Sen. Kamala Harris says she has seen autopsy photos of slaughtered children after gun-related massacres. Shouldn't all Pols see them?

AR15 is the one you chose to ban. Yes, there are many other guns, and if the crazies can't get ahold of and AR or similar they will use a hunting rifle or a pistol....making them illegal will not stop them. They are already breaking the law. The only thing banning the gun does is disarm the millions of law abiding citizens. 

Hunting rifles and handguns are at best semi-automatic and any gun that holds a clip with more than ten rounds should be banned.  As I said, NO ONE other than military or law enforcement should be allowed to purchase any semi-or automatic weapon. 

An AR-15 is a semiautomatic. 

I already said that.  What's your point?  Who, other than military and law enforcement need to have a semi-automatic weapon?  NO ONE.  You're arguing for the sake of argument because you can't admit you're wrong and you haven't answered the question because you can't.  This post was edited by SpunkySenior at February 18, 2018 12:58 PM MST

My apologies, I did not completely read your post. 

No, I do not believe viewing the photos are a valid reason to remove any law abiding citizen 2nd amendment right. We have the right to bear arms because the government has arms. 
Now if they want to review and change the laws to insure that this violent mentally damaged young man should not have been able to pass a NCIC background check. That maybe something we can agree on. But we will not agree on a ban of semiautomatic weapons for civilians. 

I don't have to look at any pictures to imagine the devastation that kid caused with an AR-15 like weapon.  You have the right to bear arms because when the Constitution was written, there were no police departments and the Constitution gave you the right to protect yourself.  At the time, the weapon was a musket - not a semi-automatic rifle.  if you were lucky, you could load 3 rounds in a musket in a minute and maybe kill 3 people.  With an AR-15 like rifle, in a minute, you can kill many, many more people.  The Constitution should be and is a living instrument and should be amended according to the times in which we live.  There is no need for anyone outside of law enforcement to own an AR-15. 

No, there were machine guns around when the 2nd amendment was ratified, not just single fire muzzleloaders. 
The founders did not say I can have arms because we have no police force. 

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The right to bear arms refers to a militia.  We have a military now, we don't rely on militias.  the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms BECAUSE THERE WERE NO STANDING ARMIES to protect the populace.  Why is that so difficult to understand? 

And what was the definition of militia as the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment? Every able bodied man of military age. 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.  I'm not sure where you come to think that there were machine guns at that time, but this is what I found:
https://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html


Let's look at arms – specifically, guns – as they existed at the time of the ratification.

Guns in 1791 WOULD

• ...be made by a gunsmith.
• ...have rudimentary rifling.
• ...be single-shot weapons.
• ...be loaded through the muzzle.
• ...fire by means of a flintlock."

https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-advanced-arms-available-in-1791-the-year-that-the-Second-Amendment-was-passed

"The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

"The first successful machine-gun designs were developed in the mid-19th century. The key characteristic of modern machine guns, their relatively high rate of fire and more importantly mechanical loading,^[4] first appeared in the Model 1862 Gatling gun, which was adopted by the United States Navy.

X This post was edited by SpunkySenior at February 17, 2018 5:57 PM MST

The first machine gun was the patented in 1718. In 1722, in is listed on cargo ships inventory log as "machine gun"....
Here is a picture
This post was edited by my2cents at February 17, 2018 2:09 PM MST

I gave you citations for every comment I made.  How about you doing the same. 

https://www.historyandheadlines.com/may-15-1718-first-machine-gun-patented-james-puckle/

How convenient that you left out this information:

"Although never mass produced and certainly not a commercial success, Puckle did manage to sell a few to john Montagu ..."

"Since Puckle’s invention did not really serve in any numbers or effectively and was not an evolutionary step in the progression of modern automatic weapons it is more of an historical curiosity rather than a milestone. 

Not to mention that Puckle was an Englishman and was probably never used by the Founding Fathers, assuming they even knew Puckle and his gun existed. 
XX

The point is it existed....and it was patented. Of course they knew of it. Our founders were not so stupid as to believe there would be no more innovations in the world of firearms. 
We have arms because our government has arms. The founders left many many quotes and writings showing they supported the right of the people, so if the people needed  can stand up to the tyrannical government such as the English gov they had just overthrown. 
Do you know 2nd has pre-revolution origins? The British began trying to disarm the people in 1768. This is why we have the 2nd amendment. They seen what happens if our rights are not specifically put into law. This post was edited by my2cents at February 18, 2018 8:17 AM MST

So, now you're finally admitting that the reason for the Second Amendment was to protect people from a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT - not for going into schools, churches, cinemas, nightclubs, etc. and EXECUTING innocent people.  So, in that light, you have proven my point that THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY ORDINARY PERSON TO OWN AN AR-15. 

Now the discussion is over as you've conceded the point.

Which is why the 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the tyrannical government can have the AR15 but those who are charged with defending from that government should not be allowed to have one? No. 

When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

So, does this mean that because the government has bombs, nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, napalm, machine guns, etc. that the average Joe should have all of these items at their disposal as well so as to counter the government.  Do you not realize how ridiculous that argument sounds.  Let me rephrase that because you have no idea how ridiculous that argument sounds. 

I'm done.

This post was edited by SpunkySenior at February 18, 2018 2:47 PM MST

Those are not firearms. But they are legal for a citizen to own under the "destructive weapos  laws" (no nukes of course) as long as they go through the government process to be approved to possess them. There is a tax stamp and an exstentive background check (not just the standard NCIC check) 

Good afternoon Spunky.
I think it's time for an ice cream break.

via GIPHY

After that "discussion," I would have needed more than ice cream!  I think I'll go out and buy me a nice, new AR-15.

I am glad I am on your side LOL.

I cannot believe this conversation!  Spunky, if I could triple rave you up, I would.  I can't believe the deflection the real issues in this horrific shooting!  Wow.

They have to deflect because that can't honestly admit that there is no valid reason for anyone other than military or law enforcement people to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons.  It is illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons, but it isn't illegal for them to attach bump stocks to semi-automatic weapons that in effect make them automatic.  Only Republicans and their blind followers can't see the hypocrisy in this.

When I see the abortion argument come out, I want to scream!  There is so much I could say, but won't.  These same people that want to ban all abortions want to continue to cut programs for kids that are already here.  But you know that is a whole other discussion.  The killer of those school kids apparently had fetal alcohol syndrome.  I suppose it's a wonderful thing he was born into such a life.  

To me it's crystal clear.  We need a lot more readily accessible mental healthcare for at risk kids and zero ability for anyone but the military and swat teams to have semi automatic weapons.




This post was edited by PeaPod is just popping by at February 17, 2018 5:31 PM MST