Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly launch (unconscionable) battle against gun lobby

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by Dragoon01

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
can you provide me a liegitimate reason (Because I want one is not a legit reason) for possessing a 30 round magazine?

Wrong, We don’t have to provide you or anyone a reason for owning anything we want to own.
Rights are about “Want” they are not about “Need”.

Yes you do. The military has to protect the country fromm all enemies foreign and domestic. Thats our oath. So we have to know if you have weapons that could destroy many Americans in one blow. Assault weapons can kill hundreds if used properly. Its what they were made to do. They are meant to engage an enemy force.. The same with large capacity magazines.

No we dont, Its none of your darn business what I or anyone else owns. There are of course qualifiers to that. Provided I do not infringe on the life liberty or property of another through force or fraud I have committed no ethical offense. I am free to do what I want with whatever I want under those conditions. If I own a cannon and have sufficent space to fire it off I have harmed no one. Mere possesion of an object or a material is in no way a violation of the life liberty or property of another.

You dont understand the idea of Natural rights that underpin the DoI and USCon. The right to self defense codified in the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with sport. It is all about the ability of the PEOPLE to kill government officials and their henchmen (police, soldiers, agents) if and when those officials and their henchmen subject the people to a long train of abuses and become tyrants.
See we as citizens are duty bound to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic as well. In order to do that we need to have access to the most efficent arms that we can bear. Today that would constitute every small arm in existance including select fire and fully automatic machineguns mortars grenades and light artillery.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by kozmo

 

My own father died in a car accident when I was a teenager. I drive but I drive not just for me but for everyone around me. I watch my mirrors like a hawk. Nothing escapes me.

That's not how it works with guns. You can't predict who's carrying so that you're out of their way. Did you read the NYTimes article I linked here in my previous post? I think you should.

Life happens all around us. Death does too. Let's try to keep them in their right places. When society is so dangerous that you need to be armed even in your sleep, there are really fundamental problems that need addressing first. Having to carry deadly firepower with you to the shower is just absurd. You need to have your breakfast in peace. This is not the wild West anymore and people need to civilize themselves. You can't do that when there is this absurd level of fear. The fact that you can't see that means that you've bought into the game. It's pathetic and even worse, it's sad.

Look at what your nation is becoming. It's my nation too. Turn in around.

Whoa! Let's just peel apart what you just wrote... First you start by stating what a responsible driver you are and use this as justification for YOU having access to a car. The same argument applies to lawful gun owners. It is none of your business WHY they would like to possess one, however it IS your business to know that they are doing so lawfully and responsibly. But let's get back to your premise - what about the irresponsible drivers - the ones who text, drive under the influence, drive recklessly etc...? Wouldn't banning cars put an end to all of this death on the highways caused by this? I mean, following the current logic, curtailing your rights, although you are responsible, mitigates the irresponsible driver's ability to kill and maim, right?

Originally posted by ElijahWan
Ah perfect example! Cars! As you seem to have experienced, a car can definitely cause detrimental harm to a person, just like a gun. That's why we have speed limits, and laws that you must abide by to drive a car on the road. That's why you must register your vehicle, and have/renew your driver's license to operate that vehicle. We've regulated and created laws affecting every piece of technology that man has invented that is capable of this kind of destruction. Why is a gun any different?

Speed limits = Magazine Capacity Limits
License and Registration = Gun Permit/ Gun Registration

I get it you don't want to give up your guns, and I don't expect you to. But I think we can both agree that no one -needs- the ability to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading, nor should anyone have the ability to buy a gun without first going through a background check. I think most people can agree to SOME common sense reforms.

I don't disagree at all! However, and very sadly I should add, this is NOT the driving discussion. The discussion is built around banning this and that, confiscating, punishing etc... And NONE of those things will solve the problem - AT ALL!

reply to post by kozmo


You're not following any logic sequence whatsoever. I'm against people killing people quite deliberately with guns or anything else. You were the one who demanded banning cars. I was illustrating that my own situation could very well result in such a hyperbolic response as your tongue-in-cheek example as well, but that's not the case. I drive carefully and I drive with my eyes on everyone else on the road, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. I don't have any distractions while driving. Full focus.

I'm saying that NO ONE should have any reason to own guns. Society is in a state of failure when people feel such insecurity and fear that they need to arm themselves at all times. I mean, that's where the threat is, right? Whenever, wherever. You're never safe. Correct?

Exactly where did you imagine I made a connection to me being a responsible driver and therefore I should have access to a vehicle? My father was killed in a car so I shouldn't have one? Is that your twisted extrapolation or precisely what are you trying to say because son, with logic like yours you really shouldn't have a butter knife, let alone a gun.

How's that for patchy reasoning? See what that's like? Now look back over all your replies to people and see what a mess you've made.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


Do let me as OP, to step in for a moment.

I understand your frustration and genuine concerns.

Equally too, do I share your emotions, and wish there were NO weapons that would hurt and harm another.

But,....we must sadly be realistic today. We are not living in Utopia. We mankind had made much achievement in science and tech, but socially, some are still just only one step away from the jungles.

We can easily stripped humanity of guns and rifles, as some supposedly 'evolved' nations had done, BUT,.....had it ended violence by other tools?

None. Many precious lives get snuffed by other means, often unreported.

Only the law abidding and responsible civilised citizens follow societal laws, but unfortunately, beasts still exists within our society, from the poverty strickened lowly criminal striking back, to the insane, to the greedy corrupted rich man hell bent on dominating and shaping humanity to his own personal view.

And it is they whom will and had disregarded societal laws, save those that that suits only them, and will only try to impose their own laws upon society, but only with a disarmed and toothless populution to prevent resistance.

The founding fathers were pragmatists and understood human nature very well, thus their emplacement of the 2nd amendment into the sacred Constitution, not just for themselves, but for ALL future generations of americans, so that each american may protect themselves , their loved ones, their friends and nation from the likes of the anti-society of any form, domestic or foreign.

We will achieve Utopia one day as long we mankind do not give up, but in the meanwhile, we civilised beings must be realistic and protect ourselves from those whom are capable of wildest violence as history had proven whom will have better amoury, or none of us or future generations will ever reach our end goals.

reply to post by abeverage


"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."

Take note of the first bit "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE"...

Also take note of bulletin 3 of the Oath of Allegiance, which EVERY military professional MUST swear. Which many have seemingly failed to uphold in the last couple of years.

"defense of the Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic""

The last part is very important, BOTH FOREIGN, AND DOMESTIC.


Don't be naive, and think tyranny is not already on us, and that it wont get worse.

reply to post by 007Polytoks


The security of a free state? Since we do not live in a "free state" has the rest of the language been rendered void as well?

reply to post by jasonl1983


No, the language has not been rendered void, it means that the people, and the military officials who have sworn an oath, need to uphold this oath. They need to call out the leaders of our country's,and hold them accountable for their treacherous acts against humanity.

Those in power are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, manipulating virtually every war since WW1 for their own greedy profiteering. The enslavement of billions, and the experimentation on human beings. They are the main thing holding us back from evolving into a greater state, them, and our inability to see what is in front of us, and take action.