jay-are wrote:
All that sounds good, but it is all rationalization to convince yourself of a lie. The lie is that all the Democrats are suggesting is reasonable restrictions.
I don't hear anyone saying that. What I see (actually written in the laws they've passed) is reasonable restrictions.
jay-are wrote:
The reality is that there is no need for reasonable restrictions, because the guns are not the problem. The violence is caused by the people not the guns. Once you get that truth firmly planted in your understanding,
Oh, you think I don't already know that? Yeah, uh... guns don't possess psychotic personalities... ok - got it.
c'mon man... I'm 52 not 6.
OK - now that we have that established - PEOPLE... with personalities such as being careless, irresponsible, stupid or psychotic and guns with high kill capacities easy enough for a dumbass to get. Easy enough for a wasted asshole to grab in a fit of anger... Do the math.
back to your thing...
jay-are wrote:
you realize that what the Democrats really want is for no one to have guns other than authorities. You can deny it all you want, and you will be lying to yourself and me.
That is clearly unconstitutional, and the Democrat's gun control needs to be opposed because of that reason alone.
Well, if that's the only reason, then I think we're OK 'cause even though you're right about the constitutional stance on not allowing anyone but authorities to have guns, the laws so far passed and proposed do not result in nor do they suggest that ALL guns be banned. This is probably why you had to say... "what the Democrats *really* want". In other words, your are imagining what they might be thinking. That's called paranoia - another personality I don't like to see near a HIGH KILL CAPACITY WEAPON!
;)
jay-are wrote:
I don't need an automatic weapon that can fire 200 rounds per minute to protect my property from an animal, or a burglar, but I have the right to own it if I want, and I may need it to protect myself from the military, or a foreign invader.
You have the constitutional right to own a weapon... a law that takes away your 200rps but leaves you with your other guns is not violating the 2nd Amendment, but it *is* reducing the risk of high casualty incidents. Currently, that risk is infinity higher than the risk of foreign invasion and I've already covered the reason why 200rps isn't going to be of any use against the military.
jay-are wrote:
I don't have the right to commit a crime with it, but I do have the right to own it. The crime can be punished. The right of ownership must be preserved.
If that right is not protected, the Bill of Rights is of no use.
There are 9 other amendments in the Bill of Rights bro ;)
Again, you're right about the difference between committing crimes with guns and owning guns... Again, this is not about YOU and whether or not YOU hold up gas stations or just shoot targets at the range. It's about the number of innocent people that die every year from unintended or criminal usage.
31,000 people were killed by gunshot in 2010 ... 500 of them were accidents. There were 0 foreign invaders. There has been 0 foreign invaders for the last 200 years. There is currently no advantage to invading this country when everything an invader would want is available in our free markets and yet... we sacrifice innocent lives every year so that when/if a foreign invasion ever does happen AND actually gets past our military we will have better guns to shoot them with.
I dunno - just sounds stupid to me.