After AR15's are banned, then what?

1) yes any firearm should be available for purchase unless its defective etc (I don't use the term gun here because gun could mean a 120mm Smoothbore tank cannon)

2) no firearm is all that powerful since a firearm is defined as a weapon with a caliber less than an inch firing inert projectiles.

3) you might not be coming for our guns but Diane Feinswine admitted she wanted to confiscate most semi auto rifles

 

I did not know the that a firearm was designated as such. Cool info.

The 2nd amendment only specifies arms, not firearms, and makes no designation about ammo size or power. Arms could be anything, including nuclear weapons. Now you say that you are okay with all firearms within the designation you gave being legal, but what about the rest of the weapons that the wording of the 2nd amendment would include? Probably not.

So you're okay with "some" restrictions. Meaning, we only disagree in scope, not in principle. And that's okay. It means we're on the same page and can have conversations that aren't just about pushing one extreme or the other.

My original point in this thread was that I would only be okay with banning guns if we could be sure that the bad guys aren't going to have them either. Because if they aren't, we no longer need guns for protection. Realistically, I don't see that scenario ever playing out meaning I'm effectively in favor of the 2nd amendment right now and for any logical foreseeable future.

But I do agree that some Democrats are stupid on the issue. So much time wasted on it, and hardly any ground has been lost or gained by either side. At this point it's just a distraction. An effective one.

 

1) the founders were clearly speaking about arms that a citizen could keep and bear. weapons such as cannon (artillery) or rockets/bombs (ordnance) were not in that category.

I have no use for any federal restrictions of firearms. As to weapons that could cause international or inter-state destruction, a case could be made that the federal government has that power because a specific state wouldn't have the jurisdiction.

I believe there is a gray line we can debate like tripod based machine guns. However, any FIREARM TYPE that civilian police departments use are CLEARLY within the ambit of the second amendment and under the equitable concept of ESTOPPEL, I cannot see a government being heard to say that a firearm they issue their civilian employees is so dangerous that no other civilian could be allowed to own it

 

Something we both agree on. Interesting.

If it's done legally through the 2nd Amendment being legally modified, I call that the democratic process.

As Americans, we are taught history in school. I think that's all we need to know and we can make our judgements based on that.

It was not done in a condescending manner; in fact I believe I used the word "respectfully" in suggesting that you seek professional help. I think you took it in the wrong way.

What you view as trampling on the rights of others might by viewed by others as trampling on their rights. It's a two-way street. Tolerance is a true virtue.

I think it is safe to say that we will never agree on this.

Your viewpoint does not stress me whatsoever, in fact it made me wonder how you can have such a narrow viewpoint when you claim to have been through so much.

Tell me, when you carry do you find it enhances your sense of power and do you feel like you are stronger?

Yes, 41 years of giving back to the community as a volunteer firefighter; I have 2 citations for life saving using cpr. I've never taken a life either.

I feel the same about you as well, so that's two things we both agree on.

 

How can I answer the question without knowing any details? Now, what are your proposals for stopping murderers from murdering others with a gun? Once you present some proposals, then I can properly blast them and bury them.

 

Sorry Chris, but I am not willing to spoon feed you what i've already told you. Guess we'll have to both disagree on this thread.

 

You haven't told me anything though. If you had, I must have already blasted away at it.

 

One of the things I have noticed after 40+ years of dealing with gun banners and gun restrictionists is how often its so hard to get straight answers from them

They almost never will tell you what their ultimate goals are (because if they admitted its gun bans they get destroyed publicly)

They almost never will tell you when the "next step" is no longer reasonable

They almost never will say at what point will they realize that more and more restrictions on honest owners is not helping

and most of all-they never ever tell you what truly motivates their hatred of gun owners and gun ownership. Sure you will hear its about controlling crime and then you point out they banned legal machine guns made after May 19, 1986 when there had been ABSOLUTELY no crime with legal machine guns for 50 years. so when that ban was pushed by the democrats, its hard for them to say it was about CRIME CONTROL. it was all about derailing a pro gun bill that it was attached to

 

I totally agree with all of the above. I hate that kind of dishonesty and their other tactics. It's soooo intellectually dishonest, and I despise it.

 

They have to lie, the facts...and the truth...are not on their side.

 

I think rehabilitation is possible for some, but for some it is definitely not. I think the younger the person was when they committed their crime, the greater chance there is for rehabilitation. So when it comes to juvenile detention facilities, I am all for rehabilitative measures. Adult career criminals, on the other hand, are probably not going to change much.

 

True, and then they have their "by the book" talking points that we've heard a zillion times! It's all part of a larger agenda, and whether or not some are just pawns in this game is hard to tell. Some of them might actually believe their talking points!

 

agree with you all the way to your last sentence, I have made it clear to you I am not a gun banner, yet you still insist on calling me that.. knock it off

 

Getting the votes in Congress to agree to put forth a modification or repeal to the 2A for ratification by the States is a means prescribed by the Constitution, and if, that were to concur and be successful, a Constitutionalist would be bound to accept it. However, be mindful, that the 2A wasn't designed to 'grant' RKBA, which was considered an inalienable right, but to limit government from passing laws restricting RKBA.

What I see happening is continual attempts at re-writing history, a re-interpretation of the 2A to suit various agendas. I see continual attempts to circumvent the 2A with questionable laws. I see many local and state government legislatures passing laws that subvert individual rights, knowing full well they are not Constitutional, but do so because they know it will take years to get through the appeals courts before the off chance it will make it to the SCOTUS. California is one of the main culprits in this tactic. Much of the legislation I see is feel good, appear to do something legislation that limits individual liberties while doing nothing to stop criminals.

One question I often ask, 'Do you think you have the right to self defense and the defense of your family?"

I read the required history books provided to my daughters. I lived through some of it and found that they often didn't represent reality and were often these days, politically skewed to re-write history for particular agendas and that in some schools that many points of view are purposely omitted. Regardless, reading history in school does not convey the individual experiences of those that lived it. Reading about the Civil War doesn't convey the horror of those that lived through the battles. Reading about slavery doesn't convey the suffering of those enslaved. Reading about the Holocaust doesn't begin to convey the horrors of it. And, in the case of one series of the events I referred to in previous posts, seeing the genocide first hand of the Maya Indians in the nearly 40 year war of eradication by the Guatemalan Government, one conducted against a largely unarmed population, doesn't begin to convey the horror of it... and, that is something you are not likely to find in American History books. Reading about history, talking to those that experienced it and living it provide different perspectives. And yes, seeing what governments, criminals, and mobs are capable of doing first hand has given me a perspective, made me somewhat cynical, and I tend to be a realist.

When people start off with "respectfully" leading such a comment, it is usually anything but respectful, but what I call a soft insult.

No, it isn't a two way street in this context. Because I want to carry a gun legally and don't use it to violate someone else's right isn't trampling on anyone's rights. You have the right to an opinion, but if my carrying a gun legally stresses you, that is your issue, not me violating any right you have. In fact, when I am carrying, no one, not even my closest friends would know. I never display my gun, never brandish it. So, how does that violate anyone's rights? If I use it to commit a crime or to compel someone to do something they didn't want, then I would be violating their rights. But merely owning or carrying a gun legally doesn't violate a right. If it were so, then, in consideration of the 1st amendment if I said something that offended you, the analogy would be that I violated some right you have. I do understand there are those, particularly with the PC groups, that advocate that certain speech violates the rights of others because it might offend them. If that were the cases, all speech would be banned because someone is bound to be offended by anything anyone says.

I am open minded on many things, pretty much a social liberal but fiscally conservative Constitutionalist if I were to try to label my general views. But, I have seen what happens when governments and people do when they decide that they know better what best for others and then infringe on individual liberties and freedoms, it is called oppression and tyranny. No one has the right to determine what is right for me.

So again, one of those soft insults? But, to answer your question, no. A gun is a tool, and for me its little different than having a fire extinguisher, a smoke detector in my home, or chains and starter cables I might keep in the boot of my car. Depending on where I am at, put one on not much different and with as little thought as pocketing my wallet, keys, pocket knife, multi-tool, pens, or other EDC tools I carry. If I ever find the occasion I need it, I have it. Where I can't carry, I don't worry about it. In regard to self-defense, I am likely better equipped than the average person and my greatest asset in that regard is my ability to meet any situation calmly and use my head to sort through any emergency. In this country, I have never once needed to deploy a gun outside my home and then, twice at home, because my house was being broken into while I was home and in neither of those incidences did it need to use one. I have successfully defended myself many times, a few on occasion while carrying a gun, and never resorted to pulling one in those situations... never felt my life or someone else's was at risk, which is the only justification in my mind for ever using a gun in self-defense.

Giving back to the community and helping those about you is a good thing in anyone's eyes. As for taking a life, I hope you never have to make that decision or live with the aftermath... it is something I would wish for no one.

 

Bravo! Very nice post. In fact, I would say this is post of the month material! Rock on!

 

No, you support gun control, you are a "progressive", and you support a gun ban. Nobody is fooled.

 

I support your free speech rights to lie about me if you want too

 

Thank you for your response. Your position is well stated and duly noted.

 

Great post, I hope everyone will take the time to read it in its entirety.

 

I am a gun owner and a strong supporter of the second amendment. I think we can do a much better job protecting our rights if we didn't have people making these kind of ridiculous comments.

Someone shoots a person, pays their debt to society, pays restitution to the victim and you think they should be allowed to own a firearm? Lets ignore recidivism altogether and arm these criminals!!! Brilliant!

Maybe child molesters should be allowed to open a day care!

 

Well now I think this is actually a REASONABLE restriction, finally. I agree that if a person has shot someone or committed a violent act with a firearm, then that individual should lose his/her 2A right.

 

I did not address how to determine if a person is actually rehabilitated - I simply stated that people who are rehabilitated should be accepted back into society. Recidivism and actual rehabilitation are separate subjects outside this topic.

 

I think there are many felonies that should not restrict constitutional rights after serving their sentence. However, I do believe you should forfeit your 2A right if you commit a premeditated violent felony with a gun.

 

Violent criminals should never be allowed to own a gun even if the violent act was committed without a gun.

Its easy. Just give them all guns and those who do not commit murder are officially rehabilitated! Recidivism is 100% relevant if you are considering allowing them to own firearms. We have no way to determine which criminals are rehabilitated. I would even go as far as saying rehabilitation is nothing more than a fantasy and that the few who do not commit further crimes are adjusting their behavior for the sole purpose of avoiding prison, not because they came out a better person.

Or with a hammer!

 

How would you confiscate them. Does anyone know where they all are?