Gov. Rick Perry Indicted On Felony Charges

You just love that slippery slope fallacy, don't you?

EDIT: Guns serve other purposes. They are used for food hunting (and trophy hunting) as well as sport shooting. All of those harm no one. I don't see many non-devastating uses for a thermonuclear bomb. See where you jumped ship here?

So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.

It's not a slippery slope, bud, it's the crux of your argument. If you want to use the tools analogy, you have to understand what a tool is, an instrument of purpose. Just because you can jam a screwdriver into someone's face doesn't make it a parallel to guns.

And when is the last time you saw someone go subsistence hunting with a fully automatic pistol? Never, because it's worthless for hunting anything besides groups of people.

Exactly, so when someone uses a firearm to exact negative impact on another individual, they are locked up for an unspecified amount of time (depending upon the extent of the negative impact), then they are forbidden from legally purchasing or owning firearms again. Sounds to me like the 2nd Amendment is working identically to the 1st.

Did you fail basic reading comprehension?

It is guaranteed in writing that the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed, aka encroached upon, aka limited.

It's right there, in black and white. yellowish.

Yes it does, because I've fired a round several hundred times, all of which did no harm to another person. I have killed birds, mammals, reptiles and varmints. The former groups I ate, the latter I killed to protect personal property. I've used a screwdriver hundreds of times as well with no harm to others (I have slipped and injured myself several times because I'm a brute and impatient). However, there is someone out there that could use both in equally destructive manners towards another human. That's the fault of the person, not the tool.

Except that limitations on speech are almost exclusively a civil and rarely result in dozens of dead elementary students. They aren't comparable.

Comparing thermonuclear bombs to firearms. Ooookay...

The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights never envisioned the FFXIAH Forums.

Again, the legal requirements for infringement are different than the plain English definition. I highly doubt you have a better understanding of legal terms or the constitution than I do.

and I highly doubt you understand any of it, so lose the pretentious attitude and stop posturing.

Misplaced words can be equally devastating and ultimately permanent on a life. Is that always the occurrence? No, but it is possible. Like I said earlier, it society's job as a whole to educate people on the power of a tool such as a firearm, and the permanent damage it can do, when wielded improperly. Malice is still no fault of the tool itself, it's the people that disregard human life who are to blame and have their rights infringed.

It's called inflation for effect. Again, high capacity assault weapons have no other purpose than killing lots of people, that's puts them squarely outside the screwdriver category. You can chose to miss the point, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Where all the points are made up and whoever wins doesn't matter.

ftfy

How many times have I had to correct even you on these things, it's not pretentious, and we've been over the role of the supreme court dozens of times with the exact same conclusion.

You haven't corrected anything, it is pretentious, and we have been over the role, and yet you keep getting it confused time and time again.

I place no blame on the weapon, I place blame on a system that puts them in the hands of unstable people in unlimited amounts.

and yet there's no way to eliminate that without violating the rights of countless citizens. But go ahead and keep thinking the tool is the problem, and not the person using it.

The law of the land is that the supreme court are the arbiters of the constitution. Guess what, taxes aren't constitutional either, try explaining it to the IRS. If you don't like it, run for office, write your congressmen, etc. Until that power is taken away from them, they have, if not by rights, by acceptance. And, the people that have no right to make those decisions made a decision, the right to bear arms isn't immune from
regulation.

1. Wrong.
2. wrong
3. and that's why I'll keep what I want, without infringement.

The question is whether it can be regulated by any less restrictive means, limiting things like gunshow exemptions is the less restrictive means. That's the pitfall of your argument, you can't regulate weapons without infringing on people's right to own them, except you can.

Lots of people have been killed with hammers and knives, yet you don't hear anyone refer to those as "assault" hammers or "assault" knives.
Very few people own actual "assault" rifles, as they're select-fire, very expensive, rare and regulated NFA items.


That is incorrect.
Modern "assault" rifles (as you would call them) -such as AR15's- use high velocity, low caliber cartridges.
Those rounds are designed not to kill, they're meant to wound or incapacitate, which is exactly what you'd want to do with a less-lethal option like peperspray/tazers/etc.
The idea behind it was that on a battlefield, an incapacitated soldier requires 2 others to evac him, a dead soldier requires no help.
The .223/5,56 is very under-powered compared to hunting ammo, so I find it strange that people are "ok" with hunting rifles and shotguns, but tend to demonize "assault" rifles?
I'd say the chance of killing someone with a 12 gauge, .308, .30-06, .30-30, 300win mag or any other hunting caliber is FAR greater than with .223/5,56...

Your mention of "large" magazines and AP ammo are 2 other good examples of sensationalism and fear mongering.
A 100-round drum beta mags adds about 5 lbs, making an AR-15 a lot heavier and quite unwieldy.
I, and most people with half a brain, can reload an AR-15 in 1-3 seconds, using normal capacity 30-round or 40-round mags.
In fact, almost all magazine-based firearms, including pistols like the Glock and the Beretta are that easy and fast to reload.
Knowing that defeats the whole purpose, use and stigma associated with "large" mags.

As for AP ammo, when has anyone ever heard about a madman shooting civilians with AP ammo?
What would be the point even, it's not like most of us walk around in body armor anyway, regular ammo does the job just fine, humans are often referred to as soft targets for this very reason.
So why would fast AP rounds -that penetrate your body and leave a small wound cavity- be such a worrisome cartridge, when there's slow hollow points that are far more devastating, as they are designed NOT to over-penetrate, but instead fragment and create multiple bigger wound cavities?
Considerations never made by people who know very little about the subject at hand, yet desire to regulate and restrict ownership of firearms further...

As for the style aspect, I guess the wooden stocks and the engravings of deer on the side make hunting rifles pretty and socially accepted, while the "evil" black rifles scare people?
If so, I hear they also ship pink Hello Kitty-style AR15's, maybe you should pick one of those up, head to your local range and have some fun, you might like it more than you figured you would. :)


Dynamite was invented by Alfred Bernhard Nobel, who worked on an early prototype of a torpedo before inventing it, so I really doubt if he ONLY had demolition of structures/mountains in mind when he started working on dynamite. :-)

Things to think about:
- Go ask the shop owners in the area struck by Katrina, or the Ferguson MO riots if they'd prefer an "assault" rifle or if they'd prefer their hunting rifles and shotguns for their personal defense.
- Ask yourself if you would be ok with only dialing a 911 number that's not connecting, so you can wait for cops that are not coming.
- Ask yourself if you would be able to talk down an angry crowd headed for your store/house/family, and if that baseball bat you're holding instead of a firearm is going to deter them.

Except you can't.

edit: using your own example, gun shows:

by placing that limitation a 19 year old then couldn't purchase a hand gun, which is unconstitutional, as it is his right to own one, as the unconstitutional organization known as the ATF enforces unconstitutional restrictions of purchases of handguns by legal adults.

Ah the good old gunshow loophole myth. :D
First of all, new firearms, being sold by an FFL to a customer at a gunshow are ALWAYS subject to background checks.
PRIVATE (person to person, non-FFL) firearms sales are not.

But why would that matter, because you can buy a firearm in a private transaction from Craigslist any day without a background check anyway.
I don't get why it's suddenly a huge "loophole" if you're at a gunshow, instead of at a seller's home, a wallmart parking lot, or any other place.

Second of all, do you really believe there are no "safer" ways for a criminal to get a hold of a firearm, besides going to a gunshow and buying it there, knowing there are so many private sales available that are not located at a big public event?
Gunbroker and Craigslist are only 2 of many private sale auction websites, with thousands and thousands of firearms available.

I actually agree with this, I don't believe any rights should be contingent on an age over 18.


It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective.

Background checks are just one more way for the government to get another 30 bucks off its citizens.

It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags.

Lots of stuff is like that, but the biggest issue with background checks is that they don't work. Statistically, the vast majority people who commit mass murders would pass the current background standards.

Classic Pleebo, got nothing and try's to change other peoples words.