Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, then do something about it but till then it is the law of the land.

As for this; "Never had a “need” for assault weapons and pistols designed to kill human beings.", unless you hunted with a BB gun, you were hunting with a gun that could kill a human being as easily as whatever you were hunting.

 

more efficient, not necessarily better. i'm sure there's some serial killers who think a table saw is the perfect weapon.

 

Yes but not really but let's not waste our time on semantics.

Overthrow not so much, more to protect themselves if the Government got abusive.

Well at that time they did just overthrow their abusive government, so I could see those drafting the bill of rights thinking it could be done again if it was called for. (Although one commenter stated that it was the French that won the war and we were just along for the ride)

 

I was thinking the same thing but was too shy to say it. ;-)

 

A table saw would add a certain panache to a murder, wouldnt it

 

It's murda

 

I already addressed this but you must have missed it. It is the Supreme Court that rules on this but the Supreme Court has reversed it's ruling before and could easily do it again, especially since it is being packed with Conservatives. Not that I'm for the ruling being changed but it could happen.

I never said that any body said hunting weapons wouldn't kill humans, I merely pointed out that a person might be fooling themselves if they were telling their self that a hunting gun was not capable of also killing a human being like a "assault weapon" can.

That may be so but your definition of an "assault weapon" would include the Ruger 10/22. So how do you write a law that includes one without including the other?

 

Yes, but there are obviously mass murderers for whom efficiency and scale of killings are all important. They're the bigger problems in churches, schools, and shopping malls.

 

I don't believe I ever said that I would.

I'm firm believer in nonviolent "Civil Disobedience".

As I said before, I recently brought a gun, not to overthrow the Government or protect myself but to feed myself if the world wide economic system collapses like it almost did in 2008.

If you read my comment above to granite45 you will see that I told him if he didn't like the 2nd amendment "do something about it" but till then it is the law of the land

 

True mass murderers, on a large scale, have found that guns are not very efficient. What about the Oklahoma City bombing, 168 died with over 680 injuries, seems large scale and efficient, no assault weapons used. How about 9/11? Nearly 3000 people died and guess what, no assault weapons were used. Shoot, between 90,000 and 146,000 people died in Hiroshima and 39,000 and 80,000 people died in Nagasaki, one bomb each seems large scale and efficient. If you want to be large scale and efficient, forget assault weapons and get yourself a bomb. No background checks, no waiting period.

Now for the editorial; all this debating about guns isn't solving the problem, it's not even looking at the real problem. It's just a nice diversion so we don't have to look at the real problem. It doesn't matter how we do it, the real question is why do we want to kill each other? When we figure that out and fix it, then it really won't matter whether we have guns or not. We just won't be killing each other.

 

The "real problem" as you identify is, unfortunately, too big and complex for us to understand, let alone solve, in our lifetimes. Yet the mass murders seem to be escalating, and while the really big ones have involved explosives, the more typical ones involve rifles with large magazines. While we won't solve the problem of mass murder by gun control, I think it's a more useful place to start than to figure out how to prevent humans from killing each other, which has been going on since Cain and Abel.

 

There is no good reason people kill each other. It's just that some idiots get guns in their hands and decide to kill people.

 

Sure, I'll play. There is a difference between an assault weapon and an assault STYLE weapon. An assault weapon has a select-fire option. An assault STYLE weapon does not have a select-fire option. If a weapon is not select-fire, then it is called a semiautomatic weapon, and NOT an assault weapon.

So, if you believe that a semiautomatic weapon is an assault weapon by virtue of its appearance and despite its lack of select-fire capability, then you believe that style equals function. But style does not equal function.

You claim that you obey authority when it is legitimate. The problem with your "legitimate" authority in this case is that it shares your skewed view that style equals function. The authority in my state does not confuse style and function.

 

.22 isn't even legal for hunting whitetail.

Nonetheless, in proficient hands it could be used to take out that many or more within the same time in a contained unarmed crowd scenario like that from a closer vantage point.

Of course, a suicide bomber would get more, quicker.

 

Exactly!

Maybe some people are so narrowly focused that they just want to take away from the general population anything currently being used by crazies to kill people (or representatives thereof) who've caused them turmoil? Let's just plug into the matrix now and save ourselves the pain of transition!

When there's a drive to kill/harm others, some tool or method will avail itself. It's the drive we have to solve, not the unlimited ways of accomplishing it.

Seriously???

Just pick one up and suddenly decide "I'll kill someone".

:-/

It's hard to believe that someone capable enough to write would dream that to be real.

It must be a joke. If not, that person doesn't earn a place at the table discussing causes of and solutions to the problem. But even joking about it should dismiss them.