ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[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?

[Resheph]

As an aside, the original intent of free speech was to allow citizens to speak out against their government without fear of reprisal. Following this thought process led to the laws stated preventing certain types of speech from being 'free'.

Bringing up free speech only hurts the pro-gun crowd because if speech can be censored (within reason) without specifics being in the Constitution, guns can also be limited in the same manner. The catch with gun control is that you simply cannot fight the US military if the soldiers do as commanded. You let loose a few RPGs and they carpetbomb your town. It's not even a contest.

[Humerox]

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

As an aside, the original intent of free speech was to allow citizens to speak out against their government without fear of reprisal. Following this thought process led to the laws stated preventing certain types of speech from being 'free'.

Bringing up free speech only hurts the pro-gun crowd because if speech can be censored (within reason) without specifics being in the Constitution, guns can also be limited in the same manner. The catch with gun control is that you simply cannot fight the US military if the soldiers do as commanded. You let loose a few RPGs and they carpetbomb your town. It's not even a contest.

Well said.

[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

[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 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?

[Resheph]

OK, I'm going back to work. Auto, no idea who you are in-game and I'm not going to avoid you or anything, but talking to you here is not unlike smashing my face into a concrete floor, painful and completely pointless.

[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.

[Vellatri]

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

See..now that's an argument that could fly. The problem is...and think about this one...that argument would do gun owners more harm than it would good.

Would you agree?

No. Even if it would, it's still the law. It's our civic duty to uphold the law even when we don't feel it benefits us personally.

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

]

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

The only legal way to "re-interpret" an amendment is to ratify it. The states and the people have the duty to defy anything short of that.