Yes. Certain types of weapons (bazookas, hand grenades, AR-15s) should be law-enforcement/military only.

 

If we truly need a bunch of well-armed yahoo cowboys to keep "the really bad guys from taking over," then you and everyone else who thinks this way is delusional. Sorry. There's no other way to put it.

 

You mean like in 1776?

I don't believe that a 1776 long rifle could be modified -- like an AR-15 can -- to wipe out a lunchroom full of kids in 45 seconds.

 

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that you are correct.

One things for sure, if or when the really bad guys come to take over, the soft targets will be the first to go. That pretty much puts you and the other guns banned crowd first in line. Do you really believe you're safer if the only people with weapons are the ones who are in high places, their military and their law enforcement? A quote from my Dad that he read somewhere when these discussions started to gain momentum in the '80's, " An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject."

 

Serious question. Why is it that the really bad guys are coming here where we're armed to the teeth, and not places where the general populace is not?

:no:

Do you have an actual reply to my bold assertion or just a cartoon face shaking its head?

Serious question. Why is it that the really bad guys are coming here where we're armed to the teeth, and not places where the general populace is not?

 

Maybe we could have ask the California terrorist if that had survived, why they attacked a country that was evidently so well armed.

 

Because we know most bad people are our most rational thinkers.

Do you have an actual reply to my bold assertion or just a cartoon face shaking its head?

 

So do you think the only legal guns should be the ones that were around in 1776?

 

My point is (as you know) that the AR is the modern long rifle or musket.

 

Yes it can be modified, in most cases illegally...yes it can be used in despicable crimes...but so can the fuel tank for your bbq grill.

So do you think the only legal guns should be the ones that were around in 1776?

 

My point is (as you know) that the AR is the modern long rifle or musket.

 

Yes it can be modified, in most cases illegally ...yes it can be used in despicable crimes...but so can the fuel tank for your bbq grill.

The 3MR trigger that I referenced previously is legal. It turns a citizen AR-15 and similar into weapons of choice for mass murderers, unlike propane tanks and old Buicks.

So do you think the only legal guns should be the ones that were around in 1776?

Actually, you're on to something here, JD. Scalia says the Constitution is a "dead document," so one certainly could argue that the 2nd Amendment should only cover firearms that were around in 1776 ... and nothing later.

The 3MR trigger that I referenced previously is legal. It turns a citizen AR-15 and similar into weapons of choice for mass murderers, unlike propane tanks and old Buicks.

How many times have those triggers been used in school lunchroom shootings?

 

I have no problem getting rid of those triggers. The next time that I see one that works as well as the demonstration video in real life, it will be the first time.

Actually, you're on to something here, JD. Scalia says the Constitution is a "dead document," so one certainly could argue that the 2nd Amendment should only cover firearms that were around in 1776 ... and nothing later.

If it said that, but it doesn't.

If it said that, but it doesn't.

2nd Amendment is a word jumble that says you have the right to "bear arms." Supreme Court has fairly recently ruled (5-4) that your right is not tied to militia duty, even though the language of the 2nd Amendment appears to say just that.

Yes. Certain types of weapons (bazookas, hand grenades, AR-15s) should be law-enforcement/military only.

 

If we truly need a bunch of well-armed yahoo cowboys to keep "the really bad guys from taking over," then you and everyone else who thinks this way is delusional. Sorry. There's no other way to put it.

There's no need to say you're sorry, I know I'm not delusional just realistic. Look I hate guns, grew up with five brothers who could all shoot, only learned to shoot at my Dad's insistence, since I was at times alone on our farm in the country. But you missed my point. When the citizenry is no longer armed, how can you be sure a non-democracy leader will not put himself in power along with the law and military of their choice? The Hitler affect? A armed person is a citizen, an unarmed one a subject.

Edited December 15, 201510 yr by Sportsaholic Mamaw
clarification

See comment 311. That is not the first or last decision SCOTUS got wrong IMO. That is a whole other thread.

Edited December 15, 201510 yr by Sportsaholic Mamaw
Reference

Serious question. Why is it that the really bad guys are coming here where we're armed to the teeth, and not places where the general populace is not?

Is your statement about where in the U.S. or the areas of the world in general? If it is the first, they know Americans have always tried to keep the bullies, be they religious or not, from imposing their will. So they're success will always have to go through the U.S. France was not armed to the teeth and France asked for our help after that cowardly act.

There's no need to say you're sorry, I know I'm not delusional just realistic. Look I hate guns, grew up with five brothers who could all shoot, only learned to shoot at my Dad's insistence, since I was at times alone on our farm in the country. But you missed my point. When the citizenry is no longer armed, how can you be sure a non-democracy leader will not put himself in power along with the law and military of their choice? The Hitler affect? A armed person is a citizen, an unarmed one a subject.

Your paranoid reasoning is based on a cockamamie scenario ... that "citizen patriots" armed with AR-15s and handguns are going to stop an anti-democratic government coup. If it gets to that point, AR-15s ain't gonna stop nothing.