Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[Sallow]

Not true. Not even close.

According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally.

They were manufactured illegally?

Really?

Man..this is bigger then I thought.

No, but that's not what you said. You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".

That is patently false.

That's because you edited my post.

Please don't do that.

 

[eflatminor]

They were manufactured illegally?

Really?

Man..this is bigger then I thought.

No, but that's not what you said. You said "Most criminals are getting their guns from law abiding citizens".

That is patently false.

That's because you edited my post.

Please don't do that.

So you're acknowledging that most criminals get their guns illegally? Fine.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

I would gladly take responsibility for any actions of my guns. Any time one of my guns attacks someone, or commits a crime, I will punish the gun according to the severity of the action it has taken. You're cool with that?

Nope.

The owner is responsible.

After all..guns don't kill people, right?

Walking that one back, aren't you? If someone steals your car and kills another person, you're OK with going to jail? (I know it's been asked, but it does beg an answer.)
Here's an apparently novel idea (for libtard morons), why don't we hold the person who uses the gun, or whatever weapon, responsible for their actions?
There's a drunk on the corner, he decides to rape the equally drunk gal with him, I suppose it is only appropriate that all men be punished for rape. They have the equipment, they must be guilty.

 

[Yurt]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

would you extend that to voting?

 

[Spoonman]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

how's this one for you. as long as my guns aren't committing any murders put no restrictions or limitations on them. You know, just like our bill of rights says.

Except..that's not what the bill of right says. It's not even what the case law that allows you to have guns says..

the bill of rights says uninfringed right of ownership. it can't get any clearer than that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.

I dont manufacture weapons.
I go to great (see expensive) lengths to protect my guns from theft and to keep them out of the hands of children. Now your average crackhead will lay his fully loaded piece of shit raven .25 on the coffee table with half a dozen yard apes running around.
So who is the dangerous one here?

It should not be a problem for you then.

OK we've determined that I am a responsible gun owner. Why on earth would you go after me when the real danger is the the clown with the POS raven .25?

 

[Sallow]

Firearms that are capable of burst/full auto fire are already heavily regulated. Do you wish to ban these weapons from the military and police, or just the few private citizens that are able to afford the very costly licenses?

You realize full auto firearms are almost never used in crime, right?



It is. Clearly.



Correct, you are free to exercise your rights as long as in doing so you don't infringe on the rights of others.



The "same thing" already exists. You have a right to a firearm, which does not change the fact that you cannot infringe on the rights of others.



Wow. Tell us, if someone steals your car and then causes an accident, can we put you in jail?



Inanimate objects are not capable of 'action'.



Not a single one. It's that daft an idea.

As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.

Or anyone for that matter.

Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.

But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

 

[Spoonman]

As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.

Or anyone for that matter.

Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.

But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

 

[Sallow]

Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.

But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

 

[eflatminor]

As is allow crazy nuts to possess military style firearms.

Or anyone for that matter.

Already a law against "crazy nuts" from possessing any firearm, including automatic weapons.

But to YOUR point, can we put you in jail if someone steals your car and causes an accident?

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Which has nothing to do with your suggestion that one should be responsible for the actions of a thief that steals from him.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

No, you don't. You only have to purchase insurance IN YOUR STATE if you plan to operate the vehicle on public property. If you use your vehicle on your own property, no insurance or a license is required.

So, by your own reasoning, the federal government should have no involvement in licensing or requiring insurance for a firearm, but states are free to require a license/insurance to carry on public property.

Works for me.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

Actually, there are. Many states require a license to carry concealed. Other states do not.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

Correct. And those states that require background checks (California for example) are not exactly bastions of peace and harmony. Again, criminals really don't care about your rules.

 

[eflatminor]

Your right is there by case law.

Wrong. They're inalienable. You're born with them.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

The rights of a minority still exist in this country.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

Either would any rational person. Restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves against those that would do such things does NOTHING to prevent kids being shot.

Just ask the folks in Norway.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

Nobody does. Strawman argument.

It's very confusing.

Good luck.

 

[Yurt]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

would you extend that to voting?

sallow?

 

[Spoonman]

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

no. my right is there by the constitution.

 

[KevinWestern]

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

Sallow, obviously no one wants kids shot in the face by assault rifles. I think it’s wrong and dishonest to imply that someone who is not in favor of handing over their AR-15’s to the Gov’t are doing so to protect the right to shoot kids – specifically – in the face. It’s silly and you know it, so for the sake of the argument let’s try to avoid.

Two comments:

1.) An AR-15 was NOT used in the Sandy Hook massacre, it was handguns (in case you were unaware).

2.) If you want to seriously prevent an entity from shooting kids in the face, then shouldn't you be trying to take guns away from the US Gov't first (and I'm being serious)? How many children are massacred in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq every single year thanks to our US presence in those countries? Just about every week I hear a story about an accidental hit on a school, or a residential building, ect. How is giving more GUNS to this entity going to prevent kids from being shot in the face?

.

 

[tjvh]

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it????? Sorry, but last time I checked the second amendment doesn't end with "unless an emotional majority gets fed up with it." The 2A isn't confusing in the least if you read it rationally.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Problem with that is criminals wont register their guns. So the only people you punish are law abiding citizens who are the victim of crime themselves.

Not a problem at all.

Most "Criminals" are getting their guns from law abiding citizens.

They aren't involved in the manufacture of guns.

Provide evidence that most criminals get their weapons from law abiding citizens and no robbery does not count.

 

[KevinWestern]

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it????? Sorry, but last time I checked the second amendment doesn't end with "unless an emotional majority gets fed up with it."

To add, too, I don't think that most (ie majority) of the country are in favor of banning weapons like AR-15's either.

First off, you have about half that lean right and are generally pro-second amendment. And secondly, there are many Democrats and left leaners who seem to logically realize that the problems with gun violence lie primarily with handguns (in the inner cities), and not AR-15's.

The skewed severity of the 'assault rifle threat' is one perpetuated by our media and (I would argue) the current Administration specifically.

.

 

[Yurt]

First off..I have no "right" to car.

Secondly..I have to purchase insurance for the car against accidents and have it inspected yearly.

There are no such provisions put on guns like that.

And to your point about the "laws against crazy people". Those laws vary state to state.

but we do have rights to own a gun
when I can shoot my guns on public highways I'll get insurance for them.

Your right is there by case law.

And it seems that most of the country is getting fed up with it.

Personally? I rather not have kids shot in the face by psychos with Assault Rifles.

I don't know why anyone wants to protect the right to do that.

It's very confusing.

you're downright dishonest. no one wants to protect the right (no right exists) to have kids shot in the face.

please, if you can't debate honestly in this forum, don't debate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

Banning doesn’t make sense concerning any number of issues, from guns to abortion.

The efficacy of banning ARs is highly questionable, for example, as so few gun crimes are committed with rifles. And given banning ARs will not result in the desired outcome, serious Second Amendment issues are raised as well.

This issue has less to do with the availability of guns and more to do with the violent nature of American culture, where violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution – from corporal punishment in schools, to stand your ground, to capital punishment in prison, the common denominator is always violence.

 

[KevinWestern]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

Banning doesn’t make sense concerning any number of issues, from guns to abortion.

The efficacy of banning ARs is highly questionable, for example, as so few gun crimes are committed with rifles. And given banning ARs will not result in the desired outcome, serious Second Amendment issues are raised as well.

This issue has less to do with the availability of guns and more to do with the violent nature of American culture, where violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution – from corporal punishment in schools, to stand your ground, to capital punishment in prison, the common denominator is always violence.

Agree.