No one can give me a rational reason why

[M14 Shooter]

Even Sheriff Andy Taylor...

That's the best you can do?
You want to remove all the firearms from the Average American because of the words and actions of a fictional TV character?


I apologize for taking you seriously.

 

[meaner gene]

Maybe you could make the case that the "average" law abiding citizen should think carefully before starting a lifetime of gun ownership. Of course, you "should" start with the easier to handle, smaller and lighter guns until you gain familiarity with them, learn how to safely handle them, clean them, store them, and use them. Heck, start with non-lethal air rifles and pistols until you really understand how to handle the hardware. Once you develop the routine of safe gun handling, move up. Let's face reality, for hundreds of years, the average American was able to purchase and keep firearms of all sorts out of a catalog.

This is the point. It's like the result of people allowed to drive any car. I remember how many kids in high school, bought a used muscle car, and proceeded to wrap it around a telephone, The reason why muscle cars are so rare.

Your idea of progressive gun ownership is spot on. But people want their first gun to be an AR-15, instead of a Ruger-22.

 

[meaner gene]

So the law abiding person is responsible if they are the victim of a theft?

So it's your fault if your car gets stolen, it's your fault if you get mugged and it's a woman's fault if she gets raped right?

People take more care, that their car isn't stolen than their guns. How many people have a proper gun safe to prevent their guns from getting stolen?

How many leave their guns in their cars, which can be broken into with a rock.

 

[hadit]

This is the point. It's like the result of people allowed to drive any car. I remember how many kids in high school, bought a used muscle car, and proceeded to wrap it around a telephone, The reason why muscle cars are so rare.

Your idea of progressive gun ownership is spot on. But people want their first gun to be an AR-15, instead of a Ruger-22.

And legal isn't always smart. There is no law preventing an idiot teenager from owning a muscle-car, and in fact, many Boomers today have fond memories of buying their first car and turning it into a very loud, very fast chick magnet. Some wrecked, of course, but many did not and remember those times nostalgically. Likewise, there is no law preventing a first time gun buyer from getting an AR-15 and there probably shouldn't be. At some point, we do have to allow people to make dumb choices.

 

[hadit]

Even Sheriff Andy Taylor knew that "average" individuals were dangerous if armed. That's why Deputy Barney Fiff, was only allowed ONE BULLET.

Barney wasn't "average". He was a dolt and Andy knew it. Had he been average, Andy would have had no problem with him carrying a loaded weapon.

Meanwhile you want the "average" citizen to have unlimited weapons, and unlimited ammunition.

The Constitution stipulates no restrictions or training requirements.

It takes mandated training and testing to drive a car, yet none to shoot a gun.

That's because firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right with no restrictions on training or testing, while driving a car is not.

 

[meaner gene]

At some point, we do have to allow people to make dumb choices.

If their dumb choices only effected them, i'd say fine. But when their dumb choices effect others, they should be controlled. Annual vehicle inspection laws,
means a person can't choose to drive a car with bad brakes, or bald tires.

 

[Dadoalex]

It's time for your nap. junior.

Had one.
You're still a liar. LIAR

 

[Dadoalex]

And a law abiding person by definition poses no danger to innocent persons.

Semiauto weapons have been available on the civilian market for over 100 years so you're a little late to the party.

And your opinions are noted and given the consideration they deserve. None.

Where do criminals get their guns?

funnt you took the time to both consider and respond to something you think deserves no consideration. I'm guessijng you tell yourself plenty of lies.

 

[hadit]

If their dumb choices only effected them, i'd say fine. But when their dumb choices effect others, they should be controlled. Annual vehicle inspection laws,
means a person can't choose to drive a car with bad brakes, or bald tires.

Okay, let's look at how many people actually accidentally kill themselves with guns compared to the sheer number of guns in circulation. In 2021, for example, 224,935 people died from accidents in the US. Know how many died from accidental gunshots? 549. Let that sink in for a minute. In 2021, there were around 400 million guns in the US, owned by about 81 million people, and 549 died from accidental shootings. That is an incredible safety record. How many people, just for comparison, died from accidental car crashes in 2021? I'll tell you, 42915, and there are about half as many cars in the US as there are guns.

Remember those numbers when you're talking about accidental deaths from guns. 42915 vs 549.

It sounds to me like we should be pushing harder to make all vehicles unable to travel faster than 35mph than to make it harder for people to own and use guns.

 

[meaner gene]

That's because firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right with no restrictions on training or testing, while driving a car is not.

I know it's been said before, but back when they wrote the constitution they never envisioned individuals owning firearms more powerful than what had existed for the previous century.

The musket was invented in 1615 in France.

I'm sure if they invent blasters like in star wars or logans run, they too would be exempted from 2nd amendment ownership like machine guns.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Except 248 years ago, the tyrannical government was actually armed with weapons inferior to those owned by the citizens. The citizens had rifles, the army had muskets.

Today not only is the government better armed, but so armed by several orders of magnitude. One can't fight a 120mm gun with a 5.56mm gun.

Of course not. But you can kill the crewmen every time they stick their heads out of a hatch or dismount to fuel, maintain or refuel the tank. You can kill the drivers of the supply trucks and immobilize the tanks that way. The VC and Afghanis did that to the people they were fighting. Look at the ends the US and Russia had to do to get convoys through bandit country. Tanks and armored cars and improvised gun trucks bristling with machine guns and grenade launchers. There is a good documentary on Vietnam Gun Trucks on YouTube. Watch it and learn. One man with a hunting rifle can paralyze an entire air base by taking pot shots at pilots and expensive jets parked on the ground. One man with a pound of black powder that anyone can make at home can derail a train and do hundreds of thousands of dollars to right of way and cargo.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Someone asked me about an AR-15, but that was about it. I have constantly stated my issues are with automatic weapons.

And everyone has been telling you that the weapons you are claiming are automatic weapons AREN'T.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I know it's been said before, but back when they wrote the constitution they never envisioned individuals owning firearms more powerful than what had existed for the previous century.

The musket was invented in 1615 in France.

I'm sure if they invent blasters like in star wars or logans run, they too would be exempted from 2nd amendment ownership like machine guns.

When the constitution was written, private citizens could own cannons and private warships the founders considered that okay. A small cannon loaded with grapeshot or canister amounted to a giant shotgun that could kill a hundred people with a single shot at several hundred yards range.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually the "average" law abiding citizen knows shit about firearms. They're the one's who shoot themselves trying to clean them. Or who can't hit the broadside of a barn.

You're completely wrong. The average shooter is far more qualified than the average cop or military man. A cop or soldier is lucky to fire a hundred rounds a year, civilian shooters often fire that many rounds or more in a day and shoot forty or fifty days every year.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yeah, I will probably be one of the first to be rounded up?

Actually you are nothing but as ignorant blowhard. The mere threat of arrest would shut you up.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Even Sheriff Andy Taylor knew that "average" individuals were dangerous if armed. That's why Deputy Barney Fiff, was only allowed ONE BULLET.

Meanwhile you want the "average" citizen to have unlimited weapons, and unlimited ammunition.

It takes mandated training and testing to drive a car, yet none to shoot a gun.

If you think Barney Fife was average, to shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a minder.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If their dumb choices only effected them, i'd say fine. But when their dumb choices effect others, they should be controlled. Annual vehicle inspection laws,
means a person can't choose to drive a car with bad brakes, or bald tires.

There are only fifteen states that require annual safety inspections, most of them are the liberal paradises in the Northeast.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know it's been said before, but back when they wrote the constitution they never envisioned individuals owning firearms more powerful than what had existed for the previous century.
The musket was invented in 1615 in France.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm sure if they invent blasters like in star wars or logans run, they too would be exempted from 2nd amendment ownership like machine guns.

Oh, you're SURE, ar you?
Boy, that sells it for ME.


Tell us:
What would George Washington say if someone offered to arm all of his potential militiamen and frontier families with AR15s, 30-rd magazines and child-vaporizing ammunition?

 

[hadit]

I know it's been said before, but back when they wrote the constitution they never envisioned individuals owning firearms more powerful than what had existed for the previous century.

The musket was invented in 1615 in France.

I'm sure if they invent blasters like in star wars or logans run, they too would be exempted from 2nd amendment ownership like machine guns.

They also never envisioned an individual able to blast his opinion out to untold thousands of people at the same time, to be read in seconds. Therefore, it only makes sense that the government be able to restrict your ability to broadcast poisonous political opinions on the internet. Only when you write your opinion on a piece of parchment using a quill pen and have it delivered by a guy on a horse will it be protected.

 

[Blues Man]

People take more care, that their car isn't stolen than their guns. How many people have a proper gun safe to prevent their guns from getting stolen?

How many leave their guns in their cars, which can be broken into with a rock.

You tell me how many since you're the expert.

And FYI any car window can be broken is it your position that gun owners have to have bullet proof glass installed in their cars and homes?

Put the blame for the crime on the fucking criminal not the victim.