Assault weapon bans

[balanghai]

Depends on where you are. If you are in north or south pole, you won't need it.

[mdude77]

Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?

Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.

M

[mdude77]

No, the point of a gun is to shoot someone.  If someone breaks into your house, do you honestly believe that person has only the best intentions for you?

no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.

it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.

Yeah, i really wanna live there.

I watched the colbert report last week and steven and the audience were just as shocked by the paranoia as me. This is going way to far, why does anyone wants to be in constant fear of being robbed and ready to pull the gun?

Who put you in a position to say it's way too far?  If they have the money, why not?  If I had 10 cars, would you say the same thing?

M

[PrintMule]

Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed? In case if some moose decides to rob your house?

[mdude77]

Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed? In case if some moose decides to rob your house?

so it doesn't get stolen?  quickly accessible?

why does it matter?

M

[kokjo]

Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed?

if i had a rifel, it would be where i would put it. its long and fit-under-bed sized.

[Schleicher]

Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?

Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.

Door locks that can't be lock picked in less than 10 seconds are even more effective.

[Mike Christ]

Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?

Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.

Door locks that can't be lock picked in less than 10 seconds are even more effective.

And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through

[kokjo]

Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?

Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.

Door locks that can't be lock picked in less than 10 seconds are even more effective.

And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through

bunkers... just saying...

[mdude77]

Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?

Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too.

Door locks that can't be lock picked in less than 10 seconds are even more effective.

And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through

Exactly.  Physical home security is mostly an illusion.  The knowledge that the inhabitants are probably armed is a significant deterrent.

M

[TheButterZone]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

Uhm don't you read or watch the news? Don't you think those incidents are enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

You linked to ignorance instead of "those incidents". Don't pretend to be ignorant that all massacres (>3 victims) occur in "gun free zones". Yes, 1 "gun free zone" massacre is one too many. Arm all innocent victims, fuck any criminal who constantly spams "victims can't handle the responsibility of defending themselves" and fuck "gun free zones" - the only perfect stages for mass murderers. You are now ignored.

Control your anger, this is why guns in general should not be given to the public. What kind of world would we live in if we were so paranoid that we need to bring a gun to the cinema.

Hmm.  A world full of godless selfish power hungry control freaks?  ie, what we have today?  We've seen multiple times what happens in "gun free zones".  I'll give you a clue, the word starts with 'm' and it involves a lot of death and maiming.

Feel free to go gunless.  That's your right.  Just don't try to force your beliefs on others.  

M

Control is all criminals are interested in. Controlling our ability to defend ourselves against them out of existence, controlling our righteously angry speech against their civil rights violations resulting in countless murders, rapes, and maimings of legally disarmed and defenseless innocents, like at the cinema in Aurora, CO where the viewers were subsequently massacred, utterly predictably, with impunity. Disgusting.

[Spendulus]

Control is all criminals are interested in. Controlling our ability to defend ourselves against them out of existence, controlling our righteously angry speech against their civil rights violations resulting in countless murders, rapes, and maimings of legally disarmed and defenseless innocents, like at the cinema in Aurora, CO where the viewers were subsequently massacred, utterly predictably, with impunity. Disgusting.

It seems to me like if you take a principled view from individual and constitutional rights, then WE want the ability to prevent an event like Aurora.  That's the WE, with OUR GUNS.

It also seems to me like if you take a practical view, then you know the time lag before police arrive, and again you want the personal ability to make a difference in said situation.

On the contrary, if you were a principled person - say Zwanzig20 - seeking a happy world, and you sought to ban guns, then you are responsible for Aurora.

If you are a practical person seeking a happy world, and you sought to ban guns, then, again, you acknowledge somehow that the greater good must allow for the slaughter during the time of police response, you are responsible for events such as Aurora.

I am oversimplifying.  But I do feel that blame and/or responsibility needs to be put squarely on the people who seek to take away OTHERS' right to self defense.  And going at it from this point of view, we don't need statistics, we don't need much argument at all.

We just need anti-gun people to take an adult attitude, and admit that they have responsibility for these tragedies. 

I'm willing to accept the opposite, that is:  I accept that in having a moderately strong pro gun position, this means some accidents and tragedies will result, and yes, my position may be considered part of the cause of such things.

[Wilikon]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

Today will be a great day for Colorado....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6HafQUIItE

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/colorado-democrat-government-not-guns-will-keep-you-safe/

The Democrat statist Colorado House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst believes the 2nd amendment argument that guns can be used as a form of self-defense is ridiculous. According to Hullinghorst, it’s government that keeps you safe—not guns. Never mind all the evidence to reveal the horrific results of gun-control polices found in this warning from the UK and a list of massacres that followed the disarmament of the citizenry.

Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.

But wait, there’s more, Hullinghorst also feels gun-control—a.k.a. people-control—will keep the children safer. Uh, yeah… cause that works soooo well for Chicago citizens and their children (even the police aren’t safe in Chicago).
- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/colorado-democrat-government-not-guns-will-keep-you-safe/#sthash.6ifxgNjW.dpuf

[Spendulus]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

[FirstAscent]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

Really?

I mean, really?

[Rassah]

Really.

[TheButterZone]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

Yep. You choose to not carry, a murderer has the absolute safest choice in killing your defenseless ass, as opposed to an innocent who is armed.

[FirstAscent]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

Yep. You choose to not carry, a murderer has the absolute safest choice in killing your defenseless ass, as opposed to an innocent who is armed.

I suppose I should live in a huge cave deep underground to avoid getting hit by a meteor. Or never cross streets for fear of getting hit by a car.

[FirstAscent]

Really.

Umm, No. Not really. Normal people don't choose to inconvenience themselves every day for the most unlikely of events.

[PrintMule]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

Yep. You choose to not carry, a murderer has the absolute safest choice in killing your defenseless ass, as opposed to an innocent who is armed.

A murderer will kill you no matter what do you carry, as long as you do not have it cocked in your pocket 24/7.