The Great Gun Debate

[Dogfish Head]

I saw that! And that Time Warner dropped that channel as an offering in their stations!

Because a large portion of Americans equates them with terrorists because that's how simple minded some portions of this population are.

 

[eclark53520]

I just see so much hypocrisy when it comes to people using the Constitution to back up a claim while on the other hand ignoring what the constitution says about another right and letting it be abused. Our rights are equal rights. If you give up one you open the door to give up others. If people in this country fought as hard and as angry about keeping our fourth amendment protected as they do our 2nd, we would still have our 4th amendment in tact right now. They don't though.

I guess to me, I already see us down a slippery slope. I guess I am jaded by my view of the type of people that vigorously pursue one right while letting another go.


As stated, I said we should revisit the conversation on what is defined as an assault weapon. We never really had this conversation and that is why the original ban was so flawed.

I do agree with you, however, the 4th amendment isn't currently a topic in this thread...

 

[Dogfish Head]

Why aren't you just as wary of vehicles, screw drivers, knives, etc? All of which are inanimate objects that if not treated and handled properly can easily cause death.

Maybe because while those mentioned can be abused and used for malice their entire creation was not built around killing things.

 

[eclark53520]

You can't hunt with a rifle that only holds 5 cartridges?

I can and do hunt with a rifle that holds 30 cartridges. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd.

 

[Dogfish Head]

I do agree with you, however, the 4th amendment isn't currently a topic in this thread...

Sure. The vigor to defend it is missing from this site. Guns aren't though. Obsession with our rights in this country are not equal.

 

[BigJim13]

Why aren't you just as wary of vehicles, screw drivers, knives, etc? All of which are inanimate objects that if not treated and handled properly can easily cause death.

That kid didn't pick up a screwdriver and kill 26 people with it.

This part of the argument has been beaten to death...

 

[eclark53520]

Maybe because while those mentioned can be abused and used for malice their entire creation was not built around killing things.

Completely irrelevant. It changes absolutely nothing. What if guns were actually originally intended to be a tool to put holes in boards. Would you accept that argument from me that because they weren't originally designed to kill, it should be OK to own them? I doubt it.

 

[BigJim13]

I can and do hunt with a rifle that holds 30 cartridges. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd.

Ok, but you could hunt with a rifle that holds 5 right?

What I was saying was that what I am in favor if would not affect the ability of somebody to hunt if they wanted to.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Completely irrelevant. It changes absolutely nothing. What if guns were actually originally intended to be a tool to put holes in boards. Would you accept that argument from me that because they weren't originally designed to kill, it should be OK to own them? I doubt it.

It isn't irrelevant because that is what they were intended for. Banning a source that's creation is used for killing and is currently being used for mass murders is a logical thought process that deserves some thought on how to handle the distribution of the devices to the general public.

 

[eclark53520]

It is absolutely irrelevant.

If there were 26 kids killed at a school with a screw driver or car would you be looking for some thought process on how to handle the distribution to the general public?

 

[Wi-Golfer]

You can't hunt with a rifle that only holds 5 cartridges?

Doesn't answer the question, I asked how you did come up with the number 5 and why?

 

[eclark53520]

Ok, but you could hunt with a rifle that holds 5 right?

What I was saying was that what I am in favor if would not affect the ability of somebody to hunt if they wanted to.

And I'm saying that hunting has nothing to do with the conversation we're having.

 

[eclark53520]

Doesn't answer the question, I asked how you did come up with the number 5 and why?

It doesn't matter anyway. Hunting has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[BigJim13]

Doesn't answer the question, I asked how you did come up with the number 5 and why?

As a former hunter I never carried a rifle with more than 5 bullets. Since the majority of gun owners hunt in some form or another (deer, bear. Duck etc) I chose 5 with the though in mind that if you couldn't hit your target in 5 shots (preferably less) than you shouldn't be in the woods shooting at game.

 

[BigJim13]

It doesn't matter anyway. Hunting has nothing to do with this conversation.

Sure it does, hunting is why a large percentage if gun owners own guns.