June 15, 201610 yr The problem here is that just because someone may think a gun should be banned, doesn't mean anybody loses their constitutional right to have guns. They just can't have that particular one. The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to bear AR-15's... It actually says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course that train left the station ages ago.
June 15, 201610 yr Author It actually says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course that train left the station ages ago. Then why can't I own a rocket launcher?
June 15, 201610 yr Then why can't I own a rocket launcher? For the very reason I mentioned, the "not be infringed" was passed over years ago.
June 15, 201610 yr Author For the very reason I mentioned, the "not be infringed" was passed over years ago. It should have been passed over. Regular citizens don't need that kind of weaponry.
June 15, 201610 yr It should have been passed over. Regular citizens don't need that kind of weaponry. Which kind of weaponry? Who determines it? Who is a regular citizen? Is need now a requirement for a right? Do you really need the right to make the above quote? Lots of issues when we're talking constitutional rights.
June 15, 201610 yr ATTENTION! Habib had been taken over by BballFan! lol. But seriously, thanks to the both of you for such detailed posts.
June 15, 201610 yr Author Which kind of weaponry? Who determines it? Who is a regular citizen? Is need now a requirement for a right? Do you really need the right to make the above quote? Lots of issues when we're talking constitutional rights. "The right to bear arms" is very vague, especially now in a time where we have so many weapons at our disposal. Gunnies think that means they can have any gun they want "because they can," and others think that as long as you are allowed some type of gun, the Constitution is covered.
June 15, 201610 yr Not true, I can make a bullet shoot without a gun, just takes some practice. Making a bullet go off is useless unless it is in a compressed area like the barrell of a gun.
June 15, 201610 yr Making a bullet go off is useless unless it is in a compressed area like the barrell of a gun. In a crowd of hundreds it's not.
June 15, 201610 yr "The right to bear arms" is very vague, especially now in a time where we have so many weapons at our disposal. Gunnies think that means they can have any gun they want "because they can," and others think that as long as you are allowed some type of gun, the Constitution is covered. I don't disagree although I think that many second amendment supporters do realize that there are reasonable limits to the type of weaponry that should be allowed. I don't know anyone who thinks any type of weapon should be allowed.
June 15, 201610 yr In a crowd of hundreds it's not. Without the gun barrel it is harmless. You can cook off rounds all day in the middle of a crowd without hurting anyone. Without the barrel they do not have enough velocity to do any damage.
June 15, 201610 yr Author I don't disagree although I think that many second amendment supporters do realize that there are reasonable limits to the type of weaponry that should be allowed. I don't know anyone who thinks any type of weapon should be allowed. I support the second amendment. I have a gun, will probably have more in the future. I don't see the necessity for most people to have some of the weapons they do.
June 15, 201610 yr The Free State of Jones in the Confederacy. Not to derail the thread, but I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.
June 15, 201610 yr Ok, since I am on my iPhone it's a bit hard now to read on this thing without my reading glasses, getting old"ER" lol. So I didn't read all of the posts so please forgive me if this was already posted. But I see where the place where satan dwells may have froze over? As Bill O'Reilly is now calling for an assault weapons ban? Now, I agree that we must do something, many things to at least put a dent into these horrific events, while at the same time not preventing competent people from eventually purchasing within a reasonable time frame. As I mentioned a day or two ago, someone that is one of the top experts in the protection field several years ago was going through a divorce and his wife was a little concerned. They took his weapons away, interviewed him, and he got everything back the next day, he wasn't and still isn't upset over it, he said that his ex wasn't trying to make things up, that she did believe that she had a concern. Plus, the investigation was done quickly and he got everything back fast. I don't mind having to wait a little longer for a check, I don't mind paying a little more for swift checks, and I don't mind having all sales go through a license broker for a small fee. But with O'Reilly's comments? Just shows than some compromise can happen. What’s going on? Another Fox News host calls for assault weapon ban after Orlando massacre
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.