Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The constitution was also made before automatic and semi automatic rifles were a thing.

I'm all for our right to own and bear muskets. But AR-15s? No.

Pistols? Sure. Shotguns? Sure. No one in this country needs a semi automatic or an automatic assault rifle. You name me one good reason you need one in your home.

We don't need a full out abolishment. We need reform.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My initial response to news like this is disgust and hate, I think that goes for most of us. However, I don't want to contribute to the escalation of hate, either within my heart, or to the world at l

What an annoying headline for that article. I really don't want to start an argument but seriously...the people at Chick-fil-A are all kind people who love and accept every kind of person. Just becaus

And this is what genuinely frightens me about being alone at large gatherings or in Clubs/bars that Celebrate or cater to my Community, or any Community/Group for that matter that goes against the gra

Speaking of slippery slopes- instead of only defending part of the 2nd Amendment as you have all day, why not defend it in it's entirety?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Where does it say that a single individual has the right to bear arms?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People, like militia, means more than one person. Our militia are the armed forces- more than one. Nowhere does it say a single person has the right to have a weapon.

But gosh darn, keep insulting the memory of those who have perished at the hands of legally purchased weapons because they want people to defend the rights of the very thing that put them in a grave.

Do us a favor, don't attempt to convince us that the victims' rights were not infringed upon. We already know that answer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution refers to "the people" in many more areas than that one spot. The people means exactly what it says.

Do not presume to lecture me on "the victim's rights". No where in any of my posts have I expressed anything but sympathy for the victims. That said, there are many, many more people that have perished at the hands of criminals and wars and disease just to protect that silly document that you are so willing to throw away. The very document that gives you the right to say the things you have.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We talked about this in my Constitution Law class this spring. The argument of the 2nd Amendment as stated in the majority opinion in Heller is that the, "well regulated militia..." is a check against the government by the people.

Cobra, not a lawyer, just engaging the grand ole tradition of America. Debate.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a silly document and nobody wants to throw it out. You suggested it.

Person is singular, people is plural. You want to interpret and single things out, I can too son.

The disgusting moment you suggested that there is too much infringement on guns in the same discussion that is on the heels of one of the worst gun massacres in US history by a legally purchased gun proves you have zero sympathy of not only the 49 victims, but for those victims in the numerous massacres that have taken place over the past couple decades.

I'm gonna sleep well tonight, I hope you can too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll sleep perfectly fine. You are trying to twist what I am saying to make it fit your narrative and it is disgusting. There is too much infringement on our rights. Period. Not only our arms rights but a great many others as well.

Lastly, how dare you insinuate that I don't feel compassion for the victims of those shootings. You have no idea who I am or what I believe other than a few words on a message board. You don't even know my name, and I am not your son.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tv time out. Everyone take a breath. If there was an easy answer to this it would have been decided a long time ago.

I don't need a car than can do 160 or 220 but it doesn't mean it can't.

Also the guts of what this thing used is no different than a glock or other semi automatic weapon. The rounds were slightly different.

Just banning this type of rifle won't stop this type of thing from happening. Instead of a bullet of that caliber it will be a couple of hand held guns or a modified other rifle or gun.

I can get a semi automatic .22 or 22-250. Just like this gun that was used or a glock or other hand gun or rifle or shot gun. Banning one type will just lead to others becoming used. Gangsters used tommy guns or machine guns. Now you can't own automatic weapons.

Maybe banning certain guns is not the right direction. Maybe it is.

But if you are on a no fly list you should also be a on gun no buy list. Gun sales needs to be shored up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

An analogy I used on Facebook to a whirlwind of comments is this. If I need to chop down a tree I can do so much easier with a chainsaw than I can a butter knife. I have no problems with most gun ownership but you don't need something that could take out a village when trying to protect yourself and your family or hunting to feed them or sport. Yes there will be other illegal means to obtain such weapons but if we save 1 human life with legislation it is worth it. I also find irony that the majority of the "they're gunna take err gunz" crowd is the same ones yelling for the walled border. Maybe you'll understand that irony maybe you won't.

Also it was suggested here that they wish someone had a gun at the club. First problem, guns and alcohol don't mix. Secondly 0 mass shootings have been stopped by an innocent bystander. Next I'm not willing to accept that anyone with a gun should automatically be awarded title of judge and jury. To me the best possible number of guns in the world would be zero, sadly it's one of the worst inventions created by man and since that number can never truly become zero there isn't an easy answer. That doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the original intent behind the 2nd Amendment was that the people should be guaranteed the means to overthrow their government in the event that government becomes a tyranny. That is exactly why the Revolutionary War was fought, and the architects of the Bill of Rights wanted to ensure that the American people would always have the means to do it again should it be necessary.

 

So yes, the 2nd Amendment can and should be interpreted to allow for things like automatic weapons, assault rifles, and large magazines. Should it become necessary to overthrow our government (and I would argue that, although we're still quite some time away from that point, we're very slowly moving toward eventually needing to do that), the people of the United States would not be able to do so effectively unless they can match the firepower of arguably the most powerful military in the world. Otherwise any attempt to take down a tyrannical government would just result in a one-sided slaughter by said tyrannical government.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. No amount of citizens, even if they all owned AR-15's is going to overthrow the government and its military.

 

Our freedoms have been fringed upon. 4th Amendment sound familiar? Well, it's been destroyed with the government listening to our conversations and monitoring our email, texts, etc. Where's the outcry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've held off on this converstaion, but it's one that only has two sides, and neither side will be disuaded.

This is my viewpoint:

I never owned a gun, until a fighting dog tried to crash through my fence. (I say "fighting dog" and not "pit bull"- I have neighbors who have well cared for, well trained pit bulls.) I got inside the house in time, but the dog owner did nothing. Actually, he stood there, in shock.

I am 5'2"' 100 pounds, the dog was at least 80 lbs. How do you think that fight would fare if I were not quick enough?

i have a right, according to the Magna Carta, to own the backyard I paid for.

I also have a right to defend myslf.

I bought a gun. It is a semi-automatic. With a metal plate in my wrist, a pistol would be too difficult- I would not be able to fully squeeze the trigger without messing up the plate screws.

Two years later, two fighting dogs jumped the other side of the fence. I did not have to shoot. When the dog owners saw the gun, they leapt into action, retrieving their dogs while I herded my dog inside under the protection of my gun. They got a little bit hurt, but I considered to be an occupational hazzard. They looked jaunty weeks after with gauze as headgear- but at least it wasn't me with the gauze chapeau.

I use a gun for protection against outside influences that I cannot control. I don't want a bully dog ban, because as I said, there are good bully dog owners out there. I do get a little bothered by the fact that there are people in the world that, basically, wish me dead by taking away my right to defend myself.

When people speak of gun bans, they sometimes speak in broad strokes, forgetting the individuals with individual reasons to own a firearm.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You are a perfect example why guns are legal & should NOT be banned.

 

But anytime gun advocates hear that changes should be done to protect everyone, including law-abiding gun owners, somehow they twist it into a "DON'T TAKE MY GUN AWAY!" pi$$ing contest.

 

Change is not always a bad thing.  Those who deserve guns will have them.  Those who don't..... should have them taken away.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I'm not advocating that all guns be banned or taken away, but there's no reason NOT to change regulations as they are so that the mentally ill, those who are known to have ties with terrorist organizations, and others do not have easy access to guns. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no desire for an AK, every bullet has a trajectory, and I'm not Angelina Jolie, I can't change the path of the bullet. Considering my focus on the path of one bullet, I can't imagine the brain cells it would take to master tracking a spray of them.

I think AK's are a very irresponsible weapon. Especially since time at the range would perfect one's aim to using only a few bullets, if that.

I think there's a lot of Lay's Potato Chip thinking when people talk of gun bans. The government never seems to stop at just one, and people are afraid of a domino effect. When newscasters speak banning automatics, they also include semi-automatics, and that's the gun I use for a very specific reason- they are suggesting taking away the gun that's best for my hand strength.

And to be honest, that's why I oppose bully breed bans, even though I've had troubles with some bully dogs.

I know too many responsible pit owners that would get caught up in the ban, no matter how well behaved their dog is.

People are afraid of wide-spreading laws that do not take into account the individual cases.

It's difficult to advocate education on a yopic that is an emotional powder keg. In my mind, I can't see anyone wasting their money on an AK, but I can understand peoples' fears of having their guns taken.

I own a crossbow, also- winding that sucker back to load is bear, and I don't want to keep it forever loaded by the backdoor- that's dangerous.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating any type of bans, but there are a lot of problems with the ease of obtaining guns. I just watched a video on Facebook of a 13 year old boy with a hidden camera that was sent to buy cigarettes, beer, porn, and a gun. Guess which one he was able to obtain? Very easily he purchased a gun at a gun show where it seems there are either very few or zero regulations. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it is the same video but one that I saw had a kid with a hidden camera get laughed at for trying to buy a $1 scratch off ticket at a corner store & get laughed at.

 

Check that, it it the same video:

 

 

Another disturbing video:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Same video I just watched this morning. Very disturbing that anyone, let alone a 13 year old, can just waltz in and buy a gun at a gun show, no questions asked or regulations to follow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been Incredibly Boring, but I would have like to have seen the whole process of the purchase, including the background check, of course, omitting the guy's personal information, because on gun rules, I am a stickler.

(For some reason, the video of the 15 year old buying a gun is giving me hassle, I couldn't see it.)

I once walked into a gun show, and immediately walked back out. It's not just the hunters who don't bathe that bothered me, but there was just a seedy vibe to the whole gig that I felt I needed to get out. There's another gun shop around here that is so shoddy and whiskey drenched, I couldn't stand in it for five minutes. Frankly, in both places, I feared that my head might be blown off.

I'd heard an advertisement on a podcat to "be a gun dealer in your home". No.

I do think there's a middle ground beyond the political catchphrases where common sense is involved. To be honest, I would prefer people get their CCL license before a gun purchase. It's possible. I go to a gun range that rents guns to shoot on the range, and I took my test with a Beretta 92FS, before I purchased gun one. To have the license that says you've learned gun safety before you waltzed in and grabbed up all the weapons would at least weed out the ones that are rashly buying for emotional reasons.

Ohio is "Open Carry" which means I can parade up and down my street with a Mossberg Shotgun wearing naught but a stragically placed American flag. I'm not happy about Open Carry, because it can deter people from getting their CCL, and also, my one person parade wouldn't be deadly, but what about the meth head one block over parading with his Remington?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember it's against the flag code to wear it as clothes or cape:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hahaha- okay.

I guess I'd have to wear a Garth Brooks muti-fabric number featuring stars and stripes.

And yes, I've gone into some stores that are super unpleasant. Maybe I'm being a snob, or maybe the vibe I get is fair warning. I understand that all of the shops should have the background checks going, but if, as a store owner, you don't clean the glass of your range windows, you might be lax in other departments.

There is a bit Good Buddy Syndrome that I don't like in some dealers. You've all seen it- they're hip.

Obviously, I don't believe in everyone being handed a gun on their tenth birthday, and I certainly don't believe in total bans. I distinctly remember having to take a driver's ed course before I dominated my family's maroon station wagon with faux wood paneling.

People are always comparing guns and cars, but the analogy of responsible education for both are totally lost in the fray.

I see dad's taking to their daughters to the gun range all the time, the same as dads and daughters on the road when she gets her temp license.

The CCL classes take time, and understanding the laws. I would simply prefer people learn to use them before they buy them.

Edit to add: about gun store etiquette-

If a gun store clerk talks to the man and not the lady with the money and perfect target grouping, he shouldn't be in the business. Don't ignore the lady, because she's the one buying.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The flag code is aspirational. It is not part of the criminal code. In fact, it's of dubious constitutionality.

Terp, who adds there is no legal advice contained herein. Reading this post does not create an attorney/client relationship. The author is not licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio nor the District of Columbia. Consult a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction should you have, or think you may have, a legal quandary. This is a disclaimer.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...