Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Progressives want to infringe on the rights of the citizensIf the choice is between taking rights from citizen for the non citizens, progressives chose the non citizen.
Gays having freedoms here are in jeopody because of an foreign non American ideology
The shooter was an American citizen...
Originally posted by Robtard
Err, the point he was probably trying to make, thousands upon thousands die each year in the US to gun violence where it wouldn't be classified as "terrorist" or "terrorism".You're far more likely to get murdered with a gun by someone not classified as a terrorist than you are by a terrorist/terrorist attack, at least in the US.
I don't dispute that. But how many shooting sprees equal 1 terrorist act? Quite a few? The fact that "terrorism" is less frequent doesn't negate the point that terrorism is the bigger issue. I'm ok with banning assault rifles, or maybe something less stringent.. What happens if the next shooting spree happens with a hand gun? Will the democrats be screaming to band hand guns? You have to admit that a slippery slope is a very realistic scenario here.
So violating the second amendment to ban firearms is bad, but violating the first amendment to ban a religion is okay (unless it's Christianity; Muslims aren't allowed to kill gays, but Christians are allowed to enforce segregation against them)
If Islam was such a violent religion, why are there so many Muslims who in the wake of this attack came out against ISIS and homophobia? Are you going to say these people aren't true Muslims, because they're not behaving the way you're stereotyping Muslim behavior. Clearly you see the problems of going after an entire religion. It would be comparable to me saying all capitalists are bad just because there are a few corrupt opportunists who abuse capitalism. You see how generalizing an ideology doesn't work.
And name one instance in which it was necessary for a citizen to use an automatic firearm to take down a hostile and a handgun wouldn't have been enough. If a handgun isn't enough to take down an opponent, that's why there's this thing called police forces and SWAT teams. A civilian isn't supposed to be a combatant. Kind of defeats the point of being a civilian.I understand needing a gun for self defense, but you shouldn't need something as powerful as an automatic weapon unless you're facing a mercenary squad.
Clearly if a terrorist was able to legally purchase a firearm, there needs to be reforms to the legal firearm purchasing process, but this can't happen if every single proposed reform is viewed as a second amendment violation. Terrorist attacks like these are the EXACT reason gun legislation is proposed, to prevent shootings like this. Odd how there have been more find sold while Obama was office, and coincidentally more mass shootings with legal firearms while Obama was in office as well. There is clearly a correlation.
The conspiracy that the government is conspiring to violate the second amendment is insane. There are actually people who think this attack and Sandy Hook were government hoaxes just to justify gun legislation. The mass hysteria is real.