Your reasoning I'd entirely post hoc. It's like a mother who lost her son in ww2 saying, "yeah, Hitler just started his war so he could kill my dkn. That's the whole point of the war." It's obviously an effect which was not the point. Likewise, the point of ISIS's actions against the U.S. hasn't been to take away U.S. freedoms, you only have post hoc rationale to even loosely support that. ISIS wants to intimidate the American populace to keep it war weary so that we won't make a ground invasion. Just read their charter - no mention of the U.S., its all about what they want to do over there in Syria and the surrounding regions.
They want their Islamic Caliphate. That's the main difference between them and AlQ: they want land, AlQ wanted to fight in the West. Land gives you the potential to get more land. It's a smart strategy.
So you actually believe isis is attacking us to prevent us from a ground invasion as opposed to what they claim which is caliphate? Correct? Dont you think if they were worried a ground invasion they would not attack us seeing as how thats what happened last time? Isis cant take root here until our freedoms erode. Which is what this president is doing as a fact.
So how many deaths ARE tolerable? If we ban assault rifles, what's next? Semiauto handguns like the Fort Hood shooter used? Semiauto hunting rifles? Shotguns? Is murder and death by any means acceptable? Shall we ban knives, bats, and hands? We are 10-15 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than shot by someone using an assault rifle. But are we that much more concerned about knives and bats? Of course we aren't. And the reason is because the media has overblown the facts, thereby brain washing the public.
It's sound. We're a war weary nation - the public doesn't have the will to fight another major war, and they're tactics keep us weary. "Last time" we weren't a war weary nation.
2010-2014 30114 people murdered with handguns 1530 people murdered with rifles of all kinds. 5% of the number of people murdered with handguns. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls You have no issue with people carrying pistols for self-defense, but want to ban and confiscate 'assault weapons'.
Deterrent is not prevention. Someone willing to commit mass murder is deterred neither by the laws against murder nor the laws against obtaining the implements of same. It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law Irony of ironies.
No, but reclassify them in the same group with automatic weapons and require the same licensing. A true, law-abiding gun owner would have no problem with this. Increase the penalty for violating the licensing to 20+ years and let natural attrition weed out the non law-abiding owners.
Any semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine should be in the same class as a fully automatic weapon, and require the license and extensive background checks that fully auto weapons require today.
I'm sorry... I don't see an answer to my question. Please try again. What would it accomplish to reclassify 'assault weapons' in the same group with automatic weapons and require the same licensing? Be sure to explain the mechanism behind whatever effect you claim.
On its face that seems like a fair solution. Problem is, you can't get a license for a fully automatic firearm. It would also ban a boatload of semi auto hunting rifles with four round clips. But seeing that you're(anybody) about fifteen times more likely to die from someone wielding a knife or bat. Why fixate on assault type rifles? That's like passing up fifteen dollars to chase down one dollar. We are becoming a nation of morons, manipulated by people who, in conjunction with the morons, are far more dangerous and numerous than the murderers themselves.
The result of such an action would cause violence on a scale that would make prohibition level violence look like a fun time. What would happen is that huge smuggling operations would spring up to bring in now-cheaper foreign automatic weapons. Gangs and cartels from central america would take possession of our country faster than they are doing it now. One merely has to look at San Franciso to see the results of these liberal "common sense" agendas.
Really? Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934. Where are those huge smuggling operations you describe? If anything, the smuggling of weapons in the Americas is from north to south - which should tell you everything you need to know about how pathetic ammosexual logic is.
Because when you ban something, you also make it highly valuable. Central america would no longer just be importing massive drugs into the country, they would be importing weapons for sale along with them. What happened during prohibition is obvious, what has happened with the drug trade is obvious....and it is no different than what would happen with arms if they were banned. Increased gun laws in Honduras have had led to a massive increase to their murder rate since 2007, and we see how effective Mexico's gun laws have been. Arrests for illegal weapon sales in Australia have spiked by as much as 85% in Australia, along with a 60% increase in cocaine trafficking arrests. Criminals, contraband, terrorists and weapons go hand in hand. Your "solution" is to disarm the people who obey the law, because that is the only people it will affect. Yours is the pathetic logic I'm afraid. It's simpleton logic that says "make guns illegal, no more guns".
Ammosexual? Well, we can see by our avatar what kind of "man" you are and why you would relate gun ownership to sexual issues. Why don't you explain how preventing honest and law abiding AMERICAN citizens from owning any firearm cuts down on crime? Also, be free to tell us about your underlying agenda.
Considering the number of individuals each year who are shot and do not die, it performs poorly as far as that design goes. Even if this is the case, the supreme court has made it clear that it is irrelevant. Firearms need not have any other function, as they are protected by the constitution, for delivering lethal force against those that would harm others for no justifiable reason. Define what constitutes large scale. The Virginia Tech shooting that left thirty five people dead was carried out with only two handguns, neither one of which was renowned for being particularly powerful. Is irrelevant to the discussion. Until such time that they don't. Public support for owning so-called "assault weapons" increased in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, to the point the majority of the public supported their ownership, rather than opposing it.
Explain where the drug cartels of the nation of Mexico are obtaining fragmentation grenades, rocket propelled grenades, and anti-aircraft weaponry.
That is a bit over the top don't ya think? That said i have always thought there should be no difference between murder and attempted murder, rape and attempted rape ect. Why give someone a lesser penalty just because they failed?
If we ban scary rifles, terrorists will still have them. That's the part the left doesn't grasp. What weapons were used in London again?
