The Conservative Case For Gun Control

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    Inprecision of the English language.  What I mean is that the things that make liberals call it an "assault" weapon, larger capacity, pistol grip, etc. make it, in some situations, in the properly trained hands, superior as a defensive weapon in comparison to, say, a pistol, or a baseball bat.

     

    It is the liberal argument in reverse.



    Some situations?  Like an invasion by Canada?  Zombie apocalypse?  War of the Worlds?  Or are the black helicopters finally going to make their move?  No one (but law enforcement) needs this kind of weapon.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others.  You can ask about all guns, but under our law on this individual right only dangerous guns can be limited.  Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  I work in a school and if I can increase my chances of survival because of a pause to reload, I will take that chance.  And really, who needs a thirty round clip for self defense or hunting or the fun of target shooting?

     

     



    Wait....I've been told in the past from MANY on BDC that guns are made for one thing...killing. I've been told GUNS are dangerous. But NOW you're telling me some are more dangerous than others? That's bull. A bullet from a revolver can kill you just like a bullet from an AR-15. 

    You might be able to react within the 2 seconds it takes to drop and relaod a magazine but kids don't possess that ability. So sadly even if he had 9mm handgun with 5 ten round clips he would have killed just as many. He was too close in range and his victims were defenseless kids. 

    Again, I'm all for banning "assault"weapons but don't tell me we should ban them because they are dangerous when I've heard from anti-gun people that ALL guns are dangerous. 

    And just because you might not be able to get all guns banned doesn't mean you shouldn't state you want all guns banned. At least there are some on the anti-gun side who will admit that. I respect that stance because it at least makes sense given their argument about gun violence.

    Curbing gun violence is the reason I've seen for banning "assault" weapons...except it wont't curb anything A) givin how little "assault" weapons are used in gun violence and B) The millions that are out there aren't going to magically disappear. So if/when these guns are banned and mass shootings continue just do be surprised.

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others.  You can ask about all guns, but under our law on this individual right only dangerous guns can be limited.  Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  I work in a school and if I can increase my chances of survival because of a pause to reload, I will take that chance.  And really, who needs a thirty round clip for self defense or hunting or the fun of target shooting?

     

     

     



    Wait....I've been told in the past from MANY on BDC that guns are made for one thing...killing. I've been told GUNS are dangerous. But NOW you're telling me some are more dangerous than others? That's bull. A bullet from a revolver can kill you just like a bullet from an AR-15. 

     

    You might be able to react within the 2 seconds it takes to drop and relaod a magazine but kids don't possess that ability. So sadly even if he had 9mm handgun with 5 ten round clips he would have killed just as many. He was too close in range and his victims were defenseless kids. 

    Again, I'm all for banning "assault"weapons but don't tell me we should ban them because they are dangerous when I've heard from anti-gun people that ALL guns are dangerous. 

    And just because you might not be able to get all guns banned doesn't mean you shouldn't state you want all guns banned. At least there are some on the anti-gun side who will admit that. I respect that stance because it at least makes sense given their argument about gun violence.

    Curbing gun violence is the reason I've seen for banning "assault" weapons...except it wont't curb anything A) givin how little "assault" weapons are used in gun violence and B) The millions that are out there aren't going to magically disappear. So if/when these guns are banned and mass shootings continue just do be surprised.

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others is "bull"?  You are talking nonsense. Heller makes that distinction. The laws in place make that distinction.  Any thinking individual knows that some weapons are more dangerous (think you should have a bazooka?) than others.  And you think it is "bull".  Then you are not a thinking person and you are unaware of the law on the subject.  Best not comment on this any further.  It is embarassing to you. 

    What is worse is your passivity.  Kids get killed and you have no solutions... wont even try.  That is worse than embarassing.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others.  You can ask about all guns, but under our law on this individual right only dangerous guns can be limited.  Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  I work in a school and if I can increase my chances of survival because of a pause to reload, I will take that chance.  And really, who needs a thirty round clip for self defense or hunting or the fun of target shooting?

     

     

     



    Wait....I've been told in the past from MANY on BDC that guns are made for one thing...killing. I've been told GUNS are dangerous. But NOW you're telling me some are more dangerous than others? That's bull. A bullet from a revolver can kill you just like a bullet from an AR-15. 

     

    You might be able to react within the 2 seconds it takes to drop and relaod a magazine but kids don't possess that ability. So sadly even if he had 9mm handgun with 5 ten round clips he would have killed just as many. He was too close in range and his victims were defenseless kids. 

    Again, I'm all for banning "assault"weapons but don't tell me we should ban them because they are dangerous when I've heard from anti-gun people that ALL guns are dangerous. 

    And just because you might not be able to get all guns banned doesn't mean you shouldn't state you want all guns banned. At least there are some on the anti-gun side who will admit that. I respect that stance because it at least makes sense given their argument about gun violence.

    Curbing gun violence is the reason I've seen for banning "assault" weapons...except it wont't curb anything A) givin how little "assault" weapons are used in gun violence and B) The millions that are out there aren't going to magically disappear. So if/when these guns are banned and mass shootings continue just do be surprised.

     

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others is "bull"?  You are talking nonsense. Heller makes that distinction. The laws in place make that distinction.  Any thinking individual knows that some weapons are more dangerous (think you should have a bazooka?) than others.  And you think it is "bull".  Then you are not a thinking person and you are unaware of the law on the subject.  Best not comment on this any further.  It is embarassing to you

     

    Sigh....I'm talking about guns that are LEGAL to own...but you know that. 

     

    What is worse is your passivity.  Kids get killed and you have no solutions... wont even try.  That is worse than embarassing.

     

    Psst...for like the 22nd time....I'm not against "assault" weapons ban...oh wait..in fact I posted that in my last post to you. Short term memory loss???

    What is embarrassing is that you didn't seem to care about banning anything until kids were killed. Apparently the teens and adults that have been killed in the past wasn't good enough to warrant a reaction from you???




     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others.  You can ask about all guns, but under our law on this individual right only dangerous guns can be limited.  Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  I work in a school and if I can increase my chances of survival because of a pause to reload, I will take that chance.  And really, who needs a thirty round clip for self defense or hunting or the fun of target shooting?

     



    The standard is that the defensive weapon can be equivalent to the actual threat.  In other words, what oyu need in Chicago is different than what you need in Wellsely, and different than what you need in rural Colorado.

    This is the problem with the gun ban/control.  It is devoid of this principle.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     

     


      Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  



    You think banning the sale of new "assault" weapons is actually going to have an affect? Not even sure how you could possibly believe that. You have to be aware that current "assault" weapons are not going to magically dissapear right? 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others.  You can ask about all guns, but under our law on this individual right only dangerous guns can be limited.  Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  I work in a school and if I can increase my chances of survival because of a pause to reload, I will take that chance.  And really, who needs a thirty round clip for self defense or hunting or the fun of target shooting?

     

     

     



    Wait....I've been told in the past from MANY on BDC that guns are made for one thing...killing. I've been told GUNS are dangerous. But NOW you're telling me some are more dangerous than others? That's bull. A bullet from a revolver can kill you just like a bullet from an AR-15. 

     

    You might be able to react within the 2 seconds it takes to drop and relaod a magazine but kids don't possess that ability. So sadly even if he had 9mm handgun with 5 ten round clips he would have killed just as many. He was too close in range and his victims were defenseless kids. 

    Again, I'm all for banning "assault"weapons but don't tell me we should ban them because they are dangerous when I've heard from anti-gun people that ALL guns are dangerous. 

    And just because you might not be able to get all guns banned doesn't mean you shouldn't state you want all guns banned. At least there are some on the anti-gun side who will admit that. I respect that stance because it at least makes sense given their argument about gun violence.

    Curbing gun violence is the reason I've seen for banning "assault" weapons...except it wont't curb anything A) givin how little "assault" weapons are used in gun violence and B) The millions that are out there aren't going to magically disappear. So if/when these guns are banned and mass shootings continue just do be surprised.

     

     

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others is "bull"?  You are talking nonsense. Heller makes that distinction. The laws in place make that distinction.  Any thinking individual knows that some weapons are more dangerous (think you should have a bazooka?) than others.  And you think it is "bull".  Then you are not a thinking person and you are unaware of the law on the subject.  Best not comment on this any further.  It is embarassing to you. 

     

    What is worse is your passivity.  Kids get killed and you have no solutions... wont even try.  That is worse than embarassing.



    The issue is not if some guns are more dangerous than others, but what are the limits to government in this matter?   

    The limitation is on government, not gun owners.

    However, as stated in other arguments, the constitution is not a sucide pact.  It is reasonable that bazookas be prohibited right up to the point where illegal bazookas are found in use, in say, Chicago.  At that point, the banning of bazookas is no longer reasonable, and ownership is then protected by the 2nd amendment, as that is a necessary arm to preserve a "free state" or, in English, the ability to be safe in your person and property..

     

Share