Use the 2nd Amendment to Outlaw Assault Weapons

[myth-one.com]

The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The US militia is the world's best. Yet they cannot protect us from domestic terrorists armed with assault weapons bent on destruction.

That being the case, the people should be ordered to turn over all assault weapons owned by them to the militia immediately!

The militia needs your assault weapons now so that security can be provided to the masses.

It's a national emergency.

That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment! Learn to read, Supreme Court!

============================================

Politicians often claim that, "The gun doesn't kill people, the person kills people."

True, but people with an assault rifle can kill many more victims in the same amount of time than a person with a regular rifle.

Duh!

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

Any comments or questions?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 10 by AgnosticBoy]

That's fine, less gun crime, gun accidents and suicides with guns is still a safer society than before. Suicides and homicides are just that much harder without guns.

Having said that, I am not saying a gun ban would get us anywhere near the "perfect scenario." I am willing to grant you that merely outlawing guns would hardly make a dent in the ease of access to guns in the US.

[Clownboat]

Everyone is over thinking this!
Why stop at making guns illegal (or whatever argument is being put forth)? Just pass laws that make murder, suicide and such illegal.

That way criminals will no longer commit said acts. Heck, they could even own guns with such laws being in place. What good is a gun to a criminal when using it to murder is illegal?

Now that this has been taken care of, on to roads. People are driving way to fast. We need to pass laws that regulate the speed limit. That will stop people from going too fast!

I suppose on the flip side, it could be argued that it is my responsibility to be a defensive drivers, but that requires effort on my part and I would prefer laws put in place to assure my safe driving rather than taking the responsibility as my own.

Perhaps I am just unfit for driving and should stick to provided public transportation? Would my desire to have another agent supervise peoples driving justify my lack of desire to drive defensively? Do I not hold some responsibility? It doesn't seem right to me to point to speeding laws and then just hope for the best. Others milage may vary.

[2Dbunk]

The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The US militia is the world's best. Yet they cannot protect us from domestic terrorists armed with assault weapons bent on destruction.

That being the case, the people should be ordered to turn over all assault weapons owned by them to the militia immediately!

The militia needs your assault weapons now so that security can be provided to the masses.

It's a national emergency.

That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment! Learn to read, Supreme Court!

============================================

Politicians often claim that, "The gun doesn't kill people, the person kills people."

True, but people with an assault rifle can kill many more victims in the same amount of time than a person with a regular rifle.

Duh!

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

Any comments or questions?

I know this thread is tongue-in-cheek, going from the ridiculous to the absurd.

The fact is: ASSAULT RIFLES ARE TOO EASILY OBTAINED ! Let's go back to the assault rifle ban in the 1990s. There was no marked change of shootings in that ten years when compared with the previous ten years. Since the "ban' was allowed to expire by G.W. Bush (through I'm sure the effective lobbying of the NRA), the next ten years saw an increase of shootings of 278%. The following ten years (of which we are in) hasn't quite matured yet and the USA is well over another630% and still counting.

C'mon, these facts are too horrible to pass up without serious debate.

[AgnosticBoy]

I know this thread is tongue-in-cheek, going from the ridiculous to the absurd.

The fact is: ASSAULT RIFLES ARE TOO EASILY OBTAINED ! Let's go back to the assault rifle ban in the 1990s. There was no marked change of shootings in that ten years when compared with the previous ten years. Since the "ban' was allowed to expire by G.W. Bush (through I'm sure the effective lobbying of the NRA), the next ten years saw an increase of shootings of 278%. The following ten years (of which we are in) hasn't quite matured yet and the USA is well over another630% and still counting.

C'mon, these facts are too horrible to pass up without serious debate.

Can you please put some actual numbers to those percentages. I know that going from a value of 2 to 4 is a 50% increase but knowing that an increase by "two" is behind the 50% is hardly something anyone would consider significant. During the ban, mass shooting numbers fell only by "15" deaths. Yep, that's such a big number to go off of to ban assault style weapons.

From Politifact:

Clinton spoke too strongly about the drop. In simple numbers, mass shooting deaths fell during the ban years —15 deaths over the course of the decade. But statistically, that number is too small to allow strong conclusions. Even the author of the report Clinton relied on said the death rate might have declined —or levelled off.

Although the author of the thread apparently has not stepped up to defend his own claims I'll lay out what's on the table to reasonably minded people:

- We need gun laws that would keep guns in the hands of law abiding/mentally stable (or stable enough to not lead to physical harm) citizens while preventing them in the hands of the criminals/mentally unstable.

So far a lot of the proposals from Dems (banning all guns) would penalize the good and bad people together. A lot of the proposals from the Repubs. (little to no gun regulations) would keep guns in the hands of the good and bad.

My position is middle ground and no extreme Repub or Democrat has succeeded in putting a dent in it. Refer to post 2 where I bring up "standards" that law enforcement and how that population proves that HIGH gun ownership/possession can coexist with very low gun crime. How many cops do you know of going on mass shooting sprees?

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 14 by AgnosticBoy]

I refer you to MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE who does a compilation of shootings for the past 37 years (just prior to the Odessa TX event). These statistics are slightly different from what I cited but generally the same. The MJ data shows how many shooting in any particular year, how many were killed and wounded in each individual event (and its location).

The info I did cite was from either TIME or Wikipaedia in bar-graph form -- can't remember.

I compiled the MJ data: 1984 to 1994 (ten years before the BAN)- 17 events, 137 killed, 161 wounded. 1994 to 2004 (the ten years of the assault weapons ban)- 17 events, 100 killed, 139 wounded. 2004 tp 2014 (the ban was not renewed)- 36 events, 280 killed, 223 wounded. 2014 to present (only 5 years)- 43 events, 378 killed, 754 wounded.

Does anyone recognize a pattern here? An exponential growth -- certainly not linear!

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 14 by AgnosticBoy]

I refer you to MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE who does a compilation of shootings for the past 37 years (just prior to the Odessa TX event). These statistics are slightly different from what I cited but generally the same. The MJ data shows how many shooting in any particular year, how many were killed and wounded in each individual event (and its location).

The info I did cite was from either TIME or Wikipaedia in bar-graph form -- can't remember.

I compiled the MJ data: 1984 to 1994 (ten years before the BAN)- 17 events, 137 killed, 161 wounded. 1994 to 2004 (the ten years of the assault weapons ban)- 17 events, 100 killed, 139 wounded. 2004 tp 2014 (the ban was not renewed)- 36 events, 280 killed, 223 wounded. 2014 to present (only 5 years)- 43 events, 378 killed, 754 wounded.

Does anyone recognize a pattern here? An exponential growth -- certainly not linear!

Mental health issues have been on the rise as well.

I fear that the focus on guns is to miss the forest for the trees.
(I'm not arguing for not needing better gun laws by the way. I just see a mental health crisis while others see a gun crisis).

If mental health being on the rise is the driving issue, then that needs to be addressed. I assume that most would agree that if mentaly unstable people start using their cars more often to kill en mass, that getting rid of cars would not be a consideration and we would be forced to look at mental health and driving. When it comes to guns though...

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 16 by Clownboat]

Mental health issues have been on the rise as well.

Those are some statistics I'd like to see you reference. It's one thing to say "they're on the rise as well" but are they increasing exponentially?

I fear that the focus on guns is to miss the forest for the trees.
(I'm not arguing for not needing better gun laws by the way. I just see a mental health crisis while others see a gun crisis).

So what if there is a mental health issue -- is this administration going to do anything about it? Maybe the House but not the Senate . . . unless they go hat-in-hand to the NRA for mental health funding and that ain't-a-goin'- ta happ'n. How do you measure mental misfits? You can measure shooting events but how many of the shooters were considered mentally ill enough not to stand trial? Do you have any statistics? Many shooters are full of hate and/or politically motivated -- as far as I know, that doesn't deem them mentally ill.

Assault rifles -- that is the key! Ban them for good this time. No other countries are killing each other like we are -- and assault rifles there are off the streets.

If mental health being on the rise is the driving issue, then that needs to be addressed. I assume that most would agree that if mentaly unstable people start using their cars more often to kill en mass, that getting rid of cars would not be a consideration and we would be forced to look at mental health and driving. When it comes to guns though...

Ridiculous analogy! Even if a comparison could be made, the amount of people killed by drivers mowing people down is hardly comparable. "If mental health being on the rise" . . . your words. Please show documentation of that rise.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 16 by Clownboat]

Mental health issues have been on the rise as well.

Those are some statistics I'd like to see you reference. It's one thing to say "they're on the rise as well" but are they increasing exponentially?

I fear that the focus on guns is to miss the forest for the trees.
(I'm not arguing for not needing better gun laws by the way. I just see a mental health crisis while others see a gun crisis).

So what if there is a mental health issue -- is this administration going to do anything about it? Maybe the House but not the Senate . . . unless they go hat-in-hand to the NRA for mental health funding and that ain't-a-goin'- ta happ'n. How do you measure mental misfits? You can measure shooting events but how many of the shooters were considered mentally ill enough not to stand trial? Do you have any statistics? Many shooters are full of hate and/or politically motivated -- as far as I know, that doesn't deem them mentally ill.

Assault rifles -- that is the key! Ban them for good this time. No other countries are killing each other like we are -- and assault rifles there are off the streets.

If mental health being on the rise is the driving issue, then that needs to be addressed. I assume that most would agree that if mentaly unstable people start using their cars more often to kill en mass, that getting rid of cars would not be a consideration and we would be forced to look at mental health and driving. When it comes to guns though...

Ridiculous analogy! Even if a comparison could be made, the amount of people killed by drivers mowing people down is hardly comparable. "If mental health being on the rise" . . . your words. Please show documentation of that rise.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110908.htm
Mental health issues increased significantly in young adults over last decade

There was also a 71 percent increase in young adults experiencing serious psychological distress in the previous 30 days from 2008 to 2017 (from 7.7 percent to 13.1 percent). The rate of young adults with suicidal thoughts or other suicide-related outcomes increased 47 percent from 2008 to 2017 (from 7.0 percent to 10.3 percent).

This is just from the 1st link I clicked on.

You can fear the gun, I will fear the human behind it (or whatever is going to be used if not a gun).

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 14 by AgnosticBoy]

I refer you to MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE who does a compilation of shootings for the past 37 years (just prior to the Odessa TX event). These statistics are slightly different from what I cited but generally the same. The MJ data shows how many shooting in any particular year, how many were killed and wounded in each individual event (and its location).

The info I did cite was from either TIME or Wikipaedia in bar-graph form -- can't remember.

I compiled the MJ data: 1984 to 1994 (ten years before the BAN)- 17 events, 137 killed, 161 wounded. 1994 to 2004 (the ten years of the assault weapons ban)- 17 events, 100 killed, 139 wounded. 2004 tp 2014 (the ban was not renewed)- 36 events, 280 killed, 223 wounded. 2014 to present (only 5 years)- 43 events, 378 killed, 754 wounded.

Does anyone recognize a pattern here? An exponential growth -- certainly not linear!

I appreciate the raw numbers but my point still applies here. Better "standards" would solve this problem. And of course, the benefit of my view is that it also keeps an effective means of self-defense in place so that good people can protect themselves from bad guys. Your view is an unnecessary and EXTREME action, one that I find liberals wanting to put IDEOLOGY (perhaps based on their irrational fear and ignorance of guns) above facts.

You also keep ranting about assault "rifles", when handguns can and have been used in mass shootings. I see little to no difference between a handgun with a large capacity magazine and an AK47 other than the size of the bullet. Besides that, the same number of people can get injured or worse if you have a 30 round handgun vs. a 30 round assault rifle.

[AgnosticBoy]

So what if there is a mental health issue -- is this administration going to do anything about it? Maybe the House but not the Senate . . . unless they go hat-in-hand to the NRA for mental health funding and that ain't-a-goin'- ta happ'n. How do you measure mental misfits? You can measure shooting events but how many of the shooters were considered mentally ill enough not to stand trial? Do you have any statistics? Many shooters are full of hate and/or politically motivated -- as far as I know, that doesn't deem them mentally ill.

Assault rifles -- that is the key! Ban them for good this time. No other countries are killing each other like we are -- and assault rifles there are off the streets.

Are you doubting that mental health is the big problem? If the gun by itself was the problem, then why do you trust cops with guns, including assault rifles? Why can we find patterns among the majority of mass shooting cases, especially when it's a young adult - White males, loners, suicidal, etc????

If you want to hold extreme liberal views, then that's your choice. But please don't come here under the assumptions that we're going to drink the Koolaid. I woke up long ago and realized that both parties hold extreme views - none of them are perfect. I could spot the extremist position to ban guns a mile away which is why it's easy to shoot down.