Print

[melon]

[nemt]

The first ten amendments are inalienable rights, which cannot be revoked or modified, and have been deemed self evident.

First the liberals force their agenda through apellate courts, going against the will of the people, and now they want to rewrite the bill of rights.  Very interesting.

[hardcoregamer]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 15 2004, 06:06 PM)

People have the right to a safe environment, and assault weapons are detrimental to that.

People do have a right to a safe environment, i completely agree with that, as for the second part of that statement, assault weapons guarantee that. People who own assault weapons legally dont go nuts and cause havoc with guns. I own a few assault riffles and have never used it for anything but targets, or varmets.

[Maximumbeing]

If you need an assualt rifle to hit a target, than I'm willing to bet you aren't suitable to wield any weapon to begin with.

[gainpresence]

If you're going to do something illegal with a gun, why would you care if you got the gun legally or not?

Terrorists and drug dealers already have assault rifles (and much worse machine guns), but the average law abiding citizen couldn't until now.

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (gainpresence @ Sep 16 2004, 04:51 AM)

If you're going to do something illegal with a gun, why would you care if you got the gun legally or not? Terrorists and drug dealers already have assault rifles (and much worse machine guns), but the average law abiding citizen couldn't until now.

You're right.  Lets make it legal to sell alchohol to all ages, and narcotics available at the local rite-aid.  Of course, the use of these is still illegal, but feel free to stockpile them in your basement.
Making dangerous weapons more accessible to everyone (and legal to own in mass quantities) is a step forward for terrorists and drug dealers and a step back for the safety of citizens and law enforcement.

[nemt]

Take a gun out of the hands of everyone who's protected his or herself and/or loved ones, and now they're all dead.

[Maximumbeing]

I have no gun, and I've yet to be killed.

I'm sure those people didn't defend themselves with assualt rifles.

The second amendment was not written in the age of guns that shoot 60 rounds a second, that's 59 rounds a second more than you need, unless you suck.

Amendment, it makes sense.

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 16 2004, 09:16 PM)

Take a gun out of the hands of everyone who's protected his or herself and/or loved ones, and now they're all dead.

I concede to you nemt, assault weapons save lives daily. How could I have missed that important statistic you promptly PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.
It's a holiday nemt, I'm sure your middle school let out.  You don't get extra points for BS'ing.

[ZeroDown]

QUOTE

I concede to you nemt, assault weapons save lives daily. How could I have missed that important statistic you promptly PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. It's a holiday nemt, I'm sure your middle school let out. You don't get extra points for BS'ing.

Watch out Helium, he's going to go after your avatar with wit.

[Spency234]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 16 2004, 11:43 AM)

You're right.  Lets make it legal to sell alchohol to all ages, and narcotics available at the local rite-aid.  Of course, the use of these is still illegal, but feel free to stockpile them in your basement. Making dangerous weapons more accessible to everyone (and legal to own in mass quantities) is a step forward for terrorists and drug dealers and a step back for the safety of citizens and law enforcement.

Great post.

[nemt]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 16 2004, 05:12 PM)

I concede to you nemt, assault weapons save lives daily. How could I have missed that important statistic you promptly PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. It's a holiday nemt, I'm sure your middle school let out.  You don't get extra points for BS'ing.

Well, asshole, the comment was directed at those questioning the merits of gun ownership, not assault weapons in particular.

The fact remains though, if someone is going to commit a crime with an assault rifle, breaking some superfluous gun law isn't going to deter him/her.  If this were the case, the USA would've made it specifically illegal to hijack airplanes and use them as guided missiles.

[nemt]

How is it a step in the wrong direction?  What would be a step in the right direction then...barcoding everyone and putting residences under video surveillance?  I'm sure that would deter crime much more than just shredding the second amendment.

[Maximumbeing]

The ban makes assault rifles much less accessable, what does it matter if criminals persistant enough can still get them?

If just one violent criminal is kept from buying an assault rifle, then the ban has served its purpose.

[nemt]

QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 16 2004, 06:18 PM)

If just one violent criminal is kept from buying an assault rifle, then the ban has served its purpose.

..and if just one person is the victim of violent crime, because he or she couldn't exercise the fundamental freedoms granted by the bill of rights, the ban is proven wrong.

Criminals have guns, criminals will always have guns.  If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.