Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

What is wrong with this statement.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • d1eSELxxxx
    Member
    • Jan 2009
    • 146

    What is wrong with this statement.....

    I recently got this post from a buddy who is just mi-informed. He is a great person, but just lacks the knowledge of firearms. This is of course regarding the recent tragedy with the Batman movie shooting. So, what part of this paragraph is true and false:


    "I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."


    Thanks.
    www.d1eSELart.com
  • #2
    Rossi357
    Senior Member
    • May 2010
    • 1229

    Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
    I recently got this post from a buddy who is just mi-informed. He is a great person, but just lacks the knowledge of firearms. This is of course regarding the recent tragedy with the Batman movie shooting. So, what part of this paragraph is true and false:


    "I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.


    Thanks.
    Take your friend to the range and let him shoot it.

    Comment

    • #3
      green grunt
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 1621

      try this one on you buddy.............is that car you drive able to go faster then the posted speed limit....sooo...why do need a car that go's faster then the law allows.......

      not the best...but is has worked for me a few times
      Semper Fi.

      Comment

      • #4
        kf6tac
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2009
        • 1779

        Might also consider asking him:

        1) What he considers an "assault rifle"? (an AR-15 is not one)

        2) What he considers an" assault weapon"? (it's a legal fiction with no real-world meaning)

        3) What makes an AR-15 unsuited for defense?

        4) If he can think of any legitimate reasons for someone to own a Mini-14? (show him a picture of one, and if he comes up with a reason, point out that an AR-15 is functionally no different, but it just looks "scary" ; if he can't come up with a reason, then he really just wants to ban all semi-auto rifles, period).

        Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


        Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.

        Comment

        • #5
          mag360
          Calguns Addict
          • Jun 2009
          • 5198

          going through this at length with a few well educated liberals right now and they keep saying things like well what policy will respect your rights to keep a gun while keeping me safe from being shot in a massacre.

          LOL...for 1 disarmament is not an option.

          two...an AR 15= M1 carbine. so you can't ban that without banning this


          probably won't convince them, but maybe they will stop calling a scary looking black gun an "assault rifle" whenever they see it.
          just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

          Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

          CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

          NRA Member JOIN HERE/

          Comment

          • #6
            Chameleon Loco
            Senior Member
            • Apr 2012
            • 2175

            Ar-15's saved peoples live's

            Just look at the Korean shop owners during the LA Riots.
            Want to Buy: Ruger PC9 Magazine Buttstock Pouch

            Comment

            • #7
              d1eSELxxxx
              Member
              • Jan 2009
              • 146

              Thanks guys. He also stated:

              "apologies for not knowing the specifics of the gun you own. What I meant is that if someone is buying that level of heavy weaponry within such a short span of time, it's pretty obvious he's planning to kill a lot of people. So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time. You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks cause you, know you gotta go hunt some deer and protect yourself from all those crazy Colorado gangs. You do it to murder people.

              What I use as a comparison is the Senator Giffords shooting. In that situation, the shooter was carrying a single handgun, and thus only 3 people were killed and about 15 injured as opposed to 71 injured and 15 killed. This is simply because the weapon he had could only fire so many rounds and after he got a couple off he was tackled and subdued. If someone's firing into the seats with a semi-automatic rifle and blowing people away with a shotgun, no one's going to be a hero. Granted, you could argue that handguns are actually more dangerous because they're easier to conceal, but they also fire less devastating rounds and have a smaller clip size, so with those limitations you're not going to be able to kill as many people.

              The fact of the matter is, stricter gun control won't prevent shootings or massacres. It's just a sad, sad fact of life. If we didn't have guns we'd still have crazies hacking people to death with broadswords and battle axes. However, you're naive if you think this country doesn't need reform in gun laws. We have more gun deaths and massacres of this level than any other Western nation. Obviously massacres happen in Europe too, like that crazy Norwegian *******, but not with the same frequency that they occur over here. While it may have been difficult for Robert to purchase his AR-15, for many other Americans buying automatic weapons is a piece of cake because of the legal loopholes presented by NRA gun shows and other trades shows of their ilk.

              That being said, we as a society can definitely lower the number of deaths that occur in these sorts of shootings if we better restrict what kinds of weapons citizens can carry. Taking away a citizen's right to bear arms in its entirety would be wrong and unconstitutional, and even I, someone who's not that big into guns, understands that. But just because you CAN carry a gun doesn't mean you SHOULD, and just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."
              www.d1eSELart.com

              Comment

              • #8
                xpbprox
                Banned
                • Oct 2010
                • 936

                Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.
                I like it, great use if personification.

                Personification: giving human traits to inatimante objects

                Comment

                • #9
                  xpbprox
                  Banned
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 936

                  Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                  So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time. You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks
                  I know some guys who acquire this many weapons in short amount of times not because they want to go on a mass assault but because they are addicted to guns and collecting

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    IVC
                    I need a LIFE!!
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 17594

                    Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                    That being said, we as a society can definitely lower the number of deaths that occur in these sorts of shootings if we better restrict what kinds of weapons citizens can carry.
                    This is where you have to nail him, as this is the root of the gun control fallacy.

                    If there is a way to prevent shootings and to stop crazy people from doing harm, by all means we are listening. If we can play the "gun type" game and save lives, by all means we are listening.

                    However, the Columbine happened smack in the middle of the national assault weapon ban. Further, it happened at the completely gun free institution. So, not only were the assault weapons banned at the time (ban by type), but any kind of weapon was prohibited on campus. One cannot ban and control more than it was banned and controlled at the Columbine High. How is he proposing to make a difference?

                    Similarly, Chicago had a ban on all handguns during some 30 years period. Not just "assault weapons", not just "assault clips", not just "off roster" or similar types of handguns, but all handguns. One cannot control or ban more than that, yet Chicago has always been the capital of murder with handguns.

                    If he says that criminals got guns outside Chicago, or that Columbine perps didn't obey the GFSZ law, you can point out that he is now reiterating what is known to him as the "gun lobby rhetorics" (if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them).

                    The bottom line is that all gun control people look at the correlation (if there was no gun, the murder wouldn't have happened) and assume that banning guns can save lives. Then they go ahead and ban guns and the reality shows completely different outcome. At this point, there is no need to argue any more - the outcome of the ban speaks for itself.
                    Last edited by IVC; 07-22-2012, 1:03 PM. Reason: spelling
                    sigpicNRA Benefactor Member

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Rusty Scabbard
                      Senior Member
                      • Dec 2010
                      • 591

                      It's imperative that the free public be able to at least nearly ".. match the type of firepower that law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."
                      The ability for the citizenry to successfully resist totalitarianism, government tyranny, purges or ethnic cleansing campaigns is, in a large part dependent on the means to form effective militias if the need were to arise. And yes, I agree that America is at extremely low risk of such upheaval. It almost doesn't seem possible. But at the same time, back during the 1984 winter olympics in Sarajevo one never thought an open genocide would take place there in about a decade. The second amendment wasn't written for hunters or just for protecting ourselves from criminals.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        m03
                        Senior Member
                        • Nov 2007
                        • 1908

                        Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                        "I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."
                        Because the hype surrounding a single shooting does not trump the fact that ownership of AR15s has been on a steady increase for the last two decades, while murder and violent crime has been on a steady decrease during the same time period.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          IVC
                          I need a LIFE!!
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 17594

                          Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                          ...I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one?
                          The tables are turned now that the 2A is recognized as an individual, fundamental, human right.

                          You don't have to be "allowed to own one" - it's him who wants to restrict your right, so he must show and prove a compelling reason for restriction on such a right. If it's the standard "I have a right to live," remind him that your right to own does not affect his right to live since there is nowhere in 2A that it says we have the right to murder others.

                          The ability to kill through posession of a rifle is no different than the ability to rape through posession of testacles - cannot be used as a prior restraint.

                          Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                          It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."
                          Even if this were a true statement, it's still up to him to show where is the fundamental clash with any other constitutionally guarantied right before he can talk about infringing on yours. How things are "designed" or what a perceived "purpose" is by no means suffices in restricting basic rights. Again, murder is already absolutely prohibited, so he must show how a mere possession clashes with other human rights, while assuming that we are not going to murder anyone.

                          This statement should be seen as a counterpart of "we should ban TV because its only purpose is to misinform as many people as possible." While this is true of stations such as NBC, it cannot be used to shut them down. Not by a long shot.
                          sigpicNRA Benefactor Member

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            451040
                            Senior Member
                            • Dec 2009
                            • 2169

                            Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                            What is wrong with this statement.....

                            EVERYTHING


                            Originally posted by d1eSELxxxx
                            Thanks guys. He also stated:

                            "just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."

                            This guy is not only ignorant about firearms but also the Constitution and its framers.
                            Last edited by 451040; 07-22-2012, 1:29 PM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              d1eSELxxxx
                              Member
                              • Jan 2009
                              • 146

                              Thanks guys. With the knowledge that I know, I knew statements were wrong in his argument. So I'd figure I'd throw his statements in here and I knew you guys (more knowledgeable than me in firearms) would correct the statements being said.

                              Thanks fellow calgunners. You guys rock.
                              www.d1eSELart.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1