Gun Rights

[OldLady]

No civilian needs them.

Who are you to tell ME what I NEED? Why do you want to only control, and limit LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? Why do you want to put us at more risk from attack?

You do realize criminals get whatever they want, and don't care about more laws, right?

You can shoot a criminal with your other gun(s). How often have you shot it out with a criminal, with both of you using AR's? Be honest.

 

[Pilot1]

You can shoot a criminal with your other gun(s). How often have you shot it out with a criminal, with both of you using AR's? Be honest.

Madame, please try to think about law abiding versus criminals, and limitations of both. I have never, nor probably will I ever thankfully be in any kind of "shoot out". However, I do not want to be UNREASONABLY LIMITED in my means to defend myself. The AR-15 is a common, semi automatic rifle that is very, very rarely used in crime. Yet because the MEDIA demonizes and sensationalizes it, people like you automatically want to BAN it, and make it illegal for only the law abiding to own.

You are acting, and reacting, purely with EMOTION. Please take time to think about it rationally.

 

[Pellinore]

Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?

Generally, no, but there are ways to get gun rights restored.

 

[OldLady]

You can shoot a criminal with your other gun(s). How often have you shot it out with a criminal, with both of you using AR's? Be honest.

Madame, please try to think about law abiding versus criminals, and limitations of both. I have never, nor probably will I ever thankfully be in any kind of "shoot out". However, I do not want to be UNREASONABLY LIMITED in my means to defend myself. The AR-15 is a common, semi automatic rifle that is very, very rarely used in crime. Yet because the MEDIA demonizes and sensationalizes it, people like you automatically want to BAN it, and make it illegal for only the law abiding to own.

You are acting, and reacting, purely with EMOTION. Please take time to think about it rationally.

This IS my rational stance. Otherwise, I would be pushing for Full Australia on your asses. I'll take getting rid of AR's and their ilks, and high capacity mags. And REAL background checks with full information and a strict registration system with gun owners being responsible for their weapons. If they are stolen, they must be reported to the cops immediately, or be held accountable if the gun is used in a crime.

 

[Pilot1]

^^^^^So again, only punish the LAW ABIDING. How about punishing the criminal who steals the gun, and breaks into someone's home, and not the VICTIM of the crime.

We're not giving up any more of our rights including AR-15's, STANDARD capacity magazines, and any and all semi automatic firearms. My AR-15 is no more "dangerous" than my 74 year old M1 Carbine with its standard 15, and 30 round magazines.

The PERSON makes something dangerous, not the tool.

 

[Pilot1]

Does an ex-convict have the right to carry a gun if the gun is carried for protection?

Generally, no, but there are ways to get gun rights restored.

It depends on the nature of the crime, and the potential length of the jail sentence, not the actual time spent in jail, but the POSSIBLE length the sentence can be.

 

[OldLady]

^^^^^So again, only punish the LAW ABIDING. How about punishing the criminal who steals the gun, and breaks into someone's home, and not the VICTIM of the crime.

We're not giving up any more of our rights including AR-15's, STANDARD capacity magazines, and any and all semi automatic firearms. My AR-15 is no more "dangerous" than my 74 year old M1 Carbine with its standard 15, and 30 round magazines.

The PERSON makes something dangerous, not the tool.

We already have laws to punish the criminals.

 

[jon_berzerk]

first off repeal the 1934 firearms act

 

[Pilot1]

We already have laws to punish the criminals.

Enforce them!!! Then we don't need anymore laws that will only effectively punish the LAW ABIDING. Glad you agree!

 

[Pellinore]

Madame, please try to think about law abiding versus criminals, and limitations of both. I have never, nor probably will I ever thankfully be in any kind of "shoot out". However, I do not want to be UNREASONABLY LIMITED in my means to defend myself. The AR-15 is a common, semi automatic rifle that is very, very rarely used in crime. Yet because the MEDIA demonizes and sensationalizes it, people like you automatically want to BAN it, and make it illegal for only the law abiding to own.

One problem with that argument is that the AR-15 is also very, very rarely used in home defense. This whole argument is about striking a balance between the danger one specific type of weapon presents to our community vs. your Constitutional right to own that specific weapon, which Justice Scalia acknowledged in the Heller decision does not extend to the blanket right to own any weapon for any purpose (I'm paraphrasing). Precedent has already been set, in cases in general dating back to our founding and long before, but specifically in 1934, when Congress and the President agreed that the danger of Tommy Guns on the street outweighed the benefits of law-abiding gun ownership of them.

As for me, I don't think it is feasible to ban semi-automatic rifles, but I won't argue against a ban on those semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, detachable magazines, and so on, especially in urban areas, as I think those are good indicators that the owner is more likely to use the rifle for mayhem than protection. I am absolutely in support of banning large-capacity magazines, although I think the number 10 may be too restrictive - I'm more of a 15 or so kind of guy. Bump stocks have no purpose except to emulate a machine gun, and are ridiculous and indefensible.

 

[Pellinore]

We already have laws to punish the criminals.

Enforce them!!! Then we don't need anymore laws that will only effectively punish the LAW ABIDING. Glad you agree!

And this. Regulation and enforcement are not mutually exclusive. We absolutely need to better enforce what we've got.

Remember that maniac that shot up the church in Texas? The number of times he slipped through the cracks because multiple systems in multiple jurisdictions all failed is enraging.

 

[Pilot1]

Lots of HOPLOPHOBIA out there. IRRATIONAL fear of firearms. Thank the overwhelming liberal/progressive media that is able to brainwash the weak minded.

Guns don't commit crime by themselves. Law abiding citizens don't commit crime with guns. Enforce existing laws, prosecute the criminals, and don't PLEA DOWN sentences to next to nothing.

 

[Pilot1]

One problem with that argument is that the AR-15 is also very, very rarely used in home defense. This whole argument is about striking a balance between the danger one specific type of weapon presents to our community vs. your Constitutional right to own that specific weapon, which Justice Scalia acknowledged in the Heller decision does not extend to the blanket right to own any weapon for any purpose (I'm paraphrasing). Precedent has already been set, in cases in general dating back to our founding and long before, but specifically in 1934, when Congress and the President agreed that the danger of Tommy Guns on the street outweighed the benefits of law-abiding gun ownership of them.

As for me, I don't think it is feasible to ban semi-automatic rifles, but I won't argue against a ban on those semi-automatic rifles that have pistol grips, detachable magazines, and so on, especially in urban areas, as I think those are good indicators that the owner is more likely to use the rifle for mayhem than protection. I am absolutely in support of banning large-capacity magazines, although I think the number 10 may be too restrictive - I'm more of a 15 or so kind of guy. Bump stocks have no purpose except to emulate a machine gun, and are ridiculous and indefensible.

The AR-15 is very RARELY used in crime. The media sensationalizes the few times it has been used to get the weak minded to want a knee jerk reaction to a non issue.

The AR-15 is no different from other semi auto rifles. A pistol grip, or detachable magazine does not make it any more dangerous. PEOPLE are dangerous, tools aren't.

Heller, and Miller ruled that owning firearms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and protects COMMON USE firearms. The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the U.S. thus protected as common use.

 

[pismoe]

If criminals serve their time, or whatever punishment, then they should have their rights restored. However, many are prohibited from ever touching a gun again depending on the nature of the crime they committed.

Most violence is committed by repeat offenders that can not legally TOUCH A GUN. Yet they still do, and commit violent crime.

------------------------------------------------------- i think its FELONS but there are lots of crimes called felonies and to be a FELON doesn't require VIOLENT Crime . Anyway , its my thought that ALL nonviolent criminals should get all their RIGHTS Restored and that some violent criminals should never get out of jail / prison . What is the sense of letting a sex crime child molestor out of prison into neighborhoods with families and kids Pilot .

 

[Pilot1]

I agree. Non violent criminals should have their firearm rights restored. Some guy that embezzled money, got a Felony, and spent his time in jail should have all his rights after he has paid his debt to society.

The violent criminal that used a gun in the commission of a crime should NOT get his gun rights back. IMHO.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons. It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines. They could all still bear arms.

Make ERPO laws national.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.

There. You still have your fucking guns and crazy maniacs who want to shoot up a church have a slightly slower gun to do it with.

Ooops. This is the Constitution forum. Sorry.
I'm not a lawyer.

You have to have a Class III permit to own an "assault" weapon. Which means an extensive and expensive process. Those types of firearms are not cheap and you have to find a dealer that is specifically licensed to sell them. The semi-automatic weapons that I can buy at any gun store such as an AR-15 ARE NOT FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.

FINE! WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM! No civilian needs them.

Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.

 

[Pilot1]

Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.

Because Leftists project their fears, and insecurities onto YOU. They can not trust themselves with the responsibility of owning, and using a firearm safely, so then neither can you. Also, they listen to the Media's sensationalistic propaganda about guns.

Also, they believe the Constitution is in many ways invalid due to its age. Their absolute trust in government, and for government to always do the right thing is SCARY. They are more than willing to give up their freedom for a false sense of security.

 

[OldLady]

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Easy to at least get started here.
Outlaw assault weapons. It would not interfere with what you believe is a God given right for every citizen to own killing machines. They could all still bear arms.

Make ERPO laws national.

Tighten up background checks and start stringently punishing those who transfer weapons illegally.

There. You still have your fucking guns and crazy maniacs who want to shoot up a church have a slightly slower gun to do it with.

Ooops. This is the Constitution forum. Sorry.
I'm not a lawyer.

You have to have a Class III permit to own an "assault" weapon. Which means an extensive and expensive process. Those types of firearms are not cheap and you have to find a dealer that is specifically licensed to sell them. The semi-automatic weapons that I can buy at any gun store such as an AR-15 ARE NOT FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.

FINE! WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM! No civilian needs them.

Why not ? Constitutionally speaking I should be able to own any type of firearm.

By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting. She explains pretty carefully why not. Of course, you won't read it.

I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed.
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.

 

[Pilot1]

By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting. She explains pretty carefully why not. Of course, you won't read it.

I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed.
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.

Just because she is an "Army vet" doesn't make her an expert, especially on what "society needs". Her arguments are specious at best. Also, the statistics don't bare out the danger she implies.

Rifles, including the AR-15 comprise a few hundred deaths per year on average compared to over 6,000 per year where a handgun was used. Of course you'll just say, well ban handguns also. The fact remains the AR-15 is used in very few crimes, and very few murders. It is an extremely small number each year. Remember, the above number is FOR ALL RIFLES of which the AR-15 is a small subset.

You are acting out on pure uniformed EMOTION.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

[OldLady]

By an army vet talking about the AR-15, not long after the Parkland shooting. She explains pretty carefully why not. Of course, you won't read it.

I was this comfortable with that rifle because it was designed to kill human beings as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the Army trained me and every other soldier to use it proficiently. The US military has been using some variation of this weapon for generations because it is incredibly well suited to that purpose. This is the exact point that every horrified civilian saw immediately, and a lot of veterans, myself included, missed.
I'm An Army Vet Who Used To Think An AR-15 Was No Big Deal. Now, I Want It Banned.

Just because she is an "Army vet" doesn't make her an expert, especially on what "society needs". Her arguments are specious at best. Also, the statistics don't bare out the danger she implies.

Rifles, including the AR-15 comprise a few hundred deaths per year on average compared to over 6,000 per year where a handgun was used. Of course you'll just say, well ban handguns also. The fact remains the AR-15 is used in very few crimes, and very few murders. It is an extremely small number each year. Remember, the above number is FOR ALL RIFLES of which the AR-15 is a small subset.

You are acting out on pure uniformed EMOTION.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Ain't nothin' wrong with emotion, dearie. I hear your facts. In four "episodes" using AR 15's, 151 innocent people at school or out having a good time, were killed and how many injured, traumatized or maimed for life? To me, banning AR's is like banning the bump stock. Neither one of them should have been on the market to begin with.