Until progressives decide, incrementally, that this, too, is too “powerful”.
- Status
I
Inisfallen
Guest
So, if I understand your position correctly, any and all regulation of guns, or of what kind of guns or accessories may be owned by the citizenry, must be resisted because they are “incremental” steps along the road to bans and confiscation.
No matter how dangerous they are, how much demonstrable harm they cause balanced against their utility (if they have any utility) to gun owners.
The right to keep and bear arms must be a right to keep and bear all arms, in any quantities, with any capabilities, otherwise we will see it taken away from the citizenry.
Is my understanding correct?
No, you don’t understand my position. I’ve already stated over and over.
But again, I think the current line of restrictions, that being that selectable and fully automatic, is appropriate.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of semiautomatic rifles and handguns of all kinds are never used for crimes. That those individuals who do should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That law enforcement should be held accountable to vigorously enforce not only current gun laws, but also laws that cover threats of violence, domestic violence, mental illnesses that make someone a threat to themselves and others.
And finally, in a society founded on the principles of individual rights and limited government, We don’t infringe on the individual rights of the masses because a small number of individuals abuse those rights and harm others and their rights. Punish the perpetrators, not the law abiding.
99.9999% of AR-15s have not harmed a single person. The issue is the individual, not the masses or the firearm itself. The rifle itself causes no harm. Individuals do. Punish the perpetrators, not the law abiding. Target those who demonstrate a threat, not those who don’t.
Demand that law enforcement vigorously enforce the law.
As you can see, no, you it isn’t. I am not a collectivist. Rights are individual. Because a small number of individuals abuse their tight and harm others is no reason to limit the rights of the law abiding individual.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
There are rights for which this is undeniable - eg. we cannot murder “excess” people in order to make available sufficient food for the remainder. Many of us don’t agree that gun ownership is an equivalently inviolable right. Many us view it as merely a “right” conferred by your Constitution, despite your claims that it is something loftier and merely “guaranteed” by your Constitution.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Not easy in America, friend. We have oceans on two side and Canada to the north. So the only semi-ready smuggler access point is Mexico and Caribbean speed boats. So small quantities (as they’re quite a bit harder to conceal than a kilo of coke). Livable. It certainly won’t be a tidal wave…
I’ve traded quite a bit in milsurps like Mosin-Nagants and Lee Enfields and German K98s and their cheaper Yugo clones.
The $100 price point was passed about two decades ago for decent specimens. On Gunbroker $100 will buy you a Chinese “sporterized” ex-Russian Mosin that I personally wouldn’t want to stand near when being test-fired with a standard load 7.62x54r. God only knows what else “Wang” did to it when he was trying to make it look more like 1990’s American sporting rifles…
Gross gun.
Sure. Stripper clips that the receivers were notched specifically to take.
You still have to pull back the bolt, insert clip, push the rounds into the magazine, pull/bolt-pop the clip out, re-acquire your target.
And then you only had 5 shots…
Compared to drop-and-swap AR’s with 30 rd mags? I’ll take it!
Last edited:
The drug smugglers and human traffickers seem to do okay. Maybe we need a wall.
R
Rau
Guest
Ultimately, this is the discussion American people need to have. Because it is those words which are held up as the impediment to change.
R
Rau
Guest
And you likewise Jon!
What words ? The constitution?
You’ve got it! The system of protecting rights from from government power is specifically designed to be an impediment. And thank God for it. Thank God for the anti-federalists who fought for a Bill of Rights, having the vision to know that rights must be protected.
Here’s something the American people seem to be saying.
_. Rasmussen found that:
Among adults with children of elementary or secondary school age, 59% support a proposal that incentivizes teachers to carry guns in school. Fifty-four percent (54%) of adults without children of those ages are not on board with that proposal.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of adults with school-aged children say they would feel safer if their child attended a school where no adults were allowed to own a gun. Seventy-three percent (73%) of those adults say they would feel safer if their child attended a school with an armed security guard.
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/poll-shows-most-parents-school-children-support-arming-teachers
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Please consider that NO military force uses AR-15’s.
They do use M-16’s, but not the AR-15.
They do use M-16’s, but not the AR-15.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Please also consider that our military forces frequently, if not typically, use their M16s with the selector switch set to “semi”.
The functional difference between a Colt M16 set to “semi” and a Colt LE6920 (Ar-15)?
There isn’t one…
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As long as there’s a demand for a good, no wall is going to stop smuggling.The drug smugglers and human traffickers seem to do okay. Maybe we need a wall.
Whatcha gonna do? Wall up the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean too?
As such, if a ban/heavy regulation solves 99.9% of the problem, that will likely be good enough for the rest of us Jon; the objection of you, the gun lobby and the rest of the fearful is duly noted.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
What is interesting is that opposition to the AR-15 is that theoretically there are better solutions.
BUT when push comes to shove … in REAL LIFE … people prefer the AR-15 … HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS NOTWITHSTANDING.
BUT when push comes to shove … in REAL LIFE … people prefer the AR-15 … HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS NOTWITHSTANDING.
Are you calling for the end of SROs?
Some are doing it the right way, ignoring the failed “schools to prison” notion.
Fla. officer stops potential mass school shooting
A school resource officer at Coral Springs High School tracked down a former student who entered the building armed and handcuffed him
www.police1.com
Some are training school personnel properly.
Should the worst happen ...
SOMERSWORTH — At a community forum Monday, members of the city’s active shooter group shared ideas for how people can protect themselves should the worst happen. The forum was held at Idlehurst Ele…
www.fosters.com
And you think that scenario works for guns. Let’s ban guns. Drugs will get through because of demand, but guns won’t.
Oh, you mean like the war on drugs has worked so well. I see. :crazy_face:
Here’s the difference: civilian ownership of firearms is a right! It is a protected right. It is not going to go away. Americans will own guns!
Once you stop dreaming that you can impose a ban on law abiding civilians only, of course (since bans do not effect criminals and government), you’ll see that we’re going to have to find ways to keep schools safe from the tiny fraction that abuse the right, and harm others.
Last edited:
Actually, they think there is only one solution, not solutions. Go back and look at the posts from those who advocate a ban on AR-15s / semiautomatics/ repeal the 2nd. Virtually all of them make light of or outright oppose most every other solution. “SRO’s don’t work”. “Don’t arm teachers”. Etc. Their only solution is to take guns from the law abiding.
This was why the Heller and MacDonald cases went to the Supreme Court. D.C. and Chicago passed laws to disarm the law abiding. Meanwhile, criminals illegally armed to the teeth wreak havoc while law enforcement reduced presence in high crime areas.
That’s the scenario. Disarm the law abiding. That’s the only solution they present.
- Status