quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
No compromise. None. It is a right. I'll make you a deal just like I offered to KD. You have the right to your body. You sign an agreement to me to have it where and when I want it for any purpose I want it and I will consider a compromise you offer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
It doesn't matter whether it's a bolt action or a semi-auto action. A hunter goes to a gun store and buys what he/she wants. It's a right not a privilege. What happens in the field has no bearing on anything pertaining to this discussion.

That is not true that a hunter goes and buy what he wants. As I said, there are already guns that are not legal for purchases so stores do not have them. So there are already gun restrictions in place. Because the amendment does not protect the "Variety of guns" you can have access to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
And those laws are obscene on many levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
See above in my response to Greta. If you'd like to make a ban proposal in the future, start with the trucks that killed....what...60 in one shot and work down to the frying pan you can read about on Drudge right now that a woman used to kill her husband.

And I come from a country where Trucks are literally banned from certain areas now. Crowded Areas. High Traffic Areas.

So what the US can do is do the same. Ban Trucks from Cities. And Ban Semi-Auto weapons from Cities. Only allowed near forests where they hunt deers or whatever, but no semi-auto weapons should be permitted for sale in cities or near cities.

They can do something practical that works.

So this means that, perhaps people living near hunting grounds can start a business of semi-auto gun storage specially for the hunters, as if this hunter lives in the city, he can't bring home his semi-auto with him. And he can go back and collect it any time for hunting season.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
And those laws are obscene on many levels.

But they have respected the 2nd amendment. And made laws that does not trespass the second amendment. If it trespass the 2nd amendment, then how could it be legal right?

Everyone can read the second amendment and clearly see what it says.

It doesn't say "unlimited arms" or "ALL varieties of arms". It simply says, you have the right to own arms.

When it comes to making law, when things are not specific. This means they can only follow the generic meaning. So the right to own arms is always protected and respected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
And that is why hunters need a semi automatic rifle to hunt.

So you are saying in very very typical circumstances. After the first shot misses. The second or third or fourth or fifth shot will definitely hit that same deer who ran off? I personally think that is cheating. Not fair play to the innocent deer.

I think hunters should play one shot one kill. If you miss, practice harder next time! Plus I am sure you guys have scopes and would camp quietly and snipe the deer and that's how you get them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
And those laws are obscene on many levels.

But they have respected the 2nd amendment. And made laws that does not trespass the second amendment. If it trespass the 2nd amendment, then how could it be legal right?

Everyone can read the second amendment and clearly see what it says.

It doesn't say "unlimited arms" or "ALL varieties of arms". It simply says, you have the right to own arms.

When it comes to making law, when things are not specific. This means they can only follow the generic meaning. So the right to own arms is always protected and respected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Would you not agree that a pump or semi 12 gauge shotgun with bird shot would be a better intruder defense weapon? Withe the AR 15 you could easily miss and shoot through walls killing your child for instance... let common sense rule.

As far as the rest of your post... removing guns...especially assault type weapons would not stop the killing but slow it down considerably. Use the UK again for example... yes bombs kill and so do vehicles...but as we have seen knives are hard you use in mass murders.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
And that is why hunters need a semi automatic rifle to hunt.

So you are saying in very very typical circumstances. After the first shot misses. The second or third or fourth or fifth shot will definitely hit that same deer who ran off? I personally think that is cheating. Not fair play to the innocent deer.

I think hunters should play one shot one kill. If you miss, practice harder next time! Plus I am sure you guys have scopes and would camp quietly and snipe the deer and that's how you get them.

And if the first shot wounds but the deer is able to run you should let it
crawl off and suffer a lingering death, now that is what I call unsportsmanlike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
Some republicans open to ban bump stocks

Oh fantastic!!! Some common sense has prevail! That is a good start! Those "bump stocks" are completely unnecessary right? Just freaking ban those for a start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Everyone can read the second amendment and clearly see what it says.

It doesn't say "unlimited arms" or "ALL varieties of arms". It simply says, you have the right to own arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Look, I've been thrown in jail in Singapore for trying to leave the country with one handgun bullet in my carry on lugauge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yea... great shot... there is little spread in less than 20 feet with a shotgun... would gave done an even better job and not taking the chance of killing someone else with a miss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Nnanji I would understand your position IF gun control would not work.... but it does and has been proven over and over. Do you know there were more gun homicides in St Louis alone last year than in all of the United Kingdom.

So the argument that gun control will not reduce gun related injury and death is bull... What it comes down to is are we willing to sacrifice your pleasure in owning certain type of weapons to reduce mass murders. You don't meed an ar 15 for home defense or hunting... it is only for pleasure... can't you give that up to save lives?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
Some republicans open to ban bump stocks

Oh fantastic!!! Some common sense has prevail! That is a good start! Those "bump stocks" are completely unnecessary right? Just freaking ban those for a start.

No they will wait to hear what the NRA has to say then that will be it... you know... give a common sense inch and the libs will take a mile and all their guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Only if you think one life is not worth saving... I would say there would be a good chance that 59 lives would not have been taken if the type of weapons used were not readily available... Sure he could have tried other ways... but guns were his first and effective choice. It is much harder to get explosives now days then legal killing weapons.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Guns prevent a million crimes in this country per year.

So NRA should do a study on specifically WHICH TYPE of guns prevented crimes. And the ones that isn't necessary to that. Ban it for sale. I mean for self-protection, most people aren't gonna carry a semi-automatic rifle everywhere with them on a daily basis right? Highly doubt the ones that prevent deaths on daily basis by ordinary citizens are precisely what Las Vegas killer used.

There is a rational way of doing this to offer more protection.

And I know the proposed solution needs to come from NRA. Not the Dems. Because NRA would understand the position gun owners and their needs the best and able to tweak the whole security of gun owning better.