Another 2nd Amendment/gun control thread.

[dfnj]

Your type of regulation is over the top.

I disagree with your opinions. Stinger missiles are illegal for a reason. Bazookas are illegal for a reason. 100 caliber machine guns are illegal for a reason. AR-15s fire too many bullets too quickly with too large of a magazine. They should be illegal as far as I am concerned.

We are just another couple of mass shootings away from people like you NOT getting your way. Just look at the numbers which are staggering:

Mass Shooting Tracker

I blame people like you allowing this to happen.

 

[Curious George]

You have the right to your opinion on "need to be more". But Sandy Hook and Florida is enough for me. There are just too many dangerous psychopaths running around in this country to allow rapid fire weaponry to be legal. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own an AR-15. It serves no purpose other than for mass shootings. Six shot clips and magazines are plenty enough for deer hunting and home protection. There's no reason to be able to shoot 30 rounds per minute other than to kill school children at a rapid rate.

It is a complicated subject. While your approach-- that something bad happened therefore anything we do to prevent it-- is certainly popular among many people, I think it is ultimately not the best approach. To disregard constitutional amendments is to set a dangerous precedent.

 

[Shad]

I disagree with your opinions. Stinger missiles are illegal for a reason.

What reason would that be?

Bazookas are illegal for a reason.

What reason would that be?

100 caliber machine guns are illegal for a reason.

What reason would that be?

AR-15s fire too many bullets too quickly with too large of a magazine. They should be illegal as far as I am concerned.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Handguns can have a high rate of fire as well. The difference is the AR-15 is easier to control thus a user can potential have a higher accuracy after the first shot in comparison. Handguns can have large mags as well.

3d printing has already been used to get around mag limits.

We are just another couple of mass shootings away from people like you NOT getting your way.

Doubt it.

Just look at the numbers which are staggering:

Mass Shooting Tracker

Typical... never look at the individual cases. Perhaps you should actually read some of those cases.

I blame people like you allowing this to happen.

Yah... Do not blame the one that shot up a school, the FBI, the cops.... Nope it is my fault... Hilarious ideologue reaction.

 

[dfnj]

It is a complicated subject.

It's not complicated at all. A bunch of babies were shot and killed. A bunch of mothers are crying their hearts out.

Guns capable of shooting 30 rounds per minute are legal. Make them illegal. Problem solved. The beauty legislating limits on rounds per minute, clip size or magazine size, or muzzle velocity is it doesn't matter which manufacturer or model type. The limits are agnostic. It could be a rifle, handgun, automatic, or manual. It doesn't matter. Regulating guns based on capabilities is the only sensible way to go.

 

[dfnj]

Doubt it.

I don't know. A lot of babies murdered. A lot of mothers crying. It's only a matter of time.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Doesn't the 2nd amendment say that the rights of people to bear arms shall not be infringed? And aren't there already laws that limit or infringe who can own weapons? Children and mentaly ill people and people convicted of felonies all cannot buy guns. Doesn't this violate the 2nd amendment? If you can't infringe on the right to bear arms then can't anyone own any weapon he wants? But this is not the case.

 

[Curious George]

Doesn't the 2nd amendment say that the rights of people to bear arms shall not be infringed? And aren't there already laws that limit or infringe who can own weapons? Children and mentaly ill people and people convicted of felonies all cannot buy guns. Doesn't this violate the 2nd amendment? If you can't infringe on the right to bear arms then can't anyone own any weapon he wants? But this is not the case.

No right is unfettered. You cannot go into a crowded room and shout fire. Because limitations are placed on a right does not mean any limitation should be placed on a right.

 

[Curious George]

It's not complicated at all. A bunch of babies were shot and killed. A bunch of mothers are crying their hearts out.

Guns capable of shooting 30 rounds per minute are legal. Make them illegal. Problem solved. The beauty legislating limits on rounds per minute, clip size or magazine size, or muzzle velocity is it doesn't matter which manufacturer or model type. The limits are agnostic. It could be a rifle, handgun, automatic, or manual. It doesn't matter. Regulating guns based on capabilities is the only sensible way to go.

Unfortunately it is complicated. I will let you work out why such a distinction is drawn. Needless to say your reasoning here is equally applicable to cars, planes, trains, saws, hammers, knives, fires et, etc. This is not the reasoning that will help us see a solution. If you do not care to draw such distinctions which in turn acknowledge the complexity of the issue, that is your choice. But that you cannot see the distinctions does not mean that they do not exist or the subject is not complex.

 

[Shad]

I don't know. A lot of babies murdered. A lot of mothers crying. It's only a matter of time.

People that are emotional do not dictate law.