Agreed. This can only be changed via a Constitutional Amendment. It is a long process but will ensure that the vast majority of the population will agree with any changes.
No bail for Canisius men's basketball recruit Sarion McGee, who is facing 15 gun charges
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
Right to privacy…. Heard of that one. You should read the constitution. Amendments 1,3,4,5,9&14 all mature reference to privacy from the government.
Is There a 'Right to Privacy' Amendment? - FindLaw
Protecting your privacy rights starts with becoming familiar with the constitutional amendments, federal statutes, and state laws designed to keep your private information private. This FindLaw article provides a look at right to privacy amendments.
www.findlaw.com
You are so wrong if you think a majority of people want to abolish the 2nd amendment.
In a word, yes. Would there be horrendous casualties? Yes but being outnumbered 100 to 1 regardless of technology are enormous odds to overcome. The government isn’t going to bomb their entire population and the military would have a hard time killing Americans. Bottom line is, an armed civilian population prevents this from ever happening. THAT is why the Dems world love to eliminate it. All they want is power.
Read my post. I said that is the only way to change it. I’m not a gun owner but I support 2A.
There is no such things as an assault weapon. AR-15 is no different that any other rifle used for hunting. It’s a political talking point to make them sound scary. Any of these massacres could have been accomplished with a semi automatic hand gun. There were all close range shootings. The only benefit to a rifle is long range accuracy.
Do you think these AR 15s are machine guns? They are semi automatic which means you fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Same as a hand gun. My hand gun has a 15 round clip. Explain how the shape of the gun causes more “carnage”. The ammunition for an AR-15, 5.56 is smaller than a 9mm projectile.
Stop listening to the media and leftist politicians.
Far more people are killed by hand guns each year than rifles of all types. Far more people are killed by knives than all guns combined. Shall we outlaw knives? Our relevant crime rates have exploded due to fatherless boys, mental health issues and the fact that the media make these demonic shooters world famous. I don’t have the answer but there were just as many guns in circulation 40 years (higher on a % basis than today) and we rarely had a mass shooting. Again, I’m not a gun owner but most gun restrictions will be followed only by law abiding citizens who by definition do not commit crimes. If in doubt, never give government more power. Never.
This 100%. Media is the biggest problem. Enemy of the people. They glorify these ghouls plastering their picture all over TV for weeks on end. Don’t mention their name moving forward and you won’t see this happen.
Not quite. Voting is a constitutional right. The government has all the records on names of registered voters and their residence.
I respectfully disagree. I have way more faith in our democratic form of government and our military to believe the hypothetical raised by you. We have inherent checks and balances to guard against this scenario.
Which the left fights tooth and nail to prevent being cleared. Verifying voter rolls is to prevent each voter from voting more than once. It’s very different verifying your eligibility to vote than keeping track of what you purchase. Nice try thanks for playing.
The federal government doesn't, and that's the point.
OK, this has morphed to LOTS discussion status as was obviously going to be the end result.
I will leave this here for all to see before it is transferred to the other site.
I will leave this here for all to see before it is transferred to the other site.
What are you talking about? In every state a voter must be registered to vote. No one is trying to prevent that. No one fights that.
There is no basis in law that prevents the government from having a registry for firearms. Just because you do not like the idea, don't mean it is illegal or unconstitutional.
Voters are registered to vote with the STATE government. You are talking about a FEDERAL registry for guns. Completely different, and raises constitutional questions.
While this would be irrelevant to the discussion, due to the fact that a person with a knife cannot possible kill as many people as a person with an AR-15. But let's play.
Where is your support for this claim? This is just not true.
Statista researchers pulled data from the FBI’s Crime Data explorer, which does show that of the 17,813 homicides reported in 2020
The FBI’s numbers also show that of all the homicides reported, 13,663 were committed with firearms of any kind, or about 77%. Only about 1739 were committed by knives.
And 4,863 of those gun homicides were committed with firearms of a "type not stated," meaning law enforcement agencies didn't specify in their data reporting which type of gun was used.
Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2023 | Statista
Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 7,159 homicides in 2023.
www.statista.com
Oh really, please raise the Constitutional issue. Are you saying that the Constitution does not apply to the States? It can be done. There is absolutely no will to do this. But no Constitutional impediment. I do believe there is a federal law that prohibits it. But not based on the Constitution.
And the other half would be frolicking in various bath houses or marching in Pride parades. The sad fact is our military has fallen prey to leaders who think diversity is more important than defense. In 20 years of fighting our military could not handle the Taliban. Why would anyone think it could handle well Armed Americans?
The police have shown themselves to be unwilling or incapable of protecting the citizens, witness the BLM/Antifa riots or their inaction in the Texas school murders. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to surrender his right to defend himself, his family, or his property especially under current circumstances
Last edited:
I believe I already gave a case where it’s unconstitutional. See the constitution. You are already giving in and getting a permit or license so they know who has those. There is no reason they need an inventory of what you own other than for nefarious reasons. Keep in mind, people who go through proper Channels are generally law abiding citizens. Tell me how the government knowing what guns I own will stop a mass shooting. It won’t.
So by your logic you can require citizens to register their sexual orientation. There is no specific language in the constitution about it. Obviously that isn’t legal. There are multiple amendments eluding to privacy and it has been upheld in case law. You have a right to privacy. The government can regulate who is eligible to own a gun. They have no right to force you to disclose what kind or how many as long as you pass the eligibility criteria.
Politcally, I am a conservative Republican. I break ranks with the Republicans on the issue of regulation of the purchase of fire arms. i believe that there should be tighter background checks throughout the Country and that automatic weapons should only purchased only through a specialized hunting permit to control game such as ferral hogs. Constitutional rights are not unlimited. We sometime have to curtail certain rights for the safety of our citizens, especially children.
You are extremely misinformed. To get an automatic weapon first off it would be through second hand as they do not produce them for the public anymore. The background check takes upwards of a year and they will be crawling up your butt with a microscope. It takes just short of an act of god to be approved for that license. None of these shooters had automatic weapons. There is no difference in lethality of a 9mm hand gun and a AR-15. The difference is range due to bullet velocity. Rifles will provide longer more accurate shot at a great distance. None of these shootings took place at long range. They could easily have been accomplished with a Glock 9mm hand gun. Banning AR will do nothing to prevent this from happening. What’s it does is prevent the civilian population from defending themselves from a tyranny. What will help prevent these shootings is armed security in schools and media blackout if and when there is a shooting. No fame, no reason to do it for these animals.
WRONG.
When the AR jams, the dude with knife can keep going.
If the guy with the AR only brought one magazine, once he runs out of ammo, the dude with the knife keeps going.
Just sayin.
I agree to a point on the knife argument. The real point is an AR is nothing more than a rifle. No more deadly than a Glock handgun. Banning rifles would be a step toward total gun confiscation. That’s what the left really wants. Once they try that all hell will break loose.WRONG.
When the AR jams, the dude with knife can keep going.
If the guy with the AR only brought one magazine, once he runs out of ammo, the dude with the knife keeps going.
Just sayin.
Cern and I have gone at with the discussion of the AR.
Low odds on my knife scenario but was I just making a point.
Cern and others on LOTS subscribe to the "Weapons of War", "Assault Rifle" "Designed only to kill people", "designed to mow down people", "serves no purpose for home defense" yada yada.
They all want the AR ban back despite the fact that the 1992 ban did nothing. They refuse to accept that unless you confiscate, there will be millions of ARs out there. A ban might slightly reduce the mass killings that use ARs but will not reduce the number of mass killings.
It would make all the libs happy though.
Welcome to LOTS!!!
Last edited:
A few years back I found a loaded revolver while emptying my deceased uncle's house on Long Island. I live in PA and was unwilling to take the risk of transporting through NYC. I called the police and surrendered the weapon.
I worked through the process to claim it and have it shipped to an FFL here in PA so I could keep procession of the piece.
It took several weeks but it was better then doing time in Rikers.
I feel bad for the kid. he screwed up. Likely unintentional. Hopefully, the judge shows mercy.
I worked through the process to claim it and have it shipped to an FFL here in PA so I could keep procession of the piece.
It took several weeks but it was better then doing time in Rikers.
I feel bad for the kid. he screwed up. Likely unintentional. Hopefully, the judge shows mercy.
WRONG.
When the AR jams, the dude with knife can keep going.
If the guy with the AR only brought one magazine, once he runs out of ammo, the dude with the knife keeps going.
Just sayin.
59 people killed, more than 500 hurt in Las Vegas Strip shooting
At least 59 people were killed when a gunman opened fire during a Jason Aldean performance from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel, police said.
www.nbcnews.com
No one with a knife is doing this type of carnage. I am assuming your post was tongue in cheek. But I point to Vegas shooting. If anyone saw the video of the shooting in Buffalo, no one with a 9 mm is doing what was done there. The argument that a knife or even a 9mm does the same damage as an AR is just ridiculous.
Oklahoma City bombing, terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S., on April 19, 1995, in which a massive homemade bomb composed of more than two tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil concealed in a rental truck exploded, heavily damaging the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. A total of 168 people were killed, including 19 children, and more than 500 were injured.
We should ban fertilizer and rental trucks.
We should ban fertilizer and rental trucks.
Oh come now, this lame argument was used previously on this board. The utility of the AR-15 is to kill. You are not doing anything else with that AR-15 except killing. The utility of trucks is for transportation and fertilizer is quite obvious.
This could be the stupidest post yet. The purpose of all guns is to kill. Wow news flash. That doesn’t change our constitutional right to keep and bear them or our God given right to self defense. Gun laws do nothing. I have no background of any broken law to prevent me from getting all the guns I want. Those that have broken the law will do so again if they want one. There is one purpose of gun laws….a stepping stone toward disarming the public.
Again, Captain obvious misses the point. Of course we shouldn't ban fertilizer and trucks.
The objective is to stop mass shootings but your proposed solution (AR Ban) will not do that. Kind of like convicting the wrong person while the true killer is still at large.
1000%. You ban one gun and they'll use another. Ban guns all together and they'll use bombs or SUV like in Waukesha. 3 things that must be done if you want this stopped. 1) Armed presence in the schools. 2) MEDIA must stop making these evil people famous. Don't mention their names. Don't post their pictures. Don't seek interviews with people they knew or went to school with. Complete media blackout about the perpetrator. You want to report on the event ok, just no mention of the shooter. 3) for these absentee parents who are leaving these kids alone to raise themselves with no parental guidance should bear some responsibility. You are going to be a crappy parent and have no idea what's happening or know what the heck your kids are up to you are responsible for their actions. One final thought...you see signs all the time, see something say something. This kid was walking around with a bag of dead cats and no one reported it? If they did, nothing was done? Sounds like these police did a bad job all around. Turns out that they lied and had all the gear they needed to take this kid out before the worst of the shooting happened. The door was not even locked, they had the ballistic shields. 1 cop was restrained from going in to save his wife who was a teacher and called him from her cell while bleeding out.
come on...that is not doing anything. I've played, my kids have played these first person shooter games since he's 10 and we aren't shooting anyone. It's a game. IF that is making them shoot people, it's not the game...it a mental issue which needs to be addressed.
Total nonsense. It’s this type of thinking is the problem and completely useless in this country.
Here is a statistic on mass shooting deaths. during the federal ban. But for Columbine, there is a reductions of mass shooting deaths during the ban. And a huge increase after the ban. Coincidence? The graph inside this article is quite telling.
https://theconversation.com/did-the...shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430
You don't think certain politicians want to disarm the public? Look at the governor of NY today - in comments about the Supreme Court decision, she said she is just getting started and wants to go back to the age of muskets.
The fallacy in that data:
1-The vast majority of mass shootings don’t involve AR15’s.
2-It makes the assumptions don't take into account the effect of social media, mental health issues (exacerbated by social media), drug use, etc.
"Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” That report was the final of three studies of the ban, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
www.factcheck.org
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...
www.factcheck.org
Completely manipulated statistics. There was virtually no drop that can be attributed to the ban. Want to look at the increase and something that correlates.. look at the increased use of social media and the increase in mass shootings. Instant fame. If I’m not mistaken one of the shootings of a Mosque was live streamed. Many of these sickos had disturbing posts prior to their massacre. Instead of big tech writing algorithms to censor conservatives, how about an algorithm to flag these posts to law enforcement.
Similar threads
