Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Jassysworth 1]

Therefore, by that logic, you should be prosecuted for rape.

He has hands. Charge him with battery.

He has a mouth. Charge him for assault.

He has a brain. Charge him for conspiracy to commit a crime.

ptty much best logik ever amirite? Also Gulags.

No... just ban the guns.

This is not a crazy idea... just do what the rest of the world does and you won't have school shootings anymore. Countries can function without guns and function better. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting in Japan or France?

Do you really want to live in a country where some crazy kid could go on a shooting spree at any time because you give him the tools? No matter how much you ''regulate,'' having so many guns around means that crazy people can get them too easily.

It's much better to cut the whole thing out and just take all the guns away...

[Big Jim P]

Therefore, by that logic, you should be prosecuted for rape.

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

First, penetrative organs are not necessary to commit rape.

Second: You have the necessary equipment to commit rape, therefore you are guilty of rape (Your logic, not mine)

Finally: Just how practical do you think confiscating every gun in America would be? Now, who the fuck is going to reimburse the gun owners?

[Xsyne]

He has hands. Charge him with battery.

He has a mouth. Charge him for assault.

He has a brain. Charge him for conspiracy to commit a crime.

ptty much best logik ever amirite? Also Gulags.

No... just ban the guns.

This is not a crazy idea... just do what the rest of the world does and you won't have school shootings anymore. Countries can function without guns and function better. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting in Japan or France?

Do you really want to live in a country where some crazy kid could go on a shooting spree at any time because you give him the tools? No matter how much you ''regulate,'' having so many guns around means that crazy people can get them too easily.

It's much better to cut the whole thing out and just take all the guns away...

Neither France nor Japan bans all guns.

[Big Jim P]

He has hands. Charge him with battery.

He has a mouth. Charge him for assault.

He has a brain. Charge him for conspiracy to commit a crime.

ptty much best logik ever amirite? Also Gulags.

No... just ban the guns.

This is not a crazy idea... just do what the rest of the world does and you won't have school shootings anymore. Countries can function without guns and function better. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting in Japan or France?

Do you really want to live in a country where some crazy kid could go on a shooting spree at any time because you give him the tools? No matter how much you ''regulate,'' having so many guns around means that crazy people can get them too easily.

It's much better to cut the whole thing out and just take all the guns away...

Sorry, but there are other ways to kill and/or maim someone. Guns are necessary for self-defense.

[Nua Corda]

Therefore, by that logic, you should be prosecuted for rape.

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

And you've hit the nail on the head. Gun bans are no more practical than mandatory castration.

[Nua Corda]

He has hands. Charge him with battery.

He has a mouth. Charge him for assault.

He has a brain. Charge him for conspiracy to commit a crime.

ptty much best logik ever amirite? Also Gulags.

No... just ban the guns.

This is not a crazy idea... just do what the rest of the world does and you won't have school shootings anymore. Countries can function without guns and function better. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting in Japan or France?

Do you really want to live in a country where some crazy kid could go on a shooting spree at any time because you give him the tools? No matter how much you ''regulate,'' having so many guns around means that crazy people can get them too easily.

It's much better to cut the whole thing out and just take all the guns away...

Go ahead. Ignore everything people say when it doesn't fit your arguement.

[Jassysworth 1]

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

First, penetrative organs are not necessary to commit rape.

Second: You have the necessary equipment to commit rape, therefore you are guilty of rape (Your logic, not mine)

Finally: Just how practical do you think confiscating every gun in America would be? Now, who the fuck is going to reimburse the gun owners?

I didn't say ''everyone who owns a gun is guilty of going on a shooting sprees and should be punished as if they did.''

I said take the guns way so we don't have them in the future any more...

Now, who the fuck is going to reimburse the gun owners

We'll make it work.

We can start by raising taxes and cutting the military....

[Big Jim P]

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

And you've hit the nail on the head. Gun bans are no more practical than mandatory castration.

I fopr one am not giving up either type of gun without a (in one case) seriously nasty fight.

Someone threatening castration actually falls under the "other reasons" for someone to own a firearm for self defense.

[Alyekra]

First, penetrative organs are not necessary to commit rape.

Second: You have the necessary equipment to commit rape, therefore you are guilty of rape (Your logic, not mine)

Finally: Just how practical do you think confiscating every gun in America would be? Now, who the fuck is going to reimburse the gun owners?

I didn't say ''everyone who owns a gun is guilty of going on a shooting sprees and should be punished as if they did.''

I said take the guns way so we don't have them in the future any more...

You are punishing people because they might one day commit a crime.

That's insane.

[Jassysworth 1]

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

And you've hit the nail on the head. Gun bans are no more practical than mandatory castration.

Hardly...

Very practical, well-enforced, and long-standing gun bans have been employed and maintained in other countries. History shows this is possible.

Universal mandatory castration on the other hand, has never been done (and I hope it will never be done).

Very bad comparison here...

[Big Jim P]

No... just ban the guns.

This is not a crazy idea... just do what the rest of the world does and you won't have school shootings anymore. Countries can function without guns and function better. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting in Japan or France?

Do you really want to live in a country where some crazy kid could go on a shooting spree at any time because you give him the tools? No matter how much you ''regulate,'' having so many guns around means that crazy people can get them too easily.

It's much better to cut the whole thing out and just take all the guns away...

Go ahead. Ignore everything people say when it doesn't fit your arguement.

Typical gun-control nutter behavior.

[Jassysworth 1]

I didn't say ''everyone who owns a gun is guilty of going on a shooting sprees and should be punished as if they did.''

I said take the guns way so we don't have them in the future any more...

You are punishing people because they might one day commit a crime.

That's insane.

So most of the rest of the world where they have gun bans is insane?

[Alyekra]

You are punishing people because they might one day commit a crime.

That's insane.

So most of the rest of the world where they have gun bans is insane?

Yes.

[San-Silvacian]

He has hands. Charge him with battery.

He has a mouth. Charge him for assault.

He has a brain. Charge him for conspiracy to commit a crime.

ptty much best logik ever amirite? Also Gulags.

No... just ban the guns.

This is not a crazy idea... just do what the rest of the world does and you won't have school shootings anymore. Countries can function without guns and function better. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting in Japan or France?

Do you really want to live in a country where some crazy kid could go on a shooting spree at any time because you give him the tools? No matter how much you ''regulate,'' having so many guns around means that crazy people can get them too easily.

It's much better to cut the whole thing out and just take all the guns away...

a guy in China killed 20-30 students with a knife iirc.

And you've hit the nail on the head. Gun bans are no more practical than mandatory castration.

Hardly...

Very practical, well-enforced, and long-standing gun bans have been employed and maintained in other countries. History shows this is possible.

Universal mandatory castration on the other hand, has never been done (and I hope it will never be done).

Very bad comparison here...

Sauce on gun bans? Even England allows you to have hunting shotguns.

[Xsyne]

You are punishing people because they might one day commit a crime.

That's insane.

So most of the rest of the world where they have gun bans is insane?

They don't have gun bans. They have heavy restrictions, but bans?

[Big Jim P]

And you've hit the nail on the head. Gun bans are no more practical than mandatory castration.

Hardly...

Very practical, well-enforced, and long-standing gun bans have been employed and maintained in other countries. History shows this is possible.

Universal mandatory castration on the other hand, has never been done (and I hope it will never be done).

Very bad comparison here...

You still have not addressed the need for firearms for self defense. How will you eliminate the predatory instinct?

[Big Jim P]

You are punishing people because they might one day commit a crime.

That's insane.

So most of the rest of the world where they have gun bans is insane?

No. They just place to low a value on the individual.

[Sucrati]

Therefore, by that logic, you should be prosecuted for rape.

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

Why would people need to reproduce when we should all love Big Brother?

Sarcasm aside, what you're telling us is that you have no idea that we have a natural right that is acknowledged in writing via the US Constitution (it's not a right given to us by government, don't try that). This natural right, which isn't forced upon anyone to use or invoke this right, usually is only wanted to be taken away by those who are misinformed, or seek to repress or take away the other natural rights that we have as citizens of the USA.

If you follow along with the logic that we should only have the right to keep and bear smooth bore muskets (which were 'assault rifles' of the time) via the 2nd Amendment, then our technological capacities, mainly digital, should not be allowed to express ourselves 'freely' under the protections of the 1st amendment.

So, if you wish to take away the 2nd Amendment, how would you do it? Would you seek to have it removed by constitutional methods? (Not going to happen, too many people would not allow it to happen), or would you go the tyrannical route by forcing the removal of said weapons?

Tell me, how would that work? I mean we can't find undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens) to deport them, then how would the government find all the firearms in peoples' homes and businesses? Do you honestly believe that a registry would work? Do you honestly believe that criminals, who don't follow the law as it currently stands, would abide by new laws? It's common sense to figure the answer... it would be no.

[Jassysworth 1]

So most of the rest of the world where they have gun bans is insane?

Yes.

The parochialism of the American gun lobby knows no limit...

''OMG without the guns how are we going to defend ourselves? Our country would COMPLETELY cease to function... even though most of the rest of the world can effectively enforce a gun ban while still functioning and have citizens who feel almost completely safe.''

[Big Jim P]

Yes.

The parochialism of the American gun lobby knows no limit...

''OMG without the guns how are we going to defend ourselves? Our country would COMPLETELY cease to function... even though most of the rest of the world can effectively enforce a gun ban while still functioning.''

Indeed. How will we defend ourselves? From knife, bare handed, or "other" forms of murder?

[Alyekra]

Yes.

The parochialism of the American gun lobby knows no limit...

''OMG without the guns how are we going to defend ourselves? Our country would COMPLETELY cease to function... even though most of the rest of the world can effectively enforce a gun ban while still functioning.''

No, the the governments that ban guns are morally bankrupt for punishing people for crimes the governments know the citizens didn't commit.

[Jassysworth 1]

So most of the rest of the world where they have gun bans is insane?

No. They just place to low a value on the individual.

Gun ban = placing low value on the individual?

So now America's the only country in the developed world that places a value on the individual that is not low?

[Alekera]

The parochialism of the American gun lobby knows no limit...

''OMG without the guns how are we going to defend ourselves? Our country would COMPLETELY cease to function... even though most of the rest of the world can effectively enforce a gun ban while still functioning.''

No, the the governments that ban guns are morally bankrupt for punishing people for crimes the governments know the citizens didn't commit.

Its like forcing sterility because they're afraid you might be an abusive parent... Which the vast majority of parents aren't.

[Alekera]

No. They just place to low a value on the individual.

Gun ban = placing low value on the individual?

So now America's the only country in the developed world that places a value on the individual that is not low?

For the most part, yes...

[Big Jim P]

Actually, what you should have said if you wanted to parallel the logic is ''by that logic you should take away everyone's penetrative sexual organs to prevent rape...''

The only problem with that, is that it wouldn't be very practical now would it? How are people going to reproduce?

Why would people need to reproduce when we should all love Big Brother?

Sarcasm aside, what you're telling us is that you have no idea that we have a natural right that is acknowledged in writing via the US Constitution (it's not a right given to us by government, don't try that). This natural right, which isn't forced upon anyone to use or invoke this right, usually is only wanted to be taken away by those who are misinformed, or seek to repress or take away the other natural rights that we have as citizens of the USA.

If you follow along with the logic that we should only have the right to keep and bear smooth bore muskets (which were 'assault rifles' of the time) via the 2nd Amendment, then our technological capacities, mainly digital, should not be allowed to express ourselves 'freely' under the protections of the 1st amendment.

So, if you wish to take away the 2nd Amendment, how would you do it? Would you seek to have it removed by constitutional methods? (Not going to happen, too many people would not allow it to happen), or would you go the tyrannical route by forcing the removal of said weapons?

Tell me, how would that work? I mean we can't find undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens) to deport them, then how would the government find all the firearms in peoples' homes and businesses? Do you honestly believe that a registry would work? Do you honestly believe that criminals, who don't follow the law as it currently stands, would abide by new laws? It's common sense to figure the answer... it would be no.

Two point you mentioned:

The right to self defense: That is one of the few rights I consider natural, as in that it is found in nature: All living things will defend their right to live.

The Second Amendment: Gun control supporters: there is a mechanism in place for you to legally ban the private ownership of firearms. Amend the Constitution.