Do you think having some strict regulations and laws regarding gun ownership is anti-2nd amendment?
Here’s what Obama said about the 2015 Roseburg shooting:
“When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.”
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
126 Answers
No. Rights are earned from being responsible with freedoms. Misuse then you lose the privilege.
No. That is a smokescreen and (purposeful?) misinterpretation of the second amendment made by gun enthusiasts who want unfettered access to heavy duty firearms. Why they want this, I can only speculate.
Good answers you guys. Really thoughtful answer @RedDeerGuy1.
No, and it would matter if it was.
No. The Second Amendment is wildly misunderstood.
Why punish responsible gun owners and/or assume that they will do something illegal with those guns without probable cause?
@kritiper Ok how would you suggest that we distinguish between the two then?
@kritiper they aren’t being “punished”, which is your word. Regulations that help keep all of us safer are sometimes needed, especially when you are dealing with a type of weapon whose main purpose is to cause destruction, or when we have found by many, many, many examples that people (some good, some bad, and some simply ignorant) misuse these weapons on purpose, or on accident.
That seems like common sense, but what I have learned is that there is no such thing as common sense. One man’s idea of what is good/useful/helpful/just is another man’s idea of hell on earth.
Should a ten year old be able to buy a gun and ammo? No mention of age in the second.
@RedDeerGuy1 You can’t. To do so would constitute applying a law that says you can’t against another law that says you can.
@kritiper Then should the second amendment be amended? What would you like the wording be changed to so that everyone is happy?
@RedDeerGuy1 No. The problem is with people who break the law, not the law itself. And there are already laws in effect to address the/whatever situation(s).
( This is a perfect example of “can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” If you could have it both ways, the United States would be a Communist country, by some people’s standards and/or definitions.)
@kritiper Ok then we should put more resources into enforcing the current gun laws? That seems reasonable?
@RedDeerGuy1 Attacking or attempting to address the laws is not the answer. It’s those that skirt the laws that are some of the problem, and those that suffer mental illness are the others. Being able to find and treat these people, like trying to find out all of those who are seriously suicidal, is next to impossible. And these shooters are trying to do just that, IMO. Commit suicide by police officer. They don’t care about the people they kill because the victims are just tools to get the shooter to where he wants to be: DEAD!
And there is another thing I wonder about, be it true or false: Is the idea that there is an afterlife contributing to the thought processes that drive these people to kill? Do they think they will be able to look back into this life and think to themselves and proclaim to others in their midst “Look what I did!!”? Why not spend more time teaching people that there may be no afterlife? Maybe that would help. It couldn’t hurt…
I’m in favor of regulation, I don’t think reasonable regulation contradicts the 2nd amendment, but I admit that every time discussions of 2nd amendment come up I think about Nazi Germany, and so many people being defenseless. Big Brother, the government having all sorts of information on us, and now we have a government that some people worry is racist, and I see the point of those who fear a government that wants to disarm all citizens. I realize most people in favor of regulation are not talking about disarming everyone, but I think there is a real fear of that in the minds of those opposed to regulation in general. Most of my friends who have guns are in favor of background checks and waiting period.
When I worked in TN at a psych hospital patients admitted to having guns. Very commonplace there.
It depends on what those “strict regulations” are. Banning all semi autos would be an infringement but raising the legal age to purchase would not IMO. Nor would safety training and storage requirements. Personally I feel if we are going to raise the age of certain things to 21 we just as well make 21 the age of legal adulthood. I’m not against it.
I believe there have been recent suggestions that cross the line into violating the 2nd amendment, yes.
Obama’s logic is impeccable. If we have regulations to avoid automobile accidents then we should certainly have regulations to avoid gun fatalities. Cars were not designed for the purpose of killing. Guns were.
@LostInParadise Guns weren’t meant to kill just humans… And I can shoot other things that aren’t living… (Since we’re being so specific…)
The AR 15 is @kritiper. Would you have a problem, yourself, with reasonable gun restrictions? If so, why?
@KNOWITALL Could you be more specific?
I mean technically the platform in its original state was a weapon of infantry. The civilian look alikes are as mentioned before a little different in operation. The round that the military uses with them (5.65 nato) was not designed to kill but maim and the AR-15 that civilians use can be chambered in everything from .22LR to .308 (AR-10). They are used for everything ranging from plinking, pesting and taking medium to large game. They are not just “designed to kill people” They are so common in the US because they are so adaptable and one rifle can serve many different purposes with just a few quick changes. “Banning the AR platform” is asinine. You look at capacity and what the specific round is capable of and go after that.
@Dutchess_III Well like @RedDeerGuy1 said, those of us who haven’t misused any weapon or broke any laws, shouldn’t have any additional requirements.
Frankly I’m offended that so many of these shooters have red flags ignored by everyone, and we’re all arguing amongst ourselves how to fix it.
Well, that’s just the way it works in the world @KNOWITALL. Some people screw up and it messes it up for everyone. Aren’t you willing to work a bit harder to get a gun, knowing that you’re saving lives?
As to red flags…it’s touchy…how do we know when to react to those red flags? And how to react when they haven’t done anything wrong except act wierd?
No, I’m not, and I don’t think that would be effective either, for the purpose you think you intend. Just like the fact that I don’t drive drunk means I don’t pay any penalties like having a breathalyzer installed on my car or pay higher insurance rates.
It’s touchy? Guess how many times cops responded to my home in 15 years….no more than once for my husbands seizure.
According to CNN, which obtained documentation, police responded 39 times to emergency calls at Cruz’s home over a seven-year period. The codes included “mentally ill person,” “child/elderly abuse,” “domestic disturbance,” “missing person,” among others, CNN reports.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3k7vej/all-the-times-nikolas-cruz-was-reported-to-authorities-before-the-florida-shooting
FYI, I’m not very flexible on this topic, so probably best not to engage me so we can stay friendly.
This isn’t about you personally @KNOWITALL. Your arguments seem to suggest we create national gun laws according to the way YOU live your life.
And you made my point. When you get multiple calls like that,with those tags, then officers should have the right to remove any guns from the house and put a big NO on the persons’ back ground check, and a big NO on the back ground check of anyone living with him. We need to create laws according to how the Fl shooter lived HIS life. (I refuse to speak his name.)
Don’t look now, but you’re arguing FOR reasonable gun legislation @KNOWITALL!
@Dutchess_III I’ve known some who hunt deer with AK 47’s (or AK74’s) so why not AR-15’s? How about those who hunt the elusive and invasive wild boar with AR-15’s?? I’ve shot at targets with AR-15’s.
And there are already reasonable laws regarding gun ownership.
It’s the potential nutcase BEHIND the gun YOU want to control, and SHOULD control, @Dutchess_III !!! So let us keep it in perspective, shall we??
If someone needs to hunt deer with a AK47 or an AR 15, they suck as a hunter.
Stricter legislation to weed out the nutcases is part of it. I’m glad you can get behind that.
“If someone needs to hunt deer with a AK47 or an AR 15, they suck as a hunter.”
You do realize that makes no sense. An AR-15 can be any number of configurations some well suited to hunting, especially since it’s typically chambered with a medium power projectile which does not damage the meat being harvested as bad as something more traditional like a .308.
Did you know that the most used “hunting rifle” the Remington 700 is also used by the military as a sniper rifle. Who needs such a weapon of war, if you need a sniper rifle only designed to kill people for hunting you suck as a hunter… pfffft.
I guess it is. But I don’t care. I am all for sensible gun control.
@MrGrimm888 If life, liberty and happiness are inalienable rights, then we must AGREE on sensible gun control that doesn’t infringe on others rights.
Statements like yours is why gun owners have their backs up and you won’t get bipartisan support.
@KNOWITALL and @Dutchess_III I think you and others are trying to find a control by addressing a symptom of the disease instead of the disease itself. And your insistence to address the symptom instead of the disease is a sickness unto itself.
Guns don’t kill people: PEOPLE kill people.
If you take the guns away, they will find another way.
If you can, find another, more acceptable and workable solution to the disease. (I don’t think there is one.) Just quit wasting your time on the symptom!
Mostly people use guns to kill. It is a whole lot easier – just point and squeeze the trigger – done! With an AK47, you can wipe out a dozen people in an instant. You don’t have to get close to the victims or overpower them. There is no time required for planning and insufficient time for having second thoughts, and little chance of being caught beforehand.
No. It seems that there are restrictions on other amendments that do not negate those so I fail to see how doing so on the second makes the action anti-second amendment..
I wonder what killers say. Like if you talk to someone who committed a mass murder with guns, do they say I would have killed a bunch of people even if I couldn’t find a gun. A lot of them die during the mass murder action, so you can’t ask them that very easily. Do you think the guy who murdered all those children at Sandy Hook would have blown up the school? Knifed a lot of kids? Guns seem much easier. Maybe so much easier that doing it another way wouldn’t be worth the effort.
@kritiper I grew up with guns and actually have a lot of fun just target practicing (handguns are my thing.) You’re preaching to the choir, I just didn’t contradict @Dutchess statement because I pick my battles on this rather liberal site.
@kritiper For you.
As per the “symptoms,” among other things are stronger back ground checks, and special checks for mental health problems. Like the police were called to the Fl shooter’s house 38 times over the past 5 years (or something like that.) More than 2 times in a year there should be a law that all guns be removed from the house, they stamp a big red NO to signify no gun sales to the person, and a big fat NO for everyone he is living with.
It’s a mulit prong approach. No one is saying there is one simple answer that will fix anything.
@Dutchess_III A database is unreasonable invasion of privacy to many people. Will never be accurate because it’s not a standardized registration process.
While we’re on the subject, why are the adoptive parents not criminally liable for a minor who perpetrated a mass killing with weapons from inside the home? That’s how you get parents to pay attention!
@JLeslie I don’t believe it’s about the killing others so much, but rather, committing suicide by cop, and then standing back (in a believed hell or some other imagined place) and saying, proudly (?), “Look what I did? Ain’t I something??” The poor victims are just tools to get the shooter to that imagined place because, obviously, the victims don’t matter. The question that always pops up when I discuss this topic with others is “What the hell was he thinking??”
@Dutchess_III Yeah, good luck with that.
@KNOWITALL What? We’re in a database for our cars!
And that’s another thing. Stiff, heavy penalties for not having your guns secured. If one of your guns is used to perpetuate a crime, the gun owner automatically gets 20 years. (But that wouldn’t stop anybody. They’ll still leave their guns laying around for their toddlers to grab.)
Well, that’s what they do with repeat drunk driving offenders @kritiper. After the third time I think they lose their license to drive forever! Stricter laws DO work. That’s why drunk driving deaths have decreased by almost 50% since they were introduced in the 80’s. Does it still happen? Yes. But there is a very good chance that anyone of us are alive today because of thos stricter laws.
@kritiper You can commit suicide by cop with a fake gun, or a real gun with no bullets, probably more ways than that.
@Dutchess_III I agree to a database for my vehicle information though. I do not agree to have an outside party a/k/a the fed govt monitor my personal choices.
So in your scenario, someone who breaks into my home and takes my gun and uses it, I get 20 years in jail, not the criminal? That’s absolutely ridiculous.
I have a real problem with you saying we all leave our guns out for toddlers to grab. That’s not okay.
I’m totes down with 20 years if someone uses a gun that is licensed to you is used in a crime. Clearly you would have to have a mechanism to quickly report it stolen like a credit card. Maybe the police station could have a storage place for your guns if you are going out of town. Or at least report you are going out of town and your gun situation. I tell the post office how to deal with my mail when I go on vacation.. so workable.
Draconian measures that are being proposed like this are why we have a gun lobby to begin with.
How about being reasonable and mandating waiting periods, age restrictions, capacity limits, storage requirements with fines for violations and enhanced licensing systems. Just having the police called to your house twice in a year should not mean all gun rights are revoked for all who cohabitate there. I mean at least look at the circumstances. 20 years is a little harsh but I’m all for being hard on those who leave their firearms unsecured, more like heavy fines though. Those are things that are passable
@johnpowell I think that’s crazy. Ya’ll batting around 20 years like it’s nothing -to innocent people! Persecute the criminals, not the victims.
And don’t make the victims criminals!
@KNOWITALL . I think you have probably read enough of my posts to know that I am a gun enthusiast. In a perfect world, we could all own whatever we like, but the world is not perfect. I feel like clinging to my assault rifles, is just selfish now. I would like to keep them, and perhaps buy more in the future. But it’s way past time to make guns harder to acquire. I don’t necessarily support any bans, but if that’s what it takes to get results, let’s do it. I can’t look at these victims, and their families any longer.
As knowledgeable gun owners, we need to be in the conversation about gun control. But we need to be open to giving up more than we want.
I hope that all this ends up actually changing something meaningful. Not just another scary looking gun ban…
@KNOWITALL, why would you be OK with the government knowing your personal choice in cars, but not in guns?
And yes. If a burglar broke into your house and was able to steal your gun and shot 10 kids at an elementary school, that means your gun was NOT securely locked up, so yeah. You get 20 years. The shooter gets life.
I never said all gun owners leave their guns laying around. I am friends with many people who own guns, and they are all responsible, and in fact, most of them support our cause.
But there are some who are NOT responsible. My brother in law for one. A few years ago I made one of my rare visits to the house. I walked out on the deck. No one else was out there. He had some sort of handgun just lying on the railing of the porch, probably shooting at squirrels or something. He had 3 young girls too.
And the gun owners I mentioned who are friends are backing the cause. They have nothing to worry about, and they know it.
@Dutchess_III (redacted) I choose to not discuss this with you further. Thanks.
Gun safes are pretty good at keeping kids and casual thieves out but they’re not keeping pros out. At least typical ones anyway, not even close. While I think leaving firearms out is irresponsible as hell 20 years just off the top with out looking at the circumstances is something I would join the NRA to stop. ( I have not been a member in fifteen years)
Beware, proposing crap like that actually strengthens the opposition.
on safes I think it’s best to have a couple, I remove the bolts or bolt carriers and place them in a second, smaller safe that is hard to find. More effective than simply locking them up
20 years, because someone stole from ME? That’s ridiculous.
Okay, how about 10 years? Five years? Shouldn’t there be some punishment for creating a situation that is a murder waiting to happen?
If someone steals your car are you liable if they use it to mow down pedestrians? I would agree with heavy fines and possible charges relating to neglegence if it’s proven that that someone was storing weapons improperly. This is not an authoratarian state there needs to be due process.
No, not because someone stole from you, but because you didn’t have your guns secure. In a perfect world it would be a LAW that you have to secure your guns. I mean, these babies are shooting and killing their siblings accidentally because their parents are idiots and leaving loaded guns laying around….and nothing happens to the parents!
@Dutchess_III ”...and nothing happens to the parents.” ??? Really? What about the guilt of having left the gun out where their kids could find it and kill themselves and/or others? I wouldn’t call that nothing…
I do actually see your point @Dutchess. If we had kids I’d be even more careful, and some parents are not. See when you grow up with guns, it’s not even a thought of ‘play’, we aren’t raised that way in a gun friendly home. Grandpa had whiskey and a gun cabinet all my life and neither were for me, unless handed to me, like with grandpa outside, or my uncles. Maybe a criminal negligence case if someone dies? We do need to try to protect the babies, maybe more education by NRA and other supporters.
I mean there is no legal punishment @kritiper.
There should be some accountability for such reckless carelessness. Rick served on a jury for a murder trial. They found him guilty of second degree reckless endangerment. He was lying on his stomach, on the bed, his wife and some other people were doing drugs in the living room, he casually pointed his weapon toward the living room and pulled the trigger. Killed his wife. Didn’t MEAN to kill her. There were consequences for his actions. His heartbreak over killing his wife wasn’t enough. I think parents leaving guns where 4 years olds can get them should have severe consequences. I bet they don’t leave the remotes down where the kids can get them.
^I’m trying to understand what a person on drugs, who fired into the living room has to do with normal responsible gun owners.
In addition, the premise of making someone responsible for their stolen goods is just crazy. If it was in someone’s house or car, and the thief had no permission to take the gun, then the thief is 100% responsible. If I stole a 2×4 from Lowes and bludgeoned a person to death with it, the store is not responsible. If I poison someone with rat poison from Walmart, the store is not responsible. Why on Earth would there be ANY difference? A small amount of rat poison could kill lots of people, so I don’t need to hear that a gun is worse. Or easier. There’s NO debate. A gun is just a tool.
Tools? Guns are weapons. If someone steals one, there is a good chance that they will use it for what it was designed to do.
@MrGrimm888 That is exactly the kind of person who should NOT have been allowed to own a gun, but he had one legally. He was discharged from the army with a 100% mental disability, and he was still evaluated at a 100% mental disability at the time of the murder, All of that was there to be found, but I guess they didn’t look, or didn’t care, because legally he qualified to purchase and own a gun.
He’s the reason we have to make better laws.
I have to agree with @MrGrimm888 that a gun is a tool. A weapon is “An instrument of offensive or defensive combat; something to fight with.” (Webster’s)
A pocket knife is a tool that could be used for combat but most people use it as a tool. A gun can be used to protect oneself from wild animals, or to supply food, thus, it is a tool. A baseball bat is the same, as is any big stick. I could beat one to death with a 7/8” wrench, which is clearly a tool.
You don’t build things with guns. It is not a tool. It is a weapon. It was designed for killing.
Tools are not just for building.
Dutch. My father is a veteran whom the VA gave early retirement for 100% disability. He’s typically a responsible gun owner, but there have been times that I don’t think he should be allowed to own either. I think a lot of our vets might fall into that category. Especially those who were in combat. But I can’t imagine taking such rights from people who got their problems by fighting for our country.
My father would strip a gear, if someone tried to remove his right to own. He would see it as a major insult, as would most veterans (I think.)
Honestly, with the sheer volume of guns, and mentally unstable people in this country, I’m pretty shocked that there isn’t much more gun violence…
@LostInParadise But not necessarily designed to kill people. It can be used to put food on the table, as I previously mentioned. If you invade my home in the middle of the night, I can use my gun as a tool with which to protect myself. My killing you is your choice.
It was designed for killing. That is why it can serve as a deterrent.
It may be a matter of semantics. I would not use the term tool for machines that tear things down. A wrecking ball is not a tool.
@LostInParadise Yeah, a wrecking ball is a tool specifically designed for tearing things down. I suppose the driver of the wrecking ball rig could go on a rampage and start bashing it into other buildings trying to cause mass casualties, but that’s not what it’s meant for.
Remember, my only question is, is it anti 2nd amendment to have stricter gun laws?
I guess I got off on a tangent. It just irks me when people say guns are tools, as if they are not much different than a hammer or screwdriver. You might as well say that nuclear weapons and nerve gas are tools also.
It still follows that guns are built for killing. If someone needs to get somewhere in a hurry, they might consider stealing a car. If they want to kill someone they might consider stealing a gun. If a car is stolen, someone is inconvenienced. If a gun is stolen, someone is also inconvenienced and someone else might be dead.
Also, a gun in a house is an open invitation to misuse it. It is just so darn easy. Just aim and press the trigger. Not locking it in a cabinet is inexcusable. Nobody’s second amendment rights are violated by being required to lock up your gun when you are not using it.
Most suicides are impulsive. Having a gun around makes it easy to act on a sudden impulse. If the impulse would have disappeared in the next 5 seconds, it is too late.
The good news is that the rate of gun ownership is declining. Link
That annoys me too. The only sound argument I’ve heard for that was made by a guy who is supposedly a rancher in Colorado. He has to protect his crops and livestock from bears, wolves, coyotes and stuff. He referred to them as his tools. However, he was very anti AR15.
Here we go with ridiculous analogies again. Guns are not remotely comparable to nuclear weapons, or nerve gas… A gun is simply not a weapon of mass destruction…
Oh, I don’t know. Seventeen dead and fifteen wounded in less than six minutes with a single weapon or 49 dead and 58 wounded in 12 minutes or 58 dead 851 wounded in ten minutes. I think that the argument could be made that the AR-15 style rifle is a WMD.
I was waiting for that. Incorrect though. In most of the biggest casualty events, multiple guns were used. The Vegas shooter had multiple weapons, cameras in his Vegas motel room, mufflers(silencers) , bump stocks, and was even alleged to have been targeting nearby jet fuel containers (the articles I read said he seemed to target them in hopes of a massive explosion, in addition to the other planned chaos.) He also was firing from a elevated, and far away spot. A total anomaly in most cases of mass shooters… He didn’t buy ban AR from Walmart and just walk into a school. His planning, and execution were far more relevant to the casualty count, than a single gun type being available…
9/11 was guys with utility knives. Over 2,000 people are dead. So are utility knives a weapon of mass destruction?..
Not to mention that these are really anomalous occurrences really. If you factor in the amount of guns in circulation. The amount of “mass” shootings (let’s say 4 or more dead,) the statistics show that it’s highly unlikely that the vast majority of guns won’t be the ones involved in violent crime. In fact. Speaking with experience in law enforcement, many of the guns used in crimes were used by multiple people, multiple times, and were acquired legally in many cases only because of lax gun laws. In my state, you can sell a gun to anyone, and you don’t need anything. If you meet a guy at a gun range who says, I’ll give you $500 bucks for that gun of yours. You can sell it to them legally, with NO background check, or anything. THAT’S RETARDED!
Making some very simple, and obviously smart changes in gun control, could make big differences in gun crime. Banning ARs isn’t going to reduce street sales, or straw purchases, or crime. As I’ve said a million times, most gun crimes are committed with handguns. Like exponentially more…
Edit. “will be involved in violent crimes.”
The statistics show that the vast majority of guns in circulation, will never harm anyone. There’s something like hundreds of millions in circulation. If they were WMDs, our country of only several hundred million would be dead. Stop fooling yourselves with false analogies. Guns are tools that were designed for harming things. Not designed to kill people in a terrorist attack. No more than the utility knife was….
@MrGrimm888
Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have included the Vegas shooter
Utility knives are not WMD’s, Airplanes however….
It doesn’t matter what the “majority” of guns will or won’t do. It just takes one to destroy your life.
“It doesn’t matter what the
majority of guns will or won’t do”
By that logic everything from pressure cookers to kitchen knives should be banned.
Not going to argue that tired out old line any more.
But that’s the issue. That’s the slippery slope that has gun enthusiasts, or just people, concerned…
@rojo . I was just saying that preparations, intelligence, ingenuity, and execution of planning are the most lethal variables in mass killings. Not the tools used. Not saying that the tool is irrelevant. I guess I’m saying that it’s not possible to stop these mass killings with any weapons ban, or by removing one type of tool…
Of course it’s not. That’s why we also have to focus on the laws and mental health as well.
Yeah. Well. We all want the same thing here. It’s a matter of getting to that point where we have issues…
I find that to be the case more often than not, that if you can get past the gun nut’s knee jerk denial, if they’re sane, normal people we slowly find that we’re all really on the same page.
There are emotional responses, on both sides of the argument.
I have a question for someone who knows guns. What is the difference between an AR 15 (no bump stock) and a semi automatic pistol?
One is a handgun and one is a rifle. An AR is not easily concealable but a handgun is. You can carry a whole bunch of handguns and magazines where it is harder to do that with a rifle. Ballistics on the round shot out of a rifle (AR) are often more powerfull but not always. An AR can be chambered in something like .22 and be far less lethal than a handgun. Rifles are better at a distance and handguns up close.
To be honest not much but you are opening a debate for “gun people” here. For a non gun person semi-auto means everytime you pull the trigger the gun fires.
So what does adding a bump stock do to the AR?
It uses the recoil to pull the trigger again rather than the shooter have to pull the trigger manually. It’s a clever workaround that simulates full auto. They were a “novelty” until Vegas. Most gun people would not want one or even know what it was. It’s directly against the spirit of the law banning fully automatic weapons and most gun owners could care less if they are banned. Many including me would fully support a ban on bump stocks.
Bump stocks could be made to work with just about any semi auto, not just an AR
Yeah. No bumptocks is probably a good idea. They greatly reduce accuracy, but obviously if you’re just spraying a crowd it would be terribly effective at creating mass casualties. I don’t see a realistic use for them. They should have been illegal before production…
While we’re at it, we should probably redo a lot of gun laws. With someone who knows guns.
Gun nuts are carrying on over banning certain military grade weapons. We’re taking away their right to choose. Well, damn. You don’t have the right to choose to own a RPG. Why doesn’t that upset you?
Because again, that’s a false analogy…
How is it a false analogy?
An anti-tank weapon, is not a semi-automatic rifle… C’mon….
OK, then. They don’t have the right to own an M16. Is that a violation of their 2nd amendment rights?
And again, they aren’t already in circulation. There’s no comparison.
Remember how we know grenades aren’t in mass private circulation? RPGs, are Rocket Propelled Grenades. They are harder to find in the US, than hand grenades. As they also need the launcher…
A person trying to purchase a functional RPG system, would have to find the illegal launching system, any parts for maintenance, and the ammunition. VERY difficult. And, it’s much harder to hide an RPG/launcher.
No. It’s not a violation. And recent articles I’ve read suggest ARs aren’t protected either.
What does being in circulation have to do with anything?
And back to the old gun nut argument regarding the RPG…if they want it, they’ll find away. Criminals don’t obey laws.
^Seriously?
In Yemen, there may be RPG systems in circulation. Not near as many in the US. There’s just no market.
The amount of any weapon system in circulation has a LOT to do with how realistic a ban could be, when it comes to enforcement of the ban.
If you banned electric cars, it would be a realistic ban. Because it’s newer technology. Easier to get off the streets.
If you banned all diesel vehicles, it would be hard to enforce, because there are so many already in circulation…
It’s a matter of realistic enforcement, not sensibility of a law…
We want to see no market for the AR 15. They’ll still be available on the black market…for thousands and thousands of dollars.
Oh for fuck sake, all this conversation and still no understanding that an AR-15 is not really different than other rifles. THIS is why gun people won’t compromise. Anti-gun people keep talking about banning this and that and not doing anything that’s actually going to be effective except making the gun laws crazier and more idiotic.
Whether it’s guns, or the price of tea in China, regulations should be made by people educated on the subject. For whatever reason, gun regulations are frequently written by people who don’t know what they’re doing.
This is a big deal, because the regulations don’t resolve the issues that led to the regulations in the first place. Causing a “why even have these rules?” effect.
If effects are what people are after, they need to educate themselves about the subjects, or just shut up.
Notice how you won’t see me opining on threads where I am ignorant of the subject. That’s because I don’t offer opinions on something I don’t know what I’m talking about. And by education, I don’t mean statistics on violence, and suicide. I mean actual understanding of how guns function, and why.
Otherwise, it’s like calling on a ban for “sports” cars. Then we get into the obvious debate on what is considered a “sports” car. Lots of variables on what could be considered one, and why other vehicles aren’t. Why someone would “need” a car that can exceed the highest of speed limits, or challenge police vehicles in regards to speed/performance…
I have been talking about this since the slaughter at Margory Stoneman. Through all my reading and research I have decided that the second amendment does not apply to individuals. It applies to an institution. The second restricts the power of the government over that institution.
THANK YOU!
I still say that is not what the founding fathers even imagined when it was written. Everybody had a gun then, for good reason, just like every household had a horse. Why would they even mention something so obvious in the constitution?
From your own link ”It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. So lets get cracking with the regulation!
I have zero problem with reasonable regulation provided the people doing it first know what the hell they are doing and keep it constitutional.
That means armchair “legislators” with no experience in the matter other than emotional reactions don’t get to make those descisions. Thankfully, we still appear to live in that world.
Good then we are on the same page.
In no way are we on the same page.
^^ then how am I reading both your responses at the same time?
Ha! I’ve run rings around you logically!
If you have no problem with reasonable regulation then we are on the same page @ARE_you_kidding_me. That’s my only argument.
just trying to lighten the mood, y’all
When I received my drivers license, I was given a specific set of rules that I was required to abide by or I’d lose my privilege to drive. How are guns different?
When people begin to use the second amendment as their reason to be able to do as they please, I stop listening. Everything I do has rules attached to it; so why should the second amendment be any different? What I just can’t understand is WHY anyone needs 40 guns when it only takes ONE to get the job done!!! My bff & I have been besties for 67 years & she’s always said she didn’t believe in owning a gun & she wouldn’t have one in her house. Now, all of a sudden, her second amendment right is being threatened because people are discussing AR-15’s being outlawed. Since she doesn’t own a gun & won’t allow one in her house, HOW is her right being affected?
What I have a difficult time understanding is WHY anyone needs an Assault Rifle IF they’re not planning an assault. It doesn’t take an Assault Rifle to take down a deer. Hell, it doesn’t take an Assault Rifle to take down a bear. IF people didn’t have unattended guns lying around their homes, nobody could steal them to get then onto the streets.
Having said all this, IF the government was attempting to make ALL guns illegal, I might understand the outcry; but I believe that only the military actually needs an AR-15!!!
^Theft is not the only way guns get to the streets. Mostly straw purchases, and person to person sales without any background checks…
“What I have a difficult time understanding is WHY anyone needs an Assault Rifle IF they’re not planning an assault”
Read responses above and understand what people call an “assault rifle” is just a “rifle” with some cosmetic add ons. Civilian versions of what foot soldiers carry are popular because how versatile they are and yes, people do use them to hunt.
You are right @ARE_you_kidding_me, the weapon is called an “assault rifle” not a “defense rifle”.
Yeah that would be the same level of misrepresentation.
They aren’t called assault rifles. Not in civilian use. The word “tactical” gets thrown around a lot too. Should we ban “tactical” flashlights, because there are “tactical” guns?
That’s why people get upset about bans. They just don’t make sense…
I think that is just the pc form @MrGrimm888 and simply a marketing ploy.
It is called “tactical” and not “assault” for the same reason that a drink made from Almonds is called “Almond Milk”; because somewhere down the line some ad man recognized that calling a product “Nut Juice” was not a savvy marketing choice.
Response moderated (Spam)
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
