Exactly... the only times the constitution can be curved is when the immediate safety of someone is at risk. Machine guns put bystanders at risk because they throw out a wall of bullets. AR-15s are not since only 1 bullet is fired per trigger pull so the shooter has very good control over the weapon.

Ah, well yeah, I'd hope you aren't actually using your assault rifle. It's really not safe at all. I think you should be able to have it, though. As long as you don't misuse it, it should be fine.
I wouldn't consider it an 'immediate' issue, though, since fucking a kid is fucking a kid. Buying a gun and owning one is completely different from using it, though I do see your point.

-child porn isn't protected by freedom of speech
-machine guns are basically banned
-terry pats are allowed (warrentless frisking to make sure the person doesn't have a weapon for the safety of the officer)
-the feds get involved in state affairs all the time

the whole gun control debate sparked when the supreme court said the bill of rights was not unlimited in DC v Heller

-Child porn can be harmful to the child, and the child can not consent to sex since they haven't developed enough to understand it. Why is this a point?
-I didn't say they should be.
-In a situation where someone is entering an area where they don't allow guns, I do support that, if they have a reason to suspect you have one. If that's legal anywhere, it's bullshit.
-I'm still talking about my opinion. The feds aren't always in the right.

Exactly... the only times the constitution can be curved is when the immediate safety of someone is at risk. Machine guns put bystanders at risk because they throw out a wall of bullets. AR-15s are not since only 1 bullet is fired per trigger pull so the shooter has very good control over the weapon.

Ah, well yeah, I'd hope you aren't actually using your assault rifle. It's really not safe at all. I think you should be able to have it, though. As long as you don't misuse it, it should be fine.
I wouldn't consider it an 'immediate' issue, though, since fucking a kid is fucking a kid. Buying a gun and owning one is completely different from using it, though I do see your point.

i get what your saying, it does have a "psychological" impact.

I would also like to add the true reasoning behind the second amendment. Times have changed since it was written. You're right in saying that weapons took minutes to reload, were clumsy and what not. It was written to guarantee rights to those weapons.

But it was also written for the citizens of the United States to protect themselves in the event of a government takeover.

This concept may be outlandish in todays world, but it's still important to uphold the values that built this country. It's a scary thought, but if people weren't allowed guns, what would stop the government from taking over?

People ask why do we need AR-15's?

THAT is the answer. Fundamentally, guns are a tool that represent power. That power should held equally, if not more by citizens, and their government, in order to preserve the balance that holds this nation together.

Again, you bring up a valid point. You're very good at that.

I'm not saying that it should be abolished or anything of the sort. It's just that people take it as 'everyone is allowed to have a gun, no matter what.' I don't care if you have an assault rifle. I don't care if you have an RPG hidden under your bed. That's all fine and dandy.

The only reason I mentioned the constitution was to bring up that it's sometimes safer to deny certain people the 'right to bear arms.' Only a very, very small minority, though.

And I know, "if people deny one right, can't they just deny another?" Only if it's in the nation's best interest, and by that I don't mean the politicians' version of the nation's best interest, I mean the real thing.

-child porn isn't protected by freedom of speech
-machine guns are basically banned
-terry pats are allowed (warrentless frisking to make sure the person doesn't have a weapon for the safety of the officer)
-the feds get involved in state affairs all the time

the whole gun control debate sparked when the supreme court said the bill of rights was not unlimited in DC v Heller

-Child porn can be harmful to the child, and the child can not consent to sex since they haven't developed enough to understand it. Why is this a point?
-I didn't say they should be.
-In a situation where someone is entering an area where they don't allow guns, I do support that, if they have a reason to suspect you have one. If that's legal anywhere, it's bullshit.
-I'm still talking about my opinion. The feds aren't always in the right.

Exactly... the only times the constitution can be curved is when the immediate safety of someone is at risk. Machine guns put bystanders at risk because they throw out a wall of bullets. AR-15s are not since only 1 bullet is fired per trigger pull so the shooter has very good control over the weapon.

Ah, well yeah, I'd hope you aren't actually using your assault rifle. It's really not safe at all. I think you should be able to have it, though. As long as you don't misuse it, it should be fine.
I wouldn't consider it an 'immediate' issue, though, since fucking a kid is fucking a kid. Buying a gun and owning one is completely different from using it, though I do see your point.

i agree on that and that fire arms should have regulations etc...

but what you said doesnt have at all to do what i said xD

im just stating i dont see the WHOLE fuss about it... Sure you cant have an assault rifle, you can still have a handgun. I think for defensive purposes i think a handgun is more then enough and rather more convieninte. I dont really know why one would feel the need to own and assult rifle, it sounds rather overkill. Rifles are ok since people tend to hunt with them. Well I live in an European country it's diferent here

In most cases it probably is overkill. Hell, guns in general probably aren't necessary in a lot of the situations in which they are used. But think of it this way, people can obtain assault rifles illegally, and a handgun pales in comparison. In that rare case, an assault rifle is needed.

Also, it's a good determent. If someone knows you have an assault rifle in your house, there's less of a chance someone will rob you, probably. Like having a dog.

I do agree with you, though. In almost every case, an assault rifle is "overkill."

i get what your saying, it does have a "psychological" impact.

-First of all, that "it was a time when it took 1 minute to reload" bit is meaningless. The internet, TV, Radio, etc are all under the protection of freedom of speech.
-For reasonable gun regulation, machine guns and grenade launchers are basically illegal (heavily regulated) and dealers are required to give a background check and private sellers are not allowed to sell to someone they have a reason to believe is banned from having a gun. The laws are already there.
-Universal background checks, you have to be aware that just because a law says something, doesn't mean it will always be followed. The only sales this would stop are law-abiding people selling their gun in good faith. However, a law like that would put a massive burden on people. For example, the last bill that recently failed made it a felony to transfer a gun to a friend for a day. A law like that would have to be very carefully written.
-laws restricting people with mental health issues are in conflict with doctor-patient confidentiality

-"no one is trying to take away everyone's guns"........ that's just plain false. Systematic gun confiscations have already happened in places like California and New York and senator Feinstein has said she would do the same to the rest of America if she had the votes.

-Speech hasn't changed. Speech hasn't taken a new, deadlier form that you can use to kill someone. Guns have changed, and can kill someone much quicker and easier.
-What I'm talking about is background checks for all firearms, including handguns.
-I never said people would follow the law. I'm being very optimistic.
-Then I would argue that background checks should involve the person buying a gun to allow the dealer to talk with the doctor. "But that's too hard." Who cares?
-You left out a major part of the quote. "(well, no one who's actually intelligent)" It's not my fault there are morons in high places, and I'm strongly against what you say they are doing.

I'd like to point out that 4 out of every 5 inmates, who were imprisoned for gun related crimes, obtained their guns illegally. I believe that background checks would do little to deter crime as the criminals will just steal them from someone else.

If someone intends to kill, they will do it regardless of the law.

Oh, of course, that is a very good point, and I'm not trying to say background checks will save everyone. Heck, I'm not even saying that it will actually save anyone. But, if by some chance a guy can't obtain a gun illegally and can't buy one legally, then that's still one life not ended.

I am speaking very idealistically and hopefully.

I would also like to add the true reasoning behind the second amendment. Times have changed since it was written. You're right in saying that weapons took minutes to reload, were clumsy and what not. It was written to guarantee rights to those weapons.

But it was also written for the citizens of the United States to protect themselves in the event of a government takeover.

This concept may be outlandish in todays world, but it's still important to uphold the values that built this country. It's a scary thought, but if people weren't allowed guns, what would stop the government from taking over?

People ask why do we need AR-15's?

THAT is the answer. Fundamentally, guns are a tool that represent power. That power should held equally, if not more by citizens, and their government, in order to preserve the balance that holds this nation together.

Again, you bring up a valid point. You're very good at that.

I'm not saying that it should be abolished or anything of the sort. It's just that people take it as 'everyone is allowed to have a gun, no matter what.' I don't care if you have an assault rifle. I don't care if you have an RPG hidden under your bed. That's all fine and dandy.

The only reason I mentioned the constitution was to bring up that it's sometimes safer to deny certain people the 'right to bear arms.' Only a very, very small minority, though.

And I know, "if people deny one right, can't they just deny another?" Only if it's in the nation's best interest, and by that I don't mean the politicians' version of the nation's best interest, I mean the real thing.

-child porn isn't protected by freedom of speech
-machine guns are basically banned
-terry pats are allowed (warrentless frisking to make sure the person doesn't have a weapon for the safety of the officer)
-the feds get involved in state affairs all the time

the whole gun control debate sparked when the supreme court said the bill of rights was not unlimited in DC v Heller

-Child porn can be harmful to the child, and the child can not consent to sex since they haven't developed enough to understand it. Why is this a point?
-I didn't say they should be.
-In a situation where someone is entering an area where they don't allow guns, I do support that, if they have a reason to suspect you have one. If that's legal anywhere, it's bullshit.
-I'm still talking about my opinion. The feds aren't always in the right.

Exactly... the only times the constitution can be curved is when the immediate safety of someone is at risk. Machine guns put bystanders at risk because they throw out a wall of bullets. AR-15s are not since only 1 bullet is fired per trigger pull so the shooter has very good control over the weapon.

Ah, well yeah, I'd hope you aren't actually using your assault rifle. It's really not safe at all. I think you should be able to have it, though. As long as you don't misuse it, it should be fine.
I wouldn't consider it an 'immediate' issue, though, since fucking a kid is fucking a kid. Buying a gun and owning one is completely different from using it, though I do see your point.

That is an astute obsorvation.

i just thought these plans for the assault rifles was due to the fact that if one feels the need to defend ones self, a handgun is sufice and and assault riffle rather overkill.

I think you misunderstand. The guns that were in this debate were not fully automatic assault rifles; they were simply semi-automatic rifles designed to be easy to use. They're not that different than any other rifle.

be it semi be it full auto ir's still an assault rifle no?

An assault rifle is by definition capable of fully automatic or burst fire. The guns under debate were exclusively semi-automatic. The term "assault weapon" was made by the anti-gun crowd specifically for the purpose of creating that confusion, so I don't blame you.

As unsafe as I feel around assault rifles, I repeat that as long as you are of right mind and are not a horrible person, you can have it, since you most likely won't shoot anybody.

i agree on that and that fire arms should have regulations etc...

but what you said doesnt have at all to do what i said xD

im just stating i dont see the WHOLE fuss about it... Sure you cant have an assault rifle, you can still have a handgun. I think for defensive purposes i think a handgun is more then enough and rather more convieninte. I dont really know why one would feel the need to own and assult rifle, it sounds rather overkill. Rifles are ok since people tend to hunt with them. Well I live in an European country it's diferent here

In most cases it probably is overkill. Hell, guns in general probably aren't necessary in a lot of the situations in which they are used. But think of it this way, people can obtain assault rifles illegally, and a handgun pales in comparison. In that rare case, an assault rifle is needed.

Also, it's a good determent. If someone knows you have an assault rifle in your house, there's less of a chance someone will rob you, probably. Like having a dog.

I do agree with you, though. In almost every case, an assault rifle is "overkill."

i get what your saying, it does have a "psychological" impact.

And what about those regulating these new gun control laws? The same government using the IRS to target those politically aligned against them? In a perfect government yes, this is a fantastic idea. But a perfect government would be born in from a perfect society, one that would have no use of guns in the first place.

Quoting myself here: " I don't understand why we can't agree on anything related to gun laws."

I literally meant that. I disagree with a lot of politicians, government officials, etc. I am talking ideals, I won't deny that.

They weren't using the IRS to target them. The IRS were just taking away the Tea Party's tax exempt status.

False. dailycaller.com/2013/05/13/the-irs-admits-to-targeting-conservative-groups-but-were-they-also-leaking/