Let me first of all say, your poll is stupid. I mean that in the most literal sense of the word. I can support the 2nd Amendment, the idea of gun control, and disagree with you all at the same time while remaining philosophically consistent.
Posts like this are the reason that I can never seem to vote Republican. Even when I agree with their policy someone like [MENTION=9924]Afeared[/MENTION]; or [MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; comes along and I immediately decide to vote against whoever they support or against whatever issue they support. It's not because I necessarily disagree with their beliefs, but you guys are paranoid as pineapple. Your arguments are so convoluted and your attitudes so abrasive that I want to vote against you just because you guys act crazy. Try to tone it down a little and make calm, reasoned arguments instead of leaping to the apocalyptic scenario where Obama MUST be the next Hitler because he opposes certain types of guns or even all guns.
I'm going to apologize for the tone now because I could probably say that better (less offensively), but I can't deny believing it though I may revise my opinion as it applies to Flonne and IAmFear. I fully admit to not knowing you all that well and this judgment is solely based on the relatively few posting I have seen here on SouthPerry.
On to the actual top of banning assault weapons and extended magazine/clips:
Background-
I am a gun owner from a family of gun owners. My fire arm is not registered and probably has very little paperwork to lead to me. I have no intention of registering the gun nor any future weapons I may chose to purchase. The gun is not on the list or even similar to those under consideration for ban by this legislation.
Thoughts-
I am of two minds when it comes to this type of discussion. I want myself and other rational, lawabiding individuals to be able to own guns for recreational and defensive purposes; however I do not want mentally disturbed or criminal people to have guns.
Since the government can never truly prevent 100% of the people who shouldn't have guns (mentally disturbed or criminal people), compromises must be made about the availability of guns to all citizens. I have no use for nor can conceive of any use for a 50 caliber gun in civilian hands. I chose this example for hyperbole because very few people would object to the laws preventing this or those preventing private ownership of say a F16 fighter jet. It's just insane. If any person of diminished mental capacity or sufficiently criminal inclination obtained said weapons, the potential for loss of life far outweighs the necessity of 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. It certainly wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote them.
Accepting that premise, the question becomes where do we draw the line? At what point does the destructive capacity of the arms and potential loss of life outweigh the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves?
I'm not entirely convinced that this question has one right answer. As always, statistics can be used to support or attack the idea of civilian ownership of assault weapons and extended clips. The recent mass shootings are certainly cause for concern and merit investigation for possible reevaluation of current laws and regulations concerning gun control.
I believe that further research needs to be done on how people like the shooters are able to obtain such weapons, legally or illegally, and that is what we must prevent. The grim reality is that assault weapons and extended magazine do increase the body counts in shootings. That is, after all, why they were invented.
The question I pose now is for those who truly believe that citizens deserve the right to assault weapons and extended magazines. Why do you believe normal law abiding citizens need these weapons? I simply can't think of a reason.
Regardless of the passing or failure of the proposed or similar legislature, the world is in all likelihood not going to end. This is not the brink of disaster. This is not the beginning of an Evil Empire or Civil War or WW3. Our country is far too moderate for any of that kind of bullpomegranate so stop trying to scare people into agreeing with you and your Slippery Slope.
P.S. As one of the people who help build the drones, I wonder how exactly they pertain to this discussion? Is it some sort of allusion to hypocrisy or am I completely missing it?
EDIT: slight mistaken identity... completely stupid.
Posts like this are the reason that I can never seem to vote Republican. Even when I agree with their policy someone like [MENTION=9924]Afeared[/MENTION]; or [MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; comes along and I immediately decide to vote against whoever they support or against whatever issue they support. It's not because I necessarily disagree with their beliefs, but you guys are paranoid as pineapple. Your arguments are so convoluted and your attitudes so abrasive that I want to vote against you just because you guys act crazy. Try to tone it down a little and make calm, reasoned arguments instead of leaping to the apocalyptic scenario where Obama MUST be the next Hitler because he opposes certain types of guns or even all guns.
Afeared Wrote:Hitler also passed laws prohibiting Jews from owning guns in 1938, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED IN 1939!This statement alone shows the complete irrationality of your argument and makes me want to slap you.
I'm going to apologize for the tone now because I could probably say that better (less offensively), but I can't deny believing it though I may revise my opinion as it applies to Flonne and IAmFear. I fully admit to not knowing you all that well and this judgment is solely based on the relatively few posting I have seen here on SouthPerry.
On to the actual top of banning assault weapons and extended magazine/clips:
Background-
I am a gun owner from a family of gun owners. My fire arm is not registered and probably has very little paperwork to lead to me. I have no intention of registering the gun nor any future weapons I may chose to purchase. The gun is not on the list or even similar to those under consideration for ban by this legislation.
Thoughts-
I am of two minds when it comes to this type of discussion. I want myself and other rational, lawabiding individuals to be able to own guns for recreational and defensive purposes; however I do not want mentally disturbed or criminal people to have guns.
Since the government can never truly prevent 100% of the people who shouldn't have guns (mentally disturbed or criminal people), compromises must be made about the availability of guns to all citizens. I have no use for nor can conceive of any use for a 50 caliber gun in civilian hands. I chose this example for hyperbole because very few people would object to the laws preventing this or those preventing private ownership of say a F16 fighter jet. It's just insane. If any person of diminished mental capacity or sufficiently criminal inclination obtained said weapons, the potential for loss of life far outweighs the necessity of 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. It certainly wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote them.
Accepting that premise, the question becomes where do we draw the line? At what point does the destructive capacity of the arms and potential loss of life outweigh the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves?
I'm not entirely convinced that this question has one right answer. As always, statistics can be used to support or attack the idea of civilian ownership of assault weapons and extended clips. The recent mass shootings are certainly cause for concern and merit investigation for possible reevaluation of current laws and regulations concerning gun control.
I believe that further research needs to be done on how people like the shooters are able to obtain such weapons, legally or illegally, and that is what we must prevent. The grim reality is that assault weapons and extended magazine do increase the body counts in shootings. That is, after all, why they were invented.
The question I pose now is for those who truly believe that citizens deserve the right to assault weapons and extended magazines. Why do you believe normal law abiding citizens need these weapons? I simply can't think of a reason.
Regardless of the passing or failure of the proposed or similar legislature, the world is in all likelihood not going to end. This is not the brink of disaster. This is not the beginning of an Evil Empire or Civil War or WW3. Our country is far too moderate for any of that kind of bullpomegranate so stop trying to scare people into agreeing with you and your Slippery Slope.
P.S. As one of the people who help build the drones, I wonder how exactly they pertain to this discussion? Is it some sort of allusion to hypocrisy or am I completely missing it?
EDIT: slight mistaken identity... completely stupid.