Gun Laws Debate - Pittsburgh, PA

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Pittsburgh, PA.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Pittsburgh thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
13
Yes
 
5
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Pittsburgh:

Comments
1 - 20 of 39 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
MrOwl

Greensboro, NC

#1 Jul 25, 2012
Vhat is the matter vith you socialists, anarchists and other gun control freaks? Vhy are you not clamouring on here for all veapons to be taken avay from the law abiding citizens so they von't shoot back. I mean, it vorked so vell in Britain, vhy not America?
patric

Pittsburgh, PA

#2 Jul 25, 2012
already to opressive
Anonymous

Pittsburgh, PA

#3 Jul 27, 2012
In the USA, any adult without a criminal background can legally purchase a military style assault rifle which can fire many, many rounds within 10 seconds. In regards to a criminal background; a person planning a massive crime can have no prior criminal record. And there seems to be a pattern to large massacres caused by a psycho with a legally purchased rapid fire military style assault weapon, every 5 or 7 or less years; in the USA, some new nut or nuts appear and spray a large crowd of innocent people with military style assault weapons. We have not seen the last, by any means, of such killers and mainers in our country with their legally purchased large massacre weapons. Also, sure the 2nd Amendment of the USA Constitution takes about the right to bear arms. People can legally have their standard guns, but seemingly ordinary people should not have the right to purchase military style assault weapons. Those people; you know they are planning something, sooner or later when convential or standard guns will not do for these people.
Truthteller

Pittsburgh, PA

#4 Jul 28, 2012
Yes,why would you need a gun with a magazine that holds 30 bullets?

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#5 Jul 28, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
In the USA, any adult without a criminal background can legally purchase a military style assault rifle which can fire many, many rounds within 10 seconds. In regards to a criminal background; a person planning a massive crime can have no prior criminal record. And there seems to be a pattern to large massacres caused by a psycho with a legally purchased rapid fire military style assault weapon, every 5 or 7 or less years; in the USA, some new nut or nuts appear and spray a large crowd of innocent people with military style assault weapons. We have not seen the last, by any means, of such killers and mainers in our country with their legally purchased large massacre weapons. Also, sure the 2nd Amendment of the USA Constitution takes about the right to bear arms. People can legally have their standard guns, but seemingly ordinary people should not have the right to purchase military style assault weapons. Those people; you know they are planning something, sooner or later when convential or standard guns will not do for these people.
Whoa, please don't get confused with the media's concept of an assault rifle. What legal, non felons can buy is a semi-automatic look alike. A true assault rifle has a switch that will allow automatic or semi-automatic fire. The rifle that you can purchase is NOT an assault rifle, The look alike, but they lack the automatic capability.

Automatic weapons (machine guns) have been banned in the USA since the 1930's. There is a special hobby permit that can be purchased, but they are very rare and only issued after extensive background and criminal checks. If there are true automatic weapons about, then the ATF, the FBI, and Homeland security is not doing the job that we pay them to do. The media calls everything an assault weapon.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

#6 Jul 28, 2012
Truthteller wrote:
Yes,why would you need a gun with a magazine that holds 30 bullets?
Ask the government that question. The government even has belt-fed weapons with no magazines at all. Since the second amendment was intended to keep the people adequately armed to deter the tyrannical inclination of any government, it would appear that the people do in fact need 30 round magazines, and belt-fed, fully automatic weapons, and many other, more powerful arms.
Law

Papillion, NE

#7 Jul 28, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
In the USA, any adult without a criminal background can legally purchase a military style assault rifle which can fire many, many rounds within 10 seconds. In regards to a criminal background; a person planning a massive crime can have no prior criminal record. And there seems to be a pattern to large massacres caused by a psycho with a legally purchased rapid fire military style assault weapon, every 5 or 7 or less years;
Really? When was the last one in the US?
Anonymous wrote:
in the USA, some new nut or nuts appear and spray a large crowd of innocent people with military style assault weapons. We have not seen the last, by any means, of such killers and mainers in our country with their legally purchased large massacre weapons.
What is a "military style assault weapon"? Can you define it without googling it? Can you do it without regurgitating something a polluitician might have spoon fed you?
Anonymous wrote:
Also, sure the 2nd Amendment of the USA Constitution takes about the right to bear arms. People can legally have their standard guns, but seemingly ordinary people should not have the right to purchase military style assault weapons.
Where does the 2nd Amendment make that distinction? Will you be showing us that soon? Real soon?
Anonymous wrote:
Those people; you know they are planning something, sooner or later when convential or standard guns will not do for these people.
What is a "conventional" gun? What is a "standard" gun?
Law

Papillion, NE

#8 Jul 28, 2012
Truthteller wrote:
Yes,why would you need a gun with a magazine that holds 30 bullets?
The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. And not the Bill of What Truthteller Thinks You Need.
Where there is a right, need is not relevant.

Who are you to demand that someone justify their needs to you in the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right?
An Observation

Uniontown, PA

#9 Jul 29, 2012
I can't wait till practicable cold fusion makes nuclear weapons held by private citizens possible... that'll turn a new chapter in the gun debate!
MrOwl

Greensboro, NC

#10 Jul 30, 2012
Your fun loving, death dealing muzzies whom most lovingly call muslims are working on obtaining hand held nuclear weapons so they can conquer all you infidels.
hugh

Pittsburgh, PA

#11 Jul 30, 2012
enforce laws we have now first then see
Da Owl-boy bigot sux

Uniontown, PA

#12 Jul 30, 2012
MrOwl wrote:
Your fun loving, death dealing muzzies whom most lovingly call muslims are working on obtaining hand held nuclear weapons so they can conquer all you infidels.
Well, I guess if the bigots of the GOP base want to win over a few black votes, they have to focus their vitriolic hate elsewhere... so, watch out, Muslim America, Owl-boy and his ol' buddies at the KKK have a new target!
2nd amendment

Dallas, PA

#13 Jul 31, 2012
you can use a car, bat, knife, pillow, etc. as weapons, heck even a spoon probably. So I think if someone was set on killing they would still find a way
Anonymous

Pittsburgh, PA

#14 Aug 2, 2012
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? When was the last one in the US?
<quoted text>
What is a "military style assault weapon"? Can you define it without googling it? Can you do it without regurgitating something a polluitician might have spoon fed you?
<quoted text>
Where does the 2nd Amendment make that distinction? Will you be showing us that soon? Real soon?
<quoted text>What is a "conventional" gun? What is a "standard" gun?
You are very insulting. Nobody spoon feeds me. I do not regurgitate. You seem delusional. Advocates for the semi-automatic weapons, like you, never offer a solution of what to do to help prevent a madman gunslinger who unloads many rounds quickly into a crowd of panicky, innocent people. There seems to be only one way-to ban the sale of semi automatic weapons. And the answer is not for everyone to carry a gun. In that case, bar room shootings would skyrocket, robberies skyrocket, gun thefts skyrocket, shooting between quarreling next door neighbors would skyrocket, shootings over parking spaces would skyrocket, etc., etc. In regards to the public having a "right" for semi automatic weapons against a tyrannical government; the US Constitution says no such thing. The US Consitution talks about the right to bear arms, but those arms when the US Constitution was written; what the designers of the US Constitution had in mind would be swords, muskets, flintlocks-the type of arms found in 18th century America. And those arms are nothing at all like the very powerful, multi rounds firing, lightweight, portable arms of today. Muskets, flintlocks could only fire one shot at a time before reloading. Such weapons were at times inaccurate and were to be used only at a certain range when the enemy was close enough so you can "see the whites of their eyes". A short while before the Aurora, Colorado semi automatic gunman massacre, there was the Oikos University massacre in April 2, 2012. One L. Goh killed 7 people with a semi automatic gun. And the Virginia Tech massacre inwhich Seung-Hui Cho killed 323 people in 2007 and wounded 17 others with semi automatic weaponry.

Since: Oct 09

Harker Heights, TX

#15 Aug 2, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very insulting. Nobody spoon feeds me. I do not regurgitate. You seem delusional. Advocates for the semi-automatic weapons, like you, never offer a solution of what to do to help prevent a madman gunslinger who unloads many rounds quickly into a crowd of panicky, innocent people. There seems to be only one way-to ban the sale of semi automatic weapons. And the answer is not for everyone to carry a gun. In that case, bar room shootings would skyrocket, robberies skyrocket, gun thefts skyrocket, shooting between quarreling next door neighbors would skyrocket, shootings over parking spaces would skyrocket, etc., etc. In regards to the public having a "right" for semi automatic weapons against a tyrannical government; the US Constitution says no such thing. The US Consitution talks about the right to bear arms, but those arms when the US Constitution was written; what the designers of the US Constitution had in mind would be swords, muskets, flintlocks-the type of arms found in 18th century America. And those arms are nothing at all like the very powerful, multi rounds firing, lightweight, portable arms of today. Muskets, flintlocks could only fire one shot at a time before reloading. Such weapons were at times inaccurate and were to be used only at a certain range when the enemy was close enough so you can "see the whites of their eyes". A short while before the Aurora, Colorado semi automatic gunman massacre, there was the Oikos University massacre in April 2, 2012. One L. Goh killed 7 people with a semi automatic gun. And the Virginia Tech massacre inwhich Seung-Hui Cho killed 323 people in 2007 and wounded 17 others with semi automatic weaponry.
So I guess first amendment rights only apply to news papers like Ben Franklin's as the designers of the US Constitution couldn't possibly have had radio or television in mind. Oh and the only proper means of execution is hanging (or maybe the guillotine) as the designers of the US Constitution couldn't have had lethal injection in mind. We'll also have to shut down the TSA 'cause I doubt the designers of the US Constitution had airport frottage in mind, and the DEA, as they probably weren't thinking of criminalizing meth or cocaine either, and the NSA - well there wasn't a lot of electronic communication to intercept back then, and for this reason the FCC has got to go as well. The Air Force is obviously unconstitutional as is NASA by your standard of constitutionality.
Anonymous

Pittsburgh, PA

#16 Aug 3, 2012
Whatever is good for society, good for the people, is to be kept. Whatever is bad for society, an evil for the people, is to be eliminated. Obviously, lax laws regarding the purchase and ownership of semi automatic weapons allow such weapons to, at times, fall into the wrong hands. Why cannot people wishing to purchase semi automatic weapons be given a mental evaluation test to help determine their soundness of mind or lack of soundness of mind? As well as given the criminal background checks.

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#17 Aug 3, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Whatever is good for society, good for the people, is to be kept. Whatever is bad for society, an evil for the people, is to be eliminated. Obviously, lax laws regarding the purchase and ownership of semi automatic weapons allow such weapons to, at times, fall into the wrong hands. Why cannot people wishing to purchase semi automatic weapons be given a mental evaluation test to help determine their soundness of mind or lack of soundness of mind? As well as given the criminal background checks.
I would submit that anyone wishing to register Democrat be given a mental evaluation and a common sense test to determine soundness of mind. Churchill said,"Anyone who is not liberal at age twenty, has no heart. But anyone who is not conservative at age forty, has no brain."
Old Fool Foibles

Uniontown, PA

#18 Aug 3, 2012
And would you expect anything else from Churchill, you old fool?

Churchill was arch-conservative politician, born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, served as Chancellor of the Exchequer; his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. He was a British Army officer, and saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War.

His quote is more than a little self-serving!

“Obama is a Liar, Period!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#19 Aug 4, 2012
Old Fool Foibles wrote:
And would you expect anything else from Churchill, you old fool?
Churchill was arch-conservative politician, born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, served as Chancellor of the Exchequer; his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. He was a British Army officer, and saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War.
His quote is more than a little self-serving!
And "you didn't build it" is what? Brilliance? Churchill was correct. If you're not a conservative in middle age, you have no brain!

I did notice that the British Isles still speak English, and not German. But, of course, Obama did that too, I guess.
Anonymous

Coraopolis, PA

#20 Aug 4, 2012
Dagobert II wrote:
<quoted text> So I guess first amendment rights only apply to news papers like Ben Franklin's as the designers of the US Constitution couldn't possibly have had radio or television in mind. Oh and the only proper means of execution is hanging (or maybe the guillotine) as the designers of the US Constitution couldn't have had lethal injection in mind. We'll also have to shut down the TSA 'cause I doubt the designers of the US Constitution had airport frottage in mind, and the DEA, as they probably weren't thinking of criminalizing meth or cocaine either, and the NSA - well there wasn't a lot of electronic communication to intercept back then, and for this reason the FCC has got to go as well. The Air Force is obviously unconstitutional as is NASA by your standard of constitutionality.
The things you mention are simply not in the US Constitution; there is no catagory for them as they belong to a far future era. However, in regards to the section on bearing arms, we are only concerned, in this case, about what is Unconstitutional(Anti Constitutional). What is Unconstitutional is something against what the framers of the US Constitution would have in mind when they were writing the Constitution. If those Constitution writers of the 1700's had our technology of today, they would not allow a maniac to purchase a semi automatic weapon and spray a crowd of innocent Americans with many rounds of bullets very quickly, killing many Americans and wounding many, many more Americans. Today, a maniac with no prior criminal record(there is always a first time for murder and meyham)can legally purchase a semi automatic weapon and then go out and kill and main many innocent Americans.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Pittsburgh Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
PA Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in P... (Oct '10) 14 hr sammy 159
PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) 19 hr Obama Defends Mus... 3,924
PA Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania... (Oct '10) 19 hr Our Community Org... 51,303
Debate: Ferguson - Pittsburgh, PA Fri bacon hater 78
I-79 Motoercade 3:30 PM 8/29/14 Fri RW-B 1
South Side Salvation Army Junkies Exposing Geni... Fri Jon 3
Unarmed white teen shot dead by black officer. Aug 26 bacon hater 3

Pittsburgh Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]