Give up my guns?

[El OchoCinco]

Yeah I am pretty sure a few radicals with stocked AR15s to stop crazy lefties from causing a coupe and taking over is what is intended. Your idea sounds pretty paranoid. Democrats have been in power at various times, I don't see any repeal of the 2d amendment occurring or Marines marching down K Street taking over.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Yeah I am pretty sure a few radicals with stocked AR15s to stop crazy lefties from causing a coupe and taking over is what is intended. Your idea sounds pretty paranoid. Democrats have been in power at various times, I don't see any repeal of the 2d amendment occurring or Marines marching down K Street taking over.

There was an "assault weapons" ban during the Clinton administration. Sen. Feinstein, among others, has pushed for even more oppressive anti-gun measures. People are not so stupid they can't see what is coming if democrats ever get back in power.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I still think there is a major problem with how guns are manufactured and sold in society. I don't advocate an outright ban because I respect the 2d amendment but if you asked my personal opinion, ownership should be limited to a few classes of handguns and hunting rifles. I am not sure assault rifles are anything else but toys people like to fire in ranges, I doubt they would whip out and load an AR15 if someone was attacking them in a bus station or is needed to kill a deer. If I could change anything I would make assault rifles and large magazine guns be treated as liquor in lockers at restaurants. You can buy and own one but it must be stored at a gun shop/range under lock and you can go and shoot it there anytime.

I live in a concealed carry state and all of those people I know who are licensed are people I would never worry about owning a handgun. Because all they own is a handgun for personal safety. They are not loading up on 10 rifles with high powered magazines. However, the number of times a mass shooting was committed by someone who was loading up on guns and ammo with no red lights going off or had unblocked access to someone else's gun is ridiculous.

You want your handgun and hunting rifle...fine. But when you want assault rifles with large loaded magazines and the ability to buy 500 rounds or own 10 high powered weapons at once, then society should have a say. This is the easy middle ground but the NRA and left will never meet there.

The problem is the understanding of so-called "assault rifles". This class of weapon gets bad press, but the functionality of them isn't really a whole lot more dangerous than any other firearm. For example, a hunting rifle that shoots a .308 caliber bullet is more "high powered" than a typical AR-15 that shoots a .223. But the AR15 just looks scary. And people who don't understand them go "it's a high powered, military assault rifle!" What a load of crap. No, it isn't.

Banning high capacity magazines is also stupid. All you have to do is take two low capacity mags, tape them against each other in opposite directions and you can reload in under 2 seconds while firing.

The issue isn't the object. It's a complicated issue dealing with society, people and the culture. But no one wants to go after the real solution because that's too challenging.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Was not my intent to get into the topic of the description of the weapons.

No one has ever made a compelling argument why you need more firepower than your handgun if the argument is based on personal safety in your house or concealed carry.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

No one has ever made a compelling argument why you need more firepower than your handgun if the argument is based on personal safety in your house or concealed carry.

You continue to miss the point. No one has to "justify" why they need a certain firearm. It's a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." The Supreme Court interpreted that to protect commonly used firearms and those useful for self or home defense. The AR is by far the most widely owned rifle, so by definition it fits within that definition.

The onus is on those who would abridge this Constitutional right to offer compelling justification. The fact that you don't like guns and that they can be misused is not enough.

 

[El OchoCinco]

You continue to miss the point. No one has to "justify" why they need a certain firearm. It's a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." The Supreme Court interpreted that to protect commonly used firearms and those useful for self or home defense. The AR is by far the most widely owned rifle, so by definition it fits within that definition.

The onus is on those who would abridge this Constitutional right to offer compelling justification. The fact that you don't like guns and that they can be misused is not enough.

The Constitution does not define and mention which arms and 200 years of Supreme Coourt history and precedent dictates that rights can be defined and limited by the legislature and has been upheld by both conservative and liberal courts.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The Constitution does not define and mention which arms and 200 years of Supreme Coourt history and precedent dictates that rights can be defined and limited by the legislature and has been upheld by both conservative and liberal courts.

The Courts have consistently held that legislatures must use the least restrictive means possible when limiting constitutional rights.

Whatever, but thanks for illustrating to us again why we need to be buying as many guns and as much ammo as possible.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Yeah I was just pointing out in general that there is no absolute rights so you cannot just say it is your right to have every single type of gun there is.

You seem quite paranoid that your guns are going to be taken away and the U.S. government is going to use the military to take over the country and that would be stopped if you and your friends hid in your treehouse with AR15s.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Was not my intent to get into the topic of the description of the weapons.

No one has ever made a compelling argument why you need more firepower than your handgun if the argument is based on personal safety in your house or concealed carry.

That's fine, we're just discussing. This is a discussion forum. If you're not interested in that, then I apologize for engaging you.

Some people prefer rifles because they want to protect their property. It's not limited to merely a house, just because you or I reside in such a situation. As an example. Best for home defense is actually a shotgun, not a handgun.

But you are OK with hunting rifles, and a hunting rifle can be just as deadly as an AR15.

 

[futurecurrents]

People stock up on AR's and ammo because they fear what will happen when leftist politicians gain power. They know the gun confiscation agenda will again be pushed, and they fear the societal chaos that will result with open borders and green lights for thugs like antifa and BLM to run riot. !!!!!!!!!!

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to insure that people can go to the shooting range or go hunting. It is clearly there to insure that the citizenry are not stripped of their means to resist tyranny, whether it is imposed internally or by an external force.

Yes, it's that overactive amygdala that conservatives have. It makes you all irrationally paranoid.

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...1104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds