America and Guns, will the debate ever stop?

so much hatred for such a little guy...........maybe you should go watch the Sound of Music and relax a bit. BTW, how are you dealing with your own complicity? I mean, if all of us in the US are responsible for all the crimes here, you are personally responsible for all the rape and heinous crimes in your mud hole bogged down pissant of a country. Who have you saved today?

 

No - you nutters support the gun culture, as you know, because you give your brother nutters the means to murder.

 

Good morning lolo

 

Good night Toefoot. Read anything lately?

 

not me. Mr Complicit. I've never sold or given a gun that has been used in any crime............much less bought one.
freakin gun commies.............. see, this is where you fall off the path. We are not talking 'bout guns, we are talking about Rights which you know zilch about. How many people died in your country over the past year? How many rapes? of course, you are responsible for those, too

 

Yes, trying to get my head wrapped around efficient home made wind turbines as a alternate power source. See you this evening.

 

The debate is irrelevant because the SCOTUS has already ruled that gun ownership is a right.

 

Your a special kind of stupid arnt you? Lanzas bushmaster that he supposedly used wasnt full auto so he did not empty 30 rounds in 12 seconds with all well aimed shots leaving no bullet holes in any walls.

Also your logic is unreal, lanza killed all those people with an ar-15 in "12 seconds" and younthink they should be banned. If you put an 8 rd 12guage in the same scenario you can cuase just as much damage, but those are om n your book....

Keep on drinking that koolaide- stay thirsty

 

A little education.

An "Assault Rifle" used by the military is easily identified by it's capabilities, mainly that it can be selected to shoot full auto or like a regular rifle. A weapon that shoots full auto only is called a "Machine Gun".

The AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle.

The term made up by Congress for a regular rifle that looks scary is "Assault Weapon" but unfortunately for Congress, they are all just rifles (not Assault Rifles) so they had to make method up to try and define them as being different from other rifles. They did that by identifying cosmetic features. Since that was not a very good way to try and separate rifles from rifles, they had to make hundreds of exceptions.

The AR-15 round or .223 is rather an anemic rifle round compared to most hunting rounds and is used on medium sized game or what people call varmints. You would use a larger rifle to shoot larger game like deer.

Now, since the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, is it no wonder that it ends up getting used in a crime? If they were banned, some other rifle would become the most popular then you would find it used in crime.

FYI: More people are killed by handguns in mass murders than rifles. The Virginia Tech murderer Cho, used a 9mm and a 22 handgun with regular magazines and killed more people than Lanza.

 

You are correct, but liberals don't really give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about the Constitution so they'll continue to pass bull(*)(*)(*)(*) laws like banning the magazines for commonly used guns and even bans on ammo.

 

A very good post - especially (and I hope you don't think I am being condescending,) for a school kid - I understand from your other post that you are 13 - or have I misunderstood something?

Basically, I agree with your premise (as I understand it) but if you will allow me a couple of minor corrections to your statistics - roughly 31,000 Americans die every year from gunshot wounds (all causes - murder, manslaughter, accident, and suicide) and while the figure of 8 for my home country is flattering - it is not correct. The figure for last year was 39, which was better than the average of 50.

And the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution simply states -

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It makes no reference to personal arsenals, or the right to oppose a legally constituted government by force of arms. It contains a provisional clause and an operative clause, which has caused much confusion as to its intent. A literal interpretation would indicate that its primary purpose is the formation and maintenance of a well regulated militia - but the US Supreme Court has ruled that it has a more popularly acceptable purpose.

Whilst your suggestion regarding the banning of handguns and automatic weapons is eminently sensible (and in keeping with what was done in my country,) I doubt it will be positively received by the majority on this board. Don't be put off by that, or allow yourself to be bullied into another conclusion. You are young, and will very likely see a world that the dinosaurs here cannot hope to. In that future, the USA may very well be a totally different place.

I am in my late teens, and hope for something similar.

 

Only if you totally ignore the writings at the time, the intent, and the history of gun ownership as a result of English law.

 

Number of things wrong with your rant there.
1.) The AR-15 and other models like it, is not an "assault rifle"
2.) You contradict yourself when you say handguns are reasonable but then suggest that we ban them. Furthermore, PDW's or Personal defense weapons can classify as AR-15's, handguns, and other firearms used for defensive purposes.
3.) The second amendment protects the right for all citizens to possess a firearm, and the states have a right to a militia (National Guard). The national guard is a stretch but I think it is legitimate.
4.) No matter what firearm, or any other weapon for that matter, Adam Lanza and every other psychopath still would have done the killings.
5.) A vast majority of firearm related deaths are drug/gang related, taking place in metropolitan areas with strict gun control.
6.) In the past, the British police also did not have firearms until recently. Why? Because they were getting outgunned by the criminals.
7.) Murder rates globally vary drastically, regardless of gun control measures. Switzerland has low gun control measures, and manditory firearm possession and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, Germany has strict gun laws and also has a very low crime rate. Russia has strict gun control, yet their crime rate is very high as well, Mexico also has strict gun control and they have an extremely high crime rate. Many factors contribute to crime rates in different countries and ours is no different.

 

1. You are wrong only in that the AR-15 was only defined as an "assault weapon" by the Clinton assault weapons ban where an 'assault weapon' was described by visual features and not operation. Since the Clinton AWB expired, their is no longer any legal definition of the politically inspired 'assault weapon' definition.

 

"America and Guns, will the debate ever stop?"

we currently have a nation divided over if Guns should be a privilege or a right... many from both sides think it should be a privilege rather then a right

I say it should remain a right as long as it's in the constitution, if they want to change that... then that is what they must do, good luck with that...

 

Unfortunately, SCOTUS can change their minds with a little money or other reasons. We must be vigilant to make sure that they do not change their mind. This however is not likely. I do not like the Roe VS Wade decision. Sure it can be changed, but it would require a lot of work. Personally, if SCOTUS tried to touch the gun debate, I would be out in Washington myself with a sign in hand, banging on their door.

 

The most damage to the Constitution has been done by liberal activist judges of which there are a few on the bench now.

 

Not with 1/3 of the country against it, and then some. I believe in the constitution and the rights it provides, but the bill of rights is something that should not be touched.

 

I never called it an "assault weapon", but you are right in that matter. However, the definition is ridiculous as it falls under the category of "semi-automatic rifle." A bureaucrat calling it an "assault weapon" in a bill does not make that its category.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget the progressives too.

 

The British police still do not carry guns. There is a special armed squad which deploys ARVs when a situation involves firearms, and they have always had armed response groups, it has nothing to do with being 'outgunned by the criminals'.

 

Really? Cause that worked out in China so well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/29/china-train-stabbing-kunming/6162803/

 

A complete non-sequitur. Great Britain is not China, and it is established fact that the British police have chosen not to carry guns. Whether you think that is a good or bad idea is not what my post addressed - I simply corrected the misinformation that the British police now carry guns for the reasons you stated.

 

Understood.

 

What is an "Armalight AR-15 5.56x45mm assault rifle"? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell me, what is used in more crime? Handguns, shotguns, or rifles? What percentage of that are semi-automatic rifles?

Ban automatic weapons? Are you completely unaware of the 1934 GCA? Are you completely unaware of the 1968 GCA? Are you completely unaware of the 1986 NFA?

Tell me, how many legal automatic weapons have been used in crimes?

Also, tell me, what is more devastating at close range? A 12ga. 00 buck or 5.56 NATO?

Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.

 

The debate won't stop until the totalitarians stop trying to ban guns.