Democrats' first target - Hi-Cap Mags.

[tonymctones]

1. We had a assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 - was it ever challenged in the SC (I don't know which is why I'm asking you)

2. We limit peoples freedom all the time for many different reasons.  How about speed limits to start.  Shouldn't I be allowed to drive as fast as I want and anywhere that I want?

3.  The all or nothing mindset is that if we can't totally prevent this type of event (or anything) then we shouldn't bother doing anything.   You can see examples in this very thread

1.The AWB didnt even ban any guns it banned features on guns, Do you know what the aspects of that ban were? if you did you wouldnt be advocating its reinstatement, if you feel you do please tell us all how it would have prevented this tragedy?

2. We limit speed b/c there is no social benefit from it but there is social risk to it. Guns whether you want to believe it or not do have social benefits.

3. Nobody is saying do nothing, but attacking guns wont solve the problem b/c guns are not the problem...

[The True Adonis]

Also, driving on a road in a city at 120 mph you are putting people in danger.  A loaded gun in my house doesn`t pose a threat to anybody unless you decide to come in uninvited. 

So I do not get the analogy.

[Soul Crusher]

Also, driving on a road in a city at 120 mph you are putting people in danger.  A loaded gun in my house doesn`t pose a threat to anybody unless you decide to come in uninvited. 

So I do not get the analogy.

I had this same argument w my delusional pussy pansie liberal history teacher showing off his Z4 yet calling me a gun extremisit. 

I asked him: 

1.  Why should you be allowed to have a car that does almost three times the legal speed limit?
2.  Were you trained to drive 165mph?
3.  Why do you need a car that goes that fast? 
4.  Doesnt having that much power at your grip while not being trained pose a danger to other drivers? 


He defriended me and refuses to talk to me since 

[whork]

1. I was able to get an "Assault" Weapon in 2001.  An SKS with a Bayonet and a Folding Stock, no problem despite a ban.  It was never challenged, but I am pretty confident that  District of Columbia v. Heller and especially McDonald v. Chicago, both cases decided in 2010, would void any new Assault Weapon Ban.

2. Sometimes we do limit freedoms and it works, and a lot of times it doesn`t.  Like the Chicago Handgun ban.


3. We shouldn`t do anything if we already know there is evidence that it is not going to work. (Previous Assault Weapon Ban, Handgun Ban etc.-  See Above Chart)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

[Shockwave]

He defriended me and refuses to talk to me since 

Sure fire sign of an owning.

[whork]

1.The AWB didnt even ban any guns it banned features on guns, Do you know what the aspects of that ban were? if you did you wouldnt be advocating its reinstatement, if you feel you do please tell us all how it would have prevented this tragedy?

2. We limit speed b/c there is no social benefit from it but there is social risk to it. Guns whether you want to believe it or not do have social benefits.

3. Nobody is saying do nothing, but attacking guns wont solve the problem b/c guns are not the problem...

What is the social benefits of guns?

[The True Adonis]

I had this same argument w my delusional pussy pansie liberal history teacher showing off his Z4 yet calling me a gun extremisit. 

I asked him: 

1.  Why should you be allowed to have a car that does almost three times the legal speed limit?
2.  Were you trained to drive 165mph?
3.  Why do you need a car that goes that fast? 
4.  Doesnt having that much power at your grip while not being trained pose a danger to other drivers? 


He defriended me and refuses to talk to me since 

The funny thing is, he will break the law more times in that Z4 (potentially putting other people`s lives at risk) than you ever will with your gun.

[Soul Crusher]

Sure fire sign of an owning.

I got so many pm's you have no idea on that one.   They felt bad for him how bad i destroyed him on that and he resorted to calling my a sleezy lawyer w my argument  

[Soul Crusher]

The funny thing is, he will break the law more times in that Z4 (potentially putting other people`s lives at risk) than you ever will with your gun.

True -

I take my AR out maybe 4-5 times a year at best to the range.  And even then it usually w the .22 conversion kit i put on it (which is fucking awesome), and the rest of the time its in a big ass safe w gun trigger lock 

[The True Adonis]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Australia is not the United States.  What might work in Australia, doesn`t work here.  Look at the Chicago Handgun Ban, "Assault" Weapons Ban.  Both failures that did nothing.

[Straw Man]

1.The AWB didnt even ban any guns it banned features on guns, Do you know what the aspects of that ban were? if you did you wouldnt be advocating its reinstatement, if you feel you do please tell us all how it would have prevented this tragedy?

2. We limit speed b/c there is no social benefit from it but there is social risk to it. Guns whether you want to believe it or not do have social benefits.

3. Nobody is saying do nothing, but attacking guns wont solve the problem b/c guns are not the problem...

1.  I don't know the specifics of the ban but I also  know it didn't effect my life one bit either.  If you have some specific detail that you are opposed to then feel free to share
2.  who says there has to be a social benefit to my freedom.  You are the one that said "Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be." so why are you now bringing up "social benefit" and maybe it actually is beneficial for me to get where I'm going a bit faster
3.  I actually agree on this point but then I never said that "attacking guns" would solve the problem.   What I've suggested, and I'm honestly surprised I have to keep repeating this, is that it would be a small step to mitigating the damage.   The shooter is AZ was taken down only after he stopped to reload.  If he had stopped to reload after 10 or 12 shots there would be LESS people dead and injured.  It wouldn't have stopped what he did but it would have prevented more deaths.    That's something that no one can deny in that situation

[whork]

Australia is not the United States.  What might work in Australia, doesn`t work here.  Look at the Chicago Handgun Ban, "Assault" Weapons Ban.  Both failures that did nothing.

Maybe a nation wide restriction will work better.

[The True Adonis]

Also, Australia doesn`t have Black People.

[Soul Crusher]

1.  I don't know the specifics of the ban but I also  know it didn't effect my life one bit either.  If you have some specific detail that you are opposed to then feel free to share
2.  who says there has to be a social benefit to my freedom.  You are the one that said "Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be." so why are you now bringing up "social benefit" and maybe it actually is beneficial for me to get where I'm going a bit faster
3.  I actually agree on this point but then I never said that "attacking guns" would solve the problem.   What I've suggested, and I'm honestly surprised I have to keep repeating this, is that it would be a small step to mitigating the damage.   The shooter is AZ was taken down only after he stopped to reload.  If he had stopped to reload after 10 or 12 shots there would be LESS people dead and injured.  It wouldn't have stopped what he did but it would have prevented more deaths.    That's something that no one can deny in that situation

So just because it does not effect you personally since you are not a gun owner, you feel perfectly find trampling everyone elses rights?  Typical 

[Shockwave]

Australia is not the United States.  What might work in Australia, doesn`t work here.  Look at the Chicago Handgun Ban, "Assault" Weapons Ban.  Both failures that did nothing.

Which, IMHO, is a microcosm of what would happen if you banned them countrywide. In Chicago, the illegal weapons were brought in from the surrounding areas, in a complete ban, they would flood across the boarder from Mexico, just like their drugs do.

[Straw Man]

1. I was able to get an "Assault" Weapon in 2001.  An SKS with a Bayonet and a Folding Stock, no problem despite a ban.  It was never challenged, but I am pretty confident that  District of Columbia v. Heller and especially McDonald v. Chicago, both cases decided in 2010, would void any new Assault Weapon Ban.

2. Sometimes we do limit freedoms and it works, and a lot of times it doesn`t.  Like the Chicago Handgun ban.


3. We shouldn`t do anything if we already know there is evidence that it is not going to work. (Previous Assault Weapon Ban, Handgun Ban etc.-  See Above Chart)

we've got a 100% ban on drunk driving yet thousands of people are killed each year from drunk drivers

[Shockwave]

we've got a 100% ban on drunk driving yet thousands of people are killed each year from drunk drivers

I think you just defended his point.....

[The True Adonis]

Maybe a nation wide restriction will work better.

Impossible.  Against the Constitution. All of the Founding Fathers wanted its citizens to have the ability to have firearms and to never have that right infringed upon, ever.

[Straw Man]

So just because it does not effect you personally since you are not a gun owner, you feel perfectly find trampling everyone elses rights?  Typical 

I have owned guns before and I never suggested you shouldn't be allowed to own guns (although with your apparent mental problems you really shouldn't be allowed to own any)

you have no constitutional right to a specific type of gun, magazine, ammo, etc.

[whork]

Also, Australia doesn`t have Black People.

https://www.google.dk/search?q=aboriginals&hl=da&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vS_RUNfBNMvNsgbPvYHAAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=644

[Straw Man]

I think you just defended his point.....

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that even though we have law against drunk driving it does not eliminate the problem but that doesn't mean we just give up on trying to MITIGATE THE DAMAGE caused by drunk drivers

[The True Adonis]

What is the social benefits of guns?

Depends on who you ask and how they use/value their firearm.  

[whork]

Impossible.  Against the Constitution. All of the Founding Fathers wanted its citizens to have the ability to have firearms and to never have that right infringed upon, ever.

True

[tonymctones]

What is the social benefits of guns?

A society that has the ability to defend itself from fellow citizens and govt.

I think you would agree that those millions of ppl who were killed by blood thirsty rulers who first took away guns sure saw the social benefits to an armed populace.

[The True Adonis]

https://www.google.dk/search?q=aboriginals&hl=da&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vS_RUNfBNMvNsgbPvYHAAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=644

I know there are Aborigines in Australia (not as many as there are Blacks in the United States) and I also know they are a huge Problem-  In 2009 the imprisonment rate for Indigenous people was 14 times higher than that of non-Indigenous people



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime