Want gun control? Fight smart.

[MikeK]

[...]

He had ten guns. Why did he choose the AR-15? We all know why.

Or think we know.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

Ok, go ahead and confiscate everyones firearms through this...

With maps like these...

2016 Presidential election by county..

Good luck...

In 2020, 3/4 of the present high school students will be eligible to vote. Things change.

 

[BlackSand]

All firearms are designed for killing. However, the hunting guns are designed for killing animals. And most states limit how many rounds the gun can carry. The assault weapons were designed only for one purpose, the killing of human beings, as many as possible. as fast as possible. So they have very large magazines that can be changed as fast as possible. For the AR 15, that is about 2 seconds. So, as we have found out all too well, they are really efficient at there intended purpose in churches, schools, outdoor music concert, night club, and Christmas parties.

Yea, i see a lot of people hunting deer with a glock. Which is weird, because i heard they were made for ducks

Are you a Russian? Because you seem to be making no sense, only injecting vitriol into what should be a serious discussion about a very serious problem in this nation.

Yeah ... Kind of like someone talking about hunting and sport as if it was mentioned anywhere in the Second Amendment ...

.

 

[Rustic]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

Ok, go ahead and confiscate everyones firearms through this...

With maps like these...

2016 Presidential election by county..

Good luck...

In 2020, 3/4 of the present high school students will be eligible to vote. Things change.

The red areas will but basically the same

 

[Old Rocks]

[...]

He had ten guns. Why did he choose the AR-15? We all know why.

Or think we know.

We know.

 

[hunarcy]

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.

You do not want your gun rights changed. I have that. What about your other ideas?

I believe that you waste your time trying to get rid of firearms.I wish you and other rational people would focus on fast and effective treatment of the mentally ill

I'd be happy to spend energy on that. I fought to expand Medicaid in our state so people could afford to see a $100/hr counselor. To keep funds for addiction treatment and to fund psychiatric crisis beds in our hospitals. We lost. But I'd be happy to fight some more. It's gonna be a sticky one and it is a very complicated one, since the vast majority of the mentally ill wouldn't hurt a fly. Can they also not have guns? Who decides and how? That was the crux of this current shooting scenario and it's an important question, for sure.

Judges and Psychiatrists

I would feel better with that than a blanket rule that blindly banned everyone with such and so a diagnosis from ever owning a gun. Might need some more judges and psychiatrists, though.

Small price to pay to get the mentally ill the treatment they need while creating a safe environment for us all.

 

[hunarcy]

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

Well, Sorry ... I am not going to jail for your silly definition.
You might be able to get the people of your state to get behind that idea ... Not that I would care.

.

You would not go to jail for my definition, you would go to jail because of a federal law. And that law is coming. Most Americans are sick of seeing their children murdered for the sake of you fools wanting to shoot a silly gun.

While I am sure you speak for almost all Americans, I do not agree and believe the law you describe would be unconstitutional

Thanks for the asshole response. Guess you ran out of argument.

 

[Care4all]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

but there has always been limitations to our constitutional rights....in various different ways???

Like:

We have the right to free speech,

-But you can't yell FIRE in a theater, when there isn't a fire...

-You can't slander someone...etc

We have the right to bear arms

-but you can't do so in a court room etc...

-You don't have a right to own a nuclear weapon....Bazooka, etc

 

[BlackSand]

but there has always been limitations to our constitutional rights....in various different ways???

Like:

We have the right to free speech,

-But you can't yell FIRE in a theater, when there isn't a fire...

-You can't slander someone...etc

We have the right to bear arms

-but you can't do so in a court room etc...

-You don't have a right to own a nuclear weapon....Bazooka, etc

States can and do regulate firearms ... The Constitution allows that.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids owning a bazooka.
The idea that you think they should be forbidden simply reflects your desire (no matter how reasonable you think that desire may be).

I am not implying that our Constitutional rights have not been violated ...
Simply stating that is not justification to do it again.



Plus ... Slander is not even a good argument in the free speech issue.
To adjudicate slander you have to show where damages occurred as a result of the slander.

You can Constitutionally own a firearm ... But that doesn't mean you have the Constitutional right to kill someone with it.
If you do kill someone with a firearm ... It will be adjudicated the same as slander one way or another.


.

 

[JoeB131]

Chicago had a handgun ban. Meanwhile, they had one of the highest homicide by gun rates in the entire country. Because gun control laws geared towards criminals really works!

Are you always this stupid.

Here's the thing. Chicago had handgun ban and it largely worked.

Then the McDonald Decision came about, people could get guns, and we spiked from 400 homicides a year to 800 homicides a year.

 

[Care4all]

but there has always been limitations to our constitutional rights....in various different ways???

Like:

We have the right to free speech,

-But you can't yell FIRE in a theater, when there isn't a fire...

-You can't slander someone...etc

We have the right to bear arms

-but you can't do so in a court room etc...

-You don't have a right to own a nuclear weapon....Bazooka, etc

States can and do regulate firearms ... The Constitution allows that.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids owning a bazooka.
The idea that you think they should be forbidden simply reflects your desire (no matter how reasonable you think that desire may be).

I am not implying that our Constitutional rights have not been violated ...
Simply stating that is not justification to do it again.



Plus ... Slander is not even a good argument in the free speech issue.
To adjudicate slander you have to show where damages occurred as a result of the slander.

You can Constitutionally own a firearm ... But that doesn't mean you have the Constitutional right to kill someone with it.
If you do kill someone with a firearm ... It will be adjudicated the same as slander one way or another.


.

It's a well regulated militia...

btw, I have been working on my ancestry tree and through the process I have been able to read newspaper articles from the time on my family, and also different vital records, and also things like what infantry they served in different wars like the Seminole War, and the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and Oaths my relatives in the south had to sign once the war was over, to give their allegiance to the United States before they were given their right to vote back..... and just some really cool stuff that has been an American History lesson in and of itself.

Anyway, during the Civil War... I had many young members of my Family serve, 15 years and older, but over 50 they were allowed to stay home and not join an infantry or regiment....

And also, even my family members in their 30's, sometimes did not serve in the Confederate Army, because they owned huge farms, that produced a lot of the south's food, and they were allowed to stay home and run the plantations....

HOWEVER,

ALL of the men that stayed home, were required to form MILITIAS for their State and Local Regions, they all had to bring their own guns and were given uniforms and stuff, and practiced and planned a defense for their local regions....

the guys that were left at home, were also part of their State's Defense, in case the 'enemy' came in to their local region by surprise and the Confederate soldiers were elsewhere fighting a battle....

They called it a Militia, and they said they were serving in the 'you name the regiment' division of the local Militia. And the arms that they had to use, were their own guns and ammo, not supplied by the State, though there were cannons and stuff that the State did supply to them....

I haven't found any instance in my family where they had to fight off the enemy from taking their farms and homes, but these Militias were prepared to fight off the enemy.

Well, it makes me wonder if we are not somewhat misunderstanding the meaning of the second amendment in full context of the times that they lived in during the Revolutionary war and following wars of the next century?

 

[BlackSand]

It's a well regulated militia...

btw, I have been working on my ancestry tree and through the process I have been able to read newspaper articles from the time on my family, and also different vital records, and also things like what infantry they served in different wars like the Seminole War, and the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and Oaths my relatives in the south had to sign once the war was over, to give their allegiance to the United States before they were given their right to vote back..... and just some really cool stuff that has been an American History lesson in and of itself.

Anyway, during the Civil War... I had many young members of my Family serve, 15 years and older, but over 50 they were allowed to stay home and not join an infantry or regiment....

And also, even my family members in their 30's, sometimes did not serve in the Confederate Army, because they owned huge farms, that produced a lot of the south's food, and they were allowed to stay home and run the plantations....

HOWEVER,

ALL of the men that stayed home, were required to form MILITIAS for their State and Local Regions, they all had to bring their own guns and were given uniforms and stuff, and practiced and planned a defense for their local regions....

the guys that were left at home, were also part of their State's Defense, in case the 'enemy' came in to their local region by surprise and the Confederate soldiers were elsewhere fighting a battle....

They called it a Militia, and they said they were serving in the 'you name the regiment' division of the local Militia. And the arms that they had to use, were their own guns and ammo, not supplied by the State, though there were cannons and stuff that the State did supply to them....

I haven't found any instance in my family where they had to fight off the enemy from taking their farms and homes, but these Militias were prepared to fight off the enemy.

Well, it makes me wonder if we are not somewhat misunderstanding the meaning of the second amendment in full context of the times that they lived in during the Revolutionary war and following wars of the next century?

States can and do regulate firearms ... And militias.
I don't have problems understanding the Constitution ... But then again I don't want it to mean something it doesn't state.

Context of the times does not change what the Constitution means.
If someone wants it to mean something other than what it states ... They are going to have to change it.

If the Congress can go through the required process to write/pass/ratify the 16th Amendment because they want a power they weren't originally granted ...
They can damn sure repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment ... Do it correctly instead of some nefarious legislative shuffle.

.

 

[Care4all]

It's a well regulated militia...

btw, I have been working on my ancestry tree and through the process I have been able to read newspaper articles from the time on my family, and also different vital records, and also things like what infantry they served in different wars like the Seminole War, and the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and Oaths my relatives in the south had to sign once the war was over, to give their allegiance to the United States before they were given their right to vote back..... and just some really cool stuff that has been an American History lesson in and of itself.

Anyway, during the Civil War... I had many young members of my Family serve, 15 years and older, but over 50 they were allowed to stay home and not join an infantry or regiment....

And also, even my family members in their 30's, sometimes did not serve in the Confederate Army, because they owned huge farms, that produced a lot of the south's food, and they were allowed to stay home and run the plantations....

HOWEVER,

ALL of the men that stayed home, were required to form MILITIAS for their State and Local Regions, they all had to bring their own guns and were given uniforms and stuff, and practiced and planned a defense for their local regions....

the guys that were left at home, were also part of their State's Defense, in case the 'enemy' came in to their local region by surprise and the Confederate soldiers were elsewhere fighting a battle....

They called it a Militia, and they said they were serving in the 'you name the regiment' division of the local Militia. And the arms that they had to use, were their own guns and ammo, not supplied by the State, though there were cannons and stuff that the State did supply to them....

I haven't found any instance in my family where they had to fight off the enemy from taking their farms and homes, but these Militias were prepared to fight off the enemy.

Well, it makes me wonder if we are not somewhat misunderstanding the meaning of the second amendment in full context of the times that they lived in during the Revolutionary war and following wars of the next century?

States can and do regulate firearms ... And militias.
I don't have problems understanding the Constitution ... But then again I don't want it to mean something it doesn't state.

Context of the times does not change what the Constitution means.
If someone wants it to mean something other than what it states ... They are going to have to change it.

If the Congress can go through the required process to write/pass/ratify the 16th Amendment because they want a power they weren't originally granted ...
They can damn sure repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment ... Do it correctly instead of some nefarious legislative shuffle.

.

I don't think hand held machine guns could even be imagined by them....or 'dirty nuclear bombs''

and I also believe the government does not have to allow every mass killing creation of the gun industry be allowed to be put on the market....

I also do not believe it's unconstitutional for the government to put an age limit on who can buy guns....

All of which have been supported by Supreme court rulings of constitutionality....even though they are not specifically mentioned in the 2nd.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't think hand held machine guns could even be imagined by them....or 'dirty nuclear bombs''

and I also believe the government does not have to allow every mass killing creation of the gun industry be allowed to be put on the market....

I also do not believe it's unconstitutional for the government to put an age limit on who can buy guns....

All of which have been supported by Supreme court rulings of constitutionality....even though they are not specifically mentioned in the 2nd.

The Constitution does not limit the types nor uses of firearms.
The Supreme Court may do whatever it decides ... But it still won't change what the Constitution actually states.

A private citizen could own anything a soldier of the time had at the point the Constitution was ratified ...
And for the express purpose of being an offensive asset in armed combat in defense of the Free State (handicapping the weapons is not mentioned).
That's also something the Founding Fathers made clear and supported in their communications.

What the Constitution states or the powers it grants don't change with the times ...
There is a process for making changes to the Constitution ... Follow It.

Also on a side note ... There is no age requirement in federal law that prohibits a child from owning/possessing a rifle or ammunition.
Children actually have Constitutional rights as well.

What you believe the government "does not have to do" ...
Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they have been granted the power to do whatever you think is best.
Really ... We keep coming back to the same place ... The Constitution doesn't mean "Whatever you may happen to think is best at the moment".

If you don't like what is says ...
If you don't want your rights protected ...
If you want it to grant power to the federal government that it doesn't already have ...

You Are Going To Have To Change It.

.

 

[Care4all]

I don't think hand held machine guns could even be imagined by them....or 'dirty nuclear bombs''

and I also believe the government does not have to allow every mass killing creation of the gun industry be allowed to be put on the market....

I also do not believe it's unconstitutional for the government to put an age limit on who can buy guns....

All of which have been supported by Supreme court rulings of constitutionality....even though they are not specifically mentioned in the 2nd.

The Constitution does not limit the types nor uses of firearms.
The Supreme Court may do whatever it decides ... But it still won't change what the Constitution actually states.

A private citizen could own anything a soldier of the time had at the point the Constitution was ratified ...
And for the express purpose of being an offensive asset in armed combat in defense of the Free State (handicapping the weapons is not mentioned).
That's also something the Founding Fathers also made clear and supported in their communications.

What the Constitution states or the powers it grants don't change with the times ...
There is a process for making changes to the Constitution ... Follow It.

Also on a side note ... There is age requirement in federal law that prohibits a child from owning/possessing a rifle or ammunition.
Children actually have Constitutional rights as well.

What you believe the government does not have to do ...
Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they have been granted the power to do whatever you think is best.
Really ... We keep coming back to the same place ... The Constitution doesn't mean "Whatever you may happen to think is best at the moment".

If you don't like what is says ...
If you don't want your rights protected ...
If you want it to grant power to the federal government that it doesn't already have ...

You Are Going To Have To Change It.

.

i don't think the supreme court is wrong in how they have interpreted it, for the most part....

if the constitution was as crystal clear as you seem to believe, I do not think we would have needed a supreme court to determine constitutionality of various different cases....?






btw, what's going on that is different in your life? you seem more relaxed and at ease when communicating?

 

[Rustic]

[...]

He had ten guns. Why did he choose the AR-15? We all know why.

Or think we know.

We know.

 

[MikeK]

What limitation(s) to your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would you be willing to accept?

 

[BlackSand]

i don't think the supreme court is wrong in how they have interpreted it, for the most part....

if the constitution was as crystal clear as you seem to believe, I do not think we would have needed a supreme court to determine constitutionality of various different cases....?






btw, what's going on that is different in your life? you seem more relaxed and at ease when communicating?

The Justices don't agree with each other in most cases ...
That doesn't change what the Constitution actually means nor make it unclear.

The Constitution becomes unclear when you want something that isn't there ...
Or when the way it is interpreted is altered in accordance with what someone wants.

I cannot say I have agreed with the Supreme Court and all their decisions or politics either ...
But the Constitution gives them a say-so in the process so I have to respect that.



I don't find the Constitution all that unclear ...
But then again I don't want it to mean something it doesn't.

The best way to interpret the Constitution ...
Is to understand the Founding Fathers didn't establish the federal government to answer all the wants and desires of the People.
They granted the People and States a lot of power to self-govern ... They didn't grant all that power to the federal government.




Relaxed ... I am no different today than I was yesterday ... Neither is the Constitution ...

As far as my Second Amendment approach is concerned ... I have changed the approach.
I am not going to argue about what someone wants it to mean.
Justifications for wanting something doesn't change what the Second Amendment means.

I am more than willing to encourage people to follow the process necessary, and provided for in the Constitution
To change it if they want it mean something it doesn't.

That doesn't mean I will get what I want ... But we will cross that bridge when we get there.
It allows for the people that will be responsible for the shit-storm should things not go well ...
To clearly be responsible/accountable for the mess they have made.

But even that accountability will be rewritten as time passes and someone wants it to mean something else.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

yes, you can hunt with an AR15, but as we get talking, no one I've talked to actually uses one for hunting.

No surprise that. On several hunting enthusiast sites one finds lists of the editors' top pics for deer hunting.

• Outdoor Life
• Game and Fish
• Field and Stream
  • Sub $1000 options
• American Whitetail
• Grand View Outdoors

Of all the rifles mentioned, only once is an AR-15 variant cited as among the best rifles for hunting deer.

I also checked a few sites/listings focused on big game hunting. Again, the AR-15 ilk of guns didn't appear.

• I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie: Best Big Bore Rifles - Pew Pew Tactical
  
• You Can Hunt Any Animal in the World with Just These 4 Guns
  
• The Best Big Game Rifles of All Time - Petersen's Hunting
  
• The 20 Best Elk Hunting Rifles Ever Made

So while one may or may not be able to use an AR-15-like rifle for hunting, there are plenty of alternatives up and down the the price spectrum.

Correction:

I rechecked the list above. There were four semi-automatic rifles recommended among the ~100 rifles listed among the various reviewers' recommendations. The ones recommended were:

• A BAR carbine semi (circa 1967 and, presumably, later) -- the author wasn't any more specific than that.
  
• Browning BAR MK. II Safari Grade .338
  
• Remington Model 74/7400/750
  
• Ambush 300 Blackout -- This is the only AR-15-style rifle recommended.

Apologies for my earlier misrepresentation of the content in the articles.​

 

[OldLady]

yes, you can hunt with an AR15, but as we get talking, no one I've talked to actually uses one for hunting.

No surprise that. On several hunting enthusiast sites one finds lists of the editors' top pics for deer hunting.

• Outdoor Life
• Game and Fish
• Field and Stream
  • Sub $1000 options
• American Whitetail
• Grand View Outdoors

Of all the rifles mentioned, only once is an AR-15 variant cited as among the best rifles for hunting deer.

I also checked a few sites/listings focused on big game hunting. Again, the AR-15 ilk of guns didn't appear.

• I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie: Best Big Bore Rifles - Pew Pew Tactical
  
• You Can Hunt Any Animal in the World with Just These 4 Guns
  
• The Best Big Game Rifles of All Time - Petersen's Hunting
  
• The 20 Best Elk Hunting Rifles Ever Made

So while one may or may not be able to use an AR-15-like rifle for hunting, there are plenty of alternatives up and down the the price spectrum.

Correction:

I rechecked the list above. There were four semi-automatic rifles recommended among the ~100 rifles listed among the various reviewers' recommendations. The ones recommended were:

• A BAR carbine semi (circa 1967 and, presumably, later) -- the author wasn't any more specific than that.
  
• Browning BAR MK. II Safari Grade .338
  
• Remington Model 74/7400/750
  
• Ambush 300 Blackout -- This is the only AR-15-style rifle recommended.

Apologies for my earlier misrepresentation of the content in the articles.​

I have also read that certain AR-type rifles are best or at least good for hunting REALLY big game like rhinos and also wild boar--boar come straight at you, fast, and god help you if you miss.
But since wild boar and rhinos aren't big in the Northeast, I haven't talked to any hunters who use AR's. Our biggest animal is the moose, and they say that's about as challenging as shooting a cow in the pasture.