ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit - Page 38

Humerox · #**371** 01-21-2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

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

Perhaps you are all forgetting Charles Whitman? Military trained yes, but he wasn't using the best of equipment either.

No one is going to stop all madmen. Gun legislation isn't a panacea to gun violence.

I've never said that and never will. I'd have to be crazy to think it...but I think that the proposed changes are worthwhile efforts, and better than doing nothing at all.

Autotune · #**372** 01-21-2013, 05:23 PM

Quote:

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

No one is going to stop all madmen. Gun legislation isn't a panacea to gun violence.

I've never said that and never will. I'd have to be crazy to think it...but I think that the proposed changes are worthwhile efforts, and better than doing nothing at all.

If you think, because I am trying to prove how your suggestion is ineffective that I want nothing to change then you are seriously mistaken.

Vellatri · #**373** 01-21-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

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

I think that the proposed changes are worthwhile efforts, and better than doing nothing at all.

Doing nothing at all is better than passing legislation that increases violence.

It's also better than violating the law of the land.

Humerox · #**374** 01-21-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

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

I already did, though.

I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.

Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.

I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.

Ok...lets first address the ratification business. It doesn't require state ratification to interpret the constitution...it does to amend it, yes. But we're not talking about amending it. We're talking about the fact that since the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the right to bear arms WAS an individual right (up until then the Supreme Court leaned toward the fact that it was as a militia) we don't really know what it means.

We know that if we apply it with an understanding that they mean militia, then we can expect it to mean whatever a modern militia would use.

The problem is also that people totally ignore A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does that part really mean if the right to bear arms is an individual right? Wouldn't the founding fathers have said simply that 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'? They made it awfully difficult to understand when that other part is in there.

Does that also mean that if you own arms, that you are required to be on call to a militia and bear them in defense? No one is addressing that, either. It's a pertinent question since the framers specifically included the militia in the Second Amendment.

Let me look for that study. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Resheph · #**375** 01-21-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

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

Also, there are many places that 10mins is more than enough time to shoot people and bug out before any law enforcement shows up.

It's not an issue of you 'bugging out' before the PD shows up, it's an issue of the potential victims being able to run for their lives before you off too many of them. Even with a silencer, after the 3rd person drops people will start to freak out.

Autotune · #**376** 01-21-2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

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

It's not an issue of you 'bugging out' before the PD shows up, it's an issue of the potential victims being able to run for their lives before you off too many of them. Even with a silencer, after the 3rd person drops people will start to freak out.

A wal-mart parking lot on a busy day, from the top of the building.

Freak out all you want, but anyone even remotely reliable with a decent rifle is going to drop plenty of people, regardless of them "freaking out" or not.

Autotune · #**377** 01-21-2013, 05:38 PM

Also, I don't like the term silencer. Please use suppressor lol.

Arclyte · #**378** 01-21-2013, 05:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Autotune · #**379** 01-21-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

I like this, because fuck you... i like it.

Humerox · #**380** 01-21-2013, 06:00 PM

Wrong damn thread, again.

Quote:

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

That's inaccurate in Australia.

I have two research studies here that prove otherwise. Research studies...not news reports, not biased or slanted journalism.

First...for Val.

University of Sydney

Then we have another study by:

Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada.

Now...if you guys seriously want to argue, pick those apart with equal contradictory evidence.