Could the Republican Party ever be responsible for deaths?

Post Reply New Topic

It's a bunch of nonsense.

Only murderers are responsible for murdering people.

"Society" might have influenced the murderer's choice--but the murderer made the choice.

"Society" or any other entity other than the murderer is not responsible for any murder.

They were made for the battlefield, not the streets of America, duh...



That doesn't discount the fact that civilians should never be able to get their hands on a weapon like the AR-15, period.

I'm not sure how or why anyone could defend the deaths of so many so easily.

Firstly, DO NOT accuse me of defending the deaths of those people.

Secondly, Citizens being citizens should be able to buy anything that they want, including M-16's, MP-5's and the like, and we can do so, via the acquisition of an FFL. Subjects OTOH, are subject to the laws of a government. The UK, for example, does not have citizens, the people living there are Subjects.

It sounds as if you would have no problem with having a government that patronizes the people that it rules like irresponsible children. This is what I and many other people do not desire. This was one of the reasons why this country was founded. Who are you, or anybody else for that matter to judge what others can or cannot have?

While the M-16 is made for battlefields, it's civilian cousin, the AR-15 is a civilian rifle. --It lacks a selective fire capability. One can buy an M-16, but you need to have an FFL in order to do so legally, If you get caught with an M-16 w/o an FFL you will be going to jail for a long time.

Only if you also hold gun control supporters responsible for the rapes and murders that occur when people are unable to defend themselves, a much larger number than said supporters tend to realize.

You tell 'em, Mr. D!

The Second Amendment guarantees us only the right to bear arms, not artillery.

Is anyone agitating for any right to own artillery? I take the amendment at it's word, arms as a term has a specific meaning, larger and less discriminate weaponry is more properly termed ordnance.

Depends if the number of innocent people killed by guns is greater than those saved by guns.

8-11k-ish murders using guns a year vs 70-80,000 defensive gun uses annually, using the most conservative estimate from a known anti-gun researcher, where as the high end estimates are over 2,000,000 defensive uses yearly.

It's a reminder, Dox, that's all.

Just as there really are some people who believe that any piece of man-portable ordnance (i.e., RPGs, LAW rockets, et cetera) is rightfully theirs to purchase and own, so too are there people who believe that owning anything as small as a one-shot derringer is tantamount to owning a weapon of mass destruction.

People are over-reacting in both extremes.

That's doesn't sound right. Let's looks at the statistics for 2012:

Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012).

source: latimes

If you can green light a weapon like the AR-15, you green light all the activities that come from being able to get your hands on one, that includes massacres.

I believe in freedom. That includes the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't give a person the right to own a weapon meant for the battlefield like the AR-15. Try to spin it however you want, the AR-15 is a battlefield weapon and should not be in the hands of civilians. Along the lines of freedom. I feel that it is my right as a human being not to be shot by some piece of crap who can get his hands on a weapon like the AR-15. I'm sure I'm not the only person that feels that way about it.

Our government in the U.S. is corrupt, the NRA owns many of our politicians who do their bidding and keep legislation that would slow sales of weapons or ban their use here. 85% of Americans are for sensible gun laws, that includes gun owners, but can't even get their voices heard due to the corruption in the U.S. congress.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, and it is not intended for use on the battle field. You are think about assault rifles, which are selective fire, meaning you can choose between semi-auto and full-auto (and sometimes three round burst).

The M-16 is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not.

That's justifiable homicides, not defensive gun uses, where the vast majority of the time merely displaying the firearm ends the incident immediately. Also, I wouldn't trust any numbers from the VPC, even other gun control groups avoid them.

The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years’ worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... story.html

Even the AR-15 wiki says it was designed for the military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

http://time.com/4371452/orlando-shootin ... an-family/

Just because someone greased the palms of their local politician to port them over for civilian use, doesn't mean that they belong in the hands of civilians. They were made for the battlefield.