Balanced opinion. Thank you. Can you comment on the idea of just banning sale or ownership of weapons typical of those used by military forces?
Civil discourse on gun control
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
Weapons typically used by military forces? Do you mean automatic weapons? Those have been banned since 1934. What else are we talking about? Grenades or something?
AR-15 AK-47 etc.
These were banned already during the Clinton years, but the ban expired in 2004. As has been pointed out several times in this thread the ban had no real discernible effect. Additionally, there was no buyback or confiscation - probably because they realized the futility of such a massive undertaking.
Again, not saying it cannot be done absolutely, just that there will likely never be the political will for such a herculean task.
Ok , thanks. Appreciate that information.
AR-15s aren't military weapons. No military unit in the United States uses them. Period.
Have they ever been used by military units anywhere in the world? Wasn't the AR-15 designed around the M16 , but intended to be a lighter weight version using new materials --perhaps with the hope of selling it to the Pentagon. Its characteristics would make it unsuitable for civilian use. Let's get rid of it along with the AK-47. The tide is changing. You can either change with it, be welcome at the table, and have some say in how it changes, or swim against the tide and come away with nothing. It seems to me that those are likely the choices you will be faced with. You'll be hearing from those Parkland Florida High kids and those Sandy Hook Moms come Fall, if not before. It has been an amazing run for the NRA, but it's over now.
Last edited:
How is the AR15 any deadlier than any other semi automatic firearm? Ie, why focus on that platform? Just because the media continues to drone around the label "AR 15"?
Clip size and penetration I think would be important factors. Number of rounds that can be fired without reloading needs to be looked at. Would you agree? Barrel length, ease of concealment. All factors that it would seem need to be considered. That must be why, for example, barrel length crops up prominently in the Canadian regs. I think they have outlawed those little small caliper handguns that fit in a ladies purse or you can tuck under your belt. Must have to do with how easily concealed and transported, I would guess. If we're going to allow semiautomatics then we need to regulate clip size or how many rounds the gun can hold. I just look at it from a probability standpoint. What to do to reduce the probability of a lot of people being killed by a single lunatic with a gun, without trampling on our "inalienable" right to own and use firearms.
Last edited:
I see we are back to looking at Canadian law rather than the 2nd Amendment.
And those small handguns that are easily concealed, are because many people carry concealed completely legally. That's why. Oh, I see. Canada does not allow or severely limits concealed carry so such guns should be banned in this country.
Most likely the Supreme Court will not follow Canadian law even though you do.
I mean with the exception of Ruth. Better make sure she is getting her Tahitian Noni Juice because she is probably the only one you can convince that she is living in Canada.