Would an assault weapons ban work?

Would an assault weapons ban work?

There are 3769 comments on the The Washington Post story from Dec 17, 2012, titled Would an assault weapons ban work?. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

When Adam Lanza shot 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, he used a Bushmaster AR-15 , a popular style of semiautomatic rifle that can rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds, according to law enforcement officials.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

bohart

White Pine, TN

#1009 Dec 26, 2012
yup wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that the 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms.
And the SCOTUS ruling means that the right is *not* unlimited.
Your constrained emphasis on words like "securing" - "bear" and "borne" - while amusing - does not change the ruling.
We get that you donít like the ruling - as it could lead to limitations that you donít want to see become law.
And because of events like the Newtown massacre,*some* kinds of limits Ė such as on magazine and clip capacity - are likely coming to a jurisdiction near you soon.
Wrong, the second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. The right of free men to own guns already existed, the second amendment states that , the ( already existing) right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! No where does it grant you rights, only they shall not be infringed upon, big difference.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#1010 Dec 26, 2012
Mid Term 2014 wrote:
The petition is near 75,000 at this time.
Sign the petition to deport cnn's Peirs Morgan for attacking the 2nd Amendment.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/dep...
You have to login to sign this petition, and of course whoever does will be on the list, but we must speak up.
CNN's Peirs Morgan was way out of line with his rant
Try finding something better...to do with your life....
Calling Your Bluff

Dallas, GA

#1011 Dec 26, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
No, obviously I want corporate taxes reformed. I'd even accept a flat corporate tax, come to that.
The tax law shouldn't be this easy to manipulate in your favor and gain millions or billions in underseved rebates. Do you agree?
Corporations do not pay taxes.

Fairtax.org
McGruff

Greensburg, KY

#1012 Dec 26, 2012
Tasmaniac wrote:
<quoted text>Deported to where?
I am not advocating his deportation but I am laughing about it. England is where he is from and there is a petition there to not allow him back. I actually like him except I don't agree with ho's liberal views. I say let everyone debate the issue. I am not afraid of guns and I stand by the 2nd amend but have no issue with different points of view.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1013 Dec 26, 2012
yup wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that the 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms.
You are incorrect.
Here's why.

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence are hte words that spell out how we humans become inpossession of our natural rights. These rights are also known as "inalienable rights". That mean something. it means something BIG !!!

In the beginning of the formation of any group for any purpose, like in this case an assemblage of men to start a new country - it is customary to lay out a "mission statement". In those mission statements lie the intent and desires and the goal and purpose for the organization to exist in the first place.

Our Declaration of Independence is just such a statement of mission. The DOI (Declaration of INdeoendence) spells out the mission - to break away from England and implement our own government and country.
In the DOI lie the words that spell out just why the "group" has come together.
It lays out the SPECIFIC charges they held against King George, in detail.
The DOI contains the reasoning that gave those men just cause to gather together and make their stand against King George. In that part of the preamble to the DOI, lies the reasoning and the authority that they cite as the authority for them to act upon their desires to become independant from the King's subjects and servants.

What they cite is known as "natural law".
This natural law is as old as human philosophy and cicero is one that penned some of it's main ingredients. Cicero stated that all men have a natural born right to the defense of their own life. He pointed out that it is, in fact, a natural law, by pointing out that any and all of the creatures on Earth will vehemently defend their own life, and that of their young. Humans are mammals born of natural design on this Earth no matter how one views how it all came to be.

In the preamble to the DOI, we find the words that have been misunderstood and misconstrued, but are actually the words from which we gain our natural rights and how we come to possess them.
Those words are:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

NOW,

Many have tried to take down that natural law authority by attacking the words "endowed by their Creator".

One must remember that they were deeply religous people for the most part, and that one of the biggest reasons many of them left England in the first place, was so that they could worship their God, other than how the King directed them to do.

That being said, does the fact that they held certain religous beliefs about the creation of the Earth, that may differ from yours negate the fact of natural laws?
Of course not. It simply mens that they put that natural alw into words that reflected their religous beliefs.

The point of natural law contained in those words STILL hold true.

cont.
Malcom

Glasgow, KY

#1014 Dec 26, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Do go on, give us the benefit of your brilliant tax knowledge and how 'expenses carried on' somehow justifies refunds of millions or billions for PROFITABLE CORPORATE ENTITIES.
I can't wait to hear your version.:)
OK.........What are your thoughts on the earned income tax credit.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1015 Dec 26, 2012
It is important that one does not get all caught up in the God -v- no God debate, as it is NOT the point and purpose of the second paragraph in the preamble to the DOI.

You can take out the words "their creator" and insert any of the following:

big bang
comos
evolutionary creation
primordial soup
Buddah
Allah
Great Spirit
Mythos
Rubber Ducky
Flying Spagheti Monster
Lie in the Sky

and it STILL reads the same.

The point being of course, that we get inalienable and natural rights by virtue of simply being born.

Does anyone have to tell you to protect your child? NO!
Why not?
Because you WILL do it no matter what ... PERIOD !

Does anyone have to tell you to defend your self when under attack? Of course not.
Why?
Because you WILL do it as a matter of natural reaction to the threat ... PERIOD !

Now you know that your natural and instinctual actions in both of the above cases, comes from inside you, as a natural and normal and instinctual part of your very nature as a mammal on this planet. You also now know why it is called "natural law" or an "inalienable right".

An inalienable right is a thing that no man or words on paper gave you. You were born with them intact as part and parcel of your very being, and they are as much a part of you as is your heart. Inalienable means, can not be removed or separated from".

NOW,

Since we have this natural born right to self defend, it naturally follows that we also have a right to defend our own lives and that of our loved ones with any and every tool that we can devise to do just that DEFEND YOUR LIFE !
That means that the right to keep and bear arms is ALSO an inalienable right that can not be removed.

So now, we come to the 2nd amendment.

There was debate amongst the founders in a much similar fashion as to what you misunderstand about natural law and rights, and what I expound here.
To address that and point out that the US government has NO right nor cause, nor just stand, nor not even any authority whatsoever - NONE - to infringe upon a natural law and right - they wrote the 2nd amendment.

They wrote that amendment to make it plain, and that it is a part of our constitution, and it is a restriction upon the government.
That is ALL it is.

There is NO right being granted in the words:

"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."

It is a directive that states the government has no authority to infringe upon the natural and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Men are totally incapable of granting natural/inalienable rights, therefore they also have no authority to deny them without due process of an individual, on an individual basis - not infringe upon them for the whole population.

The second amendment restricts THE GOVERNMENT

NOT

the people.

“Sixteen Tons”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1016 Dec 26, 2012
Well said. I will be keeping my firearms and no piece of paper can affect that.
Hey Pal

Baraboo, WI

#1017 Dec 26, 2012
What a moron question this is!
Here is your moron answer...Um NO a Assault weapons ban won't work now or ever!
The good guys don't need to be banned...its the criminals and nuts from the funny farm who should be banned!
Learn to put your damn guns in steel closed case's with trigger locks on all your damn guns you morons!
That glass gun case is useless...toss it to the curb!
Also kids with guns don't mix!
There should be a national gun law that makes it a felony for any youth under 18 to use or own a gun of any kind!
Further to that any adult giving a gun to a youth should lose there rights to own guns ever again!
6 posts removed
Hey Pal

Baraboo, WI

#1024 Dec 26, 2012
Tasmaniac wrote:
<quoted text>
I reckon you're on the right track
thanks your doing good too.
1 post removed

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1026 Dec 26, 2012
Hey Pal wrote:
What a moron question this is!
Here is your moron answer...Um NO a Assault weapons ban won't work now or ever!
The good guys don't need to be banned...its the criminals and nuts from the funny farm who should be banned!
Learn to put your damn guns in steel closed case's with trigger locks on all your damn guns you morons!
That glass gun case is useless...toss it to the curb!
Also kids with guns don't mix!
There should be a national gun law that makes it a felony for any youth under 18 to use or own a gun of any kind!
Further to that any adult giving a gun to a youth should lose there rights to own guns ever again!
Phuque you pal.
My inalienablke right to self defense and therefore the tools to employ in that defense are an innate and insticntual matter of natural law. It is there fore NOT up for debate nor infringment - pal.
YOU have NO authority to deny ANY human that right unless they personally forfeit them through due process as a direct result of their own actions.
2 posts removed

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1029 Dec 26, 2012
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
My partial "solution" is the reduction in the size of capacity and magazines for all available weapons, can't believe you haven't gotten that by now, I've said it frequently.
AS my example I ask how many could a lunatic kill if he only had a one shot rifle? Not suggesting anything that draconian, but the extreme example shows that the death tolls would be much lower if the killers' shooting capabilities were much lower.
Answer the following:

How many can a lunatic kill if he is locked up in a mental institution where he can get help?

How many can a lunatic kill if he is STILL incarcerated, instead of turned loose to roam our streets and hunt other humans, because he "likes to kill people"?

How many can a lunatic kill if he is shot dead?

You have NO valid argument Max.
Sorry, but it is the truth.

You address the above questions seriously, FIRST, and maybe, just maybe, you will be able to find a little bit of credibility in your "partial solution".

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1030 Dec 26, 2012
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already explained to you that society and our elected officials do indeed get to tell you how you can "defend" your family, what part don't you get? If a law is passed limiting the capacity of weapons, do you plan on an armed insurrection?
And I have already told you to go to hell because my inalienable rights are a matter of natural law which NO man gave me in the first place and therefore NO man will relieve me of them unless they intend to kill me.

I do not "plan" on anything except to defend myself, my family, and my property from untoward acts. PERIOD.

What part of THAT do YOU not grasp sir?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1031 Dec 26, 2012
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam Lanza, a horribly unhappy and disturbed individual committed the crime.
That is correct and he should have been off the streets long before it came to this.

Why do you wish to avoid looking at the true root cause of the cause and effect in this issue?

You accurately point it out, but yet somehow do an irrational and illogical disconnect from that reality and truth that
"Adam Lanza, a horribly unhappy and disturbed individual committed the crime."
and proffer up insane bullshit about his choice of weaponry in his shooting spree, rather than address the fact that he was mentally ill, and got NO help, nor restraint.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1032 Dec 26, 2012
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already explained to you that society and our elected officials do indeed get to tell you how you can "defend" your family, what part don't you get? If a law is passed limiting the capacity of weapons, do you plan on an armed insurrection?
Listen closely Max.

Here is a law abiding and law respecting citizen that has received nothing other in the way of citation than a simple traffic ticket, has argued cases in court and won on each of several occasions, without a single loss, and trains others in the way that they should go sir. This citizen is telling you to stick your proposed "partial solution" right here > (_._) sir.

This citizen is telling you that you are proposing to remove from the individual persons, citizens of a free republic that have their inalienable rights founded in natural law, as do ALL of mankind, of a part of their very being. You are flirting with removing something from those citizens that they hold more dear and more closely to their chests then they do the flag itself sir.

Many of them are CURRENTLY flying their flags upside down sir.
THAT sir, should mean something to you. THAT sir should mean something VERY serious to you. That SHOULD tell you something.
Are you daft sir?

Are you serious when you propose that any new law that is passed will be respected by those citizens that hold no respect for the law in the first place?

Are you serious sir, or are you an out of work fcuked up comedian of some alien sort?
Hey Pal

Baraboo, WI

#1033 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Phuque you pal.
My inalienablke right to self defense and therefore the tools to employ in that defense are an innate and insticntual matter of natural law. It is there fore NOT up for debate nor infringment - pal.
YOU have NO authority to deny ANY human that right unless they personally forfeit them through due process as a direct result of their own actions.
Wrong..Guns are not a right but a privilege to own in America...but you must be new here!
If you mis-use your weapons you should forfeit them!
Mid Term 2014

Elizabethtown, KY

#1034 Dec 26, 2012
Petition closing in on 80,000

Sign the petition to deport cnn's Peirs Morgan for attacking the 2nd Amendment.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/dep...

You have to login to sign this petition, and of course whoever does will be on the list, but we must speak up.

CNN's Peirs Morgan was way out of line with his rant
McGruff

Greensburg, KY

#1035 Dec 26, 2012
Hey Pal wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong..Guns are not a right but a privilege to own in America...but you must be new here!
If you mis-use your weapons you should forfeit them!
not according to the supreme court. Over one hundred years of rulings have stated that it is an individual right.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1036 Dec 26, 2012
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
If a law is passed limiting the capacity of weapons, do you plan on an armed insurrection?
I plan on doing what I am currently doing obeying CONSTITUTIONAL laws.
Your proposal is not only unconstitutional, it is unconscionable, as what you propose sir, is to relieve or limit a natural right to defend onesself, family, and holdings.
THOSE type attempts sir, ultimately lead ONLY one place sir - to MASSIVE loss of human life.

Tis YOU and YOUR ilk that sets the stage for revolt sir.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1037 Dec 26, 2012
Hey Pal wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong..Guns are not a right but a privilege to own in America...but you must be new here!
If you mis-use your weapons you should forfeit them!
Defending one's life, family, and property is a PROPER use of weaponry - pal.

Those who HAVE misused their weapons should be relieved of them most certainly.

And ^THAT^- PAL - should ONLY be done through due process of already written law.

You wish me to forfeit my weapons because I have NOT misused them - PAL.
Place that sentiment and plan right alongside your feces in your rectal canal - PAL !

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News White House rebuts Washington Post report of Tr... 1 min Justified Pain 790
News Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 1 min Alt right lies 288
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min fingers mcgurke 2,394
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min Truth 25,620
News 'Climate change musical' is cited as tax waste ... 5 min Denizen_Kate 7
News Explore the weight of a border wall along the e... 5 min fingers mcgurke 115
News James Comey fired as FBI director 7 min fingers mcgurke 2,550
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Julia 1,535,018
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min Julia 269,876
News Notre Dame graduates walk out on Pence as he to... 25 min fingers mcgurke 147
More from around the web