"What is wrong" was already asked....

A good summary:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

There is no question that the right to bear arms is clearly entrenched in US law. And that applies to law abiding citizens, as well as to the criminals that have not yet been caught or those that have been caught, but served their time, or those that are not assessed as criminally insane, just have "anger issues", etc.

What it comes down to is that Americans have made their choice, and have to take the pro's and cons of that choice. US laws have put a huge number of guns into the hands of the people, so now the people feel a need to have the guns to defend against the other people.

It can't be "fixed" without a law change, and democracy determines that.

But..... I see an awful lot of young voters and future voters in the US standing up for change. I expect a lot of them are Republicans (or want to be Republicans), believe it or not. And politicians will turn on a dime in order to get elected or stay elected. Change has way of happening... Darwin figured that out and wrote a book about it.

Anyway, can the moderators please close this down? The easy problems were solved long ago and this one ain't changing based on what is posted here. Lets get back to boating, or a Honda generator bun fight (which I will stay out of).
 
Creekwood said:
Anyway, can the moderators please close this down? The easy problems were solved long ago and this one ain't changing based on what is posted here. Lets get back to boating, or a Honda generator bun fight (which I will stay out of).
Click to expand...

I just love it when someone cries to the moderators to "close down" a thread. Just stop reading it...simple.
 
Boater420 said:
I just love it when someone cries to the moderators to "close down" a thread. Just stop reading it...simple.
Click to expand...

My point was to stop it from getting hostile, not a cry because I was offended. I have very thick skin and have not run from an argument or a fight in my life. Fine, leave it open.
 
Shut it down ?....that would be un-American. I'm sure someone has something else to add... Who's getting hostile ?
 
Creekwood said:
My point was to stop it from getting hostile, not a cry because I was offended. I have very thick skin and have not run from an argument or a fight in my life. Fine, leave it open.
Click to expand...

But that's just the point...whether you're offended, pissed off, hostile, crying or just had enough, it doesn't matter. My right to read it should never be infringed upon because you don't want the discussion getting heated.
 
Boater420 said:
But that's just the point...whether you're offended, pissed off, hostile, crying or just had enough, it doesn't matter. My right to read it should never be infringed upon because you don't want the discussion getting heated.
Click to expand...

Liberals do not understand this phrase, "should never, or shall not be infringed."
 
From a practical standpoint I'm against restrictions on either. Simply because they won't have any effect on anything except legitimate gun owners who want to own a bump stock or an extended magazine.

For the record, I don't own and never would buy a bump stock. I do own a couple of 30 round mags for my AR-15.
 
UnleashedBeast said:
Liberals do not understand this phrase, "should never, or shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

I am about as far from a Liberal as you can be BTW, in case that was directed my way. As I said before, I am a gun owner, and a hunter and was 100% against our ill-fated long gun registry in Canada. It had the same effect as what GFC is saying. The only impact was on the law abiding gun owners.
 
It's funny/ironic; many times I have asked anti gun people to suggest to me what type of legislation they would propose that (a) would make America safer and (b) not impose undue restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

As soon as they come up with something my next question is always: "And you think that criminals would abide by that law when, by their very nature, they don't abide by other laws? That's why they are criminals."

Stumps 'em every time. They just don't seem to get it.
 
Gofirstclass said:
Boston, there is so much bullsh!t in what you wrote that I'm not sure even where to start. But just for giggles, let's start with this statement of yours....
"No the second amendment does not say you can, read it."
So, tell me Mr. Boston what part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for you to comprehend?

Or "It would be nice for gun owners to for once stand up and say that "they like guns" and stop with the excuses. Admit they are dangerous and take responsibility for being part of the problem."
Responsible gun owners (read that as "those of us who own guns because we like to") know guns are dangerous. That's why we keep the under lock and key. But you erred when you said we are part of the problem. Guns are no more the problem than cars are with accident fatalities on the highway.

Guns are no more responsible for killing people than cars are for DUI's and other highway deaths.

I guess using your statement about "law abiding bs." I guess that same lack of logic should apply to your car or truck. You're just one stupid mistake away from a Negligent Vehicular Homicide so I'll have the cops come tomorrow and seize all your vehicles. That will make us all safer.

I could go on but that wouldn't make any more sense than your nonsensical post.
Click to expand...


I guess you did not read it. The two clauses cannot be conveniently separated.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Keep telling yourself that guns are like cars if it puts you in a happy place. Guns are made for killing. cars are not. Driving a car requires a license and proof of ability to operate. Gun owners won't even allow that.
 
Arickosmo said:
Thanks for helping make my point. That's why this isn't an argument about how to help solve the problem. It's only about banning guns. So, now that we're there, how do you propose to take them? This isn't a challenge about "take them from my cold dead hands", far from it. What needs to happen is honesty which you have given. You want no guns. So, since there are already millions...just in the US, how will you go get em?

Also, you might want to delete this post.

"Every gun owner is one trigger pull away from a horrible accident or a crime."
...omg....what about bumpstocks!?

You just labeled millions of people as murderers in waiting. I think you might have overstepped. What with all the military folks, collectors, COPS, government officials, etc...

Technically, you're admitting to being a criminal as well. Now we just need to figure out which type you are... If we're all just criminals...well, then we need someone to decide who should...wait..no...this is starting to take a nasty turn isn't it....
Click to expand...

I would not suggest taking them away, just make them illegal to display an existing one or buy a new one without very high scrutiny. Make it a crime if the weapon ever shows up anywhere. Functional banning, not actual.

You miss my point on the statement that every gun owner is one trigger pull away from a horrible accident or crime, my point is that it is often said that why should law abiding citizens be punished for the acts of criminals too which I was making the point that every one is law abiding until they are not. Allowing gun ownership makes it to easy to pull a trigger and injure or kill yourself or another person. That having been said, because guns are made to kill, i.e you don't play golf with a gun, you don't go boating on a gun, you don't go skiing on a gun, you kill things with a gun. Anyone who owns a gun buys it to kill or be able to kill. If that not why the gun was purchased then what a waste of money. minor exception to collectors who have rare guns that no longer can shoot.
 
Boston-boater said:
I would not suggest taking them away, just make them illegal to display an existing one or buy a new one without very high scrutiny. Make it a crime if the weapon ever shows up anywhere. Functional banning, not actual.

You miss my point on the statement that every gun owner is one trigger pull away from a horrible accident or crime, my point is that it is often said that why should law abiding citizens be punished for the acts of criminals too which I was making the point that every one is law abiding until they are not. Allowing gun ownership makes it to easy to pull a trigger and injure or kill yourself or another person. That having been said, because guns are made to kill, i.e you don't play golf with a gun, you don't go boating on a gun, you don't go skiing on a gun, you kill things with a gun. Anyone who owns a gun buys it to kill or be able to kill. If that not why the gun was purchased then what a waste of money. minor exception to collectors who have rare guns that no longer can shoot.
Click to expand...
You say guns have no purpose, they're made only to kill. You put it that way because it sounds the worst, it helps your argument you think. It just wouldn't sound the same if you said people buy guns to 'harvest' wild game.

I think guns are how I get a venison roast, a bear burger, rabbit stew, delicious meals of grouse, woodcock, pheasant, and duck. Sure the animal was 'killed' by my gun but in the end is there any difference between that and a steer that's been 'killed' so you can eat a steak, you just didn't do the 'killing'.

I suppose you'll say you live off kelp or something.:D
 
Guns are made to kill, and that's why we own them. Simple men with a simple plan doing simple things with our index finger

Put me in the camp of bump stocks and drum mags cause my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be.
 
Legit question. If you are hunting in the US, are you allowed to use an AR-15 with a 30 round clip? that would not be legal in Canada. Can an AR-15 be used for hunting, and if so, what restrictions are there on its use.
 
Creekwood said:
Legit question. If you are hunting in the US, are you allowed to use an AR-15 with a 30 round clip? that would not be legal in Canada. Can an AR-15 be used for hunting, and if so, what restrictions are there on its use.
Click to expand...
An AR15 is legal in WI and no magazine capacity restrictions. Same with shotguns, no capacity restrictions unless your hunting migratory game birds. You can't hunt any game bird, migratory game bird, or wild turkey with a rifle.
 
Boston-boater said:
"Keep telling yourself that guns are like cars if it puts you in a happy place. Guns are made for killing. cars are not. Driving a car requires a license and proof of ability to operate. Gun owners won't even allow that. "
"Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
That's an amazingly high number when compared to the TOTAL deaths by firearms (including suicides and accidental) which is about 33,000 for 2016, the latest date I could find.

As to your comment about guns being made only for killing, in my lifetime I've probably fired several hundred thousands of rounds from shotguns and rifles and handguns (I shot in competition for many years and was a firearms instructor). The vast majority of those punched holes I paper. Of the rest, all but one were shot at game birds, caribou, deer, and a mountain goat. Oh, and I didn't even mention those of us who like to collect firearms. Just like some people collect stamps, some cars, some collect other things and because we are proud of our collections doesn't mean we are nuts. .

I would not suggest taking them away, just make them illegal to display an existing one or buy a new one without very high scrutiny. Make it a crime if the weapon ever shows up anywhere. Functional banning, not actual.

You miss my point on the statement that every gun owner is one trigger pull away from a horrible accident or crime, my point is that it is often said that why should law abiding citizens be punished for the acts of criminals too which I was making the point that every one is law abiding until they are not. Allowing gun ownership makes it to easy to pull a trigger and injure or kill yourself or another person. That having been said, because guns are made to kill, i.e you don't play golf with a gun, you don't go boating on a gun, you don't go skiing on a gun, you kill things with a gun. Anyone who owns a gun buys it to kill or be able to kill. Boston, you might want to go back and read what I wrote above about your comments that guns are made only for killing. If that not why the gun was purchased then what a waste of money. minor exception to collectors who have rare guns that no longer can shoot.So you're saying that my collection of Smith & Wesson .44 mag pistols in all barrel lengths in blued steel and stainless steel would not be considered a collection because they can still shoot? They're all unfired but can be shot. [/QUOTE]

Oh, and your vague arguments about the Second Amendment have already been decided on, in court, and your mis-interpretation is wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...
 
Woody said:
An AR15 is legal in WI and no magazine capacity restrictions. Same with shotguns, no capacity restrictions unless your hunting migratory game birds. You can't hunt any game bird, migratory game bird, or wild turkey with a rifle.
Click to expand...
Same in Ma. but you must possess a class A high capacity license.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
112,226
Messages
1,402,678
Members
60,467
Latest member
Jukka
Back
Top