|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 16, 2016 2:32:02 GMT
Repeal? No. There are people who hunt for their food in this country. How are they to do that without a gun? There are also people who live in the middle of nowhere (I'm looking at you Wyoming and other western states) and they legit need to be able to defend themselves and their property from large animals and malicious people (because they're so far away from law enforcement being able to get there in a reasonable amount of time). I think there needs to be some serious gun control though and whatever laws we enact need to actually be enforced. And there is absolutely no reason anyone needs to own a gun like the one used in the attacks in Orlando and Sandy Hook (and all the other fucking massacre sites in this country). The vetting process to buy a gun needs to be massively improved and enacted. All those stupid loopholes at gun shows need to be closed ASAP. I absolutely detest guns. I am of the firm belief that most people absolutely do not need one. Ever. But even I recognize that there are some circumstances where having a gun may be warranted. ITA with this. I also want to point out that, despite what Donald Trump keeps saying, Hillary Clinton does not want to repeal the 2nd amendment, either. Even in her speech yesterday she said that there had to be a solution that would protect the people as well as the 2nd amendment, but trump keeps lying about that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 2:38:31 GMT
To those who don't think the 2nd amendment should repealed but support common sense laws a question.
Do you think it would be easier to pass these laws if the 2nd amendment was gone?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 2:40:46 GMT
Great article in Rolling Stone: "Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment "[It] needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact," says constitutional law professor By David S. Cohen June 13, 2016 I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries. But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed. As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it's important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don't know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama's vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together. Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution in multiple ways, including taking the extreme step of prohibiting the Constitution from being amended to stop the slave trade in the country's first 20 years. They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution by counting slaves as only 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. It took a bloody civil war to fix these constitutional flaws (and then another 150 years, and counting, to try to fix the societal consequences of them). There are others flaws that have been fixed (such as about voting and Presidential succession), and still other flaws that have not yet been fixed (such as about equal rights for women and land-based representation in the Senate), but the point is the same — there is absolutely nothing permanently sacrosanct about the Founders and the Constitution. They were deeply flawed people, it was and is a flawed document, and when we think about how to make our country a more perfect union, we must operate with those principles in mind. In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now. AR-15, The Second Amendment The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized. Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today. Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights. But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others. The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more. Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. In other words, please the gun manufacturers by arming even the vast majority of Americans who do not own a gun. Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed. The gun-rights lobby's mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result — more people will be killed. We'd be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be. At this point, bickering about the niceties of textual interpretation, whether the history of the amendment supports this view or that, and how legislators can solve this problem within the confines of the constitution is useless drivel that will lead to more of the same. We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders' view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed. A mass movement of those who will thumb their nose at the NRA, an organization that is nothing more than the political wing of the country's gun manufacturers, and say enough is enough. The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so. Read more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613#ixzz4BhjUocRC I know it's a good article that is why I posted the link and quoted from it when I started this thread.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 16, 2016 2:47:48 GMT
To those who don't think the 2nd amendment should repealed but support common sense laws a question. Do you think it would be easier to pass these laws if the 2nd amendment was gone? I personally have no problem with repealing the second amendment in order to pass laws that make sense, but I know that repealing the amendment would cause a lot of problems. All of the rhetoric from republicans isn't helping, since they are preying on fear and trying to use that to get votes.
|
|
smginaz Suzy
Pearl Clutcher
Je suis desole.
Posts: 2,606
Jun 26, 2014 17:27:30 GMT
|
Post by smginaz Suzy on Jun 16, 2016 2:48:56 GMT
Repealing the 2nd amendment is not the equivalent of banning all guns. Providing some boundaries and barriers to gun ownership will not prevent every criminal from obtaining every gun, just like licensing drivers and cars does not prevent unlicensed drivers from using unlicensed cars, but it does reduce the activity. Not every shooting is done by a criminal mastermind who would do anything to kill. Crimes of the moment, crimes of passion, those occur when access to weapons is unmitigated. For example, road rage in the past might have been someone cutting you off or perhaps a fist fight on the side of the road. Now it is just as likely to be some yahoo losing his/her temper and firing off a few rounds. What is so difficult about a waiting period? That's one of the items that baffles me. Why is it a bad idea to require training on how to use a gun before owning a gun. Another baffling item. I have no desire to repeal the 2nd amendment either but I would like similar rules to traffic/driving legislation. And of course, the same restrictions some propose for access to abortion--if a woman needs to wait 24-48 hours and be subject to "education" before deciding what to do with her own body, the same can be applied to gun purchases. Not that those that oppose any legislation will ever be convinced, which is their right in this country.
|
|
ctlover1
Shy Member
Posts: 16
Jul 26, 2014 14:07:11 GMT
|
Post by ctlover1 on Jun 16, 2016 2:50:14 GMT
I think most think that people only have guns for protection, hunting, or criminal intent. However, everyone I know who owns guns has them for another reason. They collect them. They buy them because of their age, rarity, the beauty of the wood, monetary value, and history. Most of them are never shot and all of them are kept locked away. Some of these collections are worth more than some people's homes.
Personally, I see no need for assault rifles. However, I think when people shout "gun control" then gun collectors worry that they'll be penalized or lose their collections which are worth more than they can afford to lose. There should be a difference in banning assault guns and banning all guns.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 2:53:25 GMT
Great article in Rolling Stone: "Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment "[It] needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact," says constitutional law professor By David S. Cohen June 13, 2016 I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries. But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed. As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it's important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don't know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama's vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together. Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution in multiple ways, including taking the extreme step of prohibiting the Constitution from being amended to stop the slave trade in the country's first 20 years. They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution by counting slaves as only 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. It took a bloody civil war to fix these constitutional flaws (and then another 150 years, and counting, to try to fix the societal consequences of them). There are others flaws that have been fixed (such as about voting and Presidential succession), and still other flaws that have not yet been fixed (such as about equal rights for women and land-based representation in the Senate), but the point is the same — there is absolutely nothing permanently sacrosanct about the Founders and the Constitution. They were deeply flawed people, it was and is a flawed document, and when we think about how to make our country a more perfect union, we must operate with those principles in mind. In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now. AR-15, The Second Amendment The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized. Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today. Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights. But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others. The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more. Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. In other words, please the gun manufacturers by arming even the vast majority of Americans who do not own a gun. Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed. The gun-rights lobby's mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result — more people will be killed. We'd be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be. At this point, bickering about the niceties of textual interpretation, whether the history of the amendment supports this view or that, and how legislators can solve this problem within the confines of the constitution is useless drivel that will lead to more of the same. We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders' view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed. A mass movement of those who will thumb their nose at the NRA, an organization that is nothing more than the political wing of the country's gun manufacturers, and say enough is enough. The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so. Read more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613#ixzz4BhjUocRC I know it's a good article that is why I posted the link and quoted from it when I started this thread. Lol! I couldn't open the link for some reason and it came across my feed later and I didn't put the together!!! I'm so sorry!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 3:10:05 GMT
I know it's a good article that is why I posted the link and quoted from it when I started this thread. Lol! I couldn't open the link for some reason and it came across my feed later and I didn't put the together!!! I'm so sorry! Not a problem. It is an interesting article and I have been thinking about he says.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 19:20:34 GMT
I am trying here for real conversation. In the interest of a real conversation and trying to understand where you're coming from, before we go any further, I want to respectfully ask if this a typo: papercrafteradvocate, I think this question got lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 19:59:15 GMT
In the interest of a real conversation and trying to understand where you're coming from, before we go any further, I want to respectfully ask if this a typo: papercrafteradvocate, I think this question got lost in the shuffle. If there's an error you would like to point out, then please, just do it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 20:32:57 GMT
If there's an error you would like to point out, then please, just do it. I did point it out. I highlighted what I thought might be a typo. You state a semi-automatic is where you hold down the trigger and it fires repeatedly until you release the trigger. (not true) Then you state a new description of a semi-automatic is one that only fires as fast as a person can pull the trigger. (true) This is why I thought it might be a typo of some kind. A semi-automatic is one bullet per trigger pull. You can't hold the trigger down and have rapid fire.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 20:46:00 GMT
If there's an error you would like to point out, then please, just do it. I did point it out. I highlighted what I thought might be a typo. You state a semi-automatic is where you hold down the trigger and it fires repeatedly until you release the trigger. (not true) Then you state a new description of a semi-automatic is one that only fires as fast as a person can pull the trigger. (true) This is why I thought it might be a typo of some kind. A semi-automatic is one bullet per trigger pull. You can't hold the trigger down and have rapid fire. It is a typo. It was to be just automatic. I never see any BOLDing or highlighting (not sure why that is?)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 21:12:17 GMT
I did point it out. I highlighted what I thought might be a typo. You state a semi-automatic is where you hold down the trigger and it fires repeatedly until you release the trigger. (not true) Then you state a new description of a semi-automatic is one that only fires as fast as a person can pull the trigger. (true) This is why I thought it might be a typo of some kind. A semi-automatic is one bullet per trigger pull. You can't hold the trigger down and have rapid fire. It is a typo. It was to be just automatic. I never see any BOLDing or highlighting (not sure why that is?) I've heard that before, are you Peaing on your phone? Maybe that's why. And I just bolded what I was responding to and you can't see the bolding. As far as automatic that isn't what was used in Orlando or any other mass shooting.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 23:18:25 GMT
It is a typo. It was to be just automatic. I never see any BOLDing or highlighting (not sure why that is?) I've heard that before, are you Peaing on your phone? Maybe that's why. And I just bolded what I was responding to and you can't see the bolding. As far as automatic that isn't what was used in Orlando or any other mass shooting. In my comments, I wasn't implying that the gun used was. The AR15 is a semi-automatic gun, capable of shooting 800 rounds of ammo a minute, if you're good. I stated Adam Lanza of the Sandy Hook massacre used an AR15 and he got off 145 shots in 5 minutes leaving 20 children murdered. The Orlando shooter also chose to use the AR15, to murder 49 people and injured another 50+. San Bernedino....Aurora, CO...UCC Oregon.... The AR15 is advertised as a powerful, high capacity (30 rounds and more), military type of weapon. It CAN be modified to be automatic --the parts are all legally sold and you can YouTube how to do it, (it would be illegal, but hey, who's checking??) the only "rule" when selling AR15's is that the mfg's are not supposed to "make it easy" for conversion from semi to auto, but they mfg and sell the parts legally to do so. It's a shame that people just cannot acknowledge that the types of gun used in all these mass shootings are dangerous instead of arguing semantics---it's like the porn debate--what is porn? No one describes it the same, but everyone knows it when they see it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 0:49:03 GMT
The Orlando shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX. I'm not trying to split hairs, only being factually precise. I wouldn't even have known that if someone hadn't posted a pic upthread since I also thought he'd used an AR-15. Similar in looks.
ETA: it was a pic posted in another thread, not this one
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 1:26:22 GMT
I've heard that before, are you Peaing on your phone? Maybe that's why. And I just bolded what I was responding to and you can't see the bolding. As far as automatic that isn't what was used in Orlando or any other mass shooting. In my comments, I wasn't implying that the gun used was. The AR15 is a semi-automatic gun, capable of shooting 800 rounds of ammo a minute, if you're good. I stated Adam Lanza of the Sandy Hook massacre used an AR15 and he got off 145 shots in 5 minutes leaving 20 children murdered. The Orlando shooter also chose to use the AR15, to murder 49 people and injured another 50+. San Bernedino....Aurora, CO...UCC Oregon.... The AR15 is advertised as a powerful, high capacity (30 rounds and more), military type of weapon. It CAN be modified to be automatic --the parts are all legally sold and you can YouTube how to do it, (it would be illegal, but hey, who's checking??) the only "rule" when selling AR15's is that the mfg's are not supposed to "make it easy" for conversion from semi to auto, but they mfg and sell the parts legally to do so. It's a shame that people just cannot acknowledge that the types of gun used in all these mass shootings are dangerous instead of arguing semantics---it's like the porn debate--what is porn? No one describes it the same, but everyone knows it when they see it. That's just it, (and I say this with absolutely no snark at all) everyone wants to ban the AR15 "because nobody needs to shoot that many rounds that quickly, but handguns are okay (or the same gun that isn't black but has a wooden stock)" The problem is they can shoot at the same rate. So, when someone is speaking about the difference or non difference in the guns everyone wants to ban, it's not semantics that they're arguing, as you stated earlier, and they aren't trying to shut down conversation. They're trying to tell you why banning that gun is only punishing lawful gun owners, not criminals and it's not lowering the rate of fire. Also, NO ONE is going to get 800 rounds a minute from an AR15. Nothing even close to that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 2:01:22 GMT
In my comments, I wasn't implying that the gun used was. The AR15 is a semi-automatic gun, capable of shooting 800 rounds of ammo a minute, if you're good. I stated Adam Lanza of the Sandy Hook massacre used an AR15 and he got off 145 shots in 5 minutes leaving 20 children murdered. The Orlando shooter also chose to use the AR15, to murder 49 people and injured another 50+. San Bernedino....Aurora, CO...UCC Oregon.... The AR15 is advertised as a powerful, high capacity (30 rounds and more), military type of weapon. It CAN be modified to be automatic --the parts are all legally sold and you can YouTube how to do it, (it would be illegal, but hey, who's checking??) the only "rule" when selling AR15's is that the mfg's are not supposed to "make it easy" for conversion from semi to auto, but they mfg and sell the parts legally to do so. It's a shame that people just cannot acknowledge that the types of gun used in all these mass shootings are dangerous instead of arguing semantics---it's like the porn debate--what is porn? No one describes it the same, but everyone knows it when they see it. That's just it, (and I say this with absolutely no snark at all) everyone wants to ban the AR15 "because nobody needs to shoot that many rounds that quickly, but handguns are okay (or the same gun that isn't black but has a wooden stock)" The problem is they can shoot at the same rate. So, when someone is speaking about the difference or non difference in the guns everyone wants to ban, it's not semantics that they're arguing, as you stated earlier, and they aren't trying to shut down conversation. They're trying to tell you why banning that gun is only punishing lawful gun owners, not criminals and it's not lowering the rate of fire. Also, NO ONE is going to get 800 rounds a minute from an AR15. Nothing even close to that. link
The AR-15 and the Sig Sauer MCX AD have one important thing in common that is the prime reason they should both be banned from sales to the public. Do you know what it is? I'll tell you. THEY'RE MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS!!!!Only a complete moron would think it's a good idea to sell MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS to the public. So the question becomes is that you?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 17, 2016 2:13:34 GMT
It is semantics to most lay people. Those who are against gun control use those arguments to shut people down because most lay people don't know about any details or specifics about guns.
The gun manufacturer's advertise them as military/combat type weapons. They advertise the 800 rounds per minute, I didn't just make that up. Adam Lanza shot 145 rounds in 5 minutes. That is 29 bullets per minute; that is 1 bullet every 2 seconds and he was not a professional marksman by any measure.
Banning these types of weapons for civilian use is not a bad thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 2:21:01 GMT
It is semantics to most lay people. Those who are against gun control use those arguments to shut people down because most lay people don't know about any details or specifics about guns. The gun manufacturer's advertise them as military/combat type weapons. They advertise the 800 rounds per minute, I didn't just make that up. Adam Lanza shot 145 rounds in 5 minutes. That is 29 bullets per minute; that is 1 bullet every 2 seconds and he was not a professional marksman by any measure. Banning these types of weapons for civilian use is not a bad thing. No, they don't try to shut people down, they try to make people understand the facts, just as I'm trying to. Which is that banning these weapons leaves weapons that can do the exact same thing that you want to ban. Can you show me which manufacturers you've seen that are advertising 800 rounds a minute?
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 17, 2016 2:27:11 GMT
Only a complete moron would think it's a good idea to sell MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS to the public. So the question becomes is that you? @gia LuPeaA is asking questions and you have to resort to name calling? If you want to pass legislation, it's imperative to know how guns are classified. @gia LuPeaA said: "but handguns are okay (or the same gun that isn't black but has a wooden stock)" The problem is they can shoot at the same rate. " I would like to know the names of these guns. If you don't pass legislation with specific wording, guess what new gun becomes the new AR-15 because they are not considered MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS? FTR, I don't understand why it's necessary for the public to own these weapons. I do know people who own them (AR-15) and use them for target shooting. It will be very interesting to see what happens to current owners of these rifles. Also, @gia LuPeaA, can you list some of these handguns? I tried doing various google searches, and I'm not coming up with anything.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 17, 2016 2:30:06 GMT
Ughh! I have your name capitalized when I type my post Gia LuPeaA! I put the "@" symbol in front and the "G" becomes a g when I post!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 17, 2016 2:31:05 GMT
I believe it was the Colt AR15.
But it doesn't really matter. It's just one of the selling points of the gun. Try focusing on what Adam Lanza was able to do with the gun--1 bullet every 2 seconds. murdered 20 children.
The point is that no one needs these guns outside of the military.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 17, 2016 2:40:13 GMT
I honestly don't think people are trying to shut down conversation when they clarify the actual facts about guns - I certainly know I didn't when I pointed out to someone that automatic weapons are already essentially banned. I'm sorry, but if you want to engage in a discussion about changing laws, you need to have a least a basic understanding of what you're proposing. And I'm no gun expert. I do not own a firearm and haven't shot one since I was 12 and my father insisted that everyone in the household have basic understanding and no curiosity about the deer rifle he bought for my brother. I went to the range once and haven't touched a gun since. One of my most passionate friends posted a long discussion about changing gun laws which began with how the Orlando shooter should have never been able to buy a machine gun. That's not semantics - that's just wrong.
I truly encourage anyone who would like to re-institute the assault rifle ban to look at some of the feedback about what worked and what didn't during that 10 year period. One of the absolute things that DIDN'T work was not acknowledging that criminals would turn to other semi-automatic weapons that could accept a high capacity magazine. It may not look as scary as an AR-15, but they proved to be just as lethal.
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,997
Jun 25, 2014 20:22:13 GMT
|
Post by huskergal on Jun 17, 2016 2:49:40 GMT
Absolutely not. Citizens should always have a right to defend themselves. There are reasonable laws that could and should be enforced.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 17, 2016 3:06:38 GMT
The gun that Orlando shooter used, since it has now been identified, the Sig Sauer MCX was also developed for the military special forces.
The only people punished in any of this are the families of these murdered people.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 4:01:51 GMT
Only a complete moron would think it's a good idea to sell MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS to the public. So the question becomes is that you? @gia LuPeaA is asking questions and you have to resort to name calling? If you want to pass legislation, it's imperative to know how guns are classified. @gia LuPeaA said: "but handguns are okay (or the same gun that isn't black but has a wooden stock)" The problem is they can shoot at the same rate. " I would like to know the names of these guns. If you don't pass legislation with specific wording, guess what new gun becomes the new AR-15 because they are not considered MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS? FTR, I don't understand why it's necessary for the public to own these weapons. I do know people who own them (AR-15) and use them for target shooting. It will be very interesting to see what happens to current owners of these rifles. Also, @gia LuPeaA, can you list some of these handguns? I tried doing various google searches, and I'm not coming up with anything. 1. I know exactly what she was doing. 2. I did not directly call her a name I asked a question. It's up to her to answer whether or not she is a moron. 3. I'm not sure why one on a discussion board like this needs to know the specific name of a weapon that needs to be banned as there are so many types to choose from. The key element in a weapon that should trigger a ban from public sales is are they designed to be used by the military. Have they or can they be modified to military grade weapons. That is all the public has to say to the lawmakers. We don't need to know exactly what they can do or what accessories they have. There are enough gun experts out there to give lawmakers the make and models they need to do the job. I'm sure there are other guns and rifles that probably should be banned that are not military grade but for now I'll settle for military grade weapons because getting them off the street is a win.
|
|
|
Post by Belia on Jun 17, 2016 4:11:17 GMT
I would have ZERO PROBLEM repealing the second amendment. I think it is past time. I have had enough of the bloodshed.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 17, 2016 18:30:47 GMT
1. I know exactly what she was doing. 2. I did not directly call her a name I asked a question. It's up to her to answer whether or not she is a moron. 3. I'm not sure why one on a discussion board like this needs to know the specific name of a weapon that needs to be banned as there are so many types to choose from. The key element in a weapon that should trigger a ban from public sales is are they designed to be used by the military. Have they or can they be modified to military grade weapons. That is all the public has to say to the lawmakers. We don't need to know exactly what they can do or what accessories they have. There are enough gun experts out there to give lawmakers the make and models they need to do the job. I'm sure there are other guns and rifles that probably should be banned that are not military grade but for now I'll settle for military grade weapons because getting them off the street is a win. Could you spell it out for me? What exactly is she doing? You'll settle? Well, that is your opinion. The AR-15 became the weapon of choice when other assault weapons were banned. The last time a ban took place was *2004*. I'm not fine with settling, because now handguns that do the exact same thing will be the new AR-15. Anyone that wants EFFECTIVE legislation to pass, would have to be a moron to not understand how guns are classified. Of course it's up to you whether you are a moron or not.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 20:45:07 GMT
Only a complete moron would think it's a good idea to sell MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS to the public. So the question becomes is that you? @gia LuPeaA is asking questions and you have to resort to name calling? If you want to pass legislation, it's imperative to know how guns are classified. @gia LuPeaA said: "but handguns are okay (or the same gun that isn't black but has a wooden stock)" The problem is they can shoot at the same rate. " I would like to know the names of these guns. If you don't pass legislation with specific wording, guess what new gun becomes the new AR-15 because they are not considered MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS? FTR, I don't understand why it's necessary for the public to own these weapons. I do know people who own them (AR-15) and use them for target shooting. It will be very interesting to see what happens to current owners of these rifles. Also, @gia LuPeaA, can you list some of these handguns? I tried doing various google searches, and I'm not coming up with anything. Most handguns are semi-automatic. Just as AR-15s are semi-automatic.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 17, 2016 20:49:52 GMT
1. I know exactly what she was doing. 2. I did not directly call her a name I asked a question. It's up to her to answer whether or not she is a moron. 3. I'm not sure why one on a discussion board like this needs to know the specific name of a weapon that needs to be banned as there are so many types to choose from. The key element in a weapon that should trigger a ban from public sales is are they designed to be used by the military. Have they or can they be modified to military grade weapons. That is all the public has to say to the lawmakers. We don't need to know exactly what they can do or what accessories they have. There are enough gun experts out there to give lawmakers the make and models they need to do the job. I'm sure there are other guns and rifles that probably should be banned that are not military grade but for now I'll settle for military grade weapons because getting them off the street is a win. Could you spell it out for me? What exactly is she doing? You'll settle? Well, that is your opinion. The AR-15 became the weapon of choice when other assault weapons were banned. The last time a ban took place was *2004*. I'm not fine with settling, because now handguns that do the exact same thing will be the new AR-15. Anyone that wants EFFECTIVE legislation to pass, would have to be a moron to not understand how guns are classified. Of course it's up to you whether you are a moron or not. I can get 10 rounds off with our handgun or .22 (non ar) rifle in 30 seconds, maybe less. We only have 10 round clips becausr colorado passed a law against clips bigger and they tend to jam anyway. Give me the clip and the ammo and I could get off a bunch of shots, they wouldn't be accurate on a moving target, but I could get them off. So after you ban the ar15, what is next? One of the problems with passing gun control laws is the people wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment or saying nobody needs a gun...essentially wanting to ban all guns. Gun owners believe they won't stop with the ar-15, but then come after their handguns, their hunting or target shooting rifles because sone nutjob shot one.
|
|