Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Why you want to ban military style rifles?

Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:00:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Rifles of themselves only make up around 3% of crimes with guns and "military style" rifles make up even less than that. If you're going to focus on something, focus on something that has more of a criminal impact.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:25:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death. This dangerous behavior accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006"2010
http://www.cdc.gov...
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
http://www.cdc.gov...

one is a right, the other is not, we could extrapolate the number of people who don't die because of alcohol but need dialysis, liver transplants, get hepatitis and eventually die because of a complication they wouldn't have got if it wasn't for the alcohol, but just look at the raw numbers

88000 vs 11208
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:31:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).

Your implication is that our founders would not have availed themselves of modern day weaponry because of the chance that it could be misused by criminals is not something that is supported by any historical evidence.

It was not until the 1935 firearms act that it ever became an issue and that only came about by the way criminals were MODIFYING weapons by sawing them off and things like that. That law is still in effect and No weapons made since that act have any more lethal power than the BAR and shotguns did at that time.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:33:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:25:41 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death. This dangerous behavior accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006"2010
http://www.cdc.gov...
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
http://www.cdc.gov...

one is a right, the other is not, we could extrapolate the number of people who don't die because of alcohol but need dialysis, liver transplants, get hepatitis and eventually die because of a complication they wouldn't have got if it wasn't for the alcohol, but just look at the raw numbers

88000 vs 11208

Again, no doubt. At issue was the idea that you would do something about depression by taking away money that is perceived to somehow connected to alcoholism. The entire thing is wrong.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:36:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:25:41 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death. This dangerous behavior accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006"2010
http://www.cdc.gov...
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
http://www.cdc.gov...

one is a right, the other is not, we could extrapolate the number of people who don't die because of alcohol but need dialysis, liver transplants, get hepatitis and eventually die because of a complication they wouldn't have got if it wasn't for the alcohol, but just look at the raw numbers

88000 vs 11208

+1
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:41:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:36:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:25:41 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death. This dangerous behavior accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006"2010
http://www.cdc.gov...
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
http://www.cdc.gov...

one is a right, the other is not, we could extrapolate the number of people who don't die because of alcohol but need dialysis, liver transplants, get hepatitis and eventually die because of a complication they wouldn't have got if it wasn't for the alcohol, but just look at the raw numbers

88000 vs 11208

+1
LATEST VALUES

YEAR
2014-12-31
TOTAL MURDERS
11,961
TOTAL BY FIREARMS
8124
RIFLES
248
https://www.quandl.com...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:42:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Part of me just wants these idiots to get as many guns as they want so they start getting overconfident, so we wall them into some shithole like Kentucky, and we just let them shoot each other.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:09:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:42:48 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Part of me just wants these idiots to get as many guns as they want so they start getting overconfident, so we wall them into some shithole like Kentucky, and we just let them shoot each other.

spoke like a true liberal, well said A+ yep less than 300 per year total, of which the rifle of the topic is only a fraction of that number garners this kind of response, but lets be clear it has nothing to do with loss of life as I don't see you trying to stop alcohol or tobacco. second hand smoke deaths should at the very least be man slaughter
More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
http://www.cdc.gov...
88000 per year alcohol search the cdc site
so yeah, I'll take my chances in Kentucky if you wall up all the smokers and drinkers and you can join them.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:20:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I find it amazing that people can justify certain kinds of violence because there are worse things, and think that's an argument.

I don't even give a sh!t about whether we ban guns or not. I just think they're idiots. I'm reminded of something a late great once said.

"I don't care - let them shoot each other. Hell, getting shot is a part of the American Dream."

-George Carlin
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:27:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 8:20:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I find it amazing that people can justify certain kinds of violence because there are worse things, and think that's an argument.

I don't even give a sh!t about whether we ban guns or not. I just think they're idiots. I'm reminded of something a late great once said.

"I don't care - let them shoot each other. Hell, getting shot is a part of the American Dream."

-George Carlin

I find it amazing that people can justify certain kinds of deaths because there are worse things, and think that's an argument.

I don't even give a sh!t about whether we ban tobacco and alcohol or not. I just think they're idiots. I don't care - let them smoke and drink themselves to death. Hell, it's a part of the American Dream.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:28:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
He's really proving himself here.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:38:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 8:28:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
He's really proving himself here.

as are you, since you brought justification into it, how do you justify railing against something with so much time and energy that causes less and 250 deaths per year vs 480000 per year, riddle me that.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:05:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.

You really need to do more research on this. The British Army was going after artillery and ammunition held in the Massachusetts militia armory, not some colonists' gun cabinets or tool sheds as you portray it. The modern day equivalent would be a National Guard armory.

I also encourage you to look over the militia acts-- there were 2 in the late 1700's and one in 1903, I believe...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:12:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:05:55 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.

You really need to do more research on this. The British Army was going after artillery and ammunition held in the Massachusetts militia armory, not some colonists' gun cabinets or tool sheds as you portray it. The modern day equivalent would be a National Guard armory.

And who did the cannons belong to? Also the militia is not the national guard, its the private citizens. Plus they also went after everybody's muskets in the closet as well.

I also encourage you to look over the militia acts-- there were 2 in the late 1700's and one in 1903, I believe...

Ok.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:50:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:12:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:05:55 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.

You really need to do more research on this. The British Army was going after artillery and ammunition held in the Massachusetts militia armory, not some colonists' gun cabinets or tool sheds as you portray it. The modern day equivalent would be a National Guard armory.

And who did the cannons belong to? Also the militia is not the national guard, its the private citizens. Plus they also went after everybody's muskets in the closet as well.

I gather that it was a hodge podge of artillery-- hand me downs from other outfits, state owned, as well as individually owned. You should ask: who owns the armory? Who owns the grounds where militia training is done?

You are looking at this anachronistically. Even the colonists who did possess a canon did not do so for hobby or collecting purposes. The purpose was deadly serious-- defense of one's state and nation. The closest equivalent I can think of today is Switzerland, where young males are to keep a battle rifle in case their nation needs them.

As for your last claim: do you have a cite? Although it does not make a whole lot of difference either way.

I also encourage you to look over the militia acts-- there were 2 in the late 1700's and one in 1903, I believe...

Ok.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 2:22:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:50:35 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:12:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:05:55 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.

You really need to do more research on this. The British Army was going after artillery and ammunition held in the Massachusetts militia armory, not some colonists' gun cabinets or tool sheds as you portray it. The modern day equivalent would be a National Guard armory.

And who did the cannons belong to? Also the militia is not the national guard, its the private citizens. Plus they also went after everybody's muskets in the closet as well.

I gather that it was a hodge podge of artillery-- hand me downs from other outfits, state owned, as well as individually owned. You should ask: who owns the armory? Who owns the grounds where militia training is done?

I ask that too but first you yourself said that there were privately owned cannons.

You are looking at this anachronistically. Even the colonists who did possess a canon did not do so for hobby or collecting purposes. The purpose was deadly serious-- defense of one's state and nation. The closest equivalent I can think of today is Switzerland, where young males are to keep a battle rifle in case their nation needs them.

And I agree. It's why we should still have those rights today.

As for your last claim: do you have a cite? Although it does not make a whole lot of difference either way.

http://www.redstate.com...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I also encourage you to look over the militia acts-- there were 2 in the late 1700's and one in 1903, I believe...

Ok.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 3:10:21 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:22:43 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:50:35 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:12:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:05:55 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.

You really need to do more research on this. The British Army was going after artillery and ammunition held in the Massachusetts militia armory, not some colonists' gun cabinets or tool sheds as you portray it. The modern day equivalent would be a National Guard armory.

And who did the cannons belong to? Also the militia is not the national guard, its the private citizens. Plus they also went after everybody's muskets in the closet as well.

I gather that it was a hodge podge of artillery-- hand me downs from other outfits, state owned, as well as individually owned. You should ask: who owns the armory? Who owns the grounds where militia training is done?

I ask that too but first you yourself said that there were privately owned cannons.

What of it? I already explained that these weapons were acquired out of civic duty, if not obligation, rather than a personal artillery fetish. Speaking of, you CAN acquire an artillery piece if you REALLY want to. God, what a country!

You are looking at this anachronistically. Even the colonists who did possess a canon did not do so for hobby or collecting purposes. The purpose was deadly serious-- defense of one's state and nation. The closest equivalent I can think of today is Switzerland, where young males are to keep a battle rifle in case their nation needs them.

And I agree. It's why we should still have those rights today.

I doubt you agree that you are looking at this anachronistically, which you are still doing. State militias had government involvement, government ownership of materiel and facilities, and these citizen soldiers were obligated to maintain a weapon; it wasn't merely a right to a gun fetish.

With today's police, National Guard, and standing military, militias are a total anachronism. If you want access to machine guns, join the Army or a SWAT team for f sakes...

As for your last claim: do you have a cite? Although it does not make a whole lot of difference either way.

http://www.redstate.com...

Not what I was talking about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I already read that, and it does not support your claim. Again, not that it is really pivotal either way.


I also encourage you to look over the militia acts-- there were 2 in the late 1700's and one in 1903, I believe...

Ok.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 3:28:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:00:55 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Rifles of themselves only make up around 3% of crimes with guns and "military style" rifles make up even less than that. If you're going to focus on something, focus on something that has more of a criminal impact.

What exactly do you consider to be a "military style rifle"? What are some models and examples? Why those models and examples? Why not others?
Tsar of DDO
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 4:15:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 3:28:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:00:55 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Rifles of themselves only make up around 3% of crimes with guns and "military style" rifles make up even less than that. If you're going to focus on something, focus on something that has more of a criminal impact.

What exactly do you consider to be a "military style rifle"? What are some models and examples? Why those models and examples? Why not others?

I'm using the liberal term. It would inlclude AR15s and AK47s
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 4:18:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 3:10:21 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:22:43 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:50:35 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:12:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:05:55 AM, Fly wrote:
At 1/20/2016 11:41:01 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:13:02 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:06:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/20/2016 7:04:09 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Bombs also make a minority of armed crimes committed. Yet we have them banned. The prospect of any problematic individuals being able to posses such a dangerous weapon is concerning enough to warrant restrictions. Just like with bombs.

But these rifles have been around for awhile and there's no spike in their usage in crimes. Actually mass shootings is a recent thing. If the gun culture is to blame then we should have mass killings since the beginning of our nation.

The type of damage that modern military rifles are capable of far exceed the simple muskets that were used in early American history. One individual couldn't pull off an effective mass shooting when it took 15 seconds at minimum to reload after one shoot (not even forgetting to mention the sheer inaccuracy of said shots).
The type of damage the cannons are capable far exceeded what we think of now. When the British came to Lexington and concord they came for the privately owned cannons. I honk our founding fathers knew what firepower they were allowing to the citizens.

You really need to do more research on this. The British Army was going after artillery and ammunition held in the Massachusetts militia armory, not some colonists' gun cabinets or tool sheds as you portray it. The modern day equivalent would be a National Guard armory.

And who did the cannons belong to? Also the militia is not the national guard, its the private citizens. Plus they also went after everybody's muskets in the closet as well.

I gather that it was a hodge podge of artillery-- hand me downs from other outfits, state owned, as well as individually owned. You should ask: who owns the armory? Who owns the grounds where militia training is done?

I ask that too but first you yourself said that there were privately owned cannons.

What of it? I already explained that these weapons were acquired out of civic duty, if not obligation, rather than a personal artillery fetish. Speaking of, you CAN acquire an artillery piece if you REALLY want to. God, what a country!

Ok.

You are looking at this anachronistically. Even the colonists who did possess a canon did not do so for hobby or collecting purposes. The purpose was deadly serious-- defense of one's state and nation. The closest equivalent I can think of today is Switzerland, where young males are to keep a battle rifle in case their nation needs them.

And I agree. It's why we should still have those rights today.

I doubt you agree that you are looking at this anachronistically, which you are still doing. State militias had government involvement, government ownership of materiel and facilities, and these citizen soldiers were obligated to maintain a weapon; it wasn't merely a right to a gun fetish.

I would look at my link dealing with militias.

With today's police, National Guard, and standing military, militias are a total anachronism. If you want access to machine guns, join the Army or a SWAT team for f sakes...

Why should I do that? BTW I have little interest in owning a full auto.

As for your last claim: do you have a cite? Although it does not make a whole lot of difference either way.

http://www.redstate.com...

Not what I was talking about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I already read that, and it does not support your claim. Again, not that it is really pivotal either way.

Ok.


I also encourage you to look over the militia acts-- there were 2 in the late 1700's and one in 1903, I believe...

Ok.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born