After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

The point is that if I want a gun that holds ten rounds, there is no legitimate reason for you to believe that anyone has the right to say I shouldn't have it. I know you don't see any door to door action being taken, but assuming that some anti-gun folks had their way, how else do you imagine that such a thing would be enacted.

 

Yeah, I recall the language. Weapons of war. But semiautomatic AR-15s are not used by the military. Perhaps someone should inform the judges that those rifles are not used by the military.

 

That is incorrect. A gun can be banned only if there is a good reason for banning it.

A classic lever-action .30-30 holds eight rounds. The magazine for a classic .45 pistol has seven rounds.

There is no justification for banning either weapon.

Why isn't a gun that is suitable for self defense also suitable for those purposes as well?

 

That is incorrect. Restrictions on guns are allowed only if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

Anything that can't be justified is unconstitutional.

In addition to that, restrictions on guns are not allowed to be so draconian that they impede self defense.

That is incorrect. People have the right to have guns that are suitable for self defense. That requires a certain minimum number of rounds.

 

What are you appealing to here?

Does the military use semiautomatic AR-15s or not?

 

I'm not talking about hunting in Pennsylvania. I'm talking about my handgun for home defense. If I want a gun that holds ten rounds, there is no legitimate reason for you to believe that anyone has the right to say I shouldn't have it. Why shouldn't I have it?

 

Well since the reason they give for banning the AR-15 is that it is a weapon of war, when it clearly is not, I care about that even if you don't. You seem to believe that their knowledge of the law makes everything they say correct, even though you understand that the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

 

No, I'm saying that they have no right to tell me how many rounds I'm allowed to have in my gun. You're just acquiescing to authority. Why shouldn't I have a gun that holds ten rounds?

 

Only if the limits can be justified with a good reason, and only if the limits are not so draconian that they impede self defense.

This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

 

Even in countries with strict gun laws there is no evidence for background checks working.

Which again, please name a state or city in the US where buyback programs work.

One, the Bill of Rights isn't about need. Two, there are plenty of reasons to stockpile ammo such as if you're a professional competition shooter or wanting to survive hard times. Three, what do you consider too much ammo anyway? Four, even if we're to implement such a law, how are you going keep people from just keeping the ammo from their last allotment and adding it to their next? And finally, what evidence do you have of this even working? How does preventing "stockpiling" will prevent gun crime?

To use your own logic, if you don't have a tangible reason to implement such a law then you don't need such a law.

The we can do it attitude didn't solve the drug and alcohol problem and buyback programs implemented in the US have failed miserably. Whether you like it or not, even in gun unfriendly states, people don't take kindly to the government taking guns from law abiding citizens even under a voluntary basis.

I'm not the one wanting to implement such a law so it's onus on you to find out. And see my respomse to the we can do it attitude.

The constitution for one and for another there's no evidence of the law working.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and in many cases more dangerous than carrying a firearm. At least with a firearm once itit's in a decent holster, there is very little risk of it going off. On the other hand with driving, you can pretty much blink and get into a wreck.

Do you have evidence of registration working to reduce gun crime and violent crime?

Here you're talking about revolvers and then asking me why I need more rounds to go hunting as justification for banning anything that can carry more than 6 rounds? I never knew hunting with revolvers was such a popular sport. This is why gun rights advocates aren't too keen on a lot of the laws proposed. No one said amything about hunting. I don't hunt but I would like to as a beneficial skill. However currently my firearms are for self protection.

No. It's nonsensical. What does hunting have to do with why the vast majority buy handguns in the first place? Do you honestly think people buy Glock 19s to hunt elk?

Bring it.

 

Believe it or not, someone will come up with the idea that you have to bring back your empty shell casings in order to get more.

 

I wonder how many rounds it would take for a store owner to defend his place of business over the course of a riot.

People have the right to have enough ammunition on hand for adequate self defense.

 

I guess we are starting tbis thread up again.