Skip to main content

View Diary: You NEED to watch this clip of Jon Stewart talk about gun control (406 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rights aren't based on needs. (5+ / 0-)

    Sorry, that's my answer and it will continue to be answer.

    Assault weapons (the term) is horseshit by the way, as is high capacity magazines (the term).

    Glock 'high capacity' magazines are the ~30 rounders, not the 17 that they NORMALLY hold.

    1911 'high capacity' magazines are the 40 round drums, not the 8 rounders that are normally used.

    My Tommy gun comes standard with a 50 round drum and 30 round sticks.

    As to assault weapons:

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:52:45 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually they are (13+ / 0-)

      The rights exist because they are needed either by society or the individual.  

      For example the right to free speech exists because it helps preserve a democracy.

      The second amendment exists/existed because of the need for security of a free state.

      So the question stands

      Why do YOU need assault weapons and/or extended magazines?

      If you're not comfortable with the question because of wording then change the wording.  But the basic gist of the question remains.  

      Why do YOU need to shoot as many rounds as fast as you can without reloading?  

      Or would you prefer the question

      Why do YOU need to shoot as many of these explosive rounds that are specifically designed to cause as much damage as possible, as fast as possible, without having to reload?

      The simple answer is YOU DON'T.  Our society doesn't.  Our country might but only in a well regulated militia and/or military for the sole purpose of securing a free state.  Self defense?  Overkill.  If you can't shoot someone with 6 bullets then you shouldn't own a gun.  There is no practical reason in a civilized society why you would need one of these guns with all these bullets.  Call it whatever the hell you want.  You don't need it.  

      You talk about your right.  Well first off when the amendment was written they were firing muskets.  You want to own one and shoot it go right ahead.  If we want to be strict constitutionalists then ALL weapons except those that existed in that time should be banned.  I highly doubt you would agree to that though.  Second, at no point does it restrict the government from regulating what type of arms you have a right to possess.  It just says those rights shall not be infringed upon.  You can still bear arms, just not certain ones.  We already restrict the possession of automatic guns and rocket launchers.  Third, at what point does your right to have these deadly weapons infringe on my right to fucking live in peace without worrying that my son will be gunned down at school like my friend's son almost was in Sandy Hook?

      The fact that we're even having this debate is fucking bullshit.  The constitution can be and already has on many occasions been changed and amendments have even  been reversed.  Yet the second amendment is sacrosanct, despite it being the most imperfectly written and outdated of them all.  The fact is we live in different times where we don't need to arm our citizens or have militias.  We don't need armed citizens to secure a free state.  That's what our military is for.  We don't need these sick guns that shoot 1000000000 rounds a second for self defense or hunting or sport shooting.  WE DON'T NEED THEM FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT KILLING.  

      SO please explain to me why YOU need them.  If you can give me a valid reason then maybe I'll consider your point of view.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:43:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Responses: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, fuzzyguy, happymisanthropy

        I disagree with your premise. Rights aren't based on needs. We're never going to agree on that.

        Explosive rounds? Are you serious? Where do you buy explosive rounds?

        I think you need to look into actual shootings when it comes to self defense. It's not one shot stop. You shoot until the threat goes away. And if there's more than one person? Just throw rocks at the others?

        Civilized society? I'm just going to laugh at that one.

        You don't have a right to live free from fear. The anti-marriage equality assholes would have a field day with that.

        If we want to be strict constitutionalists then ALL weapons except those that existed in that time should be banned.
        Like the internet, mormonism, TV....

        I see it as the common people were armed with the most advanced small arms of the day. Sure, let's apply that. I'll take my M4 please.

        And to finish off this:

        SO please explain to me why YOU need them.  
        There is no needs requirement on rights.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:50:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  an actually helpful demonstration of weapons (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      There really needs to be more factual analysis about what the terms mean and what the issues are.  

      A lot of what we get is arguments about angels on the head of a pin.  

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:53:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site