Prince

How does someone need an assault rifle to protect themselves? Are there a lot of people/groups out there laying siege to households where we need an assault rifle to protect your home? How does someone need a sniper rifle to protect themselves? Is someone going to shack up in a sniper nest to make sure no one trespasses on their property?

People don't need to have assault weapons. In everyday life in this country, there is nothing that requires our citizens to be arming themselves with assault rifles or sniper rifles. I am for concealed weapon permits with handguns because at least in that case there are statistics backing up the fact that it can lower crime rates. This is not the Apocalypse where one might need to arm themselves with a sniper/assault rifle to protect themselves.

__________________

Prince

What I said is not race baiting. I'm simply pointing out a clause that was included in the Constitution that has since then become irrelevant. Not everything in the Constitution stands the test of time.

__________________

Wilt_The_Stilt

In other words, because you say so.

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

Wilt_The_Stilt

Explain this to me:

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

Prince

No. I'm pointing logical inconsistencies with having said weapons legal. Please explain why those weapons are necessary in everyday life in this country. Just wanting to have them is not reason. Protection can't be the reason either because if people want to protect themselves in their home they could have a concealed weapon permit for a handgun to do, or they could even have a hunting rifle or a shotgun. Please provide all of us with a good example of where it would be absolutely necessary to have an assault rifle or sniper rifle in your possession.

__________________

Prince

That's what people in the literary world call a "hyperbole" or in other words an exaggerated statement. In this case I used a hyperbole to point out the silliness of holding onto some dated concepts of the original Constitution.

__________________

Wilt_The_Stilt

So something has to be necessary in everyday life to be legal? Wow.

And why can't people use assault weapons to defend themselves? Because you say it's bad?

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

Wilt_The_Stilt

Why would the 3/5 clause lead to politicians who think like me?

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

Prince

So in other words you can't think of a good example where it would be necessary in that moment to have those weapons in your possession. People can have handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, crossbows, longbows, knives, swords, machetes, etc. to defend themselves. Why is it necessary at that point for assault/sniper rifles to be legal? We have all kinds of things at our disposal to defend ourselves adequately. Banning assault/sniper rifles won't change that.

__________________

Prince

Do you really not understand what a hyperbole is?

__________________

Wilt_The_Stilt

That's not a reason to get rid of them.

Why is it bad for someone to own an assault weapon? Who is it harming? Sure they could use it to harm somebody else but they can use everything else you listed to do it too.

The underlying issue is that it is silly to try and distinguish between good guns and bad guns. It only takes 1 bullet to kill somebody and furthermore the efforts to ban them won't work and will have counterproductive consequences.

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

Prince

Who is it harming? How about Newton, Connecticut or Aurora, Colorado for starters?

__________________

bball2223

Ban all assualt rifles. I do not think banning all guns is the answer, but weapons like the one used in last Friday's shooting should not be allowed to be purchased.

Wilt_The_Stilt

The weapon used in Connecticut was legal under the assault weapon ban and the vast majority of homicides where a gun was used involve handguns.

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

Prince

You asked me who it was harming and I gave you some examples. Whether or not the weapon was legal or not under a defunct law is irrelevant. And if a ban is passed on assault rifles, it stands to reason that the weapon used in Connecticut will be included in the ban.

__________________