Orlando

[MoValley John]

How many people died in Paris? Are guns banned in Paris? Did banning guns in Paris work?

[ShockerPrez]

The main thing is that they'll always be a way for people intent on breaking a law to do it. Have you seen what these sickos do in the middle east? They are crazy.

Laws dont work. There are already more than enough guns, clips and bullets out there to maintain any crimes wanting to be committed.

I dont know what the solution is, but I will always side with the people as opposed to the government and politicians, who take a problem and almost always make it worse.

And again, only law abiding people will obey new laws. If someone doesnt care about a law forbidding murder, why will they obey a new gun law.

What needs to happen is one of these jihadies getting smoked by a few citizens defending themselves.

I am also for congress passing an official declaration of war against ISIS, Al Queda, and any other group who has declared jihad ahainst the US. Then any of these clowns that profess their allegiance to these groups publically, we round them up and revoke citizenship and or hold them as a POW. We need to start taking this **** seriously. And Id rather deny these people who think its okay to spout this hatred their freedom by accident then deny more freedoms to law abiding citizens.

[ShockRef]

I would have bought this car, as it gets 20+ mpg in mixed driving. My biggest hold up is paying over sticker for a car. You might as well go to the nearest strip club and make some new female friends, as you're just wasting the extra money you're paying so you can get one without a wait (or with a limited wait).

It's this liberal ideology that always boils to the surface to help promote their assault on the 2nd Amendment.

The lunacy reaches a fever pitch when they think there is enough momentum after a tragedy like Orlando to push their agenda.

The irony is you didn't hear any noise about banning pressure cookers after the Boston Marathon attack. It's an absolute miracle 50 persons weren't killed that day.

But nary a peep from the libs afterwards to ban Presto, T-Fal or CanCooker to stop making them.

Just another crock of **** screaming from liberals after a mentally unstable human commits an atrocity.

That is all.

[shockmonster]

I never saw anyone in a Corvette kill 50 people at one time. I've seen people in sports cars excessively speeding and having accidents which killed a few people (and got the sports car driver indicted), I've seen drunks wipe out a car with 8 or 9 people in it, but I've never seen anyone kill 50 people in a car.

And quit hating on Corvettes. We also have Shelby Cobras, Ferraris, Lambos, HellCats and more. I currently own a Focus ST (4 cylinder with a 6 speed) that will go from 0-120 in about 30 seconds. It does 0-100 in about 14. The new Focus RS goes from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds and it's a 4 cylinder as well. It's not quite as quick as the Cobras, but it has a top speed of 165 and a quarter-mile time below 13 seconds (I'm guessing high 12's). These other cars mentioned here are very capable of a sub 12 second quarter at 130 mph.

One thing about these cars, though. Most of them are priced much too high for the average person to buy. Z28 Camaro - $75,000, Shelby Cobra - $65,000 (55k sticker plus 10k premium due to the popularity). The HellCat is about 70K. The Focus RS, for comparison, sells for 5K over sticker or about 50K.

Ha Ha. Did you take me seriously? Although, you make a strong case that owners of high priced cars are most likely mentally disabled.

[MoValley John]

Ha Ha. Did you take me seriously? Although, you make a strong case that owners of high priced cars are most likely mentally disabled.

I just thought it meant the owner had a small penis.

[shocka khan]

It's this liberal ideology that always boils to the surface to help promote their assault on the 2nd Amendment.

The lunacy reaches a fever pitch when they think there is enough momentum after a tragedy like Orlando to push their agenda.

The irony is you didn't hear any noise about banning pressure cookers after the Boston Marathon attack. It's an absolute miracle 50 persons weren't killed that day.

But nary a peep from the libs afterwards to ban Presto, T-Fal or CanCooker to stop making them.

Just another crock of **** screaming from liberals after a mentally unstable human commits an atrocity.

That is all.

Maybe this definition, from the urban slang dictionary, fits your mood and feelings:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ammosexual

ammosexual

A term for someone who feels affection for firearms. Often an attraction to the beauty and design of the gun, but can also refer to love for the history, freedom, security, or tactile feel of the gun. Also typified by those who feel joy in being able to find and acquire ammunition to feed their firearms, especially at an affordable price.

Ammosexuals, like many alternative lifestyle groups, have been ruthlessly attacked by hate-filled bigots who desire the eradication of individual liberty and equality, in favor of either violent mobs, might-makes-right, or tyrant kings.

Fearing violence and protests, most ammosexuals are forced to hide their biological affection from vocal and violent prejudice. Ammosexuals are frequently the target of anti-freedom laws and politicians, and are currently denied many freedoms granted to other minority groups in most nations.

[wufan]

I'm not going to try to change your mind re:guns. Hopefully, I can change your mind about this argument because this makes no sense, and I hear it all the time. First, it isn't logical to say "we shouldn't ban X bad thing because Y bad thing also exists." If I said "heroine should be legal since people can get drunk with alcohol anyway," I would hope you're not persuaded.

Second, none of your alternatives have the ease and effectiveness of rifles.
1. (Car) Bomb - It's been over twenty years since the worst bombing in US history. It wasn't a car bomb, it took a great deal of knowledge, and it required a ton of planning. Walking into a crowded club with a rifle is easier than months spent acquiring thousands of pounds of material. This is the deadliest of your list, and we still just don't see it very often in the United States. Further, I wasn't able to find/think of a US bombing other than OKC that killed more people than the guy in Orlando.
2. Knife - This is the funniest on your list. I don't want to meet the person capable of killing 49 people with a knife and injuring another 50.
3. Airplane - Either, (a) prohibitively expensive or (b) difficult to illegally obtain. We haven't had a major hijacking in the United States since 2001.
4. Car - Are you envisioning a person just hopping the curb and mowing people down? That's certainly possible. The Orlando guy would have had a really hard time finding 100 people he thought were gay just standing around outside in a big crowd.
5. Black market - difficult and prohibitively expensive.

Think what you want to about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Don't rely on this as a key argument. With a ban on assault rifles, it would become much harder to kill 50 innocent people.

You are missing the argument. The argument is that crazy people will do crazy things. If you take away one tool, another will replace it. If you follow your philosophy that, "bad tools cause bad things", then you will continually ban things until people have no freedom. Alternatively, you could ban things to some arbitrary "I feel good about this" level. At that point it's not a philosophy it's just a law that does no good.

[wufan]

I don't follow. Is killing 9 better than, the same as, or worse than killing 50? A death is always tragic, but one incident includes 5x the amount of death. If we should have no concern for the AMOUNT of people that can be killed by a weapon, why shouldn't individuals have a right to fully automatic weapons, chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons under the Second Amendment?

I have the right to defend myself. I don't have the right to wage war on anyone. A semi-automatic rifle can be used as a self-defense weapon. Chemical/nuclear weapons are clearly attack weapons. They don't allow for discriminant defense.

[ShockRef]

Maybe this definition, from the urban slang dictionary, fits your mood and feelings:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ammosexual

ammosexual

A term for someone who feels affection for firearms. Often an attraction to the beauty and design of the gun, but can also refer to love for the history, freedom, security, or tactile feel of the gun. Also typified by those who feel joy in being able to find and acquire ammunition to feed their firearms, especially at an affordable price.

Ammosexuals, like many alternative lifestyle groups, have been ruthlessly attacked by hate-filled bigots who desire the eradication of individual liberty and equality, in favor of either violent mobs, might-makes-right, or tyrant kings.

Fearing violence and protests, most ammosexuals are forced to hide their biological affection from vocal and violent prejudice. Ammosexuals are frequently the target of anti-freedom laws and politicians, and are currently denied many freedoms granted to other minority groups in most nations.

Khan,
And you wasted how much of your time searching on the web attempting to assign some misnomer to SR?

Geezus, liberals are fricking goofy.

That is all.

[JJClamdip]

I just thought it meant the owner had a small penis.

Generally that is the case, over compensation for a lack of serious man meat.

Instead of spending all that money on cars it would be cheaper to just have their Johnson stretched.

[shockmonster]

I have the right to defend myself. I don't have the right to wage war on anyone. A semi-automatic rifle can be used as a self-defense weapon. Chemical/nuclear weapons are clearly attack weapons. They don't allow for discriminant defense.

With all due respect, your argument, while consistent, seems a little extreme to me (Every citizen needing an Assault Rifle to protect himself). And the other side will say that we should have no guns to protect yourself inside or outside the home. While I don't personally carry a gun nor do I have one prepared, close to me inside my home (mostly because of the tragedies that I hear about accidents that have happened and I have grand children that I love/don't want to take the chance, and secondly because I just don't feel fearful enough).

Both sides have some solid arguments. I'm willing to try new methods that are more of a compromise taking the best from both sides to find real solutions.

[shocka khan]

Khan,
And you wasted how much of your time searching on the web attempting to assign some misnomer to SR?

Geezus, liberals are fricking goofy.

That is all.

It took about 5 seconds.


PS: You're welcome.

[MoValley John]

Should we discuss bump firing, or leave that for another day?

[wsushox1]

i dont think anyone is arguing to take away all guns. Just large magazines, assault rifles.

How many more Americans must die? One day it might be someone in your family, and that's a reality we have to face. I'm not willing to accept that and many more Americans aren't each and every day.

Again, I'm not naive about how banning Assault Rifles will get them all off the street, that is foolish. But the price on them would at least triple on the black market and we could start getting them out of circulations.

[wsushox1]

I have the right to defend myself. I don't have the right to wage war on anyone. A semi-automatic rifle can be used as a self-defense weapon. Chemical/nuclear weapons are clearly attack weapons. They don't allow for discriminant defense.

How many times does an American defend their life or property each year by using an semi-automatic rifle? I would guess very, very few (if any). Pistols and revolvers are much more common and should fit the need in most every situation.