If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

Remove politics and address the issue

In response to tvoter's comment:

If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

Remove politics and address the issue

OK.

Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to tvoter's comment:

If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

Remove politics and address the issue

OK.

Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit it has for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

And real thinking should make you realize that we are not necessarily arguing for a duplicate of the last assault weapons ban with the same flaws.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

I have repeatedly criticized everyonewho opposes the ban regardless of their ideology because I think that opposing the ban is the wrong position.

This isn't complicated.

Just to be clear I think that anyone (regardless of party) against an assault weapons ban is making the wrong choice. But it also clear that the opposition is largely based in the G.O.P.  The same goes for any number of other situations.  There are Democrats who oppose gay marriage and abortion rights (to name a couple of hot button issues), but it is equally apparent that the opposition is rooted in the G.O.P.  It should come as no real surprise therefore that any attack on the opposition of these liberal policies focuses on the primary (conservative) political party leading that opposition.  

Now why do some conservatives have a need to bring up the minority of Democrats who are "not liberal enough" on some of these issues when their party of choice is so consistently against the issues in the first place?  

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to tvoter's comment:

If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

Remove politics and address the issue

OK.

Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit it has for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. 

And why can't all guns be banned? If you can ban one type, then why can't another type be banned? And then another, and another, and...wel...you get the idea.

And can't decisions like Heller get overturned? Can't amendments get overturned? 

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to tvoter's comment:

If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

Remove politics and address the issue

OK.

Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit it has for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. 

And why can't all guns be banned? If you can ban one type, then why can't another type be banned? And then another, and another, and...wel...you get the idea.

And can't decisions like Heller get overturned? Can't amendments get overturned? 

Assault guns can be banned under Heller.  Other guns cannot.  Operating within the realm of the possible is far better than the "what ifs" that you want to explore.  And, of course, you are not really being serious. It seems you want excuses for being passive.  

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

And real thinking should make you realize that we are not necessarily arguing for a duplicate of the last assault weapons ban with the same flaws.

A) I haven't seen what bill has in it...have you?

B) The ban still won't get rid of the millions of "assault" weapons that are already out there

It's a joke to think banning these guns will have any affect on gun violence. Especially when you consider that HANDGUNS are used in most cases of gun violence. Ban the "assault" weapons but don't treat us like morons and tell us it's going to have an affect on gun violence. It's pure bullsh!t.

So again, can't decisions like Heller be overturned? Yes or no. 
What am I not being serious about? Explain.

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

So again, can't decisions like Heller be overturned? Yes or no. 
What am I not being serious about? Explain.

Second one first. Answer: the discussion.

You wouldn't type "oh YEAH? Well why aren't you trying to ban all guns" if you were being serious. You apparently knew the answer to the question before you asked it. Kind of gives the lie to your feigned befuddlement.

I'm only following your argument. If you tell me the reason to ban "assault" weapons is to curb gun violence then it makes perfect sense to ask you why you're not calling for all guns to be banned. Any gun is capable of being used for gun violence is it not? So again, if your reason is GUN VIOLENCE, then it stands to reason you should want ALL guns banned. Sorry if logic escapes you.

Heller was 2008. The Court applied it to the states in 2010. They are not going to reverse Heller within a few years of its coming down.

So it CAN be reversed. Thanks! 

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

Did you have a point?

Or was this a pointless not sequiter -  were you really not sure whether or not there was some hidden doctrine that dictates that certain decisions are fundmentally and for all time irreversible?