New York is first, who is next???

I understand what you're saying but if you look at these mass shootings where people have used that type of weapon, its generally always in the quiet communities that don't have that kind of crime. So its more putting them on a level playing field for the off chance they encounter someone with that kind of fire power. Lime I said I live in a generally quiet area and last year not too far away we had a Sheriff deputy killed by someone with an AK47 while trying to serve a warrant. Definitely not the kind of place you'd expect to need higher powered weapons to be on a "level playing field."

 

^^^^^^Bingo,, WE HAVE A WINNER^^^^^^

 

Not really. When the amendment was created everyone had muzzle loaders they couldn't for see what would exist in the future. Were private citizens rolling around personal cannons too? If there should be no limits on anything at all because everyone wants to abide verbatim by something written a couple hundred years ago then I should be able to have an RPG shouldn't I?

 

Yes,, But a LAWW is much better

 

I grew up in a country where owning a single bullet can land you in jail, and owning guns is even fathomable. But that doesnt stop gangs and corrupt government officials from using them to kill innocent people:

http://shanghaiist.com/2010/06/25/gun_culture_on_the_rise.php

 

Read: https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 

Actually, yes we did have cannons. Some Americans had pirate ships, and worked under charters for our government. There were also more weapons then just a musket, and you think the founders actually thought we'd never advance past it? They wrote arms for a reason.

 

I just think you can justify almost anything if you try hard enough. People keep thinking the government will take over. Fine say they take military action against us. I'll say I feel they will do this from the sky. Should it then be legal for me to have anti air craft artillery to be set up in my yard, just in case?

 

So some would have you think that the 1st amendment Is no good on the internet cuz there was no internet 200 years ago... The men were smart enough to know that the only thing for sure was there will always be change.

 

the 2A wasnt about hunting...When it was written if you didnt hunt you didnt eat. End of story. So because you dont want something no one else should have it either?

Sounds kinda like the NY ban on 16oz sugary drinks. "I dont like those so no one else should have them" I dont drink soda but I also dont give a shit what anyone else is drinking. (and yes, bad diets and obesity does kill)

 

Something we can all agree on: Politicians are over-paid peices of shit.

 

THIS!

 

Bingo. those 23 EO's signed yesterday are just more ways to spend money that isnt there.


/thread

 

Curious what is going to happen to the actual rifle/handgun market if these forms of laws are enacted everywhere? I understand the goal is to make jobs in this economy but this seems to be a whole different type of counterproductive crusade on free Americans.

 

apples and oranges, Soda does not pose a threat to other people. 2nd amendment says right to bear arms, not even right to bear fire arms. we used to be able to buy dynamite at the local store but that was not very good for the masses. Nobody is trying to take away guns, only the ones that are easily capable of killing dozens in seconds. People are letting the NRA get this whole thing blown way out of shape. They used to be a good organization but now they are just advertising and lobbying for manufacturers.

 

Paranoid much?

 

so your worried the finest people in the entire country are going to come and kill you now?

 

There are a lot of good points being brought up on both sides of the gun argument.

I think of it this way.... If you don't own a gun or one of recent interest, and you live in an area where you feel perfectly safe that way, great, wonderful, I'm very happy for you. However, I'd like for you to think about this, if you lived in urban LA, Detroit, Bronx, Houston, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Atlanta, Dallas, Oakland, would you feel equally safe ? And if you say no, why not ?
Secondly, how protected would you feel when you realize your home intruder has an Ak-47 and you simply have a .22 revolver at 2am in the dark ? Third, I challenge you to walk the streets of the aforementioned areas for a weekend at night if you say the proposed bans make you feel safer.....

Point being, you might not NEED an AR-15 or the like to feel safe in your area, don't be naive though and think every area is like yours. Taking away certain guns may take away certain people's abilities to feel safe.

You may agree or disagree, just throwing out thoughts and points, no offense intended on any part. It's you're right to your opinion and choice.

 

Good explanation. The intent of Amendment II is for people to have the ability to defend themselves against an oppressive government and for those people to be called upon by the states during times of war or public danger.