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.
You're correct, only the will of the people can change the 2nd amendment.
However, there's not one politician (Democrat or Republican) that doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment. And I can bet over 95% of Americans believe in the 2nd amendment.
So, gun grabbers are sht of of luck. Sorry.
Not necessarily.Even the Heller decision that overturned a century of understanding a relationship between the 2nd and service in a militia admits that it isn't the final say on gun control and that reasonable limits on gun ownership is allowed in the Constitution. The Clinton era ban withstood constitutional requirements.
Im not on FB either, but it took all of about 5 seconds to find evidence of responsible gun owners who understand the need for some control , which was the point lost on you.
Whether you like or not the fact that some gun owners aren't a bunch of selfish children and can understand the problems their rights cause is totally irrelevant to me. The next deer I shoot will be just as dead regardless of whether you believe me to be a "real" gun owner or not , although to be honest I am hoping to get good enough to get my deer and hogs with my bow from now on. Much more challenging.
You still are having issues with conflating...
The only one chiming in on this debate in this thread acting selfish, again no offense, no intention to insult, is you and your posts.
"Stop liking what I don't like"
"People who believe in the constitution are to blame"
"The NRA is to blame"
Your neighbor, the one who showed you their AR and said how "cool and bad ass" it was. Did they go on a rampage?
If little white kids at Sandy Hook getting killed and a determined Obama couldn't get gun control through, it won't happen. America lives for its guns.
Other civilized countries don't have anywhere near the problems we have in this country when it comes to gun violence. No one is asking for total confiscation, that's the card that the NRA plays - any new regulation is the first step in total confiscation. I don't see how anyone can ignore what is going on in this country, pretty obvious that we need some changes in our policy or we can continue down this path.
Mexico is literally a war zone in some places and they have stricter gun control than anyone has called for here.
Not necessarily.Even the Heller decision that overturned a century of understanding a relationship between the 2nd and service in a militia admits that it isn't the final say on gun control and that reasonable limits on gun ownership is allowed in the Constitution. The Clinton era ban withstood constitutional requirements.
Short of amending our 2nd amendment or just totally getting rid of it, these discussions are fruitless; just back and forth nonsense.
Im 100% certain, not one politician is going into the 2nd amendment and start gutting it. Its nonnegotiable, imo.
Again these debates are useless. We need to look at better securing our schools, instead of trying to grab guns from good law abiding citizens. Because, any gun law/control put forth only applies to good law abiding citizens.
So again, you are admitting you have an issue with peaceable law abiding citizens carrying out their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms they so choose? Because you don't like their opinion?
By my disdain for their childish response to the ads , or to their "cool" guns? No, but such immaturity is troubling in people that own deadly weapon. I am only pointing out the immaturity of those that can only see what THEY want, what THEIR rights are, my my my, me me me , and I don't care if others die so I can have my way. That sort of childish mindset is what I have problems with.
Quote:
Nobody has suggested 1 or the other. You seem to have a difficult time conflating firearms, AR15 in particular, with heinous individuals and the NRA and it's members...
Everyone who whines about their right to own whatever gun they wish suggests this.
Quote:
If you look here and on other forums... every gun owner is disgusted with the inept performance of gun free zones. We can protect cash with armed guards in Loomis trucks. We can't protect children with armed guards. Why?
Venturing into tinfoil hat conspiracy territory, perhaps to exploit tragedy for political motivation?
Seems plausible to keep a failed policy in place...
When no other country has to resort to this, why is it necessary for us to? The answer?Because the ones that want their toys wont let steps be taken to allow us to live this way. We must turn our schools into Fort Knox or a war zone so that the cultists can go shoot their targets and hogs without interference.
Quote:
Even still, they are law abiding citizens. You don't like their opinion... you want to circumvent their constitutional rights because of their opinion... because you are having a difficult time differentiating heinous individuals and law abiding citizens who happen to like something you don't like, or have high regards for something you show disdain for...
No where have I stated that that controls should be put on semi auto rifles because of the fact that many of its owners are immature and selfish . You have a penchant for attributing things to me I didnt say. Please desist from this. I have said that it is their demand for their rights at any cost that makes the guns available to the mass shooters. The fact that they are childish and immature is not a reason I have given for the controls.
Quote:
So you agree we can protect our children and communities, and have access to the implements we so choose to own.
You really think that is what I meant by that statement?
Quote:
When you bought your firearms. You filled out a 4473 yes? You had a NICS check performed yes?
You can thank the NRA for those.
You really want to make the case the NRA of today is trying to make the country safer from gun nuts?
Quote:
I'm going to ask you 1. Last. Time.
Define "gun nutters"
and research some history of the NRA while you're at it too...
I have been remiss in defining this in all the back and forth.But I don't respond to 1.Last.Time. , so when you can request it politely and drop the attitude I will give you my definitions.
Quote:
Thank your law makers for making schools gun free zones and removing the natural right to self defense within 1000 feet of a school.
Are you suggesting that the reason that they don't have these shootings in other civilized countries is because they ARENT gun free zones? Proof please.
Quote:
Youre advocating for the entire constitution to be overturned overnight to get what you want...
You would need a violation of 1st-8th amendments to get what you want...
Nonsense on both counts, and neither does your response answer my question of why we would be the only country needing to do this, and why?
Last edited by wallflash; 02-17-2018 at 03:32 PM..
No, it is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-auto hunting rifle. An assault rifle must have select fire. See, you know nothing about guns, but you are against them.
Yes. To make it an assault rifle it must have selective fire capabilities. I've owned several types, AR's, AK's and an HK91 (my favorite) all were semi-automatic firing with no selective fire. Its the assault style that people get confused on. Even with semi-automatic, without the bump stock, can empty the small 20 rd magazine it comes with in about 3-4 seconds. They are very accurate, light and easy to clean, and lots of fun to shoot, and can do lots of damage. But after owning lots of these, to be honest, they shouldn't be able to be owned by the public. In most states you can buy these " assault style " rifles when you are only 18 years old.
Not necessarily.Even the Heller decision that overturned a century of understanding a relationship between the 2nd and service in a militia admits that it isn't the final say on gun control and that reasonable limits on gun ownership is allowed in the Constitution. The Clinton era ban withstood constitutional requirements.
The Heller/McDonald decision confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to weapons that are hand held and in "common use". AR 15's and their semi automatic counterparts certainly fall under the category of being in "common use". I suggest you take the time to read the decision before spouting off such nonsense yet again.
The Clinton era ban did not withstand those requirements and was in effect before the Heller/McDonald decision. So that point is irrelevant. The Clinton era ban was lifted by congressional action as being ineffective as it had no affect on crimes committed with guns, semi auto rifles in particular. Had it been in affect when the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd Amendment, I have no doubt it would have been overturned. Again the key words in that decision was that it applies to weapons that are hand held and in "COMMON USE". You can try and spin it all you like but it is what it is.
These are the reasons why I don't believe you ever owned or shot a gun in your life. You don't seem to be too well informed on issues pertaining to guns. That is quite obvious.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 02-17-2018 at 03:15 PM..
The only one chiming in on this debate in this thread acting selfish, again no offense, no intention to insult, is you and your posts.
"Stop liking what I don't like"
"People who believe in the constitution are to blame"
"The NRA is to blame"
Your neighbor, the one who showed you their AR and said how "cool and bad ass" it was. Did they go on a rampage?
No ,you just don't want to grasp my point, no conflating on my part. I understand most people don't commit mass murder.But Ive made my point repeatedly, so restating it for the 10th time shouldn't be necessary if you truly wish to understand the point I make, even if you dont agree with it.
And it is silly to claim that the people who openly admit their rights to own guns supersede the rights of others to not get shot aren't the selfish ones, but the ones pointing out this are. I am not the one insisting my rights trump others , even to the extent of their lives, so spare me the silly claim that I am the selfish one. Simply parroting back to me what I have said is childish.
We really haven't done much to address gun violence in this country, even the assault weapons ban was very weak legislation. Waiting periods should be extended beyond 72 hours, background checks are also another area.
Other civilized countries don't have anywhere near the problems we have in this country when it comes to gun violence. No one is asking for total confiscation, that's the card that the NRA plays - any new regulation is the first step in total confiscation. I don't see how anyone can ignore what is going on in this country, pretty obvious that we need some changes in our policy or we can continue down this path.
See, those two bolded parts aren't compatible. If you want to do what "other civilized countries" have done, you have to ask for "total confiscation", or so darn close to it that there's not much difference. No one is buying what you're selling.
You had your ban, that so many are still calling for, only now you've decide it was "weak" because it didn't have any effect. You're saying we need to go further than a ban. You're not fooling anyone, you know.
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.
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.
