Harder for the government to weld you into your home or apartment at gunpoint if you have the ability to shoot back at them.
What’s happening in China is an example of why the 2nd amendment is so important
- Thread starter Savannah_Dawg
- Start date
That’s the reason for the second amendment to stop people like Biden from making this country a banana republic. That’s why he wants to ban our guns.
Yeah, chat dims claimed that we dont want your guns just the scary ar15's. Now biden said what we all knew. They want to take all semi automatic guns from it citizens.
they want all of them that's the goal so they can subjugate like china and Australia
Nobody wants to ban guns. People want smarter gun laws to make it harder to acquire guns and close stupid loop holes like gun show sales etc. Give me a break!
what an ignorant comment
1- Biden just this week said it is "sick" that the US still allows the purchase of semi auto guns. He has already stated he wants an assault weapons (whatever that is) ban, and it is not that hard to view his comment as wanting to ban/take all semi auto weapons.
2- What new "smart" law would end gun violence that the current $20k gun laws on the books haven't prevented?
3- There is no such thing as a gun show loophole as defined by the left. Weapons dealers are required to run a background check, even at a gun show.
He can’t handle the facts or the truth.
1) the 2nd amendment was for the establishment of a militia (read a book)
2) All western/democratic countries who have common sense gun laws (waiting periods, background checks, certification requirments, etc) all have much lower gun violence crimes than the U.S. (Canada has never had an elementary school kid die due to gun violence)
Grow up and take your heads our of your asses! You guys are everything that is wrong w/ the idiotic GOP
2) All western/democratic countries who have common sense gun laws (waiting periods, background checks, certification requirments, etc) all have much lower gun violence crimes than the U.S. (Canada has never had an elementary school kid die due to gun violence)
Grow up and take your heads our of your asses! You guys are everything that is wrong w/ the idiotic GOP
1- The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
2- We already have all those "common sense" gun laws you mentioned.
BTW: yes, I own guns. 2 pistols (9mm and 40 cal) and 12 and 20 gauge. We range and clay shoot. My son and I both are gun trained. We are responsible gun owners and still believe in common sense gun law and controls
You sir are another brainwashed thumb sucking lib. Common sense gun laws is just another gun confiscation trick the commies use. Need to go by the laws already on the books and enforce them.
I'm truly open minded. What are the common sense gun laws that we don't have in place but would allow us to carry arms?
What about all the Democratic gun owners who aren't giving up their guns?
1) Assault Weapons ban - However, a compromise could be - these guns can still be owned but there should more rigor to ownership and extra certificate of training and ownership (tiered system of training)
2) Ban on ghost guns (and printable) - component tracing/tracking as each part should have a serial # and can only be picked up from a gun store (federally approved - gun store owners should have to get certified to sell)
3) Licensing Program - class and training to own a gun. Bi-annual re-registration and could be coupled w/ a hunting license. You have to get a license to drive a car, you should have to have one to own a gun. Would also include carry and concealment rights after training
4) National Registry - Gun serial # is tied to owner (no person to person sales, unless brokered through gun shop to sell for proper documentation)
4) Age limit of 21 to buy a gun (any gun)
I truly do not know the answer but if you impose these would it stop gun violence? Or how much % of the violence would it stop?
It would certainly help. You could also hold criminals now more liable if they are in possession of a ghost gun or gun that is not tied to them specifically. As of now, there is no way to charge a criminal w/ just having a gun in their possession unless they are parolees.
What problems do any of these solve?
1) If there is such a thing as an "assault weapon", can you provide an example of a non-assault weapon so that we can discuss particulars?
2) This is an interesting one and likely deserves more attention than it gets. Not sure what this does to address our gun violence problem though. What percentage of mass shootings are committed with ghost guns?
3) Training is always a good thing. I disagree with licensing to purchase/own a gun. Operating a vehicle on government roads deserves licensing as it's an activity that can frequently involve others. Weapons Carry Licensing was fine to me. GA dropping it feels like a political counter to what the Left keeps pushing, but otherwise I didn't have a problem with a license to carry because it fits with the same idea as operating a vehicle in public.
4) National registry is a no go. What problem does this solve? These mass shooters are known or identified quickly.
How old were the Colorado night club and Walmart shooters? If a person can legally live as an adult at 18 then they can assume full responsibility for self-defense at 18. There's already a restriction on purchasing a pistol. That said, perhaps there could be a training program for 18-21 year olds wishing to purchase a gun. Part of the waiting period could involve a mandatory gun safety and a legal course on gun ownership and usage. Teens should be able to take the same courses with a guardian sponsor such that they can purchase a weapon at 18 if already licensed.
I must reiterate that none of these measures would prevent a lot of the high profile mass shootings covered in the media. Most of these shooters acquired their guns legally and didn't have any prior issues that excluded them from legally buying. At worst, they took a loved one's legally acquired gun without permission, but what law prevents that from happening?
Most did have varying degrees of mental/emotional distress that should have been handled with positive support from their families, employers, or community. Perhaps we need to get serious about mental health and our behavior toward one another.
Man you should be Biden’s gun control czar. But you would need training for that. What about kids you want to train to hunt, you can’t buy them a 22 to train them. You people are control zealots.
Sure, you can buy a 22 for yourself and train your child. It just can't be owned by the child until he is 21 and has passed his official gun training. If he or anyone used that gun improperly or in commission of a crime, you would be held liable. It isn't about control, it is about responsibility. You want to own a gun you need to be completely responsible for how, when, where and why it is used
There is federal gun laws on the books that if a criminal is caught with a weapon it’s automatic I think 5 years in prison without parole .
I guess I have been responsible then I have owned guns 70 years now.
1) it's a fair question and in general terms it is really more about mag capacity than weapon. The ban should really be on a 30 round mag (avg for AR-15 style rifle). In the case of a mass shooting there is no time to subdue the gunman because they can fire so many rounds
2) Ghost guns make the sale of a fully functional gun impossible to trace as you can mix and match pieces and build your own gun. There are no regulations on individual parts and therefore no one to hold responsible for the gun's use
3) We just disagree here. Licensing for cars is really about liability (which also why you have to carry insurance). It is being used around and in the midst of other people that can be impacted by the driver. Same w/ guns. You take out your gun to stop an active shooter and you miss him or you aren't properly trained and hit/kill me you have impacted me and my family's life just the same as running a red light. There has to be liability.
4) National registry again is to align gun serial numbers to an owner. Also, this now allows national gun laws instead of having state law to state law for taking guns across state lines. You would be covered under federal law and not bound by state law for transportation
Thank you for your answers.
1) There have been a couple of situations this year alone where a shooter armed with an AR15 has been stopped by an unarmed person or person with a "less capable" firearm. One thing we to consider is functional issues vs situational issues vs behavior and intent. Mag capacity isn't the reason someone commits a crime. Mag capacity can allow for more shots to be fired before reloading, but it's not as significant as the argument makes of it. Sitting ducks are sitting ducks regardless of how frequently a shooter reloads. Either someone is going to try to subdue the shooter or they aren't. It's a sickening thought to me to put effort into making it inconvenient for a shooter to have to swap mags a bit more frequently rather than more aggressive defensive measures or prevention. This is a fear based topic IMO.
2) I don't disagree.
3) Liability is pointless when being a target of a shooter, intentional or not. Are we trying to punish shooters harder or are we trying to prevent more shootings? I didn't know we had a problem with inadequate punishment for a shooter who hits people. We do have a problem with too many illegal discharging of firearms. We need to properly define problems then take appropriate actions to address them as best we can without creating more problems. It's not easy, but nothing about life guarantees ease without risk.
4) I am not interested in national laws. We have a constitution including amendments that adequately spell out how laws are set in this country. Work the system we have.
Best not get to comfortable with the 9 and the 40 since they are probably semiautomatic. While you may not want to ban guns and I’m all for common sense gun laws, there are absolutely people on the left that want to ban guns.
Appreciate the constructive conversation, that is where compromise at least starts. I'll end it w/ this: The constitution was written in 1787 and it has been amended 27 times. Not reason why our laws should not change as technology and population deem it necessary
Good conversation. But I contend the issue with gun violence isn’t the gun, it’s the political and educational process in which we have raised our children multi generationally.
You remove sanctity of life. You remove moms and dads from the household. You stop teaching respect for the historical genius of our country’s founding. You place the blame for generational poverty and biases on law enforcement, combined with the sins of our fathers racial supremacy mantra. You promote a victim mentality within the black culture that promotes physical protest and destruction as honorable. You ignore laws that have been on the books for years so a politician can grandstand a new bill to sell to a voting base. You give the rights of the citizen away to appease an immigrant. You remove God and replace with ideological agendas designed to create acceptance. Place gender disphoria at a point of important lifestyle decisions.
Many reasons we kill each other that many countries don’t deal with. It’s not the guns, it’s the reasoning behind the shot.
We are still a young nation and there is a process in place to amend the constitution. Unless you want to change our government completely, the states have a significant role in this land. Taking power away from the states and giving it to the federal government means ripping up the constitution and starting over. We weren't designed to be a top-down nation. The feds have a specific job to do and the states pick up the rest.
1- they are probably 100k businesses/individuals that has a class 3 license to own a REAL assault weapon. I can change a mag in under 2 seconds no time to subdue.
2- you know the lower receiver, on a AR, is the only part that requires a serial number. I can change uppers and barrels. Do u know how many parts are in a AR or any weapon for that matter. So I couldn't change a bolt or bolt carrier group without gov approval?
3- there is not a amendment that says u have right to drive or own a car. A 17/18 yr old can die for their country but can't own a weapon they defended the country with.
4- just a road to confiscation. Also all gun dealers keep records of their sale so if have the gun u have who purchased the weapon.
5- most all guns are semi auto ie 1 trigger pull 1 round fired.
2- you know the lower receiver, on a AR, is the only part that requires a serial number. I can change uppers and barrels. Do u know how many parts are in a AR or any weapon for that matter. So I couldn't change a bolt or bolt carrier group without gov approval?
3- there is not a amendment that says u have right to drive or own a car. A 17/18 yr old can die for their country but can't own a weapon they defended the country with.
4- just a road to confiscation. Also all gun dealers keep records of their sale so if have the gun u have who purchased the weapon.
5- most all guns are semi auto ie 1 trigger pull 1 round fired.
Last edited:
why was the militia established? to defend against a tyrannical government, read a book
Let me know how AR-15 does against any military armaments' when your "tyrannical government' moves on your house. What a jag off!
That statement would make sense if a tyrannical government could force the resistance to fight conventional warfare. If fighting tyranny, the targets would be the tyrants and not military installations. Tyrants try to confiscate weapons of resistance, curb communications and restrict the free movement of the population. The reasoning doesn't take a phd to figure out.
This narrow view makes light of all US service members killed in combat around the world. It also suggests that our military would be fine destroying their homes and loved ones.
The only way the military could curbstomp US citizens is to decimate the country. We don't even do that in wars we fight all over the world.
What scenario do you see where the military is doing full strikes on virtually all buildings in the USA to quiet the people?
Let's come up with a more realistic scenario.
The Taliban did pretty good against military armaments. I'd take my chances with my gun as opposed to a rock. And, that is only in the event the military turns on its own people which is very unlikley. What is Biden going to do, nuke Atlanta?
