(11-07-2020, 04:52 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(11-07-2020, 04:09 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: I would differentiate "semi-automatic" from "assault" weapons.  I am an avid gun owner... but I do not want assault weapons in the hands of people that should not have them.  Those should have a higher standard.  

The analogy I would use is with other countries having the ability to have their own military to protect themselves.  I am all for it... it should be their right.  But do you want them all to have access to nuclear weapons that can have grave consequences to a massive amount of people?  Absolutely not.  Its the same concept with assault weapons; albeit on a very different scale, obviously.  If you believe everyone should have the right to own an assault weapon, applying that same logic on a larger scale would say all countries should be able to access nuclear weapons.  Same argument, larger scale.

I would too. Unfortunately, Democrats don't. They keep calling any kind of AR, AK and several other types of semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons," which they are not. An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle which is already banned or one capable of being almost fully automatic with the addition of a bump stock. O'Rourke and Harris were referring to AR and AK type weapons which 10's of millions of people already own.  Almost everyone I know in my area owns some version of a semi-automatic rifle, whether it be an AR-15 or older versions of a Russian, Romanian or Chinese AK-47's. These are all law abiding citizens with no mental deficiencies and clean arrest records, yet Harris has agreed with O'Rourke's plan to steal them from people. That is wrong. I'm all for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and people who have violent crimes in their backgrounds, but I will never agree with punishing everyone for the actions of a few. 

There is a difference between what you are saying and what Harris says. You are saying not everyone should own a semi-automatic weapon. I agree. They should definitely be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill and people with violent past. That I fully support, but Harris thinks NO ONE should own one of these types of weapons and I clearly disagree with this 1000%.

I am a conservative and agree with the 2nd Amendment.  I do not know Kamala's position on this.  But like most things in politics, compromises can be made if they are in the best interest of society.

BTW... assault weapons are not all fully automatic, by legal definitions.  I know it would be messy to determine where to draw the lines, but its a conversation that is needed.  US gun violence is the worst in the civilized world, and its clear that or laws are not sufficient in protecting our citizens well.  Protecting the 2nd amendment is important; but technology advancements in every field require the constant reinterpretation of laws made 200+ years ago.  That is just common sense, and it happens everyday in the courts.

---

(11-07-2020, 05:02 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(11-07-2020, 04:40 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: They are absolutely comparable.  Both weapons of mass destruction, just on different scales.  Both used for attacking large numbers of people, on different scales.

How about bombs?  Like the homemade kind used to murder people at the Boston marathon?   Should we be able to buy or make those for self-defense?  Would you be comfortable knowing some radical person had access to that, and could just leave it in a public place to detonate?

Think it out man.  The right to protect yourself?  Absolutely and it should be universal.  But where do you draw the line between protecting yourself, and allowing others to create large scale damage to society.  Its a complicated question.

---

I've never heard of anyone buying a bomb. Most people that use them, make them. All it takes is a quick Google search. The cat is already out of the bag on that one. Everyone knows this. Once it's on the internet, there is no getting it back, so there is nothing we can do about that. Guns are a much less complicated issue. People do buy guns. Very few people make their own. 
That's not my job. It's the government's job to keep crazies and violent people from acquiring semi-automatic weapons. We put them in office to try and fix these problems, but you NEVER restrict the rights of honest, law abiding citizens in order to punish the bad ones. That's not how freedom works.

That's what I'm saying.  The right to bear arms does not include bombs... and it shouldn't.  They are too dangerous.  I believe assault weapons are too... they are above and beyond what is required for "protection" and move into military grade assault weapons designed to kill large numbers of people.  Offense rather than defense.

Not having the ability to make or buy bombs is not a lack of freedom.  Same with plutonium... you can't buy that either.  I believe assault weapons fall in that category as well.

---