Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    Federal Judge Larry Burns was appointed by George W. Bush and carries well-documented conservative credentials.  He recently sentenced Gabby Gifford's shooter to 7 life sentences plus 140 years in prison for the Tucson killings.  But even for him, "enough is enough":

     

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

    Quote:

    Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

    I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    With all the guns out there, there's just no need for the narrow sliver at issue. Assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and to a lesser extent military-style armor.


    The world didn't end and crime didn't skyrocket the last time there was an assault weapons ban active.

     The only people I can really understand getting seriously worked up about this are those who already paid for one while it was legal - to that extent I would support my tax dollars going to a government buy-back of the weapons at issue. No need to screw anyone who was just following the law.



    People get worked up over senseless laws. These stated bans will NOT stop these events or the number of casualties!!

    When assault weapons were banned guess what???? They were still available except law abiding citizens didnt get them any longer.

    The ignorance and opportunistic feeding from anti gun lobby is sickening!!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    These stated bans will NOTstop these events or the number of casualties!!


    Says YOU.


    Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I disagree with your statement. I also see a complete failure to articulate why you think you're right. As always, you're just saying you're right because you're right.

    [QUOTE]

    You just ignore the FACTS like the other weapons I have stated that are readily availsble and ould have made this much worse!!

    Let me know if, you need another list here's 2.

    Shot gun with buckshot takes out multiple targets with a spray of ball bearings.

    This could have been much worse!

    He could have walked in with a few glass containers filled with certo (makes jello) mixed with gasoline and threw the equivalent of napalm into each classroom.

    IED's made with nails, tacks ball bearings, etc and packed with gun powder from simple fire crackers into PVC or hundreds of other fairly small devices could have done much more harm.

    THE WEAPON IS NOT THE ISSUE!!! We need to discuss WHY PEOPLE DO THESE THINGS and start looking for real answers!! 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    These stated bans will NOTstop these events or the number of casualties!!

     


    Says YOU.


    Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I disagree with your statement. I also see a complete failure to articulate why you think you're right. As always, you're just saying you're right because you're right.

    When pressed, YOU demand "proof" without offering any yourself.

     

    At least I have some reasons why the number of deaths might be reduced:

    - High powered rifles like the AR-15 are designed to cause more damamge because of the way the bullet tumbles after entry into the body. More damage = greater probability of death resulting from a shot.


    - I have personally reviewed hundreds of autopsy photographs in my career, both handgun, shotgun, and AR-15. The AR-15, fired from 10-15 feet, does massive damage to the specific area.


    - High capacity magazines allow individuals to carry a ton of bullets. The faster the reloading and the longer the time between reloading, the higher the probability of a death count.

     

    - Merely having the combination of high powered weapons, high capacity magazines, and military-grade body armor increases the probability that a would-be shooter does not turn back. Why? These are people who intend on killing themselves. They do not want to die until they decide. They do not want to get incapacitated and then sent to jail.

     

     

    Balance these real concerns against the complete lack of necessity for there to be AR-15s with high capacity magazines in citizens hands, and the scale clearly favors an assault weapons ban.

     

     

    !!!!



    V tech massacre resulted in 33 deaths and 23 injured. All done with a 9mm glock and Walther P22 ...neither had more than 10 round magazines.

    out of 12 mass shootings where assault weapons were used, thankfully, there were only three incidents where there were double digit deaths. Non-assault weapon mass shootings have resulted  in six incidents with double digit deaths. 

    all I'm saying is lets not fool ourselves into thinking we're going to save the day by banning assault weapons. We should still do it but let's just not kid ourselves about reality. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    "Shot gun with buckshot takes out multiple targets with a spray of ball bearings."

    Reload time & any magazine, what size?

    You didn't answer that previously. 

    "He could have walked in with a few glass containers filled with certo (makes jello) mixed with gasoline and threw the equivalent of napalm into each classroom.

    IED's made with nails, tacks ball bearings, etc and packed with gun powder from simple fire crackers into PVC or hundreds of other fairly small devices could have done much more harm."

    Which would have left him exposed at all times. Again: These people do not want to get captured.

    There's a reason he went with those weapons.

    I did answer the shotgun vs AR-15 question. One takes longer to load but, takes out multiple targets at a shot and one loads faster but, is only one target at a time.


    Some have been caught so "these people dont want to get caught" is not always true

    But, if he was also suicidal he could also take a single shot 22 for the finale or lighter fluid and a match to set himself on fire with.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    Waiting for someone to say this judge is not a "real" conservative.

    Also waiting for a cogent rebuttal to his reasoned argument.

    On the second point, I won't hold my breath.

    Eagerly anticipating the NRA's latest equivocation....

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    There was a guy a few weeks ago that drove his car into a crowd and killed 12 people.

    If we blame the guns here; we must blame the car for that!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    There was a guy a few weeks ago that drove his car into a crowd and killed 12 people.

    If we blame the guns here; we must blame the car for that!!



    Silly analogy.  Go to the little kids' table please.  The grown ups are talking.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    There was a guy a few weeks ago that drove his car into a crowd and killed 12 people.

    If we blame the guns here; we must blame the car for that!!



    Silly analogy.  Go to the little kids' table please.  The grown ups are talking.



    Its a true statement; and if the truth offends you too fvcking bad!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    There was a guy a few weeks ago that drove his car into a crowd and killed 12 people.

    If we blame the guns here; we must blame the car for that!!



    Silly analogy.  Go to the little kids' table please.  The grown ups are talking.



    I see you getting on others for doing the very thing you just did to tvoter.

    How about instead of dismissing and insulting him you actually give a reason WHY it's a silly analogy? 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    The argument isn't about any object that could be used as a weapon.

    It is about 'arms', those objects that logically fall under the 2nd amendment. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    The argument isn't about any object that could be used as a weapon.

    It is about 'arms', those objects that logically fall under the 2nd amendment. 




    what argument?

    I simply said if, we blame the gun for SHES then, it's logical to blame the care for killing 12 people!!

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    There was a guy a few weeks ago that drove his car into a crowd and killed 12 people.

    If we blame the guns here; we must blame the car for that!!




    Must have missed that report. Got a link?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    The 2nd Amendment is not for allowing hunters to have guns, it's for self protection against criminals and a potential despotic government. 

    Secondly, if people are really interested in minmizing deaths they would not spend so much time selecting weapons they feel inappropriate or appropriate to kill someone. Banning assault rifles or whatever you want to ban is not going to do anything to stop this nonsense. People with criminal minds and psychos are not going to turn them in. In reality you ghouls are saying it is alright to kill a kid with a hand gun.

    This is just a complete waste of time while more practical less intrusive, less costly steps to prevent these tragedies are left undone.

    Sure, if the Newtown nut had some pistol instead of an assault rifle maybe fewer people would have been killed. Maybe. On the other hand if the school was competently secured he may not have gotten in at all regardless of the weapon he had. Or he could have been delayed enough to allow police to get there and save some lives.

    It is not a solution to the problem. 

    If the Newtown Nut had been more closely supervised when on psychotropic drugs with known side affects realted to violence and aggression maybe they'd all be alive.

    The focus on guns is a complete distraction and shows a continued lack of leadership from Obama.




    HEAR HEAR!!!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    what argument? I simply said if, we blame the gun for SHES then, it's logical to blame the care for killing 12 people!!



    What the freak are you talking about?

    A car is not designed to kill people. An assault weapon is designed to kill.

    There is absolutely no logical link between the two.

    The assault weapon was used in the manner it was designed for, the car was not.

    The fact that people can find all sorts of ways to kill people and trying to equate that with a weapon specifically designed to kill is just absolutely ridiculous.

    Cars don't fall under the 2nd amend, weapons do.

    So just quit with the reducto absurdum bullshiite.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    "Banning assault rifles or whatever you want to ban is not going to do anything to stop this nonsense."
    v. 

    "Sure, if the Newtown nut had some pistol instead of an assault rifle maybe fewer people would have been killed."

     Absent a way to completely stop all shootings, why on EARTH would you not want to make high body counts less probable?

    Why is "fewer people killed" not a worthwhile goal?


    Christ.



    If it would guarantee that, then sure but, it WILL NOT because they are too many other ways for people to do horrible things!!

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    If it would guarantee that, then sure but, it WILL NOT because they are too many other ways for people to do horrible things!! 




    All of a sudden the whacko wingnuts want to live in a world of absolutes.

    The fact that it could save even one innocent childs life isn't good enough for these piecesofhit.

     

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    If it would guarantee that, then sure but, it WILL NOT because they are too many other ways for people to do horrible things!! 


    All of a sudden the whacko wingnuts want to live in a world of absolutes.  



    The leftnutz want to ban the gun to act like they care when anyone with a brain knows the gun is not the issue and there are countless other ways to do horrible things to masses without using a gun!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For An Assault Weapons Ban

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The leftnutz want to ban the gun to act like they care when anyone with a brain knows the gun is not the issue and there are countless other ways to do horrible things to masses without using a gun!




    So how do you explain the FACT that Australia enacted an assault weapons ban in addition to tighter gun laws and they haven't had a mass murder incident since 1996.

     

     In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

     

    Saving the life of even one innocent child just isn't good enough for you?

     
Sections
Shortcuts