Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.
If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.
Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.
The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.
Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.
I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.
If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.
Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.
The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.
Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.
I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
DO you understand what 5 or six rounds of 12 gauge OO buck will do in a closed room?
Those on the terrorist watch list should not be allowed to purchase any guns.
Ban assault weapons.
Gun registry database.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrat
Remember, lets keep emotion out of this.
That said, you don't see any problem with a secret government list removing constitutional rights from a citizen without any due process?
What if they removed other rights like freedom of speech, or religion.
bill
That is not what I posted. Your emotion is showing.
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.
If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.
Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.
The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.
Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.
I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
Do you believe in reading tea leaves? I do... I have read them and I am going to tell you the foreseeable future. The president will come out and demand a ban. This will bring about mass hysteria buying by people who would ordinarily even consider buying a firearm of any kind. Frankly, some of these people have no business owning one, but they will, thanks to the threat of a ban. Over the last 7 years, more weapons have been sold than at any time in history, all thanks to threatened gun bans and gun restrictions. So go ahead and continue the call for gun bans and new gun laws and continue helping the president distribute even more weapons to the general uneducated public......
Do you believe in reading tea leaves? I do... I have read them and I am going to tell you the foreseeable future. The president will come out and demand a ban. This will bring about mass hysteria buying by people who would ordinarily even consider buying a firearm of any kind. Frankly, some of these people have no business owning one, but they will, thanks to the threat of a ban. Over the last 7 years, more weapons have been sold than at any time in history, all thanks to threatened gun bans and gun restrictions. So go ahead and continue the call for gun bans and new gun laws and continue helping the president distribute even more weapons to the general uneducated public......
All this gun banning stuff has been pumped up by the NRA!
I would like to see certain classes of guns prohibited, like the AR-15 assault rifle.
If one is interested in protecting his or her home, then there are plenty of weapons that will do the job. We have two shotguns and a handgun, which will suffice.
Constitutionally, I disagree with those who believe that the 'right to bear arms' means that literally every type of 'arm' is sacred. One may easily prohibit certain types of weapons (machine gun, etc) with the citizens of this country still having a massive choice of self-defense weapons. It is rather childish to proclaim that if one cannot purchase one particular weapon then their constitutional right is being violated.
The Constitution also has a prohibition regarding the freedom of speech, but there are, even then, certain limitations.
Those that wish to kill a lot of people quickly, should have their choices more limited (not being able to purchase AR-15s, etc). Those that are interested in self-defense have a wide variety of weapons at their disposal.
I recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are plenty of AR-15s in private hands, so a 'ban' on such will not affect those that already own one (including budding mass killers). Yet, in the years to come, perhaps it will save some lives.
How do you propose limiting fertilizer? The 2nd wasn't put in place to protect people from the government also.....
Argue all day that it would be harder to do today and it still won't matter. Nothing has changed to change the reasons the 2nd was out in place. It was a simple acknowledgment that people had a natural right that the government had no right infringing upon.
All this gun banning stuff has been pumped up by the NRA!
Boo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.