State and local governments cannot ban all firearms after McDonald v. Chicago.
This description is so completely inaccruate it’s silly. I had a roomate from Boston. He was totally anti-gun, then we shot assault rifles at my house and he switched his stance. Said it wasn’t the way he’d always believed with all the negative connotation.
I’m explaining sex to virgins at this point.
Ok, well they can heavily restrict them, or effectively ban them with stringent permit. So that works too.
Somebody has to, right?
I didn’t say you made the argument up, just that it doesn’t hold water. Anyhow, governments are a social construct that sets punishment based on social impact. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If your counter point is that killing a homeless person has the same social impact as parking illegally, then fine, you’re obviously clueless and resorting to ignorant “satire” in absense of a real point. Much like your nuclear weapons argument.
Because despite reiterating nonsense, you still failed to make a logical argument.
Nevertheless, I’ve never had a conversation with an extreme gun lover that could simply answer the question of why we need assault rifles. Because they’re fun? So are drugs. You can defend your home just fine (and many would agrue better) with handguns or shotguns. And, if you need an assault rifle for hunting I’d ask you nicely to stop hunting humans.
The only viable defense for assault rifles are zombies.
Again, you’re talking out your ass about things you’ve never used and know less than nothing about outside of call of duty.
Really? Because you completely ignored this valid argument as you lacked a rebuttal.
I’m getting tired of mopping the floor with someone who has yet to construct and standby a logical argument using reasoning or remotely accurate facts.
People validly talk about things they don’t know all the time. Like rape - no one I know has been raped. So should I have no opinion?
I mean, I’m fine with people having an opinion about gun control or whatever. It’s just that certain people here are becoming quite condescending, and that is unpleasant. It makes AF worse.
This is a more complicated than rape.
But if you’re recommending legislature on a constitutional topic without any concept of what you’re actually discussing, I think it’s fair to recommend at least being knowledgeable.
And I do admit I’m getting condescending, when I take the time to respond with a logical argument and actual facts, I get annoyed when people just slap together a sloppy opinion based on neither and present it as a rebuttal. I feel like they’re disrespecting my time and it’s frustrating.
So you’re saying our government has done a good job of punishing people based on the social impact of the crime? Seriously, are you on dope? How about any countless examples of violent offenders being sent to jail for a few years while non-violent offenders get dozens? Does that fit your model of justice based on social impact? What about Lindsay Lohen!?! (Partially joking there)
Now, you’re telling me you’re comfortable taking our system and giving them the power to increase or decrease a person’s punishment based on how they felt when they did it? It’s not enough to convict someone of murder, you need to convince a jury they did it because they really hated the guy? Why? Either way the guy’s dead. The impact to society is the exact same.
Mopping the floor. BS you keep using the word “logic.” The irony is killing me.
Facts? You’re stating opinions. Assault rifles being good for home defense and hunting is an opinion. Crimes should be punished based on societal impact is an opinion. You’re talking out of your ass.
It’s not like you’re citing sources.
Getting back to the kid in the original story, when does writing about wanting to commit a crime become “attempting” that crime? I would love to rob a bank (and get away with it). If I come up with a plan to do it and write it down, am I guilty of attempted robbery? What if my plan includes using poison darts shot from a blow gun but I don’t actually have poison darts, I just have an old piece of hollow bamboo that I have started making into a blow gun?
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that he will be sentenced for attempted murder or assault. He will probably be found guilty for some kind of hate crime though.
I never said they did a “good job”. Nor did I say it was based on “how they felt when they did it.” LOL are you serious! Look up the definition of hate crime, because that’s not what defines it.
“In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes ) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender identity.”
You routinely argue things you don’t even know the meaning of. That’s the lack of general understanding I’m refering to.
The government is assigning this a punishment based on social impact. Hate crimes can create societal rifts that can turn viral and create situations like the LA Riots. This is why the heavy punishment.
And you brought up these vague concepts of violent vs nonviolent offenders as if they overturned my point. Do you seriously not understand how a number of Bernie Maddoffs or Jeff Skillings that is similar to the number of violent offenders would have a much greater impact on society. Often deterrants are raised for crimes that could otherwise proliferate as well. To the extent that a non-violent crime may be worse than a violent crime for society, the punishment is often more severe, and rightfully so. You used violent vs non-violent sentancing as your example, but again, failed to provide any logical backing for why this must be. Your view is simplistic at best, or in the case of your understanding of hate crimes you’ve been postulating about, it’s just uninformed.
No, you said you can’t use AR for hunting. That is factually false.
How can you argue they aren’t ideal for home defense, yet in the same breath argue they are the most effective weapon. That is logically silly.
You mentioned shooting hundreds of rounds and destroying concrete walls thousands of yards away with currently available AR’s. This is factually wrong and silly, you may as well say they could be used to destroy the moon.
You also continually ignore the stated purpose of the 2nd ammendment as written in the constitution, and ignore that argument. That is weak, it also speaks to your overall lack of a clue regarding firearms.
You don’t know what you’re talking about it and it routinely shows. Again, you came back with nothing but a quick and relatively pointless response that ignores the points I’ve made.
My source is 22 years shooting firearms of all types (AR’s included), and attending several defense clinics in college.
“No, you’re talking out your ass!” Good one, somehow I thought you were more clever than that.
3
Obviously not. We do have to draw the line somewhere. The real crux of the argument is where the line is.
And I’m really a libertarian with a little “L”. Not an Ayn Rand acolyte.
What exactly is an assault rifle? How does it functionally differ from a hunting rifle? I know they have a pistol grip, and they look more like a military-style weapon, but what’s the real difference in how they function? And how would this have prevented the Columbine/Aurora/Newtown disasters?
I was in the Marine Corps. I have fired M-16’s, M-249 SAW’s, M-4’s, and M-240G’s. None of them can demolish a concrete wall from a couple thousand yards away. (The M-2 .50-caliber machine gun could–that was a beastly weapon.) And even if you wanted to own a .50 caliber machine gun, it would be illegal, under current laws, to have a fully automatic one.
I certainly hope you’re speaking in hyperbole. It’s becoming more and more clear that you do not understand what you’re talking about.
I think he is speaking in hyperbole, but I think he does have a point. If the goal of the 2nd amendment is to provide for a militia, then why not anti materiel rifles, howitzers, and more lethal equipment?
Home defense is not the only reason why the 2nd amendment exists, it clearly grants the right to arms so that a militia can be created, and we are simply interpreting what “arms” entails. The notion that arms are those for “home defense against muggers” is purely a recent opinion.
*Not sure why I’m wading into this discussion…too late*