Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should assault rifles (e.g. AR-15) be removed from the marketplace?
Yes 40 24.10%
No 126 75.90%
Voters: 166. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:15 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,346,146 times
Reputation: 18520

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Are we supposed to be impressed? You think I've never shot one before? LOL.

I grew up in the country, man.

Having kids made me want to have less guns in my home. Look at how many kids are killed by guns in their own houses or at the Sandy Hook shooter and how he got his guns.

I know plenty about guns. I just think that people like yourself who are avid hunters should have zero problems passing background checks and qualifying for license to own and operate firearms.

So, why does the idea of having these regulations in place upset you? Don't you want all those ignorant people who don't know much not to be able to easily walk into a gun show, buy a high-powered rifle with a high-capacity magazine and shoot up a church, a school, a movie theater, or whatever?


I own an arsenal and have never had a background check. Never.
I have inherited 2 BAR's and a Trench Broom/Tommy Gun. Have had them for 3 decades. Was I suppose to call up the government and tell them I need to come down and file paperwork? So, here government, you hold them until I pass a BG check and can afford the additional taxes for the privilege????

OK, I'll get right on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:22 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,346,146 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Nobody needs an AR-15 for personal use.

Sgt. Clyde Nobody, already has one. He just wants another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:23 AM
 
13,727 posts, read 5,472,668 times
Reputation: 8438
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
So, why does the idea of having these regulations in place upset you? Don't you want all those ignorant people who don't know much not to be able to easily walk into a gun show, buy a high-powered rifle with a high-capacity magazine and shoot up a church, a school, a movie theater, or whatever?
We aren't talking about restrictions in this thread, but the wholesale ban on an entire type of weapon owned legally by tens of millions of people who have never harmed a soul and likely never will. We are talking about declaring something they did legally (purchase a semi-automatic rifle) to now be a crime.

And restrictions = right being infringed. 2A is very clear, has no qualifiers and is pretty freaking absolute - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If the people really want the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, they better get 67% of the House and Senate and then House/Senate majorities in 38 states to supersede that amendment with a newer, more detailed and restrictive one. If they do that, it represents the rule of law being respected and upheld, even if a natural, individual right is being infringed upon. Do it not, and there is no rule of law, and I will be thankful for every weapon I purchased prior to the US government deciding the rule of law is meaningless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:31 AM
 
Location: My House
34,936 posts, read 36,076,712 times
Reputation: 26535
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I own an arsenal and have never had a background check. Never.
I have inherited 2 BAR's and a Trench Broom/Tommy Gun. Have had them for 3 decades. Was I suppose to call up the government and tell them I need to come down and file paperwork? So, here government, you hold them until I pass a BG check and can afford the additional taxes for the privilege????

OK, I'll get right on that.
Of course not. If you already own them, I don't see an issue. I'm just asking if you bought one tomorrow, would you care if you needed to pass qualifications and background checks if it meant that people who were grossly unqualified to own one were less likely to be able to gain easy access to one.

It's pretty simple, really.

I know that no laws are going to stop the problem 100%, but why not at least try to reduce the problem with regulations?

I think that there's a lot of fearmongering that goes on around the issue of firearms. The firearms lobby is huge and the NRA has deep pockets. Guns aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Likely not ever. Why not insist that ownership is made safer for everyone?

p.s. If you were committed to a mental institution and it was deemed that you were mentally unfit to own a weapon, I would expect that you'd allow removal of guns from your home for your safety and the safety of the general population, though. That's a highly-unlikely thing, assuming you're of sound mind at the moment, but do you want yourself to have guns if you develop, say, schizophrenia, all of a sudden?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:32 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,346,146 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
We aren't talking about restrictions in this thread, but the wholesale ban on an entire type of weapon owned legally by tens of millions of people who have never harmed a soul and likely never will. We are talking about declaring something they did legally (purchase a semi-automatic rifle) to now be a crime.

And restrictions = right being infringed. 2A is very clear, has no qualifiers and is pretty freaking absolute - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If the people really want the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, they better get 67% of the House and Senate and then House/Senate majorities in 38 states to supersede that amendment with a newer, more detailed and restrictive one. If they do that, it represents the rule of law being respected and upheld, even if a natural, individual right is being infringed upon. Do it not, and there is no rule of law, and I will be thankful for every weapon I purchased prior to the US government deciding the rule of law is meaningless.

And then, it would be unconstitutional, because that would be an infringement, would it not?
The second Amendment is absolute, before our government existed.

No vote, no amendment, no legislation and no judge in a black robe can take that right from you.
Only when you are owned by others, in bondage, incarcerated, or dead, do you factually lose your god given rights as you are legally oppressed to be under constant watch of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,916 posts, read 13,130,691 times
Reputation: 19157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
It doesn't say what they define as a "mass shooting". Let me guess?


My data is valid, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
The fugures are based on the GVA figures and define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter.

Every incident is fully documented in terms of when and where and in terms of numbers.

1516 mass shootings in 1735 days: America's gun crisis - The Guardian

As for the UK we had one mass shooting (Cumbria Shootings) between 2009 and 2017 and that was in 2010 when 12 people were killed, prior to this there was the 1996 Dunblane mass shooting and the 1988 Hungerford mass shooting. However the Government brought in new measures and shootings are far less common and now far less lethal than they were in 1988 when Michael Ryan killed 16 people in Hungerford in England with a Type 56 semi-automatic rifle, M1 carbine and Beretta 92FS or when Thomas Hamilton went in to a school in Dunblane armed with a 9mm Browning HP pistol, Two Smith & Wesson M19 and two .357 Magnum revolvers killing 17 people. In terms of the Cumbria shooting Derrick Bird killed 12 people across a vast area using a George Fisher 12 gauge double-barreled shotgun and CZ45 .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.

Furthermore the police response has changed in the UK with more specialised forearms officer and armed response vehicles armed with extremely powerful weapons.

We generally have no mass shootings, as for Norway it had one bad incident, but generally as no mass shootings and the same is true for most European countries. Other than terrorist attacks, which are rare there are not many mass shootings in Europe or most of the Western World when compared to the US.

One mass shooting every day: Seven facts about gun violence in America - The Telegraph

Last edited by Brave New World; 11-09-2017 at 09:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:36 AM
 
Location: My House
34,936 posts, read 36,076,712 times
Reputation: 26535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
We aren't talking about restrictions in this thread, but the wholesale ban on an entire type of weapon owned legally by tens of millions of people who have never harmed a soul and likely never will. We are talking about declaring something they did legally (purchase a semi-automatic rifle) to now be a crime.

And restrictions = right being infringed. 2A is very clear, has no qualifiers and is pretty freaking absolute - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If the people really want the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, they better get 67% of the House and Senate and then House/Senate majorities in 38 states to supersede that amendment with a newer, more detailed and restrictive one. If they do that, it represents the rule of law being respected and upheld, even if a natural, individual right is being infringed upon. Do it not, and there is no rule of law, and I will be thankful for every weapon I purchased prior to the US government deciding the rule of law is meaningless.
Grandfather them in. I'm okay with that. It was legal when they were purchased.

Regulations are not infringement. That sounds like an NRA talking point. It's fearmongering.

You have to read the entire amendment. You cannot read "shall not be infringed" without the part about a well-organized militia, to which pretty much nobody who owns a gun now belongs. I do agree with the right to bear arms, but what's so harmful about making sure the people who are making a quick stop at their local gun shop aren't mentally incompetent or unable to safely operate a firearm?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:37 AM
 
Location: My House
34,936 posts, read 36,076,712 times
Reputation: 26535
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Sgt. Clyde Nobody, already has one. He just wants another.
Get back to me when he shoots up a school or a church or a mall.

He might one day.

PTSD, wife left him, realized he was gay and hates himself... pick one.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Anderson, IN
6,855 posts, read 2,814,154 times
Reputation: 4182
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post

First of all, the AR-15 is in neither a hunting rifle nor sporting rifle, it's an assault rifle.
I am so freaking tired of this. Tired, tired, tired. Look, I know little about guns, but I do know that the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.

I'm not sure if my conservative counterparts will be eager to back me up on this, since I'm using Wikipedia as a source but here we go.

Quote:
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


As for your poll, I vote no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2017, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Arizona, The American Southwest
54,476 posts, read 33,767,535 times
Reputation: 91671
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Are we supposed to be impressed? You think I've never shot one before? LOL.

I grew up in the country, man.

Having kids made me want to have less guns in my home. Look at how many kids are killed by guns in their own houses or at the Sandy Hook shooter and how he got his guns.

I know plenty about guns. I just think that people like yourself who are avid hunters should have zero problems passing background checks and qualifying for license to own and operate firearms.

So, why does the idea of having these regulations in place upset you? Don't you want all those ignorant people who don't know much not to be able to easily walk into a gun show, buy a high-powered rifle with a high-capacity magazine and shoot up a church, a school, a movie theater, or whatever?
Regulations - When was the last time you heard of a criminal thinking/worrying about "regulations in place" before possessing a weapon and committing a violent crime?

There are hundreds of laws and regulations for guns and they haven't stopped the bad guys from getting them. The problem is not semi-auto weapons with high capacity magazines, millions of us (law-abiding citizens) own them, the few that commit horrific crimes should not be a reason to add more restrictive regulations that don't do anything but gradually erode our freedoms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top