• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
A ban on bump stocks is a feel-good response that will change nothing, reduce crime by zero percent, and only serve to make constituent voters mad. All semi-auto guns can be bump fired anyway. Cruel as it may sound, mass shootings are a statistically insignificant fraction of gun deaths - solving this problem is a function of more efficient police response (possibly involving a ShotTracker system like some cities have) than anything else. For reference consult [URL]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls[/URL] and note the tiny fraction of deaths that rifles play in homicides, and then view [URL]http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/02/01/170872321/study-most-gun-deaths-happen-outside-of-mass-shootings[/URL].
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52745718] I do think it's completely unnecessary, and more than a little selfish, for gun owners to have access to weapons of warfare, designed for killing many people rapidly, because that access comes at the cost of the highest gun crime rate in the Western world, by several orders of magnitude.[/QUOTE] Guns are better at mass-murder than anything else man-portable. The guy could've probably done an equal amount of damage with a "hunting rifle" or shotgun. A crowd's a pretty big target. To paraphrase idubbbz (on a different subject), imo "All of them are okay, or none of them are okay". Because the vast majority of firearms are designed to do the same thing - propel a chunk of metal with enough force over distance to cause fatal damage to other living beings. Putting the blame on this stock style, that magazine capacity, this accessory, this firing mode is unhelpful. Maybe not full-auto (or emulation thereof) and not rifle-calibre would lead to less casualties in scenarios like these, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a guy with a gun trying to murder as many people as he can. Someone determined enough can do so whether it's a 9mm handgun, break-action shotgun or an M249. Again, the number of casualties is beside the argument, it's the fact that someone had the intent and means to inflict them. It just so happens that the means in this case are the same ones used by others to help prevent themselves becoming casualties in such situations, not to mention a hobby, sport and utility. Taking away those means may impact intent, but taking away intent makes that unnecessary. There's no easy way to go about either.
I gotta agree with BDA on that one. I don't think you could wounded as many people if you weren't using a bump stock. If you were just sniping people with a hunting rifle or something, you may have been able to kill more if you were quick with your gun, but I don't think you'd be able to wound nearly as many. It's kinda semantics at this point. The tragedy would've still been a tragedy.
Honestly, the whole ban on Bumpfire stocks is something which already is getting under my fucking skin. Those who care about the 2nd Amendment must be willing to give no ground. Last time we gave ground with the Hughes Amendment and Brady Act, we ended up getting the Assault Weapon Ban. Unless the Democrats want to come to our terms and give us something in return for giving up bumpfire stocks, namely getting short barreled weapons [I]and[/I] suppressors pulled off the National Firearms Act, then no deal.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744756]The right to bear arms was conceived when the understanding of firearms and military tactics necessitated militias bearing single-shot muskets for defense of villages and homesteads. [/QUOTE] The Girandoni rifle was in production and saw widespread use before the Bill of Rights was even drafted, in 1779. It could fire 22 rounds of ammunition without needing to be reloaded.
[QUOTE=OvB;52747944]I gotta agree with BDA on that one. I don't think you could wounded as many people if you weren't using a bump stock. If you were just sniping people with a hunting rifle or something, you may have been able to kill more if you were quick with your gun, but I don't think you'd be able to wound nearly as many. It's kinda semantics at this point. The tragedy would've still been a tragedy.[/QUOTE] Not quite, its very easy (with minimal practice) to rapid fire a standard ar15, or if you get something like a geissele SD-C trigger or 3-gun trigger its not that hard to fire almost as fast as full auto
Most of the wounded weren't even from gunfire, they were from being trampled as 22,000 people all tried to flee the area.
[QUOTE=OvB;52747944]I gotta agree with BDA on that one. I don't think you could wounded as many people if you weren't using a bump stock. If you were just sniping people with a hunting rifle or something, you may have been able to kill more if you were quick with your gun, but I don't think you'd be able to wound nearly as many. It's kinda semantics at this point. The tragedy would've still been a tragedy.[/QUOTE] Yeah. And regarding semi-autos, sure, banning them would reduce someone's ability to commit large-scale massacres over the course of a few minutes. That would do nothing about cases like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks"]DC Beltway snipers[/URL]. An AR-15 was used, sure, but the method could have easily been replicated using a hunting rifle, or a shotgun loaded with sabot slugs. Banning semi-autos would do nothing to prevent someone from taking an old Remington 721 or Winchester Model 94 and picking off random individuals on the street over the course of a few weeks. Even worse than an out-and-out massacre, it's an attack with a very long duration. A mass shooting is over inside an hour, tops. An attack like this cripples a city for possibly weeks at a time, and it can be committed anywhere someone can get access to any type of firearm besides pistols or .22LRs. It scares the shit out of me.
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52747264]So from what I read there if you get the right certificate you're allowed black powder, shotguns (3 round magazine limit), bolt action center-fire rifles, and all types of rimfire .22 rifle? The biggest rub with that in the US would be the ban on pistols, people I think understandably want to be able to defend themselves wherever they are and not just be limited to home defense[/QUOTE] Handguns got banned after our one and only school shooting. But there's good reason for it: [t]https://ichef-bbci-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/960/cpsprodpb/11623/production/_98130217_gun_used_murders_640-nc.png[/t] Surely even without handguns you could fulfill the goal of the second amendment?
[QUOTE=Ridge;52747980]The Girandoni rifle was in production and saw widespread use before the Bill of Rights was even drafted, in 1779. It could fire 22 rounds of ammunition without needing to be reloaded.[/QUOTE] And it's not like they were unknown to the founding fathers either. Louis and Clark took one with out west, and it was adopted by the Austrian Empire.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52748037]Handguns got banned after our one and only school shooting. But there's good reason for it: [t]https://ichef-bbci-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/960/cpsprodpb/11623/production/_98130217_gun_used_murders_640-nc.png[/t] Surely even without handguns you could fulfill the goal of the second amendment?[/QUOTE] Handguns are the primary "every-day carry" and popular enough for home defence (and recreational shooting). Make handguns illegal, that's a lot less risk for armed robbers/burglars - since most of the time they're already breaking the law possessing the guns they do, they wouldn't just disappear out their hands, and they're more concealable than anything else. It only worked here because guns are way less prevalent, and not necessary for the vast majority of criminals because self-defence options are extremely limited in the UK.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52748001]Most of the wounded weren't even from gunfire, they were from being trampled as 22,000 people all tried to flee the area.[/QUOTE] Source, or speculation? [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52748053]And it's not like they were unknown to the founding fathers either. Louis and Clark took one with out west, and it was adopted by the Austrian Empire.[/QUOTE] It also had be pumped with over 1500 bicycle-pump style compressions, taking over twenty minutes to complete (and, in all likelihood, help from a couple of other people, to swap in for tired arms). The end result of all that effort was twenty shots with [B]significantly[/B] less power than "real" weapons of the time. In fact, not only is the stopping power and range pitiful, it actually even has a significantly slower average fire rate than a standard musket. A trained musketman could load and fire his musket about three times per minute. Over the same twenty minutes it took to charge up that air rifle for 20 low powered shots, a musketman could put 60 or more rounds down range. That weapon is a novelty, at best, and though it may be an interesting and very well designed one, it's certainly not a vision of the future to leave onlookers trembling in fear. That's evident in the fact the weapon fell into obscurity, and wasn't really rediscovered until historians came along and found notes and references describing it in old texts (from what I've been able to tell reading into the history of the weapon). It's totally impractical. Worse, even, than a single shot musket, and certainly nothing capable of anything resembling a mass shooting spree. To argue that the founding fathers foresaw the future of rapid fire assault rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute because they may have seen a novelty weapon of almost humorously limited viability isn't terribly convincing.
Oh, please. So you're saying the founding fathers, holding a repeating rifle right in front of them, all collectively said "Nah it will never improve and will never catch on. I'm sure everyone will be using muskets forever, now let's pen down that 2nd Amendment". Repeating firearms have existed since [url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/repeating-rifle]the 1600s[/url], it's beyond retarded to think that the FFs couldn't have possibly thought of them.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;52748136]Oh, please. So you're saying the founding fathers, holding a repeating rifle right in front of them, all collectively said "Nah it will never improve and will never catch on. I'm sure everyone will be using muskets forever, now let's pen down that 2nd Amendment". Repeating firearms have existed since [url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/repeating-rifle]the 1600s[/url], it's beyond retarded to think that the FFs couldn't have possibly thought of them.[/QUOTE] Its rather confusing that the Founding Fathers could somehow both be intelligent enough to future proof most of the documents we still use today except when it comes to this one specific thing, in which case they were complete blubbering retards incapable of comprehending the idea of technological advancement.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;52748136]Oh, please. So you're saying the founding fathers, holding a repeating rifle right in front of them, all collectively said "Nah it will never improve and will never catch on. I'm sure everyone will be using muskets forever, now let's pen down that 2nd Amendment". Repeating firearms have existed since [url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/repeating-rifle]the 1600s[/url], it's beyond retarded to think that the FFs couldn't have possibly thought of them.[/QUOTE] Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I do not believe that the founding fathers could have even [I]conceived[/I] of the weapons of war we utilize today. If anything, I think seeing limited viability novelty weapons like the Girandoni would only reinforce their preconceptions about what would be realistic for firearms to achieve. Even in their wildest imaginings, I don't think they could have possibly foreseen just how far weapons technology has come. I mean, can you even imagine trying to [I]explain[/I] something like [B]this[/B] to Alexander Hamilton? lol [video=youtube;QGE23Uykd1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGE23Uykd1Y[/video] [I]Okay, Hammy, imagine there's something that can shoot 100 bullets every single second, right? And, if that's not enough, Most of those bullets are on fire so you can see where they're going. On top of that, all of those bullets are also tiny bombs that explodes on contact, right? Now, we take this gun, and put it on a machine that soars through the sky by spinning around big swords.[/I] Or how about missiles? [I]Ham, let me tell you about intercontinental missiles. These things are, twenty, thirty feet tall, yeah? Just big metal tubes, and we fill those tubes with explosive liquid. At the end of it, we can have a bomb so big that it can flatten entire cities. Anyway, these things ride a continuous explosion all the way into outer space, where a series of machines that we also shot into space help steer them where they need to go. These missile can then fly just about all the way around the world and impact an area with enough accuracy to punch through the roof of your car, which is a whole other thing we'll have to get into later. [/I] Most of the technology we have today, especially our weapons technology, is so incomprehensibly advanced that somebody born in the 1700s would think it was honest-to-god witchcraft. Our personal firearms? Same thing. I would be fucking [B]flabbergasted[/B] if some secret notes were found under a pile of rocks somewhere revealing that the founding fathers, while drafting the second amendment, said something to the effect of, [I]"hey, what about 230 years from now when Joe Schmoe can walk into one of our countries tens of thousands of gun stores and purchase a weapon that would allow him to almost singlehandedly mow down an entire company of our best soldiers in seconds?"[/I]
I mean, we can assume that in the future there will be laser guns and rail guns and shit. I don't think it's unreasonable for people in the 1700s to think about what may become of weapons in the future. Weapons that shoot fast wasn't an unheard of idea, either. Multi-barreled cannons exited. And carrying multiple weapons to improve your rate of fire was a thing, too. I think the reason fast shooting guns didn't exist back then has more to do with materials and tooling than lack of imagination.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52748164]Its rather confusing that the Founding Fathers could somehow both be intelligent enough to future proof most of the documents we still use today except when it comes to this one specific thing, in which case they were complete blubbering retards incapable of comprehending the idea of technological advancement.[/QUOTE] But they literally [I]were[/I] incapable of future proofing their document? They even [I]recognized[/I] that they were incapable of doing so, and built in methods by which later generations could come in and fix, clarify, add, or otherwise amend our sovereign documents to help address that fact. We have done so seventeen times in the last 200 some-odd years.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748168]Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I do not believe that the founding fathers could have even [I]conceived[/I] of the weapons of war we utilize today. If anything, I think seeing limited viability novelty weapons like the Girandoni would only reinforce their preconceptions about what would be realistic for firearms to achieve. Even in their wildest imaginings, I don't think they could have possibly foreseen just how far weapons technology has come. I mean, can you even imagine trying to [I]explain[/I] something like [B]this[/B] to Alexander Hamilton? lol [video=youtube;QGE23Uykd1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGE23Uykd1Y[/video] [I]Okay, Hammy, imagine there's something that can shoot 100 bullets every single second, right? And, if that's not enough, Most of those bullets are on fire so you can see where they're going. On top of that, all of those bullets are also tiny bombs that explodes on contact, right? Now, we take this gun, and put it on a machine that soars through the sky by spinning around big swords.[/I] Or how about missiles? [I]Ham, let me tell you about intercontinental missiles. These things are, twenty, thirty feet tall, yeah? Just big metal tubes, and we fill those tubes with explosive liquid. At the end of it, we can have a bomb so big that it can flatten entire cities. Anyway, these things ride a continuous explosion all the way into outer space, where a series of machines that we also shot into space help steer them where they need to go. These missile can then fly just about all the way around the world and impact an area with enough accuracy to punch through the roof of your car, which is a whole other thing we'll have to get into later. [/I] Most of the technology we have today, especially our weapons technology, is so incomprehensibly advanced that somebody born in the 1700s would think it was honest-to-god witchcraft. Our personal firearms? Same thing. I would be fucking [B]flabbergasted[/B] if some secret notes were found under a pile of rocks somewhere revealing that the founding fathers, while drafting the second amendment, said something to the effect of, [I]"hey, what about 230 years from now when Joe Schmoe can walk into one of our countries tens of thousands of gun stores and purchase a weapon that would allow him to almost singlehandedly mow down an entire company of our best soldiers in seconds?"[/I][/QUOTE] No, i bet they couldnt accurately predict the exact types of weapons we have today, but to say they were so fucking stupid as to not understand that weapons technology would continually advance in the future is rather shortsighted. In the same way i can imagine weapons will continue to advance and we'll probably end up with a bunch of weird energy based shit like railguns, but i cant accurately describe what they'll really end up as. Even at the time in the 1700's, they could probably compare their own arsenals to that of the natives or Europes own history of basic bows and axes and hammer and swords vs. big ass war boats, muskets, and cannons and shit.
[QUOTE=OvB;52748169]I mean, we can assume that in the future there will be laser guns and rail guns and shit. I don't think it's unreasonable for people in the 1700s to think about what may become of weapons in the future. Weapons that shoot fast wasn't an unheard of idea, either. Multi-barreled cannons exited. And carrying multiple weapons to improve your rate of fire was a thing, too. I think the reason fast shooting guns didn't exist back then has more to do with materials and tooling than lack of imagination.[/QUOTE] Maybe. Maybe the weapons of 200 years from now would be so bizarrely powerful and alien in function to what we're capable of imagining as a realistic possibility that somehow stepping in a time machine and seeing a Future Shooting Range would blow our fuckin' minds. Literally, maybe, with some kind of Transdimensional Orb of Head Exploding. All we can really say is that weapons will be more powerful. Maybe our wildest prediction for what may actually be [I]possible[/I] could be massively understimating the actual advancement, because our imaginations are limited by our understanding the world as it is, without the benefit of understanding the world as it will be in 200+ years.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748173]But they literally [I]were[/I] incapable of future proofing their document? They even [I]recognized[/I] that they were incapable of doing so, and built in methods by which later generations could come in and fix, clarify, add, or otherwise amend our sovereign documents to help address that fact. We have done so seventeen times in the last 200 some-odd years.[/QUOTE] The amendment concept in and of itself is future proofing the Constitution, is it not? And the bill of rights is specific enough to outline what rights its giving but vague enough to still be applicable in the modern day, isnt it?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52748182]The amendment concept in and of itself is future proofing the Constitution, is it not? And the bill of rights is specific enough to outline what rights its giving but vague enough to still be applicable in the modern day, isnt it?[/QUOTE] Yeah, the ability to amend the constitution is a form of future proofing, and a good one. It's also proof that the founders knew they weren't infallible. They knew that the future was unpredictable, and they knew that they couldn't possibly hope to draft a document that would meet the needs or challenges of the future. The existence of the ability to amend the constitution, however rigorous and painstaking that process may be, is evidence in favor of my argument. The founding fathers weren't gods. They were people. Visionary though they may have been, they didn't have a crystal ball. They weren't omniscient. Knowing that weapons technology would get more deadly over time doesn't mean they had any concept of just [B]how[/B] deadly it was truly capable of becoming, just as you aren't capable of knowing just how deadly the weaponry 200 years from now may be. We could have handguns capable of atomizing city blocks. We could have a little black box with a big red button that kills whoever you're thinking about when you press it. We could little rods that turn people inside out by waving it at them. Who fuckin' knows? If you could send a platoon of soldiers with today's deadliest weaponry back to the 1780's, they'd think it was the apocalypse.
Also, i dont even understand what point you're trying to make. The 2nd amendment has a bunch of applications but the general intent was generally a method for retaliation against a tyrannical government, yes? So what does it even matter if weapons technology advances and escalates in that context? If anything it'd more of an argument for the proliferation of advanced weaponry, not to take them away.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748168] Or how about missiles? [/QUOTE] The British Navy did field ~5 foot rockets quite effectively in the early 1800's. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Just, what, 10-20 years before the Brits were launch rockets off ships? Explosive tipped rockets. The Indians and others were using them far before then as well. Rockets were around. There were also early explosive cannon rounds back then. Wouldn't be hard to imagine that one day maybe you could do the same thing but smaller for guns. Tracers are pretty new, though... Interestingly enough, they even had unique rounds that we don't see anymore. Like cannon rounds designed to tear apart sails and crush ship masts. Also flaming cage rounds to set sails on fire. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] I don't think it's healthy to hold the founding fathers up to some godly status, though. They created a working framework for the country. Changing it if the current country chooses to do so shouldn't be seen as some kind of sin. That's why the criteria to ratify an amendment is so high.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52748198]Also, i dont even understand what point you're trying to make. The 2nd amendment has a bunch of applications but the general intent was generally a method for retaliation against a tyrannical government, yes? So what does it even matter if weapons technology advances and escalates in that context? If anything it'd more of an argument for the proliferation of advanced weaponry, not to take them away.[/QUOTE] I fundamentally disagree with you on this. I believe that, if the founding fathers had any inkling of just how terrifyingly powerful basic weapons technology would become, they would have had some serious second thoughts about the wording in that second amendment allowing Joe Schmoe to freely bear those arms. Clearly, you disagree, and I'm not sure that it's possible for us to reconcile those two perspectives through any amount of argumentation, because at the end of the day we are arguing a point that is functionally impossible to prove.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748206]I fundamentally disagree with you on this. I believe that, if the founding fathers had any inkling of just how terrifyingly powerful basic weapons technology would become, they would have had some serious second thoughts about the wording in that second amendment. Clearly, you disagree, and I'm not sure that it's possible for us to reconcile those two perspectives through any amount of argumentation.[/QUOTE] Why? I dont see a reason as to why that would change their thought process about it. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] I mean i'm not saying they were infallible or anything but that line of thinking has never made any sense to me based on the intent of the amendment.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748206]I fundamentally disagree with you on this. I believe that, if the founding fathers had any inkling of just how terrifyingly powerful basic weapons technology would become, they would have had some serious second thoughts about the wording in that second amendment allowing Joe Schmoe to freely bear those arms. Clearly, you disagree, and I'm not sure that it's possible for us to reconcile those two perspectives through any amount of argumentation, because at the end of the day we are arguing a point that is functionally impossible to prove.[/QUOTE] These same people who just got done fighting a war that killed over 100,000 people when you add up both sides. I don't know if they would change their mind because of the firepower available. Hell, Jefferson might say we're overdue for a good Revolution. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] However, at the same time they might have a word to say about America's massive standing military. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] [quote]In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.[/quote] So really, when you think about it... the fathers probably would've been against a massive standing army, they would probably be upset that the government even has the [I]ability[/I] to pose a threat to the people. They would probably uphold the concept of the 2nd amendment, and say we failed to uphold it by letting the government obtain so much militaristic power over the people. ... and then Jefferson would say we gotta spill the blood of patriots and tyrants and start over.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52741982]Boy I wish ! ! ![/QUOTE] Nah man, we gotta spend that money on our military instead. How else are they gonna fight the... Uh....
[QUOTE=OvB;52748230]These same people who just got done fighting a war that[B] killed over 100,000 people[/B] when you add up both sides. I don't know if they would change their mind because of the firepower available. Hell, Jefferson might say we're overdue for a good Revolution. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] However, at the same time they might have a word to say about America's massive standing military.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]Dear Alexander Hamilton: we can do that now with a single bomb.[/URL] Again, I think a vision of the future of weapons technology would have turned the founding fathers white as a sheet. I guess all we can really do is speculate, but I truly do believe that seeing what our weapons are capable of today would have led to a substantially different second amendment. As for me, my perspective is clear: the weapons we have now are just [I]too[/I] dangerous to let float around civilian hands. Regardless of what they [I]intended[/I], the amendment now serves to do nothing but make our country the most dangerous one in the Western world for gun crime, with firearm homicide rates 5-6 times higher than national averages of comparable countries, and mass shootings of varying severity occurring every single week. Look, for what's it worth, I'm sorry if I offended any of ya'll. I obviously have strong feelings about this, and while I get a bit too "spirited" in defending them, I honestly don't think less of any of you for having or enjoying firearms. I get it, even. I enjoyed my experiences with them too. Going to the shooting range was always fun, and I would in all honesty continue to do it. I've even considered picking up a weapon for the home, just in case. I simply believe that we get [B]far[/B] more harm than good out of the culture we've built surrounding guns. I also believe that the longer we wait, the worse the problem is going to get. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;52748230] However, at the same time they might have a word to say about America's massive standing military. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] So really, when you think about it... the fathers probably would've been against a massive standing army, they would probably be upset that the government even has the [I]ability[/I] to pose a threat to the people. They would probably uphold the concept of the 2nd amendment, and say we failed to uphold it by letting the government obtain so much militaristic power over the people. ... and then Jefferson would say we gotta spill the blood of patriots and tyrants and start over.[/QUOTE] Yeah, could be. Definitely an interesting point to consider.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748085]Source, or speculation? [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] It also had be pumped with over 1500 bicycle-pump style compressions, taking over twenty minutes to complete (and, in all likelihood, help from a couple of other people, to swap in for tired arms). The end result of all that effort was twenty shots with [B]significantly[/B] less power than "real" weapons of the time. In fact, not only is the stopping power and range pitiful, it actually even has a significantly slower average fire rate than a standard musket. A trained musketman could load and fire his musket about three times per minute. Over the same twenty minutes it took to charge up that air rifle for 20 low powered shots, a musketman could put 60 or more rounds down range. That weapon is a novelty, at best, and though it may be an interesting and very well designed one, it's certainly not a vision of the future to leave onlookers trembling in fear. That's evident in the fact the weapon fell into obscurity, and wasn't really rediscovered until historians came along and found notes and references describing it in old texts (from what I've been able to tell reading into the history of the weapon). It's totally impractical. Worse, even, than a single shot musket, and certainly nothing capable of anything resembling a mass shooting spree. To argue that the founding fathers foresaw the future of rapid fire assault rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute because they may have seen a novelty weapon of almost humorously limited viability isn't terribly convincing.[/QUOTE] Yes, if they were pumping the rifle during combat. They didn't. They pumped ahead of time. It even allowed for detachable reservoirs. Meanwhile you weren't blinded by your own black powder smoke and could reload from the prone.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748252][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]Dear Alexander Hamilton: we can do that now with a single bomb.[/URL] Again, I think a vision of the future of weapons technology would have turned the founding fathers white as a sheet. I guess all we can really do is speculate, but I truly do believe that seeing what our weapons are capable of today would have led to a substantially different second amendment. As for me, my perspective is clear: the weapons we have now are just [I]too[/I] dangerous to let float around civilian hands. Regardless of what they [I]intended[/I], the amendment now serves to do nothing but make our country the most dangerous one in the Western world for gun crime, with firearm homicide rates 5-6 times higher than national averages of comparable countries, and mass shootings of varying severity occurring every single week. Look, for what's it worth, I'm sorry if I offended any of ya'll. I obviously have strong feelings about this, and while I get a bit too "spirited" in defending them, I honestly don't think less of any of you for having or enjoying firearms. I get it, even. I enjoyed my experiences with them too. Going to the shooting range was always fun, and I would in all honesty continue to do it. I've even considered picking up a weapon for the home, just in case. I simply believe that we get [B]far[/B] more harm than good out of the culture we've built surrounding guns. I also believe that the longer we wait, the worse the problem is going to get. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] Yeah, could be. Definitely an interesting point to consider.[/QUOTE] Alright. So we've come to the conclusion that you don't want civilians to have a vast majority of guns. Let me ask you this, what happens when America falls? It's going to fall, some day some how. Hell, it might just fall into totalitarianism the way things are going now. Who gets to have the guns when that happens?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.