After AR15's are banned, then what?

That's why I don't believe them when they claim all they want is some "reasonable restrictions." I'm not buying that. These people are anti 2nd amendment and there is no way they can get around that fact.

 

I'm not a cannonball rolling down a hill. I'm a person with a brain who can discern reasonable restrictions from outright prohibitions. We do it all the time with just about every other aspect of law. For example, free speech. Most speech is unrestricted but we can come up with reasonable limitations without banning all speech outright or even heading in that direction.

It's not all-or-nothing unless you specifically choose to make it that way. And I don't.

 

That's pure nonsense. There are more than just two positions to have in the gun control debate. It isn't just All guns or No guns.

 

Maybe for some, but personally I think all "reasonable" restrictions have already been taken.

Also, I must disagree from what I've seen on these message boards. PLENTY of people are dishonest about their actual stance on the issue. Whenever you ask them direct questions, they ignore, change the subject, dishonestly represent what they stand for, or just outright lie.

 

any law that is aimed at honest gun owners-such as magazine limits, "assault weapons bans" waiting periods, registration etc are not reasonable if your goal is to impede criminals

Criminals cannot own any firearm legally and will suffer 5-9 years in prison if they are caught with one. So banning us honest people from owning certain firearms or magazines ONLY impacts us and does NOT change the environment for Criminals

 

true, most of us agree that you shouldn't be able to shoot pigeons on Times Square with a 12 bore shotgun. Or shoot rats with a M16 in Central park. Or take handguns into prison to give to your buddies who might be doing a nickel for robbery. But when you start thinking that the way to prevent criminals from using guns to harm people are not penalizing the criminals but rather telling people like me I CANNOT own a firearm, you are a gun banner. and it doesn't matter if you only are CURRENTLY talking about scary looking rifles that case some gun banners to lose bodily control only. ONCE you think that banning honest people from owning certain firearms will both keep criminals from getting them and is more important than the rights of honest gun owners, you have made every decision necessary to call for a complete gun ban

 

I disagree with your viewpoint and you obviously disagree with mine; therefore we'll have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

While you may believe this to be true (and you have an unfettered right to believe that), there are many who do not have the same viewpoint; hence my original statement here that you responded to; as such they may feel the need for various weapons is unfounded under the 2nd amendment.

As I've said before in here, allowing people to keep their single bolt action rifles, shotguns and musketry meets the litmus test in the 2nd amendment. You are still able to protect life and property. It's all how you interpret the 2nd amendment; just the gun control advocates interpret it different then the NRA and gun owners.

- - - Updated - - -

Chris, can you answer my original question first before I respond to your posting?

 

Translation: I have no argument for your point...

 

Whatever makes you happy Chuck.

 

making it harder to get the guns to kill more someones in a shorter duration of time.... same reason explosives are harder to get then guns

 

lol, yeah right, I have never hear Trump or the RNC complain that their event were in gun free zones... why do they not hold their events in guns allowed zones instead?

 

How easy can you get a 5 gallon container of gasoline? And that's one heck of a bomb.

 

common sense my friend, gas is needed for cars, it has a purpose and I have not heard of many mass killings from 5 gallons of gas.. how about you?

you logic is, ALL poisons should be legal cause rat poison is legal

.

 

The 2A has a PURPOSE too.

 

I already did. I asked how are you going to do that? Prevent murder I mean?

 

So your stance is that some poisons are more deadly than others, and that's why some need regulated?

If that's true, explain how an AR15 is more dangerous than a shotgun, or a .45 handgun.

 

Then I would hope you are too. Do you agree that any gun should be available for purchase? Any gun, no matter it's power? What about grenade launchers? Rocket launchers? Unless you are for ALL guns, then you and I occupy essentially the same ground. We believe that some weapons shouldn't be legally available. We might disagree on which ones, or to what extent, but if both of us believe that reasonable restrictions are okay while both being against mass gun bans, then we have more in common than that on which we differ. I'm not your enemy. People who think like me aren't either. We respect the right of a person to own and use firearms for defense. We're not coming for your guns, in the short term or the long term. And to be honest, I'm just as scared of the folks who want no gun restrictions as I am of the folks who simply want no guns at all. You can't have a conversation with either of those types of people. And conversations and compromises are necessary in a democracy.

 

Horse excrement. I don't care about other people's point of view when it is contrary to the Constitution and the original intent of the framing. Some people believe in aliens and Bigfoot, that doesn't make it a reality. And, I have little tolerance for people trying to rewrite history. Frankly, I don't believe you know anything about guns or faced situations where you have had to defend yourself. I guarantee you haven't seen and experienced what I have; it's all armchair BS. BS, swallowed along with a non-thinking herd following without critical thinking those that propagates dishonesty to achieve their objectives, one of which is to subvert the Constitution.

They say there are no atheists in manholes. I am not particularly that religious, but among the victims being slaughtered in mass shootings I doubt at the moments of being shot they weren't wishing for the means to fight back. I grew up directly in the midst of a war, I lost my house, lost friends, saw a government disarm the minority and enable and assist the majority in the killings and subjegation of the minority. I was arrested at one point, interned, and even tortured as were a few of my acquaintances, and never charged. I was 17. A few years later I witnessed, in another country, the disarming of another minority and the systematic murder of citizens by their army, tens of thousands, and in one case, walked into a village days after the citizens were slaughtered and the bodies still laying around. No one there had weapons to resist. I once witnessed the government forces in that country machine gun, and kill over 30 some children that were among others being escorted to safety; it was part of a genocide effort that went on for 30 years, one that never got the attention of people in the US, and that country, and the one I was raised in were both considered allies of the US. Those incidences were over thirty years ago, but both left an impression on me that you can't always trust in governments to do the moral thing nor can they or will they always protect you. I have seen too much to buy into the BS. Until you stand in my shoes, see what I have seen, any opinion is based in fantasy...not reality.

I was originally born in the US so I didn't have to apply, but I came here because of the Constitution and the liberties it guaranteed, individual liberty as long as you did impede on the liberty of others to find it being eroded by those that want to limit individual liberties, by those that think they have right to dictate to others.

Where I was raised, I was raised with a sense of honor and a moral obligation to protect those around me. I practiced that when I was there, sometimes risking my life to do so. I have done that in this country, never walking away if someone was being threatened. I have a CCW not because I fear for my life, because I am reconciled I will die at some point, perhaps in the defense of others, but I will maintain my honor and my sense of moral obligation to defend those in need, and in a very real sense, that puts me among the militia mentioned in the 2A. One of my creeds is 'don't tread on me or those around me and I won't tread on you. If you do, I sting'.

 

One thing most people that advocate for removing guns from the law abiding is that in a herd of sheep there are only two protections against predators, one is hope...hope you won't be one of those victimized by a predator so you count on hiding in the crowd and hoping your number isn't up, the second is being protected by a sheep dog with teeth or a herder with a weapon.

Pacifism can only exist when protected by people not bound by the tenants of pacifism.

 

The same reason some committee decided it was a good idea to have the Olympics in Rio: committee's aren't very smart.

Plus I would assume that the vast majority of convention centers do not allow firearms, so finding a "gun friendly" one is probably difficult if not impossible. I have no data on this, so I could be wrong.

 

so does free speech, but some speach is banned, such as yelling bomb on a plane

there is nothign against the 2a making it harder to get a machine gun or AR-15

I believe ex-felons should be allowed to own guns to protect their homes and families too... though I am not sure I would want them owning a machine gun or an ar-15

I think we should end background checks for all guns except the ones like machine guns and ar-15's

...

 

This is not a good analogy.

Owning a firearm is like walking into a theater and having the potential to yell "fire", but not doing so.

Simply owning such a weapon in no way violates anyone elses rights, in any way.

If you wanted to have a similar analogy, it would be like having your mouth taped shut before you went into a theater, because of what you MIGHT do.

 

So like all gun banners you will quickly trade lives for your own convenience. You like your car, and eliminating or restricting its use would impact you personally, so you accept the easy availability of a very explosive material, and you accept the deaths of 1,000's of children in car accidents.

Australia reduced mass shootings with their 1996 gun ban (but did not eliminate mass shootings) - but the killers switched to arson. Almost the same number of mass killings in the 20 years before the ban as in the 20 years after the ban.

The problem is not the gun, the problems are the killers, and killers will change their approach to suit the circumstances.

 

You didn't answer it, you asked me a question. Please answer the question.