Lyft Industrial Deals Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited Get 10% cashback on thousands of musical instruments with your Store Credit Card Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating ToyHW17_gno
Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Summary of the Legislation on the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 220 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:14:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2012, 1:16:17 PM PST
That Emu Kid says:
I actually wouldn't mind that so much, but the Supreme Court declared the DC handgun ban unconstitutional, stating that every household has the right to own a handgun for self defense.

It was a pretty big deal, considering that the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, not shotguns, rifles, or the ill-defined "assault weapons."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:15:19 PM PST
Voice of god says:
It's same argument that originalists use to say basically all laws in which the government does something are meaningless because the Bill of Rights only says what the government can't do. It is not a very good argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:15:33 PM PST
Voice of god says:
Cool. Do you need be able to pick off a target at 70 yards for self defense, or fire 100 rounds without reloading for self defense? How often is your home swarmed by dozens of marauders?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:17:09 PM PST
Voice of god says:
Do I even need to be here, or can I go watch TV for a while and trust that you'll just write my opinions for me?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:18:11 PM PST
All the time, that darn Black Bart! It's a good think I have my trusty Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:19:26 PM PST
What you fail to understand is that the legislation included in the OP will ban most, if not all, firearms used for self defense.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:19:47 PM PST
WeaKeN says:
i never said anything about high powered rifles or assault rifles.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:21:42 PM PST
Voice of god says:
There are a few ways I could go to find a reasonable compromise, and the law in the OP is the tamest one. Unfortunately, most of the pro-gun folks I talk to seem open to absolutely zero compromise.

I can't imagine where they learned that approach to political issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:23:21 PM PST
Voice of god says:
That's 100% wrong. Read the OP again.

Posted on Dec 27, 2012, 1:24:11 PM PST
J. Pardee says:
I don't like guns but I have never thought they should be banned completely. Why exactly do gun supporters think that the world will be helpless if we don't have guns? Since when does every single burglar carry around a gun and since when has guns been the only way to protect ourselves?

To all the anti-gun supporters, the world isn't going to become completely safe without guns so stop thinking that.

To all the gun supporters, humans have always had ways to protect themselves so stop thinking that the world is going to die from the criminals if we don't have guns.

How about we start demanding a better healthcare system where mental illnesses can be caught and treated before people try committing these heinous acts. People on the far left and right of this gun issue are making everyone look like morons and unfortunately we have some of those people here for both sides.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:24:49 PM PST
Nightmare says:
I did earlier, but I will do so again. Below is my evidence, but to sum it up--The founders believed the Bill of Rights to be superfluous because nothing new was revealed in them. The Constitution itself imposed limits on the Federal Government that restricted them from doing any of the things the Bill of Rights were meant to protect. More specifically, Congress only has powers to make laws regarding the explicitly delegated powers in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Gun Control is not one of the explicit powers, therefore they can't make such laws (without passing an Amendment granting the Federal Government this power).

"Opposition to a bill of rights did not stem from indifference or hostility toward civil rights, but from the widely held belief that a declaration of rights would be superfluous. The Federal government was to be a government of delegated and enumerated powers. It had no authority to interfere with such matters as speech and religion. A declaration that it had no such authority would merely make explicit what was already implicit in the Constitution, with excess verbiage that simply stated what was already obvious."

"Finally, a bill of rights was not needed, Hamilton maintained, because the Constitution was itself a bill of rights. What protects liberty and gives it meaning and substance is the structure of government-concrete limitations on power, not parchment declarations. If a constitution-and that of the United States is such a constitution-is properly designed to check abuses of power, the government upon which it rests will in the general course of events discourage political authorities from trampling on the liberties of the people. The privileges and immunities that might be proclaimed in such a bill of rights were already embodied in the original document."

Federalist # 41

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:27:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2012, 1:36:14 PM PST
"Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic"

-Most handguns, rifles, and some shotguns

"Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds"

-Most rifles and the majority of the handguns

"Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test"

-All home defense shotguns, the rest of the rifles, the rest of the handguns.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:28:42 PM PST
Voice of god says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:30:30 PM PST
Ah, I see. Well, looks like my interpretation is different than the Liberty Library's. It's funny that two people can read the same document and come to different conclusions. Almost like it's not black and white.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:31:44 PM PST
You claiming the OP has nothing to do with defense firearms shows your complete ignorance to the information contained within this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:32:43 PM PST
That Emu Kid says:
I think what most of the "pro-gun folks," at least the educated ones, are frustrated with is that there's no logical reason to believe that a law like in the OP would do anything to stem gun crime. All it would definitely do is take up the government's time and money to implement, and create hassle for law-abiding people that already own weapons that fit the description. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns.

And since when are people only allowed to own what they need?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:34:03 PM PST
A customer says:
Voice b trollinnnn, he hatinnnnn

Tryn to catch em trollin dirty, tryn to catch em trollin dirtyy

Posted on Dec 27, 2012, 1:34:10 PM PST
Uncle Ulty says:
Good article from the Washington Times that sums this up for me.

In 1919, Prohibition was marketed as a solution to crime, alcoholism and violence against women. Without "demon rum," workers would become more productive and violent tendencies in society would disappear. Proponents believed it was the beginning of a golden age and that the alcohol ban would radically transform society for the good.

Prohibition did radically transform American society, only not in the way the proponents envisioned. Rather, the result was more alcoholism, the beginning of organized crime and a wave of violence like none ever seen before in America. Instead of a golden era, Prohibition unleashed one of the most violent and crime-ridden ages in American history.

Every decade or so, Americans become entranced by the same siren song that produced Prohibition. The song says, "If you ban it, it will go away." It croons, "If we merely strip away our liberties, we'll all be safer." History has shown us that this siren song is dangerous.

Gun control proponents like to point out that strict gun control measures in nations like Australia and the United Kingdom have led to fewer mass shootings. This may be true, but what proponents often ignore is how gun control tends to lead to increases in other violent crimes. As is often the case, politicians try to legislate to prevent one problem, but end up creating half-a-dozen new ones in the process.

Since Australia enacted its landmark gun control legislation in 1996, gun-related homicides have declined, but almost every other sort of violent crime has increased. While the homicide rate fell from 1.9 per 100,000 persons to 1.3 from 1996 to 2007, assaults increased from 623 per 100,000 persons to 840 during that same time - a 35 percent jump. The sexual assault rate likewise increased from 78 per 100,000 persons to 94 - a 21 percent jump. In other words, for every 0.6 person out of 100,000 who did not fall victim to a homicide, 217 suffered from a violent assault, and another 16 suffered from sexual assault. While it's impossible to know how much of this shift was the result of the 1996 laws, it is not exactly an overwhelming endorsement of Australia's gun control regime.

The situation is similar in the United Kingdom. A recent article points out that home burglaries are four times more likely to occur when the occupants are home in the United Kingdom compared to the United States, suggesting that British burglars may simply have less to fear than their American counterparts. Likewise, your chances of being mugged are six times higher in London than in New York City. So much for gun control making people safer.

This isn't to say that nothing can be done. It makes sense to register guns, as we already do. It might even make sense to look at a rigorous testing system for "assault weapon" purchases. With assault weapons, we could also look for ways to increase accountability, requiring individuals to find other gun owners to vouch for their gun safety skills, as well as their mental fitness. Still, it's easy to get carried away and believe that outright bans or overly restrictive requirements will make problems go away when they almost never do. These sorts of broad, sweeping solutions tend to deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights, without creating more safety in return.

Unfortunately, few of these tragedies have simple solutions. The Aurora, Colo., shooting brought the anti-gun movement back into the limelight, but the killer knew how to manufacture high-powered explosives strong enough to blow up an entire city block. Could gun control really have stopped him?

One of the biggest mass killings in American history happened in 1995, with the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. It killed 168 people and injured 680. Gun control could not have possibly stopped it.

The assault weapons ban was signed into law in 1994, yet it did not stop the mass shootings at Columbine or Jonesboro, Ark.

Tragedies like the recent one in Connecticut cause many of us to question our assumptions. That's fine. Still, we must resist the temptation to react emotionally, believing that whatever foolhardy anti-gun legislation we bring forward will magically stop random violence in America.

Benjamin Franklin's famous quote is particularly apt: "[Those] who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." With gun control, it's very easy to take away our liberties, but Australia and the United Kingdom have shown us it's much more difficult to stop culturally ingrained violence.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:34:48 PM PST
Nightmare says:
I interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the founders. The intent of the founders is what I quoted. If you interpret the Constitution differently than how the founders intended it to be read, what is your method of interpretation?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:36:27 PM PST
Circular logic. Moving on.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:38:57 PM PST
Nightmare says:
That is not circular logic. It's the only logical way to read anything, as far as I know. If you don't interpret writing based on what the author intended, then how do you interpret it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:41:57 PM PST
You are taking someones interpretation of the author's intentions who is not the author and ascribing them as the actual intentions of the author. It's a closed circle, there is no arguing because there is no room to put in a different viewpoint. Hence, no point in continuing the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:43:01 PM PST
A customer says:
Punk - 1

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:43:30 PM PST
Is that a 1 or a -1?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012, 1:43:52 PM PST
Nightmare says:
The Federalist that I quoted comes directly from the source. Did you read that? It makes it quite clear the the Federal Government has now power that was not explicitly given to it in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Video Games forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Is The Xbox One X In Danger Of Being Dead On Arrival? 13 7 hours ago
Xbox X pre-orders back for the 2nd time and the X roars to #1 in less than a day curbstomping the Pro once again. 96 7 hours ago
OT: Should the national anthem be removed from NFL games? 4 7 hours ago
OT: Weiner goes up the river 0 7 hours ago
Destiny1.5 VGF Clan v10.0/ 4604 7 hours ago
Weekly & Weekend Gaming: 9/25-10/1 3 7 hours ago
Sony Ships Another Half Million PlayStation VR Headsets, Dominates Competition 64 7 hours ago
Kingsman 2: Golden Circle 2 7 hours ago
I beat Marvel vs Capcom Infinite's story mode in one sitting, AMA 6 7 hours ago
OT: Week 3 NFL picks 35 7 hours ago
So uhh....My left JoyCon isn't connecting to my Switch now 19 8 hours ago
Weekly & Weekend Gaming: 9/18-9/24 59 8 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  220
Initial post:  Dec 27, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.