robotkarateman - 2013-03-23
Gun laws didn't contribute to those kids being stupid.
|
|
|
EvilHomer - 2013-03-23 Better ban assault rifles.
|
Toenails - 2013-03-24 Why? It would be better to ban assault WEAPONS.
|
|
Toenails - 2013-03-24 I have a buddy who forgets the definition of legal terms when he argues about gun control with me also.
He's all "Isn't every weapon that you use in an assault an Assault Weapon? Better ban cigarettes because they assault more people than a gun ever would!"
Needless to say, he wins every argument by acting stupid in an attempt to make me look stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
|
|
StanleyPain - 2013-03-24 @memedumpster Nah, the argument usually boils down to "X wouldn't do any good against Y so it's better to just let Y happen and not try doing anything about it."
|
Callamon - 2013-03-24
A little off topic but something I have been pondering lately. According to the constitution and the purpose of the second amendment mean that the only weapons that should be totally protected and legal are weapons of war? assault weapons and such. Shouldn't it be much easier to ban hand guns and sporting rifles and shotguns according to the spirit of the constitution ?
|
William Burns - 2013-03-24 Most modern "weapons of war" are already illegal or highly controlled: Tank cannons, ballistic warheads, hand grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, ect. Extending that list to include "simiautomatic rifles with a removable magazine" doesn't sound like a breach of legal precedent to me. Going further off-topic, what has having an armed militia gotten us? Near defeat in the war of 1812, the KKK, heavily-armed right wing militias, heavily-armed street gangs, a militarization of law enforcement, a political strengthening of the arms manufacturers that help keep up in a state of constant war, etc...
|
SteamPoweredKleenex - 2013-03-24 Not to mention that it's getting to the point where handguns are just as dangerous as heavier armaments. The Fort Hood shooting used a handgun that's used in the military and law enforcement and (surprise, surprise) does a brisk business in private sales, especially when it's pointed out that these guns can carry bullets that can pierce some kevlar body armor.
The NRA responded that the bullets designed to go through kevlar are illegal, but the Brady Foundation said they'd been able to breach armor with it as-is. The NRA poo-poo'ed their tests, and they replied that they'd be happy to let LaPierre put on a kevlar vest and test it for himself, which (naturally) he hasn't done.
|
Register or login To Post a Comment |