ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If we are going to interpret which guns people can and can't have, then perhaps we should interpret what free speech people can and can't say.

We already do.

* Go to the movies and yell 'fire!', lemme know how that turns out for ya.
* Catch a flight to... well, anywhere. Tell a random passenger you have a bomb. Talk to you in 20 years.
* Go to a beach and yell 'shark!' in the summer. I want a video.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We already do.

* Go to the movies and yell 'fire!', lemme know how that turns out for ya.
* Catch a flight to... well, anywhere. Tell a random passenger you have a bomb. Talk to you in 20 years.
* Go to a beach and yell 'shark!' in the summer. I want a video.

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

I'm not saying anything you're saying is illegal. I'm simply pointing out that free speech has, indeed, been limited in scope.

This thread is something I come to when bored. TBH it's a pointless argument because those who are dead-set on their argument won't listen to anyone else and those in the middle have no argument because people either a) agree with them and don't need convincing or b) are so stuck on their own views they're impossible to convince.

It's like religion. You can point out fallacies in someone's religion for a decade and not get anywhere. Same for politics.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

So it's OK with you to limit the First Amendment...which is much clearer than the Second...yet no one can do anything to define and understand more clearly what the Second Amendment really means?

Srs?

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So it's OK with you to limit the First Amendment...which is much clearer than the Second...yet no one can do anything to define and understand more clearly what the Second Amendment really means?

Srs?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm showing you how the first has already been fucked over. I'm asking why not go further and ban harsh language so people aren't pushed to these types of crimes?

Let's ban harsh language so people's feelings don't get hurt. It will be as effective as banning any fire arm or magazine and the odds of people obeying it are similar.

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not what I'm saying, I'm showing you how the first has already been fucked over. I'm asking why not go further and ban harsh language so people aren't pushed to these types of crimes?

Let's ban harsh language so people's feelings don't get hurt. It will be as effective as banning any fire arm or magazine and the odds of people obeying it are similar.

* Harsh language
* Hand gestures
* Written words
* Looks. No, srsly, the way people look at one another

You are so hard-up for guns that you're actually suggesting human beings should be put in rooms, alone, with no communication or contact. You expect us to take you seriously, really?

Fun fact: my cousin went to prison for beating an elderly couple nearly to death with a baseball bat... because they breathed too loud. I shit you not.

You can limit the risk of someone being shot with a weapon, or limit the number of people shot with a weapon, but limiting how people react to something is much, much harder. Impossible, really.

Also, bam: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-siblings?lite

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

* Harsh language
* Hand gestures
* Written words
* Looks. No, srsly, the way people look at one another

You are so hard-up for guns that you're actually suggesting human beings should be put in rooms, alone, with no communication or contact. You expect us to take you seriously, really?

Fun fact: my cousin went to prison for beating an elderly couple nearly to death with a baseball bat... because they breathed too loud. I shit you not.

You can limit the risk of someone being shot with a weapon, or limit the number of people shot with a weapon, but limiting how people react to something is much, much harder. Impossible, really.

Also, bam: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-siblings?lite

Never said that they be put in rooms.

I said, why shouldn't the US government pass a law to keep people from using harsh language, thus forcing people to be nice to others to prevent people from being pushed to mass shootings.

I'm not suggesting it be implemented, I'm asking (for the 3rd or 4th time now because it's been dodged) why not pass this law?

This assault weapon ban is a ban on a type of weapon that has been shown to be rarely used in gun violent crimes compared to all gun violent crimes. So why try to ban this weapon compared to the weapons that contribute the most gun violence?

If it's because this type of weapon was used in a few school shootings, why not ban the words and actions that pushed those people to committing these crimes? The 1st has already been butchered previously, so there isn't any debate whether they can or can't push this through, yeah?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not what I'm saying, I'm showing you how the first has already been fucked over. I'm asking why not go further and ban harsh language so people aren't pushed to these types of crimes?

Let's ban harsh language so people's feelings don't get hurt. It will be as effective as banning any fire arm or magazine and the odds of people obeying it are similar.

Why do that and not legally define what arms we can bear under the Constitution?

Banning "harsh language" is a further encroachment on the First Amendment whereas a clear legal definition of the Second isn't an encroachment at all.

And...a clear legal definition of what your rights under the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment are will better help protect them.

Right?

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do that and not legally define what arms we can bear under the Constitution?

Banning "harsh language" is a further encroachment on the First Amendment whereas a clear legal definition of the Second isn't an encroachment at all.

And...a clear legal definition of what your rights under the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment are will better help protect them.

Right?

Mainly because the weapons of today may not be the weapons of tomorrow, or are you forgetting your argument as to why the 2nd doesn't need to apply today like it did when they wrote it.

[Autotune]

as for the story that was linked, there were only 5 people.

Are you suggesting that he was only capable of committing that crime with that weapon?

I can assure you any number of non"assault style" weapon could have been used.