Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
That’s fair. It’s also fair to note that as gun possession numbers have increased over the years the number of home invasions has decreased dramatically. While in 1990 there were more than 3 million burglaries in the U.S., by the year 2018 this number has decreased by 60% to about 1.23 million. And your odds of being violently assaulted in a home invasion are much higher than being involved in a mass shouting, yet we never hear about that.
There’s also not one that addresses AR-15s. it’s obviously a fallacy to assume that “the right to bear arms” includes all arms without restriction. Suppose I tried to build a nuclear weapon in my backyard? Should that be allowed under the 2nd Amendment? Clearly not. Therefore, reasonable limitations can be imposed.
There weren’t assault rifles running around when the 2nd amendment was adopted. Things change and the constitution was designed to be amended as times change.
If you can pass the background check that allows you to own that nuclear weapon...go for it.
What I’m proposing (making AR-15s illegal to possess has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this question.
Point 4 is the most laughable thing I have ever read. If you want to die for the right to go pew pew pew, go for it. I swear some of you are cosplaying characters from Red Dawn.
That makes no sense, because using your earlier logic a background check in itself is a violation of your rights.
I believe the deaths from mass shootings are reduced significantly, yes. It is my understanding that most law enforcement experts believe this as well.
It is....but I understand and agree that not everyone is responsible enough to own one.
So you accept certain infringements of your rights but not others? That’s fine, except who makes that decision? I think the courts have to make it, not you, if we are to live in a civil society.
I understand certain infringements.
I’m not scared of you owning an M4. I have no reason to believe that you’re not a responsible gun owner.
The main difference is that crazies like the shooter yesterday are attracted by weapons that “look mean”. It makes them feel more powerful and invulnerable. That’s why far more often than not they choose them.
No, I don’t care to elaborate. You know exactly what I’m saying, so you can just continue to play dumb and stroke your rifle.
So, me...and people like me...lose our rights because of "crazies"?
This goes too far. Neither @Opienor anyone who agrees with his position is responsible in any way for mass shootings.
What exactly are you proposing we do? Instead of just lobbing insults why don’t you have a discussion?
Is that what we do?
I feel for you brother...Santa and the Easter Bunny said I could have hand grenades but Tim and his left leaning buddies infringed on them.
Horrible meme. I think most everyone here would agree that guns (or bombs) should be kept away from the mentally ill.
Sure. Every constitutional right has limitations. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. if you want to go live in the wilderness that’s one thing. But so long as you live among other Americans there has to be limitations.
There are already limitations....and over 20 laws that "limit" this Constitutional Right.
I’m sure if people acted in good faith, that would be a relatively easy definition to come up.
Of course you can. There are just repercussions for doing so. And I'm sure the shooter from Boulder will face his repercussions as well.
Did you vote to re-elect the Republican politicians (nearly everyone of them IIRC) who opposed and killed legislation that would have required universal background checks for mentally ill people who attempted to purchase firearms?
It’s so true. As a new gun owner I was flabbergasted by the number of obstacles I had to overcome just to own a pistol. Like I said above I went through the process as quickly as humanly possible and it took me 5 full months, several trips back and forth to Town Hall and State offices, and over $450 in fees.
Agreed. And all I’m asking for is an added repercussion: making it illegal to own an AR-15.
Wouldn't it make more sense to start with handguns since they kill far more people? While these mass shootings are sad, there have been 116 homicide victims in Chicago this year.
Not true....they opposed legislation that could have your weapons confiscated on the word of anyone who said that, in their opinion, I presented a threat....anyone.
Right. And it goes to my point. Your entire opposition to the idea of banning these particular weapons is that it would infringe upon your 2nd Amendment right. But you acknowledge that we already have limitations in place. So you’re contradicting yourself.
What makes you brain think like that?