What do you think the outcome would be of a total gun ban? (military, carry)

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by staywarm2

The AR-15 and similar models should be out-lawed. I realize there are probably a million of these unnecessary guns in the US, but a law could prevent any more from being manufactured and sold. Really, anyone who has one of these AR-15's is just a guy short on testosterone and trying to make up for it.

And yet another example of someone who thinks they can get owners of ar15s to give them up by insulting them.
There are plenty of people building ar15s.
It probably won't help, but you could try educating yourself before making silly statements.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Sunbiz1

Total gun ban wouldn't work.
Banning ammunition sales would.

Geez, how do these goofy ideas keep coming up? These ideas are are flawed but they keep getting repeated.
Plenty of people reload. Plenty of people have thousands of rounds of ammunition stored away.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by staywarm2

Personally, I'd trust the police far more than some moron with his concealed gun. I'll take my chances with a gun ban...

Have fun while you wait for them to show up when you need them.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by JanND

I think it would be a disaster. And, while I am not a gun advocate, I think people have a right to have guns. We should not punish responsible people that own guns for the actions of criminals.

There isn't talk of banning alcohol or cars and there are plenty of alcohol related vehicle accidents.

Key word.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by RaleighBill

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And, no.....it's NOT "limited" to a militia. Three important things to notice about that amendment: "being necessary to the security of a free State" (there is NO freedom, unless the people have the ability to defend themselves AGAINST a tyrannical government that's out of control), "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," (notice they wrote the right of the people - NOT "the right of the people when they are a part of a militia," and "shall not be infringed," which basically means the government CANNOT take that right away.

I understand what you're saying here but how do you explain away the "well-regulated" part and any reference to a militia at all? I'm sure you understand writing style has changed considerably in the last 250 or so years. You'll also note there is also no exclusion for what were than called "lunatics" - are we to assume the founding fathers were not concerned with arming the mentally deranged or that they simply believed such a thing was too obvious to include?



I don't believe crime rates would go down; just look at the places in this country where there are strong firearms ownership laws (Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, Detroit, etc.) - ALL of those cities have the HIGHEST murder rates and felony crime rates of American cities. If you take guns away from law-abiding people, you leave them more defenseless against the criminals who will still have access to THEIR guns, and be more encouraged to use them. The statistics prove this over and over again. Trying to take guns away from everybody, or make it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to get access to, or permits for guns, only makes crime - and criminals' lives - easier.

How is it that you have overlooked other large cities in the US where there are very strict gun control laws that have the LOWEST murder rates and felony crime rates? Cities like New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco? What criteria do you use for cherry picking certain cities?




Three things I'd do right away, though: I'd let ALL schools, universities, and churches let themselves get armed guards (who have had proper training, and no criminal background), and I'd let concealed carry laws be reciprocal across every state and territory in the US - which means, if I have a legal permit to carry a gun in Texas, I'm automatically allowed to carry it in EVERY other state and territory, with NO exceptions. The other thing I'd do is insert into federal law a law that states that anyone who commits a mass shooting, gets NO publicity: their names are withheld from the public, from the media, and from the Internet - UNLESS THEIR FAMILY ALLOWS IT. That way, people who commit this crime get NO publicity, no attention, no "notoriety" from the crime.

What about states' rights? You would essentially be reducing each states opinion of what is right for them to the lowest common denominator. Sounds very un-American to me. I also think that ignoring the first amendment while attempting the broadest possible interpretation of the second is disingenuous. I want to know about these people, what makes them tick and how we can knock their clock off.

And you're right, it was long, so I attempted to limit the points to address to those I deemed most important.

[drinkthekoolaid]

Originally Posted by staywarm2

The AR-15 and similar models should be out-lawed. I realize there are probably a million of these unnecessary guns in the US, but a law could prevent any more from being manufactured and sold. Really, anyone who has one of these AR-15's is just a guy short on testosterone and trying to make up for it.

Wow you have so much prejudiced hate. Gun owners are a wide and varied group.

The vast majority are upstanding citizens who have to conduct themselves better, cleaner, more patiently and more responsibly than non gun owners. You deal with many gun owners in your day to day interactions and have no clue. They have to hold themselves to a higher standard as to stay out of trouble.

Guess what I can guarantee you in your liberal utopia you have neighbors who have guns, probably even AR15s.

By many reports there are between 15-20.........million AR15s in private hands in America. thats only AR15 rifles, that's not counting other guns like mini14, mini30, sks, ak47, saiga, su16, m1 carbine, m1a, m14 etc.. There are tens of millions more of them. That's a lot of households. Guess what none of them did anything bad today.

Anyone can build an ar15 in their garage. Its easy.

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by ffaemily

Although unlikely, what if Congress ratified the second amendment with a total gun ban for civilians. Would it be like the prohibition era where citizen just hid their guns and sold them illegally? ....

A total gun ban is not necessary. The question is a case of "light my fire."

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid

Wow you have so much prejudiced hate. Gun owners are a wide and varied group.

The vast majority are upstanding citizens who have to conduct themselves better, cleaner, more patiently and more responsibly than non gun owners. You deal with many gun owners in your day to day interactions and have no clue. They have to hold themselves to a higher standard as to stay out of trouble.

Guess what I can guarantee you in your liberal utopia you have neighbors who have guns, probably even AR15s.

By many reports there are between 15-20.........million AR15s in private hands in America. thats only AR15 rifles, that's not counting other guns like mini14, mini30, sks, ak47, saiga, su16, m1 carbine, m1a, m14 etc.. There are tens of millions more of them. That's a lot of households. Guess what none of them did anything bad today.

Anyone can build an ar15 in their garage. Its easy.

The problem is that poster thinks they know what's best when in fact they are armed with no knowledge. What you said throws their idea of how many ar15s exist out the window. They also have no understanding of the functionality of an ar15 so the logic of isolating it from other rifles makes no sense.
Alas they just like to make statements because they want to seem like they have the answer when it fact they are just like a parrot that repeats what it hears with no comprehension of the meaning.
You don't need a garage , I built several in my living room while watching tv.

[arjay57]

I am okay with the private ownership of AR-15s but they should be limited to people who have demonstrated that they are not crazy or evil, and that they know how to use and store such weapons safely, and will in fact do so.

And that needs to be re-verified from time to time. Many mass shooters were apparently GGWG's who subsequently went off the rails.

[welshb2]

Only criminals would have guns. Simple as that. They have NOTHING to loose! Look at countries that have banned guns/rifles. You have to dig pretty hard to find their criminal activities when guns are used because they're embarrassed by the outcome of ban on guns.