30 round clip is same gun but wood handles

originally posted by: JinMI
Censorship!!!!

Nooo

In the sales world we call that motivation.