ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[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.

[Autotune]

For the record, I don't personally own any rifle. I have a pistol that holds 17rounds normally. I own two 17 round magazines and two 20 round magazines for it.

To suggest that an assault weapon ban would have stopped that kid from killing those people is ignorant. There are an array of weapons that do not fall into the "assault weapon" category that can be as destructive or even more destructive.

The problem is, that you people are so blinded by your limited point that you don't comprehend what people are telling you.

It's like this.

Pens are causing papers to burst into flames after being wrote on. Well, blue pens are the most popular pen color people choose to own, yet black pens are the major culprits of papers bursting into flames. Let's ban these blue pens because they were used to set multiple paper fires at a movie theater and a school, where as the black pens are generally only used on the streets despite the fact that more paper fires are set with black pens.

This will help curb the paper fires greatly...

[Lexical]

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

We were arguing about how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now it's nice that you put the Constitution up there for us...but you left out the Second Amendment.

No, we were discussing your clear lack of understanding of constitutional law regardless of school of thought. You ignorantly thought that since people interpret the constitution differently that somehow your flagrant and rampant assertions are valid. Either that or you confused me with Stealin.

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

When we started all this you seemed pretty intelligent, but you've devolved into something that spits out ad hominem like Skittles.

I have intelligent discussions as long as my peer is able to possess one. When I find my peer so fervent on the subject they are unable to listen or if I find that my positions are being discarded for no justifiable reasons other than my peer being unable to answer it or if the situation is one in which intellectual progress can not be made, then I no longer continue in such a manner. Originally when we started this debate, you seemed intelligent enough and so I engaged you as an intelligent individual. You have not shown the same rhetoric in this thread and generally made child like taunts, just didn't listen, or used ad hominem and straw man tactics. I find my ad hominem well suited to your "arguments" in this thread as you behaved illogically and childishly.

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

And I have yet to see you post any real scientific argument that supports your opinions. You regurgitate other links people have (like using the NRA analyst to support gun statistics) posted without even taking the time to read them. How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing. You might want to start doing that yourself. You may learn something.

You are right! There is no real scientific evidence for my argument. There is also no real scientific evidence for yours. Yet, I claimed, many times in fact, that such a thing was impossible(with today's technology. I felt like I needed to add that in). All either side has in sociological studies is correlation via statistical evidence.

Vellatri posted an NRA unofficial analyst's article and then verified them through the proper crime statistics. Just because the man's position might be pro-NRA does not mean that his study is biased. His statistics used more accurate metrics on the impact of assault rifle bans than the Australian article you posted. His statistics were taken from a much larger global pool making his case stronger while according to your "scientific data" I could shoot 500+ people and as long as only 4 died, it would not constitute a mass shooting. Do you honestly not see how flawed that metric is? To reiterate my point, I do no think the Australian article you posted was complete bollocks. It did make some good points, but its major point was backed by a very skewed (and probably manipulated) statistic that you have just refused to acknowledge as such since that is the only piece of "evidence" you have brought to table which honestly makes me think it is the ONLY piece of evidence you have.

Did you know I used to be for the ban of assault rifles? I really was. I looked into statistics and tried to find what evidence I could to make my case stronger since I enjoy getting into perspicacious debates with people. As I read further into things(yes I read the article Vellatri linked), I found there was not only more evidence against my original position but stronger evidence as well. I then reconsidered my position and adjusted it accordingly. Are you able to do the same? If not, then there is no reason to have an intelligent debate as it can not be made.

I am all for going back to having an intelligent discussion, but you will have to behave accordingly or I am not going to waste my time. Make your points well worded, clear and backed with evidence and reason and I will respond in kind. Act like child and I will treat you like a child.

[Resheph]

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

To suggest that an assault weapon ban would have stopped that kid from killing those people is ignorant. There are an array of weapons that do not fall into the "assault weapon" category that can be as destructive or even more destructive.

You know, Auto, I wanted to come back to tell you I've put some thought into your arguments and have decided you're right. Banning assault weapons won't help.

I hereby change my argument to this: ban ALL guns. All of them. I've already shown that the idea of citizens fighting the current US military is laughable at best, so the original idea of bearing arms to allow a revolt if need be is moot. No assault weapons, no pistols, not even flintlock.

Thank you, Auto, for pointing out the error in my logic.

[Autotune]

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

You know, Auto, I wanted to come back to tell you I've put some thought into your arguments and have decided you're right. Banning assault weapons won't help.

I hereby change my argument to this: ban ALL guns. All of them. I've already shown that the idea of citizens fighting the current US military is laughable at best, so the original idea of bearing arms to allow a revolt if need be is moot. No assault weapons, no pistols, not even flintlock.

Thank you, Auto, for pointing out the error in my logic.

At least then, you might accomplish what your mission statement is.

[Humerox]

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

I am all for going back to having an intelligent discussion, but you will have to behave accordingly or I am not going to waste my time. Make your points well worded, clear and backed with evidence and reason and I will respond in kind. Act like child and I will treat you like a child.

Behaving accordingly to you is nothing short of agreeing with your arguments, lol. When I posted that scientific study from the University of Australia you told me you didn't have the time to go back through it and refute any statistical data they used, or lay a foundation to argue the methodology they used.

You've told me more than once here that you didn't have the "time" to look into anything I showed you, so why should I waste my time arguing with you?

I won't.

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.

See the First Amendment for an example of balance, and remember that we can use the underlying principles for precedent. That's one of the reason courts exist.

[Goofier]

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

I've already shown that the idea of citizens fighting the current US military is laughable at best, so the original idea of bearing arms to allow a revolt if need be is moot.

Yeah, well, a lot of people actually IN the military might decide things need to become... 'Liberated'? But I can totally get your thought process: All military = brainwashed, therefore no chance any of them think for themselves, and all follow orders like robots.

Good luck with that, I'm hangin' on to my AK, and have a new AR on the way.

[Humerox]

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

No, we were discussing your clear lack of understanding of constitutional law regardless of school of thought. You ignorantly thought that since people interpret the constitution differently that somehow your flagrant and rampant assertions are valid.

Where did I say that I certain understanding of Constitutional law that you don't? And since people interpret the Constitution differently, it's the responsibility of the courts to clarify it.

Show me where I've argued differently.

What flagrant and ramapant assertions? The fact that I said we could interpret the Second Amendment to mean we can carry suitcase nukes and Stinger missiles? Using your logic, we can.

[Autotune]

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

Where did I say that I certain understanding of Constitutional law that you don't? And since people interpret the Constitution differently, it's the responsibility of the courts to clarify it.

Show me where I've argued differently.

What flagrant and ramapant assertions? The fact that I said we could interpret the Second Amendment to mean we can carry suitcase nukes and Stinger missiles? Using your logic, we can.

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Can you call stinger missiles firearms?
Can you call a suitcase nukes firearms?
Can you call an AR15 a firearm?
Can you call a musket a firearm?
Can you call a tank a firearm?
Can you call a RPG a firearm?

[Humerox]

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

Yeah, well, a lot of people actually IN the military might decide things need to become... 'Liberated'? But I can totally get your thought process: All military = brainwashed, therefore no chance any of them think for themselves, and all follow orders like robots.

Good luck with that, I'm hangin' on to my AK, and have a new AR on the way.

Not to be the devil's advocate...but the military didn't have any compunction about relieving gun owners of their guns in Louisiana back in 2005.

And my money says most people would give up their junk just as meekly as those people did.

Gimme Yer Guns