Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

as stated in my first post to this chain, yes it is a cultural issue. there is still no infringement on possession by not mass producing. as long as possession itself is not outright banned, non-manufacture and sale in no way prevents anyone from possessing what they may fabricate for themselves with their own craft and skill.

So, I can own it, but I can't buy it or make it? In other words, I can't own it. It does prevent people who are not gunsmiths from owning guns. And since not everyone is a gunsmith...

The gunsmiths could 'give them away' in exchange for 'donations'…

[Des-Bal]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps any argument. Our forefathers risked life, limb and honor for the rights we have because of that document, and no self respecting American should disrespect it in the way so many do.

The document is designed to be changed. That's why the twenty first amendment just calls the eighteenth amendment an asshole. In fact reinterpreting and changing the constitution is actually why we have so many of the rights we do.

[Nua Corda]

Seriously, "Because Constitution" is almost as bad as "Because yes". There are much better arguments.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps any argument. Our forefathers risked life, limb and honor for the rights we have because of that document, and no self respecting American should disrespect it in the way so many do.

The Constitution can be changed. Has been over 20 times. It's designed to be a living document. Not to mention that in the context of a theoretical debate, current laws are irrelevant.

[The Horror Channel]

I fail to see how he's proven that your sweeping, offensive and ignorant generalization is true in any way.

You're welcome.

If you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation, I suggest you stop wasting space.



suggest all you want, i'll keep posting.

[Grinning Dragon]

What does morality have anything to do with this? Morals are subjective.

absolutely everything. and no they are not. morality is not screwing everything up for everyone. there is nothing subjective about that.

I see, so it is of high moral importance to force your morals and screw up everyone's right to keep and bear arms, mmk got it.

[R0MAN0VA]

Seriously, "Because Constitution" is almost as bad as "Because yes". There are much better arguments.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps any argument. Our forefathers risked life, limb and honor for the rights we have because of that document, and no self respecting American should disrespect it in the way so many do.

D^mn straight

[Chernobl]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps any argument. Our forefathers risked life, limb and honor for the rights we have because of that document, and no self respecting American should disrespect it in the way so many do.

The Constitution can be changed. Has been over 20 times. It's designed to be a living document. Not to mention that in the context of a theoretical debate, current laws are irrelevant.

I understand that. But I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. Why? because it is a natural right. Just like being able to own a weapon for defense, or whatever other legal purpose you wish to own it for. I own an AR-15 and it has never killed or hurt a single person. I like to take it to the range when I go because it is fun to shoot. Why can't I have that?

[Kaylea]

[snip]

anyway my point before was that guns are for killing things which is why they should be banned. assault weapons might not be involved in most gun crimes, but why would they be when handguns are more easily available? all guns should be banned

this argument is so bad that they meet it head on with all their anti-government revolution gusto because of how BAD it is.

Why is it bad? Well, first and foremost SOME PEOPLE NEED GUNS. Some people who aren't in the police or the military, even. Because there are people who have to protect their livelihood (and no, I'm not even talking about defending themselves from a rapist/murderer/robber, I'm talking defending their farm/ranch from four-legged predators) who should have guns.

Killing things is not an inherently bad thing. Even if you think it IS morals are subjective and I have no qualms about killing the bear that is charging towards me before he rips me to shreds.

ok then, some people may need guns in non-urban areas. but i don't think most people should have one because they don't have the same circumstances.

[Nua Corda]

If you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation, I suggest you stop wasting space.

suggest all you want, i'll keep posting.

So, let me ask just one simple question:

Are you actually intended to add to the discussion, or are you just trying to annoy people for fun?

[Des-Bal]

I understand that. But I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. Why? because it is a natural right. Just like being able to own a weapon for defense, or whatever other legal purpose you wish to own it for. I own an AR-15 and it has never killed or hurt a single person. I like to take it to the range when I go because it is fun to shoot. Why can't I have that?

We have limitations on the first amendment. You can't make direct threats, you can't incite a riot, you can't tell someone to break the law.

[Alyekra]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps any argument. Our forefathers risked life, limb and honor for the rights we have because of that document, and no self respecting American should disrespect it in the way so many do.

The Constitution can be changed. Has been over 20 times. It's designed to be a living document. Not to mention that in the context of a theoretical debate, current laws are irrelevant.

There is only one living document, and it ain't the constitution.

Either way, gun control presumes guilt, which ain't how we work things here in America.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

this argument is so bad that they meet it head on with all their anti-government revolution gusto because of how BAD it is.

Why is it bad? Well, first and foremost SOME PEOPLE NEED GUNS. Some people who aren't in the police or the military, even. Because there are people who have to protect their livelihood (and no, I'm not even talking about defending themselves from a rapist/murderer/robber, I'm talking defending their farm/ranch from four-legged predators) who should have guns.

Killing things is not an inherently bad thing. Even if you think it IS morals are subjective and I have no qualms about killing the bear that is charging towards me before he rips me to shreds.

ok then, some people may need guns in non-urban areas. but i don't think most people should have one because they don't have the same circumstances.

You are making… zero sense. What makes rapists less deserving of a slug than a fox?

[Chernobl]

Have some patriotism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4KcJTP8nW8

(It's better if you're from Vermont...)

[Chernobl]

I understand that. But I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. Why? because it is a natural right. Just like being able to own a weapon for defense, or whatever other legal purpose you wish to own it for. I own an AR-15 and it has never killed or hurt a single person. I like to take it to the range when I go because it is fun to shoot. Why can't I have that?

We have limitations on the first amendment. You can't make direct threats, you can't incite a riot, you can't tell someone to break the law.

Go kill someone. Go rob a bank. Go throw a chair though your neighbors window. Where's the FBI?

[The Horror Channel]

suggest all you want, i'll keep posting.

So, let me ask just one simple question:

Are you actually intended to add to the discussion, or are you just trying to annoy people for fun?

How, exactly, am I annoying you?

[Nua Corda]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps any argument. Our forefathers risked life, limb and honor for the rights we have because of that document, and no self respecting American should disrespect it in the way so many do.

D^mn straight

The Constitution is a living, changing document written by people we would consider total scumbags today. It's a tool, not a holy relic. I see no reason to treat it with any special respect.

The Constitution can be changed. Has been over 20 times. It's designed to be a living document. Not to mention that in the context of a theoretical debate, current laws are irrelevant.

I understand that. But I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. Why? because it is a natural right. Just like being able to own a weapon for defense, or whatever other legal purpose you wish to own it for. I own an AR-15 and it has never killed or hurt a single person. I like to take it to the range when I go because it is fun to shoot. Why can't I have that?

All of that is true. But it's not a justification for using "Because Constitution" as an arguement. You would be safer making the arguement that it's a natural right.

this argument is so bad that they meet it head on with all their anti-government revolution gusto because of how BAD it is.

Why is it bad? Well, first and foremost SOME PEOPLE NEED GUNS. Some people who aren't in the police or the military, even. Because there are people who have to protect their livelihood (and no, I'm not even talking about defending themselves from a rapist/murderer/robber, I'm talking defending their farm/ranch from four-legged predators) who should have guns.

Killing things is not an inherently bad thing. Even if you think it IS morals are subjective and I have no qualms about killing the bear that is charging towards me before he rips me to shreds.

ok then, some people may need guns in non-urban areas. but i don't think most people should have one because they don't have the same circumstances.

What's something you do for fun?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

I understand that. But I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. Why? because it is a natural right. Just like being able to own a weapon for defense, or whatever other legal purpose you wish to own it for. I own an AR-15 and it has never killed or hurt a single person. I like to take it to the range when I go because it is fun to shoot. Why can't I have that?

We have limitations on the first amendment. You can't make direct threats, you can't incite a riot, you can't tell someone to break the law.

Of course you can.

[Nua Corda]

So, let me ask just one simple question:

Are you actually intended to add to the discussion, or are you just trying to annoy people for fun?

How, exactly, am I annoying you?

Answer the question. Are you trying to provoke people, or add to the discussion?

[Chernobl]

D^mn straight

The Constitution is a living, changing document written by people we would consider total scumbags today. It's a tool, not a holy relic. I see no reason to treat it with any special respect.

I understand that. But I don't see anyone trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. Why? because it is a natural right. Just like being able to own a weapon for defense, or whatever other legal purpose you wish to own it for. I own an AR-15 and it has never killed or hurt a single person. I like to take it to the range when I go because it is fun to shoot. Why can't I have that?

All of that is true. But it's not a justification for using "Because Constitution" as an arguement. You would be safer making the arguement that it's a natural right.

The Constitution is based off the Natural Rights as stated by John Locke.

[Cameroi]

as stated in my first post to this chain, yes it is a cultural issue. there is still no infringement on possession by not mass producing. as long as possession itself is not outright banned, non-manufacture and sale in no way prevents anyone from possessing what they may fabricate for themselves with their own craft and skill.

So, I can own it, but I can't buy it or make it? In other words, I can't own it. It does prevent people who are not gunsmiths from owning guns. And since not everyone is a gunsmith...

not one single gunsmith was born already knowing his trade. you want a gun, get an education.

[Kaylea]

ok then, some people may need guns in non-urban areas. but i don't think most people should have one because they don't have the same circumstances.

You are making… zero sense. What makes rapists less deserving of a slug than a fox?

rapists are more deserving, obv, but if personal safety is a serious everyday consideration and the risk to other people is small then i could see a rationale for some people owning guns.

i don't think normal people in cities are in that grave a danger, not enough to warrant giving them a weapon that could itself be used to harm others. or enough to escalate the severity of existing violence

[Nua Corda]

The Constitution can be changed. Has been over 20 times. It's designed to be a living document. Not to mention that in the context of a theoretical debate, current laws are irrelevant.

There is only one living document, and it ain't the constitution.

A living document or dynamic document is a document that is continually edited and updated. A simple example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that permits anyone to freely edit its articles, in contrast to "dead" or "static" documents, such as an article in a single edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.
This is different than an evergreen document that is written in a way that is relevant to a specific audience over a long period of time, and does not change. This relevance comes from a universal acceptance or application of document contents.
However, a living document may evolve through updates, be expanded as needed, and serve a different purpose over time. Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document decay depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document.

Sounds like the Constitution to me.

[Alyekra]

There is only one living document, and it ain't the constitution.

A living document or dynamic document is a document that is continually edited and updated. A simple example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that permits anyone to freely edit its articles, in contrast to "dead" or "static" documents, such as an article in a single edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.
This is different than an evergreen document that is written in a way that is relevant to a specific audience over a long period of time, and does not change. This relevance comes from a universal acceptance or application of document contents.
However, a living document may evolve through updates, be expanded as needed, and serve a different purpose over time. Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document decay depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document.

Sounds like the Constitution to me.

Oh, okay. You're right. gg.

And my actual argument?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

You are making… zero sense. What makes rapists less deserving of a slug than a fox?

rapists are more deserving, obv, but if personal safety is a serious everyday consideration and the risk to other people is small then i could see a rationale for some people owning guns.

i don't think normal people in cities are in that grave a danger, not enough to warrant giving them a weapon that could itself be used to harm others. or enough to escalate the severity of existing violence

Guess what is A) More often used to that extent B) Not covered by the AWB, C) Used to commit more crimes that 'Assault Weapons'?
Baseball bats.

[Nua Corda]

The Constitution is a living, changing document written by people we would consider total scumbags today. It's a tool, not a holy relic. I see no reason to treat it with any special respect.



All of that is true. But it's not a justification for using "Because Constitution" as an arguement. You would be safer making the arguement that it's a natural right.

The Constitution is based off the Natural Rights as stated by John Locke.

So use Lockean theory to argue your points, not a changeable law.

So, I can own it, but I can't buy it or make it? In other words, I can't own it. It does prevent people who are not gunsmiths from owning guns. And since not everyone is a gunsmith...

not one single gunsmith was born already knowing his trade. you want a gun, get an education.

Not everyone has the skill, or the time, or the tools. If I'm simply not good with my hands, that's no reason I shouldn't be able to own a gun. Not to mention that homemade guns tend to be very unsafe.