Originally posted by Robtard
Yes really.The fact that the 2md amendment is an amendment means our constitutional laws can be changed, if the will of the people want it. So going "but muh 2nd!" like it's some unassailable shield is silly.
Then you are not to whine when you feel Trump is stepping on the toes of any amendment.
Originally posted by Surtur
I have yet to see a single person give me a valid reason why millions of people who do not use AR-15's unlawfully should have them taken away?
I believe that is a valid point, we then look at that and ask can we legislate behavior, not realistically, not in this situation.
Then we look at that situation and ask can we legislate choices for weapons used in mass shootings?
So we make a choice, public safety or personal freedom.
Does banning ar-15's provide public safety, probably not but that imo is the choice we are looking at in this moment.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there's the whiney concession speech
I do concede it was a fact. Australia doesn't have a 2nd amendment. This is important. It doesn't mean the pathetic strawman another poster has claimed, in that it is being said that can't ever change.
Rather, this just demonstrates the fact of how different our culture is not just to Australia, but most other countries. Our culture when it comes to free speech and guns is unique in the world. I won't apologize for that or try to penalize law abiding citizens just because some horrible people did something awful with a gun.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes really.The fact that the 2md amendment is an amendment means our constitutional laws can be changed, if the will of the people want it. So going "but muh 2nd!" like it's some unassailable shield is silly.
Originally posted by darthgoober
The fact that it's one of the laws our entire modern day culture is based upon means that it's one that will radically alter our entire culture if it's messed with. Now if you'd like to try to do that go right ahead, but at least be honest enough to admit it's what you're wanting rather than acting like it won't be any kind of big deal in the long run beyond magically taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals...
Wanting or not wanting was not the point, the point is that the 2nd is an Amendment and like the rest of the Constitution it can be changed with an amendment.
I'm pro banning bullets; not guns. Doesn't interfere with the 2nd so hayseeds and chairborne rangers can't yell "but muh 2nd!" and it seems like a good compromise.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I believe that is a valid point, we then look at that and ask can we legislate behavior, not realistically, not in this situation.Then we look at that situation and ask can we legislate choices for weapons used in mass shootings?
So we make a choice, public safety or personal freedom.
Does banning ar-15's provide public safety, probably not but that imo is the choice we are looking at in this moment.
Originally posted by Robtard
Wanting or not wanting was not the point, the point is that the 2nd is an Amendment and like the rest of the Constitution it can be changed with an amendment.I'm pro banning bullets; not guns. Doesn't interfere with the 2nd so hayseeds and chairborne rangers can't yell "but muh 2nd!" and it seems like a good compromise.
Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're comparing guns to slavery and democracy. Did you think that was smart? But hey, run with that is you wish.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Right... "probably not". You're wanting to restrict the rights of law abiding people when you know from the outset that the restriction probably won't help the real problem. And if it becomes clear that it HASN'T actually helped the real problem, are you going to be in favor of giving the people their full rights back or are you going to support restricting their rights even further?
I'm going to fall back to the point of banning ar-15's doesn't prevent people from protecting themselves or interfere with the 2nd amendment.
Public safety first, then go pewpew.
At first, I wasn't for banning of a gun then I went and shot and realized how utterly ridiculous it is to defend the ar 15 and large capacity magazines.
I also didn't want to acknowledge gun ownership online and get labeled but I have rifles, revolvers, semi auto matics. I have a touch of experience.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I'm going to fall back to the point of banning ar-15's doesn't prevent people from protecting themselves or interfere with the 2nd amendment.Public safety first, then go pewpew.
At first, I wasn't for banning of a gun then I went and shot and realized how utterly ridiculous it is to defend the ar 15 and large capacity magazines.
I also didn't want to acknowledge gun ownership online and get labeled but I have rifles, revolvers, semi auto matics. I have a touch of experience.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I'm going to fall back to the point of banning ar-15's doesn't prevent people from protecting themselves or interfere with the 2nd amendment.Public safety first, then go pewpew.
At first, I wasn't for banning of a gun then I went and shot and realized how utterly ridiculous it is to defend the ar 15 and large capacity magazines.
I also didn't want to acknowledge gun ownership online and get labeled but I have rifles, revolvers, semi auto matics. I have a touch of experience.
Just like banning AR-15's doesn't pervent mass shootings.