created by: American Patriot | Jan 12, 2013

Columbus, OH

364 votes

Are you in favor of a ban on assault style rifles?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
Comments
481 - 500 of 718 Comments Last updated Jan 26, 2013

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#520
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, and it doesn't matter if it was effective at 2 feet or 200 feet, it is a fire arm and it was in production and use at the time. As for firing one shot at a time, all semi-automatics fire one shot at a time. What is your point- that you don't know anything about a gun?
My point was simply with the firearms of the era, single shot muskets were what they were dealing with. How many of the early citizens had their own cannons? Or mortars?

It does matter what a weapon was capable of at that time because that's all they had to deal with.

I know, I know, you're one of those who envisions the Prince of Peace returning with an assault rifle.

Delusional.

Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#521
Jan 19, 2013
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you did forget you were dealing with you. The only idiot in this conversation.
Um, read the first 13 words in the 2nd amendment, it directly addresses a state run militia.
As far as the 3rd, you said it didn't apply, now that I've proven to you it does, you're trying to claim that's what you said all along.
You liars are funny. Can't stick to your guns when your crap is called, end up agreeing with me in principle yet you still are infantile tantrum mode.
Read the DC heller case. This is all made out quite nicely. You won't even have to look past the syllabus unless it completely blows your mind and you think it is necessary find out why you are wrong. Here are a few excerpts.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

But do not stop there, It goes on into some great detail listing not only drafts of the second amendment, but references to state equivalents to the second amendment and plenty of historical context.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#522
Jan 19, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
You've linked me to nonfatal gun crime rates, rather than gun deaths. Or even the number of homicides by firearms.
I'll assume this is an accident, rather than cherry picking data!
Yes...

Nonfatal and fatal firearm injuries
..........Nonfatal
..........assaults....Homicide s
....1993-97 Total......257,200 *.. 78,620
.......... 1993...... 64,100.... 18,253
.......... 1994...... 61,200.... 17,527
.......... 1995...... 53,400.... 15,551
.......... 1996...... 39,200.... 14,037
.......... 1997...... 39,400.... 13,252

Percent change......-39%......-27%

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fi...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#523
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...
Nonfatal and fatal firearm injuries
..........Nonfatal
..........assaults....Homicide s
....1993-97 Total......257,200 *.. 78,620
.......... 1993...... 64,100.... 18,253
.......... 1994...... 61,200.... 17,527
.......... 1995...... 53,400.... 15,551
.......... 1996...... 39,200.... 14,037
.......... 1997...... 39,400.... 13,252
Percent change......-39%......-27%
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fi...
Wasn't the assault weapon ban in effect during those years?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#524
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't the assault weapon ban in effect during those years?
What ban? The day after the ban was passed, every manufacturer made minor changes to make sure the weapons they sold didn't violate the ban. The ban also allowed the sale of weapons, weapon parts, and clips that were already produced.

I found something on the CDC site which says 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That's lower than the 1997 figure from the justice department and 6 years after the "ban" expired and tens of millions more weapons were purchased by the public.

The data I've seen simply do not support that banning guns reduces gun crimes. That indicates to me that the desire to ban guns has another purpose.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#525
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
What ban? The day after the ban was passed, every manufacturer made minor changes to make sure the weapons they sold didn't violate the ban. The ban also allowed the sale of weapons, weapon parts, and clips that were already produced.
I found something on the CDC site which says 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
That's lower than the 1997 figure from the justice department and 6 years after the "ban" expired and tens of millions more weapons were purchased by the public.
The data I've seen simply do not support that banning guns reduces gun crimes. That indicates to me that the desire to ban guns has another purpose.
Right. The ban wasn't on the weapons themselves, it was on what made them look scary. The same gun with interchangeable parts only different stocks were on sale a day later. The current call for a ban only bans the parts that make the guns look scary too. Outside of the clips being limited,(which they picked the number they did because most guns with internal magazines only hold 10 rounds in the magazine unless it has been modified), it is all cosmetics.

I have not looked into it, but I have heard from various places that over 50% of the gun inflicted deaths are the results suicides. I have also seen where you are much more likely getting seriously injured or killed by a motor vehicle accident then by gun violence. Of course I have not bothers looking into that either.
TAZ

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#526
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Latifah wrote:
Yes.
Who needs a Machine Gun?
Unstable and angry White Males like Adam Lanza and John Holmes are using them to kill people in theatres and schools.
There are too many guns on the streets and too many young men are being killed on a daily basis in gang violence (Windsor Terrace Posse) in the area where I grew up.
A Machine Gun was not used in any of the shooting's that you mention. Educate yourself before you post a comment.
TAZ

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

How many people are killed in a month due to someone texting ?, Yet nothing is mentioned about the laws that are broken everyday by those who hold a phone while driving, Isn't there laws on the books already that state no hand held phone are to be used at all !!!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#528
Jan 19, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
We (humans) have implemented the death penalty for everything from theft to murder. Today, we still have theft and murder. Your theory doesn't work.
who said anything about death penalty?

I was speaking chain gangs.

PS: we will have theft and murder if guns are banned.

your theory does not work.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#529
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
What ban? The day after the ban was passed, every manufacturer made minor changes to make sure the weapons they sold didn't violate the ban. The ban also allowed the sale of weapons, weapon parts, and clips that were already produced.
I found something on the CDC site which says 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
That's lower than the 1997 figure from the justice department and 6 years after the "ban" expired and tens of millions more weapons were purchased by the public.
The data I've seen simply do not support that banning guns reduces gun crimes. That indicates to me that the desire to ban guns has another purpose.
What is that other purpose?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#530
Jan 19, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
who said anything about death penalty?
I was speaking chain gangs.
PS: we will have theft and murder if guns are banned.
your theory does not work.
My theory? What is my theory?

(We haven't tried chain gangs?)

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#531
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
What ban? The day after the ban was passed, every manufacturer made minor changes to make sure the weapons they sold didn't violate the ban. The ban also allowed the sale of weapons, weapon parts, and clips that were already produced.
I found something on the CDC site which says 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
That's lower than the 1997 figure from the justice department and 6 years after the "ban" expired and tens of millions more weapons were purchased by the public.
The data I've seen simply do not support that banning guns reduces gun crimes. That indicates to me that the desire to ban guns has another purpose.
Ah, you're looking at gun crime fatalities, check CDC for firearms fatalities, total. It's where I sourced my figures, as everyone else seems to get their data from them.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#532
Jan 19, 2013
 
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was simply with the firearms of the era, single shot muskets were what they were dealing with. How many of the early citizens had their own cannons? Or mortars?
It does matter what a weapon was capable of at that time because that's all they had to deal with.
I know, I know, you're one of those who envisions the Prince of Peace returning with an assault rifle.
Delusional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =f7cvDjbxIKYXX
Your point would still be wrong though. If you were to change it to single shot weapon was what they were primarily dealing with, I would agree.

Private citizen of the time did have cannons though. They held them to be equipped on commercial ships when they were converted to war ships as well as permanently mounted on commercial ships that had receive letters of mark from congress.. The US and most other countries did not have standing navies like France and England or Spain. But like those other countries, the US specifically held they had a right to grant permission to private ships to menace the commerce of the enemy. Most pirate stories begin with someone who was acting under these orders and went too far.

As for the single shot verses multiple shot capabilities. It doesn't matter because in all of these mass shootings, the time span between when they start and when a cop or someone with another gun makes sure the shooter is not shooting any more is well above the amount of time needed to do similar damage with a much larger caliber single shot muzzle loader. As I have pointed out, in the sandy hook shooting, twice as many rounds could have been fired.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#533
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
What is that other purpose?
So the left can run roughshod over the rest of our rights.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534
Jan 19, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, you're looking at gun crime fatalities, check CDC for firearms fatalities, total. It's where I sourced my figures, as everyone else seems to get their data from them.
That's (allegedly) what all the uproar is about (crooks and crazies killing people), so that seems the pertinent source for info. But I'll look at it. Link please.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#535
Jan 19, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
My theory? What is my theory?
(We haven't tried chain gangs?)
The public employee unions will be against them (depriving a good state worker of a job, doncha know...).

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#536
Jan 19, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, you're looking at gun crime fatalities, check CDC for firearms fatalities, total. It's where I sourced my figures, as everyone else seems to get their data from them.
And we ought to include other murder methods too, since that's what the left is claiming they want to stop.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#537
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Read the DC heller case. This is all made out quite nicely. You won't even have to look past the syllabus unless it completely blows your mind and you think it is necessary find out why you are wrong. Here are a few excerpts.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
But do not stop there, It goes on into some great detail listing not only drafts of the second amendment, but references to state equivalents to the second amendment and plenty of historical context.
The appeals court overstepped their bounds in this and misconstrued Heller's argument, for starters. To end, the Heller decision didn't reach near as far as you imagine it does. It left intact the 'registration' portion. Again, they basically ruled a flat out ban by denying registrations was unconstitutional.

Not at all what you want me to believe it says.

How does it feel to be so wrong, so often?

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#538
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...
Nonfatal and fatal firearm injuries
..........Nonfatal
..........assaults....Homicide s
....1993-97 Total......257,200 *.. 78,620
.......... 1993...... 64,100.... 18,253
.......... 1994...... 61,200.... 17,527
.......... 1995...... 53,400.... 15,551
.......... 1996...... 39,200.... 14,037
.......... 1997...... 39,400.... 13,252
Percent change......-39%......-27%
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fi...
Um, cherry picker, let's see the data from this century.
Adif understanding

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#540
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
The appeals court overstepped their bounds in this and misconstrued Heller's argument, for starters. To end, the Heller decision didn't reach near as far as you imagine it does. It left intact the 'registration' portion. Again, they basically ruled a flat out ban by denying registrations was unconstitutional.
Not at all what you want me to believe it says.
How does it feel to be so wrong, so often?
Why don't you stick to what you were arguing instead of changing the topic and claiming the other person was wrong. I know its hard to stay on topic when everything presented means you are wrong, but stop imagining I said anything other then what I said and stay on topic.

You said there was not an individual right, the courts say there is, I said there is. I pointed out to their ruling and even posted excerpts of the syllabus and you are now rambling about something to which I have not spoken of and claiming some appeals court over stepped their bounds without naming the case and trying to tell me how I think.

Why is that? I mean you have done this several times to me now, I notice you have done it to others. Why is it that you all the sudden avoid the issue and attempt to tell someone how they think when they have made no indication to you or have made indication to someone else several threads before that would imply the something completely different then what you imagine.

I can understand why you would want to change the topic when you are proved wrong. But why return with crap you know nothing about or know not to be true if you had payed the slightest bit of attention?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
When Will Obama DIE? 17 min dem 18
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 18 min Pops 30,451
Chevrolet Malibu Owners: Problems & Solutions (Jun '06) 21 min Taedabelle 2,706
Officer involved in Wal-Mart shooting back on job 30 min yours truly 3
Where are all the original legacy posters? 34 min Pope Che Reagan C... 67
OBAMA Is ISIS? 37 min Mike 4
The Michael Brown Case 2 hr Colbert 58
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 20 hr Truth 2,281
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••