wkfan;1345518 wrote:Absolutely no reason for a private citizen to have an assault rifle.
None.
Oklahoma City Bombing sadly killed both day-care and pre-school children I believe.isadore;1345528 wrote:t... go back 80 years and find a bomb used to kill students,...
What's an "assault rifle?"wkfan;1345518 wrote:Absolutely no reason for a private citizen to have an assault rifle.
None.
According to HuffPo, they have pistol grips and barrel shrouds which make them more dangerous.fish82;1345543 wrote:What's an "assault rifle?"
LJ;1345551 wrote:According to HuffPo, they have pistol grips and barrel shrouds which make them more dangerous.
fish82;1345543 wrote:What's an "assault rifle?"
BoatShoes;1345505 wrote:This is doubtful in my opinion. He apparently was trained to shoot weapons designed to kill by his delusional doomsday prepper mother. He's insane and had ready access to weapons that could further his criminal purpose. There's no reason to believe that this apparently special-needs child could have, in the alternative, assasinated 27 people with a less efficient murder weapon or conspired to create a bomb or something.
If his mom isn't delusionally stocking her house with tactical weapons that he gets his hands on I doubt sincerely that this Lanza kid is a mass murderer.
isadore;1345528 wrote:that you don;t know, what is obvious and what happens again and again is not a bomb or knife being used to slaughter the innocent but guns. go back 80 years and find a bomb used to kill students, heck they tried to use pipe bombs at Columbine, no success, but slaughtered with assault rifles. You have alot of mass murders by knife attack in the US, no but guns again and again with your endorsement.
this was what i was going to write this.Con_Alma;1345537 wrote:Oklahoma City Bombing sadly killed both day-care and pre-school children I believe.
is the EXACT same in functionality as the so called "assault rifles", yet is not classified as one, nor would it be banned as one.
LOLdontcare;1345556 wrote:
Based on the purpose of the 2nd amendment, it's exactly what private citizens would have.wkfan;1345518 wrote:Absolutely no reason for a private citizen to have an assault rifle.
None.
He could have just waited until they were at recess and drove through all the kids with his car. Doesn't even need any "special" skills for that.Raw Dawgin' it;1345413 wrote:But you're not going to prevent these things from happening by just banning guns. What if he blew the school up in stead? What if he got in and hacked kids up with a knife?
Exactly - how about all the people that die because of drunk drivers? Driving drunk isn't legal but people do it everyday, should be ban alcohol? We tried banning alcohol and it led to more violence and more crime. Banning guns isn't the answer.FatHobbit;1345639 wrote:He could have just waited until they were at recess and drove through all the kids with his car. Doesn't even need any "special" skills for that.
But he would need a car. And when that happens we can ban the sale of automobiles.FatHobbit;1345639 wrote:He could have just waited until they were at recess and drove through all the kids with his car. Doesn't even need any "special" skills for that.
To be fair, the logic behind that is completely outdated and indefensible. In the days that was written, private citizens or a local militia with guns are on a somewhat equal footing, technology wise, to oppose tyranny. But in the modern era of attack helicopters, tanks, drones and RPG's the private citizen is hopelessly outgunned.queencitybuckeye;1345569 wrote:Based on the purpose of the 2nd amendment, it's exactly what private citizens would have.
Tiernan is somewhere curled up in a corner sobbing at the mere thought of this happening.Raw Dawgin' it;1345641 wrote:Exactly - how about all the people that die because of drunk drivers? Driving drunk isn't legal but people do it everyday, should be ban alcohol?
I'd argue that unless and until the amendment that confirms my right is modified or repealed, I have the right to both the former and the latter.gut;1345660 wrote:
I'd agree you still have the right to defend you property and life, but that probably doesn't require a stockpiled weapons cache.
The "right to bear arms" is broad and doesn't necessarily imply without limits or restraint. Being allowed to purchase only a few handguns does not necessarily mean your rights are infringed upon.queencitybuckeye;1345691 wrote:I'd argue that unless and until the amendment that confirms my right is modified or repealed, I have the right to both the former and the latter.
It actually does. The why matters and still is part of our right until the process prescribed by the constitution modifies it.gut;1345701 wrote:The "right to bear arms" is broad and doesn't necessarily imply without limits or restraint. Being allowed to purchase only a few handguns does not necessarily mean your rights are infringed upon.
Sounds like a better idea than "just deciding" rights are obsolete and no longer exist.And, again, what is the full text - "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."
That justification and logic is completely irrelevant in this day and age. Or maybe we should be allowed to also own RPG's and landmines. Does that sound like a good idea?
With the way the media abuses the 1st amendment I think we should look at seriously limiting who gets to talk. There is way too much misinformation flying around as well as people interviewing children immediately after this terrible crisis.queencitybuckeye;1345702 wrote:Sounds like a better idea than "just deciding" rights are obsolete and no longer exist.
Actually it doesn't, which is why hundreds (thousands?) of laws restricting and limiting gun ownership have withstood judicial scrutiny.queencitybuckeye;1345702 wrote:It actually does. The why matters and still is part of our right until the process prescribed by the constitution modifies it.
Actually, it does, as exactly zero of the laws you would cite were upheld with the notion of modifying what the amendment means. Zero. IOW, RPGs and such are not illegal because the citizens could fight the tyranny of the state. That is not the reason.gut;1345715 wrote:
Actually it doesn't, which is why hundreds (thousands?) of laws restricting and limiting gun ownership have withstood judicial scrutiny.
I said nothing of the sort, Mr. Footwedge.And, please, you lose any and all credibility when you support owning RPG's and landmines in some misguided defense over the completely moronic opinion that farmers with pistols and shotguns are going to repel a state-sponsored army. The fucking tanks roll right over you with your shotgun and AR-215.
You sure as hell did, unless you were channeling the english/grammar of Mr. Belly - you quoted my rhetorical question about allowing the ownership of RPG's and landmines and then said "sounds like a better idea than deciding rights are obsolete..."queencitybuckeye;1345717 wrote:I said nothing of the sort, Mr. Footwedge.
