Amendment Rights

MotoDC

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

sure it does. Just because the government regulates something, you are still free to do that outside the confines of that regulation. living within the confines of society's laws is still personal responsibility. you'll just be punished for it if you're caught.

So my "choice" in your example is to be a criminal (fines, prison, death) or not to be. Not exactly much of a choice in most circumstances and not exactly strong evidence for choice's existence in any meaningful sense.

my point was, responding to the portion I underlined, is that people, like aerial, who constantly complain about the government and all the conspiracy theories, will never stop bitching until there is no more government. and THEN they'll complain about the services the government used to provide but no longer do.

I know. And again, that's no more than your opinion/assumption about aerial and "people like him (her?)". It's neither argument nor fact.

know1

aerial wrote:

know1 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

I've been wondering about this for a while since all shootings in 2012 regarding gun control:

if we can accept limited First Amendment Free Speech rights (i.e. can't say "fire" in a crowded theater, can't say "bomb" on an airplane) but when talks of gun control come about, why are people so quick to defend the Second Amendment?

The SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment ended a long time ago. Unless the government lets us have missiles and bombs, we can't defend ourselves from it using handguns.

Also, the wording of the Constitution doesn't even say "guns". It says "arms".

People can still defend their selves when they come knocking on the door when/if they come to confiscate your arms.

But they don't need to. They can just wipe you out with a missile or bomb.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

aerial wrote:

One example .....In NY you cannot buy a super sized soft drink....though it should be a freedom.....there are more serious ones (to busy to list them all right now).....government spends time on so much wasteful shit it's not funny anymore......will get back to ya
Don't tell me what kind of arm I can own when it is my 2nd amendment right........stop trashing the Constitution......people died for this so that Americans will not have to deal with tyranny........SIMPLE as that.......

wrong. I have never bashed your constitution. I understand the necessity for it and its amendments. I criticize how people of today bastardize its meaning to justify their own desires and/or paranoia.

yes, I suppose it should be every american's right to get as fat as they want to be. just go down to disneyland, you'll see the many people exercise that right quite well. most people are too fat to walk, they blast around on golf carts.

what is your take on marriage equality? should the government keep out of that too and just let everyone get married who wants to?

yeah, that's what I thought.

mikepegg44

Newch91 wrote:

I've been wondering about this for a while since all shootings in 2012 regarding gun control:

if we can accept limited First Amendment Free Speech rights (i.e. can't say "fire" in a crowded theater, can't say "bomb" on an airplane) but when talks of gun control come about, why are people so quick to defend the Second Amendment?

Free Speech is limited by the imminent threat/clear and present danger test. Yelling fire and inciting a riot creates an imminent threat. The act of owning a gun for whatever reason does not automatically make that gun an imminent threat. Limiting gun ownership because a ridiculously small percentage are used in crimes more than we already do seems to push the envelope on this. I am sure the new gun control laws, whatever they end up being, will have to pass the same constitutionality test. More strict regulations on who can own a gun, what types of guns can be owned, etc will all have to pass this test.

The court will probably decide that banning certain weapons is constitutional in that some weapons pose more of an imminent threat than others. It is the same reasoning that background checks have been instituted to make sure that the person purchasing the weapon does not pose an imminent threat to the public at large. That isn't a perfect system, but I am sure the waiting period has cooled some folks off.

So guns are in fact limited in the same way speech is limited, a better analogy making it closer to what moving past the level of imminent threat test would be banning the use of the word "bomb" everywhere because it violates the threat test on some occasions. The second amendment is limited now, the level of limitations on it are pretty consistent with other limits on other rights in the constitution. So instead of creating new laws, better enforcement and changing definitions in old laws might prove to be more effective.

I don't like the idea of crazy people owning weapons any more than the next person, but I like the idea of criminals, more than that, the criminally insane being the only people owning guns outside of law enforcement a lot less. I have said it before, but freedom is inherently dangerous, I just would rather take my chances with it than give it up and live without it and be slightly less in danger. I know that over simplifies things, but I don't know a better way to say it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MotoDC wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

sure it does. Just because the government regulates something, you are still free to do that outside the confines of that regulation. living within the confines of society's laws is still personal responsibility. you'll just be punished for it if you're caught.

So my "choice" in your example is to be a criminal (fines, prison, death) or not to be. Not exactly much of a choice in most circumstances and not exactly strong evidence for choice's existence in any meaningful sense.

my point was, responding to the portion I underlined, is that people, like aerial, who constantly complain about the government and all the conspiracy theories, will never stop bitching until there is no more government. and THEN they'll complain about the services the government used to provide but no longer do.

I know. And again, that's no more than your opinion/assumption about aerial and "people like him (her?)". It's neither argument nor fact.

your claim that people like aerial would stop complaining if you had smaller government is also neither argument nor fact. can we get off that part?

what do you suggest happens when it has been proven over history that the general populace cannot be trusted to their own judgment when it comes to personal responsibility and the safety of others or themselves?

the housing crisis was but one, albeit a major one, example of how people can't fucking take care of themselves. it needed to be regulated to save people from themselves.

that's why we have speed limits, hard drug prohibition, and even fucking disclaimers on commercials saying "professional driver, closed course, do not attempt". Has it gotten out of control? ABSOLUTELY. why? because the general populace has made it that way and forced the government's and law maker's hands.

do you think the government WANTS to hold our hands? I don't think so. you don't think they have better things to do then tell you not to drive 180 mph through a school zone? isn't that common sense? of course it is. but a lot of people don't use theirs.

I'm pretty sure the original intent of formalized government was NOT to tell its contituents what to do/not do.

the constituents gave them no choice.

Better Dan

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

what is your take on marriage equality? should the government keep out of that too and just let everyone get married who wants to?

yeah, that's what I thought.

mikepegg44

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

your claim that people like aerial would stop complaining if you had smaller government is also neither argument nor fact. can we get off that part?

what do you suggest happens when it has been proven over history that the general populace cannot be trusted to their own judgment when it comes to personal responsibility and the safety of others or themselves?

the housing crisis was but one, albeit a major one, example of how people can't fucking take care of themselves. it needed to be regulated to save people from themselves.

that's why we have speed limits, hard drug prohibition, and even fucking disclaimers on commercials saying "professional driver, closed course, do not attempt". Has it gotten out of control? ABSOLUTELY. why? because the general populace has made it that way and forced the government's and law maker's hands.

do you think the government WANTS to hold our hands? I don't think so. you don't think they have better things to do then tell you not to drive 180 mph through a school zone? isn't that common sense? of course it is. but a lot of people don't use theirs.

I'm pretty sure the original intent of formalized government was NOT to tell its contituents what to do/not do.

the constituents gave them no choice.

There are those in government who want nothing more than to hold individuals hands throughout life. If, by some act of god, the government was able to control every aspect of life that we know, there would be those with in it trying to figure out some new aspect of life, if only to control it. No government in the history of the world has said, "there, we have done enough, now lets stop passing laws and start just enforcing the ones we have". So to say that no one in government wants to hold hands is a bit silly, some absolutely want to hold your hand, and guide you to act the way THEY think is appropriate and using force (laws and law enforcement) to get there.
Just a quick note, the people in government are the same that make up the general populace. They are not better, they are not smarter, and they are most definitely not infallible. The idea that people need a formal government to save them from themselves is just a giant philosophical difference that you and I have...I understand where you are coming from in thinking that laws must be had in order for their to be some sort of existence, but I would argue that societies existed just fine without a government in the same sense that we know today...

As to the second part, most governments prior to the idea of our republic, operated on the idea that the government's role was to tell you how to live and act. That government granted rights to the people. That is what made our constitution such a change from the norm, we formed a government based on the idea that the people tell the gov't what it is ALLOWED to do. Not that the government gets to control every aspect of your life, but rather that there are certain rights that all people have inherent to the definition of being human. And the natural tendency for people to have governments that tell them what to do in every aspect of their lives is constantly at odds with the idea of that inherent freedom on which our country was founded...It is and will always be a fantastic, never-ending dance.

MotoDC

your claim that people like aerial would stop complaining if you had smaller government is also neither argument nor fact. can we get off that part?

what do you suggest happens when it has been proven over history that the general populace cannot be trusted to their own judgment when it comes to personal responsibility and the safety of others or themselves?

the housing crisis was but one, albeit a major one, example of how people can't fucking take care of themselves. it needed to be regulated to save people from themselves.

that's why we have speed limits, hard drug prohibition, and even fucking disclaimers on commercials saying "professional driver, closed course, do not attempt". Has it gotten out of control? ABSOLUTELY. why? because the general populace has made it that way and forced the government's and law maker's hands.

do you think the government WANTS to hold our hands? I don't think so. you don't think they have better things to do then tell you not to drive 180 mph through a school zone? isn't that common sense? of course it is. but a lot of people don't use theirs.

I'm pretty sure the original intent of formalized government was NOT to tell its contituents what to do/not do.

the constituents gave them no choice.

I didn't really make that claim. And when I did come close to it, I caveated it pretty clearly. In fact in my next post my only claim was an implicit one that I (me, motodc, mike, whatever) made about myself, though upon re-read I may not have worded it as clearly as I could have (was trying to be clever -- "says the guy who doesn't think that way to the guy who does."). My point was, I think I know how I would react should the world change as discussed better than you know it.

It's interesting that where you say "the general populace", I would probably replace with "a very publicized minority of nutjobs", which to me is a quite different analysis.

I'm not advocating anarchy. Examples like speed limits, DUI enforcement, hard drug prohibition are more defensible because they are mainly in place to protect us from each other. Protecting us from ourselves is where I believe the gov't starts to go off its tracks. If you accept that, then it becomes a question of defining which activities impact others and which only impact ourselves. It's an admittedly gray and inexact analysis, but an important one. Drugs are a good example and one that we've gone 'round and 'round about here on AMT. Before you launch in, I recognize that this means that firearm ownership would need to pass this same moral test were we to accept the test as a requisite one. That's nothing new, really, it's at the center of most of the debate here; namely, whether my right to defend myself against oppression (foreign, domestic, federal, etc) trumps the right to be supposedly protected from one-off nutjobs using my mode of self-defense to commit their heinous acts. Of course that presumes that restricting legal firearm ownership (or banning it, depending on your preferred flavor) would actually protect anyone from said nutjobs -- yet another open topic of debate here and elsewhere.

As for your statement about the "original intent of formalized gov't", as least with respect to that of the United States, I couldn't have said it better myself. But as so many in the anti-gun camp would say, what does that have to do with the reality we face today?

Newch91

mikepegg44 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

I've been wondering about this for a while since all shootings in 2012 regarding gun control:

if we can accept limited First Amendment Free Speech rights (i.e. can't say "fire" in a crowded theater, can't say "bomb" on an airplane) but when talks of gun control come about, why are people so quick to defend the Second Amendment?

Free Speech is limited by the imminent threat/clear and present danger test. Yelling fire and inciting a riot creates an imminent threat. The act of owning a gun for whatever reason does not automatically make that gun an imminent threat. Limiting gun ownership because a ridiculously small percentage are used in crimes more than we already do seems to push the envelope on this. I am sure the new gun control laws, whatever they end up being, will have to pass the same constitutionality test. More strict regulations on who can own a gun, what types of guns can be owned, etc will all have to pass this test.

The court will probably decide that banning certain weapons is constitutional in that some weapons pose more of an imminent threat than others. It is the same reasoning that background checks have been instituted to make sure that the person purchasing the weapon does not pose an imminent threat to the public at large. That isn't a perfect system, but I am sure the waiting period has cooled some folks off.

So guns are in fact limited in the same way speech is limited, a better analogy making it closer to what moving past the level of imminent threat test would be banning the use of the word "bomb" everywhere because it violates the threat test on some occasions. The second amendment is limited now, the level of limitations on it are pretty consistent with other limits on other rights in the constitution. So instead of creating new laws, better enforcement and changing definitions in old laws might prove to be more effective.

I don't like the idea of crazy people owning weapons any more than the next person, but I like the idea of criminals, more than that, the criminally insane being the only people owning guns outside of law enforcement a lot less. I have said it before, but freedom is inherently dangerous, I just would rather take my chances with it than give it up and live without it and be slightly less in danger. I know that over simplifies things, but I don't know a better way to say it.

Thanks for the explanation, mikepegg.

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

Newch91

Jon Stewart spent his first two segments on gun violence last night. Full episode:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... mcchrystal

MotoDC

newch91 wrote:

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.

JimmyV

MotoDC wrote:

newch91 wrote:

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.

If it has been discussed - and an actual answer given - I would like a link to those threads. I have asked the question myself a few times and have yet to receive an actual answer. Lots of rhetoric but not a lot of reason.

Newch91

MotoDC wrote:

newch91 wrote:

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.

Out of innocence. I don't want to bait anyone. It's just something I've been wondering a lot about in the past year.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MotoDC wrote:

I didn't really make that claim. And when I did come close to it, I caveated it pretty clearly. In fact in my next post my only claim was an implicit one that I (me, motodc, mike, whatever) made about myself, though upon re-read I may not have worded it as clearly as I could have (was trying to be clever -- "says the guy who doesn't think that way to the guy who does."). My point was, I think I know how I would react should the world change as discussed better than you know it.

It's interesting that where you say "the general populace", I would probably replace with "a very publicized minority of nutjobs", which to me is a quite different analysis.

I'm not advocating anarchy. Examples like speed limits, DUI enforcement, hard drug prohibition are more defensible because they are mainly in place to protect us from each other. Protecting us from ourselves is where I believe the gov't starts to go off its tracks. If you accept that, then it becomes a question of defining which activities impact others and which only impact ourselves. It's an admittedly gray and inexact analysis, but an important one. Drugs are a good example and one that we've gone 'round and 'round about here on AMT. Before you launch in, I recognize that this means that firearm ownership would need to pass this same moral test were we to accept the test as a requisite one. That's nothing new, really, it's at the center of most of the debate here; namely, whether my right to defend myself against oppression (foreign, domestic, federal, etc) trumps the right to be supposedly protected from one-off nutjobs using my mode of self-defense to commit their heinous acts. Of course that presumes that restricting legal firearm ownership (or banning it, depending on your preferred flavor) would actually protect anyone from said nutjobs -- yet another open topic of debate here and elsewhere.

As for your statement about the "original intent of formalized gov't", as least with respect to that of the United States, I couldn't have said it better myself. But as so many in the anti-gun camp would say, what does that have to do with the reality we face today?

I think those things are to protect us from each other as MUCH as protecting us from ourselves. Yes, MOST people don't need laws out of our own natural instinct not to do dangerous things such as excessive speeding or using heroin, but laws aren't enacted with the law abiding in mind. They are made for the lowest common denominator that need those laws in place to tell them what is appropriate in society, and if those laws aren't followed, you are punished. An AR-15 is not, in my opinion, appropriate.

a non-automatic rifle or handgun at HOME is appropriate. carrying a concealed weapon around in public is not appropriate.

it has to do with this thread, and the comment made that the goverment wants to control us at every turn. I personally don't believe that. Because there seem to be people out there who actually believe that government takeover in this day and age in the US is actually plausible. And quite frankly, I'd call those people a little bit cukoo.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Newch91 wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

newch91 wrote:

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.

Out of innocence. I don't want to bait anyone. It's just something I've been wondering a lot about in the past year.

I've also asked this several times, and the only answer that ever comes around is "it's in the constitution!". No actual reason why that caliber of weaponry is necessary is ever answered without invoking the second amendment.

mikepegg44

Newch91 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, mikepegg.

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

mikepegg44 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, mikepegg.

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...

very well said Mike.

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, mikepegg.

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...

This is the best answer to this question I have seen anywhere. By far.

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, mikepegg.

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...

As much as I disagree that weapons like AR-15 should be legal, you always make very good discussion and good well thought out points Mike.
(and I mostly commend that You never needed to bring up drinking and driving to make a good point )

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, mikepegg.

My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?

Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...

As much as I disagree that weapons like AR-15 should be legal, you always make very good discussion and good well thought out points Mike.
(and I mostly commend that You never needed to bring up drinking and driving to make a good point )

JP, JimmyV, HFD

thanks

This debate gets so heated, and I think that indicates how passionately people want the unnecessary violence to end. Those who own guns and want to keep more guns available really do have the same goal in mind of those who want to ban them all...there has to be a middle ground that people are happy with...I just really hope the regulations focus on the people rather than the products themselves.