"...Because a race car driven on a public road has a higher propensity for danger to others than does a VW. It's the propensity to harm others that's being measured by the comparison. I don't expect you to understand because it's not a logical fallacy..."

Really?!? You fail to consider the speed of the vehicle in you argument! A car of any size and shape can be used to k**l someone if the speed of the vehicle is fast enough. Therefore, you are guilty of a "logical fallacy"! Although Blade_Runner is also guilty of the same thing.



"...As for logic, the only reason you con's cling to semi-auto's is because of your paranoia of government. You think that somehow your semi-auto is going to allow you to o*******w an Obamaesque type government. So you are holding the rest of the nation hostage over the false sense of security you gain by owning semi-auto's. What you are overlooking is that you will have to go through the local police, the state police, the national guard, the FBI, the ATF, and if that isn't enough--eventually, our military..."

You really believe the ONLY REASON is because of a paranoia of government?!? Perhaps, just perhaps, they are true patriots and want to defend their country against tyranny and despotism . . . from both outside and within! And you have posted another logical fallacy in assuming that those in the local police, the state police, the national guard, the FBI, the ATF, and if that isn't enough--eventually, our military DO NOT support the persons position and are also willing to defend that position!



"...And I know, you people think that all those forces will support you in your quest built around fallacies spoon feed to you by your various talking heads. But if anywhere down the line the support is to defend government you people will be nothing but rolls of body bags. So where's the logic in that?.."

What "fallacies spoon fed to you by your various talking heads" are you talking about? You mean the fallacy of what the Declaration of Independence states?!? Perhaps you need a refresher class on American history!



"...So again, for the common good, let's ban all semi-auto's and eliminate the favorite arm lunatics crave to harm society..."

You must honestly believe this . . . even though it is an assumption that things will go just as you think! Let's say we "ban all semi-auto's and eliminate the favorite arm lunatics crave to harm society" . . . what makes you think that a black market won't arise that supply's the very weapons you seek to ban? We have a prime example of what happens when prohibition is enforced:

"Prohibition was a period of nearly 14 years of U.S. history (1920 to 1933) in which the manufacture, sale, and t***sportation of intoxicating liquor was made illegal. It was a time characterized by speakeasies, glamour, and gangsters and a period of time in which even the average citizen broke the law. Interestingly, Prohibition, sometimes referred to as the "Noble Experiment," led to the first and only time an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was repealed."
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-prohibition-1779250

This same result can apply to your plan! But, even more to the point, we already have a constitutional right to bear arms . . . where the manufacture, sale, and t***sportation of intoxicating liquor was not a constitutional right! It is more logical to think that any ban or elimination of a given weapon will not pass the courts!

...and that's the t***h! Right on man!

OK . . . I see your point!

So my major problem with making a law that does this or that . . . the law try's to be all-inclusive. The real issue boils down to the character of each individual. Previous history is relevant but people can change too . . . and these possibilities need to be taken under consideration!

Granted, gun laws need to be addressed . . . but well thought out over a long period of time and having as much input as possible . . . and even then, these laws must be put in force with a term limit to be re-evaluated!

...just my opinion!

"...I suppose that as long as these kinds of circumstances don’t affect you directly, it’s okay for you to force your beliefs on others..."

Is not the woman seeking an a******n forcing her beliefs on others too (...the unborn child...) ?!?

Although I disagree with your premise, I do understand your position!

I think it is important to remember that in those days, a firearm was as important as a horse . . . and they hung horse thieves! In today's society, we don't have to be on guard as much as they did back then. But, at the heart of the 2nd amendment . . . it has more to do with defending the country against tyranny and despotism . . . against enemies from without . . . and within!

To me, it boils down to what kind of crime one is in prison for. Murder is an extreme case and I'd not like to see firearms in their hands. But, one could argue that there is many means of murder . . . knifes, baseball bats, fire, running someone over with a car . . . only the imagination holds one back.

It has been a kind of cognitive dissonance . . . how to maintain the 2nd amendment rights and insure the safety of the masses! It really boils down to the character of the person in question . . . is this person rehabilitated to a level of acceptability? Is this person still pron to murder?

Then we have the person in prison for manslaughter. The death was an accident . . . not an act of malice or anger . . . something that just happened and sorrow and remorse is evident. Should this person have their 2nd amendment rights suspended? No! The real issue is treating those that fall under a certain category all the same . . . a felon is not just a felon . . . the time has to fit the crime. The idea of treating felons all the same is wrong!

In my opinion, you have brought up a relevant and worthwhile topic. Perhaps you could create a new topic about this!!!!

"...Once again we had another mass shooting involving a semi-automatic weapon. So what's the solution? Well, we can start by banning the weapon of choice--the semi-automatic weapon..."

So, when the next shooting takes place with a shot-gun, do we ban that weapon?!? And when the next shooting is done with a magazine-loaded hand gun, do we ban that weapon too?!? And when a single shot six shooter is used, do we ban that weapon too?!? And when a kitchen steak knife is used, do we ban that too?!? What about when they use a car to ram through a wall to drive over as many kids as possible . . . do we ban cars too?!?

When are people going to get it thru their heads that it is not the weapon that is the problem, it is the person that is the problem!



"...Do that, and we at least give people a chance. And notice, I am not saying ban all guns just the ones responsible for all the mass slayings. This leaves bolt actions, pumps, and revolvers to satisfy our second amendment requirement--all of which are better than when the second amendment was written..."

Really?!? The second amendment afforded the m*****a with almost the same weapons the military had . . . they were at times side by side with the regular army of the time. Because they were using a guerilla type 'strike and run' method of fighting, their weapons needed to be easy to carry for rapid movement. In my opinion, we all should be having available the best and latest weapons available to ensure the "m*****a" is ready at all times to defend our country when the time comes! I question if you hold to the root meaning, the core meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Our country is based on the ability to deal with tyranny, not only from without but from within . . . . as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and t***sient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The 2nd amendment insures that the citizens are capable to defend their homeland as well as their home!



"...This leaves the question of how we enforce such a law and as I stated before--a fine of 10,000 and a couple of years in jail will lend to them being turned in in droves. Of course, the most radical right wing nuts will hold out but there is no argument that outweighs the common good of our country and that's what it comes down to...the common good..."

The common good of the country is best served when we insure all capable citizens are given the freedom the defend the common good of our country! You seek to take away that ability with your idea!

Let's say you outlaw those weapons! What happens whenever things get outlawed? Take prohibition for example . . . it created a black market where the very thing sought to outlaw was made available for a cost. No law will ever get rid of things desired by mankind . . . it will just create another item found on the black market!!! If someone wants to shoot up a place, do you think they will stop just because the weapon you have outlawed is harder to get?

The issue is not the weapon . . . the attention should not be on the 'how' they did this shooting . . . the attention needs to be on the 'why' they did this shooting!!!

The quickest, most efficient means of dealing with shooters . . . is to place in their minds the chance that there might be someone with a weapon there to stop them! The most effective deterrent is to have conceal-carry individuals present on the sight . . . PERIOD!!!

...just my opinion!!!

Why do you want to be obstinate?

There is a great gulf between the right to bear arms and the right to v**e! If you can't see the difference . . . well, sorry about that! It is a ludicrous comparison!

Sounds like an assumption is being made . . .

Look who's calling the kettle black! Keep it up, we know you're a fool already!

Gatsby, although I see your point, I think there is a relevant difference!

I think those considered as "crazies" wouldn't bother with v****g or give it much mind at all. "Criminals", on the other hand, may have been guilty of manslaughter as an accident. Though they took a life, they did so unintentionally. Not being guilty of purposefully committing a crime, they still would fall under the classification of criminal. I would not want to see their rights to v**e taken away.

My problem with the current idea about "v****g for criminals" has more to do with them being able to v**e while in prison. Once time is served, they've paid their dues to society and gain back some of the rights they lost. Then is when they should get their right to v**e restored.

I have a friend who robbed banks without the use of any kind of weapon . . . he just walked in with a note and showed it to a teller . . . no gun . . . no knife . . . just a note! He just wanted cash for his drug habit. He was caught and sent to prison. While there, he became a Christian . . . and changed his life completely. His is a prime example of what kind of person can come out of prison. He deserves to be able to v**e as you or I do . . . to me.

....just my opinion!!!

You said, "R*******n to Tyrants is Obedience is to God." And which religion teaches that?

Amazing isn't it!!! This should be front page news . . . shouted from the roof tops . . . . and placed in the front of every eye in America!!!

My apologies . . . it just seemed that way to me!

There you go then . . . apparently you don't think much of what you have to say either . . . I'll make a note to self "disregard anything this arrogant imbecile has to post!!!"

...have a nice day!!!