Gun Owners pay for Gun Violence Costs

[pcs]

people always want to argue about the ar15 isnt an assault rifle, “its a sportmans rifle” “its a hunting rifle” etc. its just a deflection tactic to try to make someone seem unknowledgeable. definition are constantly being changed, the us army and politicians have their own, doesnt matter. all AR/M4/M16s etc are based on the same original design but adjusted to work better in a specific environment or get around certain legislation. no matter what u call it the original purpose of the platform was for military infantry use. lightweight, easy to use, fast magazine changes, all with intent to kill people. yes people have been killing each other with blunt objects long before guns existed. whats different is a person with a blunt object isnt as lethal as a person with an AR/assault rifle/semi auto rifle with a few 30rd mags in the pocket.
whats also embarrassing is some people continue to say gun legislation will take guns away from “law abiding” citizens and not criminals. how many law abiding citizens are prevented from buying guns legally? waiting a few days and/or background checks dont prevent people from getting a gun. ive never had a problem legally buying a gun from many states, even in “blue” ones. fill out some papers, show an id, pay, sometimes you wait, other times they hand it to you on the spot. when have background checks or waiting a few days to buy a gun have led to the death of a law abiding citizen… how many times have failed background checks led to the death of law abiding citizens?

[TallTom]

So lack of laws allow a criminal to buy a gun? Interesting concept, there should be a law that makes a criminal buying a gun illegal. Oh wait, never mind, there is and they are already prohibited persons. You really should slow down, think through your argument and see the holes you poke through it all on your own before posting and somebody else does it for you. It's frankly embarrassing.

Its almost like criminals don't follow the law (hint, it's why they're called criminals, they don't follow laws) but somehow more of your unlax laws will compel them to. Got it.

You understand by pure numbers the blunt object is more dangerous then a rifle is right? And you do know that AR15's are a small fraction of the rifles used in killing people right? It's in the FBI's own crime statistics. But continue arguing a point you're provably and unequivocally wrong on, they are more deadly, but that's not the point.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure how it can get any more simple for you man, this doesn't restrict you, it restricts the government. I would hate to see you argue contract law, good god. You should read the federalist papers and our founding fathers words on the matter, then it would be much more clear to you what the 2A was for and you wouldn't have to invent limitations the Ammendment makes no such case for And in fact says the opposite.

You also know its not an Assault Rifle and AR actually stands for Armalite, the Co that invented it right? It might also pain you to know that several hundred years ago one of our presidents and founders authorized a citizen privateer to have their days version of a tank and have canons as arms.

You're the worst sort of gun owner imaginable, completely uneducated on the constitution, our laws and want to wage war on lawful citizens who own guns you disapprove of, decide how many bullets they may have and how they may carry them. Your defense of the First Amendment (or any other part of the constitution) in the same manner would be cringe worthy to watch.

You argue with emotion, but in the end facts don't care about your feelings...

Jesus. Ok do we have any 3rd grade level teachers here that can help me out? @Mythos John Q dumbass can sell to another John Q Dumbass his AR. The first John Q doesn't have to do jackchyt to check out the other John Q. So the other John Q now has an AR that he could not have purchased through a LGD, because he is a criminal. No laws were broken. So now we have another John Q dumbass telling us there are laws to prevent the sale of guns to criminals. Yet can't grasp that there are no laws being broken, when it does occur.

This is why America can't have nice things. They think they are smarter than the very people that allowed for them to have nice things.

Oh but 200 years ago some dude was allowed to have a tank. And 200 years later he is not. Apparently that didn't work out to well to do that.

And so you want to divert again and give us a history on what AR means. Nobody cares. AR style weapons (yes we know the media misuses it) are the chosen preferred weapon for the fruitbats that want to shoot large quantities of bullets into lots of people at once. Not a hammer. None of us really give an eff at 200 years ago or what A and R stand for.

I'm sorry. I'm unable to know how to dumb it down any further for you. I haven't had to deal with a special needs kid in years.

[kim windsor]

So knives, swords, trebuche's, cannons, muskets, hands, feet and hammers are to blame as well? As an example more people die each year of hammers then rifles and AR15's are just a subset of those rifles. We should ban hammers. Did you know that 65% of gun deaths are from suicides? Number gets pretty small once those are rightfully removed.

My rights don't end where your feelings begin, freedom is messy but our country was born from violence and started with the shot heard round the world by attempted gun grabbing from the British no less. Reviewing the history of Lexington and Concord should help clear that up.

Weird how so many on the left want law abiding citizens disarmed but our cities can be violently looted and burned across the country with out care. They have plenty of purpose beyond what you listed, not the least of which is protection from those who think they get to list what we may have and why. Just like you don't seek my permission for what you'd like to say, I don't seek your permission for what I'll own.

Should ask yourself what remedy will remain if someday your words no longer persuade others of your right to keep using them and you've long since given away the other right that would defend doing so. Something, something tree of liberty. Be nice if we could avoid all that again...

AMEN

[TallTom]

AMEN

200 years ago I could have beaten him to death with a hammer and nobody would have minded.

Now 200 years later, I have to tolerate him.

[fallenarch]

Are you sure those aren’t alternative facts?

It is amazing how many people think the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the Bill of rights was a single historic event. Once you understand the timeline, you realize the games the revisionists are playing. The founders did not equate arming the people with protection from the government in the least - that's why it was not in the constitution until it was added in the bill of rights. tSeveral attempts were made to get the rest of the colonies to join the original 13 who ratified the constitution. The Federalist papers where just this, an attpemp to "sell" the constitution. Finall the Bill of Rights was added to the constution to make a package the rest of the states were willing to sign. The 2A is in the bill of rights.

[fallenarch]

How come no one talks about how dangerous rifles are to law enforcement? I have been told that a suspect with a rifle can kill an officer before the officer even knows there is an imminent threat. After all, the purpose of a rifle is to extend the kill zone out farther right?

[justintime2]

Point of order:
You're so dense it actually hurts. 17-year-old kids firing hundreds of rounds huh? Don't bother searching for the average age of the Revolutionary War soldier when the 2nd was written.

The revolutionary war was ended in 1783. The constitution was written at the constitutional convention 4 years later in 1787. The initial constitution was only ratified by 13 states. The 2nd amendment was part of the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, The Bill of Rights "adjusted" the constitution to get the remaining states to ratify the document and form the United States of America. So the 2nd amendment was not written while 17-year-olds were fighting the revolutionary war.

The founders felt that the decentralization of power written into the initial constitution was the only necessary protection from a tyrannical government. That's why none of the 2nd amendment languages was in that first draft. The 2nd amendment was added to satisfy southern states that feared that the new government would take away gun rights to make plantations too dangerous to keep the institution of slavery alive.

When speaking of roughly 250 years ago the word "when" doesn't imply the exact same moment 17 year olds were shooting rifles and process was magically done.

You probably also believe the 3/5's compromise was because the founders didn't want to recognize slaves as full human beings. When in fact the founders wanted the slaves counted as nothing and the slave owners wanted them counted in full. Thats because we were forming a representative government and the slave owners would have a larger population and therefor more representatives to legally keep slavery alive by pure votes. Hence the 3/5's compromise. What the founders thought of slavery can be found right in the Declaration Of Independence, first sentence of the second paragraph as written by a slave owner. In fact Washington was the first to free his slaves. The Second Amendment was about a check on government power, not slaves. Look at its words, free state, right of the people.

You are right that many believed the BOR's were not needed as the constitution itself limited government power explicitly and the BOR's would water that down by saying you can't take away people's rights, but you really can't take away these ones. Benjamin Franklin's words on this topic are relevant.

[justintime2]

It is amazing how many people think the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the Bill of rights was a single historic event. Once you understand the timeline, you realize the games the revisionists are playing. The founders did not equate arming the people with protection from the government in the least - that's why it was not in the constitution until it was added in the bill of rights. tSeveral attempts were made to get the rest of the colonies to join the original 13 who ratified the constitution. The Federalist papers where just this, an attpemp to "sell" the constitution. Finall the Bill of Rights was added to the constution to make a package the rest of the states were willing to sign. The 2A is in the bill of rights.

Who's asserted those are one event, other than you?
The constitution, then and after the BOR's, clearly delineated what the government can not do and limited it's authority. So the 2nd was enacted to protect hunting, target shooting or what then? Yes is was added to allay fears, fears the government would grow to abuse its people, boy did they call that one.

You are wrong on the 2nd, its words make that plainly obvious. Notice how it doesn't say a free government? Free state and people rights, we just fought a tyrannical government who had squashed both and began the whole thing to begin with. But definitely it was written for some other reason entirely.

[justintime2]

How come no one talks about how dangerous rifles are to law enforcement? I have been told that a suspect with a rifle can kill an officer before the officer even knows there is an imminent threat. After all, the purpose of a rifle is to extend the kill zone out farther right?

Are officers some special sort of animal that they should have rifles and citizens should not? Not sure what you're trying to state here. Yes rifles are dangerous and extend the kill zone as you state it. The same applied to the British 250 years ago as it also did to the FBI sniper who shot and killed Vicki Weaver while unarmed and with a child in her arms.

[ZeePopo]

If firearms had been restricted way back in the day America would have never been and we would all be siping tea and eating crumpets. A armed populance deters dictatorships and monarchical aspirations within government structures. I'm all for gun right and ownership, but with education and training. Not a free for all that any ignorant fool can buy and use. Guns are highly specialized tools and as with all specialized tools training and practice are required in order to avoid injuries to onself and others.

[justintime2]

Jesus. Ok do we have any 3rd grade level teachers here that can help me out? @Mythos John Q dumbass can sell to another John Q Dumbass his AR. The first John Q doesn't have to do jackchyt to check out the other John Q. So the other John Q now has an AR that he could not have purchased through a LGD, because he is a criminal. No laws were broken. So now we have another John Q dumbass telling us there are laws to prevent the sale of guns to criminals. Yet can't grasp that there are no laws being broken, when it does occur.

This is why America can't have nice things. They think they are smarter than the very people that allowed for them to have nice things.

Oh but 200 years ago some dude was allowed to have a tank. And 200 years later he is not. Apparently that didn't work out to well to do that.

And so you want to divert again and give us a history on what AR means. Nobody cares. AR style weapons (yes we know the media misuses it) are the chosen preferred weapon for the fruitbats that want to shoot large quantities of bullets into lots of people at once. Not a hammer. None of us really give an eff at 200 years ago or what A and R stand for.

I'm sorry. I'm unable to know how to dumb it down any further for you. I haven't had to deal with a special needs kid in years.

Your argument has been quite dumb from the beginning, for the love of god don't make it any dumber, please...

Most states have laws against face to face transactions and those that don't most require proper ID and or a CPL license when doing so. But that doesn't matter as there is no law you can create to prevent two people from meeting face to face for anything.

Your comment about what they allow us to have is the very premise of your problem. The constitution limited our government, all other rights were retained by the states and their citizens. Those rights come from our creator as free men, whom ever you might believe that is. Politicians don't give me my rights as a free person, they therefore can't take them away. At least not without consequence in the end. Those very same set of documents gives us the same right to do to the current government what our ancestors did to the British all those years ago. Tree of liberty...

[justintime2]

200 years ago I could have beaten him to death with a hammer and nobody would have minded.

Now 200 years later, I have to tolerate him.

The contrast here is prefect. The guy who wants to disarm people is also the one threatening them. Brilliant!

[fallenarch]

Are officers some special sort of animal that they should have rifles and citizens should not? Not sure what you're trying to state here. Yes rifles are dangerous and extend the kill zone as you state it. The same applied to the British 250 years ago as it also did to the FBI sniper who shot and killed Vicki Weaver while unarmed and with a child in her arms.

I would say yes, officers are special in that they are far more likely to face high-powered weaponry than the average citizen (how they use that special status is another conversation). My subtly made point is that the Police are very much in favor of gun control.

[michael parris heuberger]

If firearms had been restricted way back in the day America would have never been and we would all be siping tea and eating crumpets. A armed populance deters dictatorships and monarchical aspirations within government structures. I'm all for gun right and ownership, but with education and training. Not a free for all that any ignorant fool can buy and use. Guns are highly specialized tools and as with all specialized tools training and practice are required in order to avoid injuries to onself and others.

Hi, So good. What do dictators do first? Take the guns from people so they have no way to fight back. In my state you have to have a gun license and the person you bought the gun from has to have a license and the info gets turned into the state for the sale to be legal.. If you want to kill a lot of people use a pressure cooker filled with steel ball and nails and and stuff. I do not want to teach anyone how to build an m18.

[TallTom]

Hi, So good. What do dictators do first? Take the guns from people so they have no way to fight back. In my state you have to have a gun license and the person you bought the gun from has to have a license and the info gets turned into the state for the sale to be legal.. If you want to kill a lot of people use a pressure cooker filled with steel ball and nails and and stuff. I do not want to teach anyone how to build an m18.

Yeah ghost guns are also a pathway for criminals or looney tuner to get their assault weapons. No laws to prevent it and no laws violated.

[pcs]

How come no one talks about how dangerous rifles are to law enforcement? I have been told that a suspect with a rifle can kill an officer before the officer even knows there is an imminent threat. After all, the purpose of a rifle is to extend the kill zone out farther right?

happen in new mex a few months ago, dirtbag killed a NM state trooper, then a pursuit, and a shootout. last year in riverside california a motorcycle officer. its hard to talk about gun laws without people thinking you are anti guns. if the problem of gun violence is not the gun problem but people problem, the why do gun groups/nra oppose funding to studying the problem. dickey amendment for example. if the problem could be studied then legislation can target the problem and maybe then we won’t have all 50states trying 50 different types of laws. i am not anti gun but their are a lot of people with guns that shouldn’t have them.

[ZeePopo]

Hi, So good. What do dictators do first? Take the guns from people so they have no way to fight back. In my state you have to have a gun license and the person you bought the gun from has to have a license and the info gets turned into the state for the sale to be legal.. If you want to kill a lot of people use a pressure cooker filled with steel ball and nails and and stuff. I do not want to teach anyone how to build an m18.

The art of war is truly a terrifying path. An unarmed populance is vulnerable. To rely fully on another to protect you leads to calamity. In this day and age with the technology we have the shield is the sword,the sword is the shield. Sadly too many fools out there popping rounds
for emotional slights done against them. Emotional fortitude is lacking. In the end they lash out against the innocent, never having the courage to actually go after the ones that hurt them, even in their acts of violence their fear shows.

[fallenarch]

I hear all this gun tooting stuff about a tyrannical government take over and I don't get it. A tyrannical government is not going to shoot their way into office. They are going to corrupt the system to allow them to assume power. Look at all the legislation being passed to limit access to voting. Read all of it and it says nothing about race, religion, or sexual persuasion. So if you support this legislation, you are assuming the people in power are going to use this against certain peoples/groups. At first, they probably will be surgical about voter suppression at first but essentially we have given up our control of the government in the process.

The founders did not envision a standing federal army. The feds would have a relatively small group of command and control regulars and the troops/equipment would be raised from state-controlled militias as needed. When we allowed the formation of a powerful standing federal military, we essentially seeded our ability to resist a tyrannical federal government. So all of the huffing and puffing about baring arms to secure our freedom is just hot air.

Now, given the power we have seeded to a federal government, our only defense against authoritarian rule is to protect democracy.

[CBXRider]

…”Now, given the power we have seeded to a federal government, our only defense against authoritarian rule is to protect democracy.”

Something some people just don't get, no matter how many rounds they have or how many guns they have.

[Bumblebee]

Some on this thread need to get this tattoo...