BidenPresident
Verified User
The US can regulate anything it wants. It is how democracy operates.
"I am going to get assault weapons banned."--President Biden
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
The US can regulate anything it wants. It is how democracy operates.
My guess is “Because that’s what they are told to want”. I see little difference between gun banners and abortion banners or gay marriage banners. Both want to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights in addition to their unalienable rights.
No, rather that a review of American History shows that the Founders intended for Americans to have guns, don't ask, it is as stupid as it sounds
I didn't ask that, rather why anyone would feel they needed one, your certainly don't need one to hunt, even though I have seen one try to tell me they were good for squirrel hunting
What then are their purpose other than to kill as many people as they can in as short of time as necessary?
Even the UN recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.
Not "stripping" away rights, no right is absolute, never has been, and all rights can be regulated, again, always have been
Rights are based upon reason, not desire
Killing hogs, shooting home invaders, sport shooting, keeping government on its toes, just to name a few.
Why do you keep dodging the question about stripping Americans of their rights?
But no one says an individual has any right to expand that to cover anything they want nor seem necessary to them for self defense
Like slavery and the right of women to vote? Abortion? Gay marriage?
Dude, you have two choices: to expand rights or to limit them. You are choosing to limit them. I support expanding them.
Like abortion after a heartbeat? “Unnatural love”?
You need semi automatic weapons to kill animals? Unless you were stuck in Kenya with a tiger family in your face I can't see where any animal is so threatening you need a rapid fire weapon. And the "keeping government on its toes" is absurd, based upon a misquoted Jefferson quote out of context that is grossly exaggerated
And I explained the rights aspect, no right is, nor has ever been, absolute, guns are no different
All I can say as I have already noted, no rights are absolute, and all rights are based upon reason, not desire, a major tenant of the social contract
Yes. I understood that. I was just referring to the “why” question. You - “Why would one want to own one?” and to BP I asked - “Why would he/she want to ban them?”
Anyway, for me that’s neither here nor there. I will say that I have several friends and acquaintances who use them to deer hunt. Not spraying bullets like Rambo but most are one shot one kill people. One young lady from church uses hers to deer hunt and evidently shoots it quite well. Not my cup of tea for hunting as bows and muzzleloaders are more my style. The girl from church … and her family (mom, dad, sister, BIL, etc.) often get together at the range to burn lots of lead though. I suppose it is just a matter of desire. I just read an article the other day presenting view of those for and those against. Desire (“because I want one”) was pretty much the only reason I could see from those wanting to have AR type semi-autos.
I will add this…if the weapons were bought for the purpose of “killing as many people as they can” then they’re not being used for such as the best I can find out is that there are about 20,000,000 of them owned in the US. And that’s just the ones researchers know about.
Thanks for admitting you wnat to ban semi-automatic weapons too.
Again, it’s not the weapon or the particular right that is the problem, it’s people like you seeking to strip people of their rights based upon “need”. Do you really need a car with 50 or more horse power? The Founders got along fine with one horsepower.
Global warming is a problem. Do you really need a four bedroom house with air conditioning? The Founders often got along fine with one or two rooms and no A/C.
Should uneducated people vote? Shouldn’t everyone be required to pass the same test as naturalized citizens? Or serve in the military first?
I gotta add to this conversation, as I often do, that the 2nd has zero, zilch, nada, to do with hunting.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Under the old Clinton assault weapons ban even dad’s old 30 carbine (which is loads of fun to shoot) was considered an “assault” weapon. They based so much on magazine capacity with that law.
None of my semi-automatic weapons has ever hurt a person. I can’t say the same for some of my WWI and WWII bolt-action rifles…which truly are “weapons of war”. No doubt the Rights Strippers want to ban those too.