Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. Disagree. I see no logic in making something more difficult to own that is used in less crime/murder than handguns by far.
You’ve pretty much described me. Guess you aren’t an anomaly. I believe that strengthens your argument.
And...I’m too old to join now...and if I joined I’d be away from home and unable to shoot the things here that needed shooting in the first place! Not logical.
How do you define “”machine guns”? As of now actual machine guns are pretty hard to buy. You might say there is a long “cooling off” waiting period. Not to mention the astronomical cost.
to prevent mass murders, have not seem many mass murders with machine guns, not saying people can't buy them, just make it a little harder then a hand gun
yep, they are hard to buy, I was saying I agree they should be hard to buy do you think they should be as easier to get, like as easy as buying a hunting riffle?
Ok, you mentioned AR-15s initially and I misunderstood your reference in relation to machine guns. My bad. To answer your question, I see no reason for the restrictions on machine guns based on logic or the Constitution. I’ll try rephrasing my question now that I understand where you are coming from. Why do you favor more restrictions on AR-15s when they are used in so little crime compared to the handguns that you seem to be comfortable with?
I said ar-15's should be treated like machine guns, machine guns are already hard to buy because they are used in mass murders and I do not see the point in needing to have the right to buy one easily, if there is a need, take the time to buy one I am pro-gun, think every free American has a right to own one to protect their homes and families (even ex-felons)
But why treat AR-15s like machine guns and not treat handguns like machine guns? Handguns are used in mass shootings more than twice as often as AR-15s. I’m looking for some kind of logic for restricting the “less used in crime” item but not the “more used in crime” item.
How many mass murders were committed with fully-automatic firearms when they were perfectly legal to own without any paperwork? How would mass murders committed with fully-automatic firearms, serve to be any worse than mass murders committed with semi-automatic firearms?
What does the subject of absoluteness have to do with the discussion at hand? How is it relevant to the question of what firearm-related restrictions are necessary, and why they are necessary? The above question on the part of yourself is nothing but a blatantly transparent attempt at leading supporters of firearm-related freedoms into the idiotic discussion of nuclear weaponry, to try and get them to agree that there are limits on what weapons the general public can legally own, all in an effort to dishonestly make it seem firearm owners willingly support prohibitions on specific firearms currently available on the private market.
Admit it. You support arm infringements. You have your line in the sand just like everyone else. The real question is, where should the line in the sand be drawn. It is not dishonest to point out everyone has some restrictions to arms ownership. It is dishonest to deny the restrictions and do ad hom attacks as a way to use such dishonesty.
If an individual presents such a danger to society that they simply cannot be trusted with access to a firearm under any circumstances, then said individual should not be allowed free in society under any circumstances, and should instead be removed from the equation entirely. Either through death, or permanent confinement to the appropriate facility for the duration of their natural lives, so that they may not cause harm to anyone else. No matter what course of action is attempted or implemented, firearms will always be present, and always be available to those who should not have them. What is the line in the sand? Stop focusing on trying to control the implement, and instead focus on controlling the population. Remove the violent and dangerous individuals from the equation, rather than foolishly believing they can instead be controlled and rendered safe.
mass murders have increased in recent years, they turn semi-automatic into fully-automatic because that is what they prefer
What nonsense is being referred to on the part of yourself in the above statement? How are semi-automatic firearms being turned into fully-automatic firearms? Explain such.
A device that has long since been prohibited from private ownership, which the ATF itself stated did not do anything to modify a semi-automatic firearm into a fully-automatic firearm. Try again. How would mass murders committed with fully-automatic firearms, serve to be any worse than mass murders committed with semi-automatic firearms? Explain such.
You do understand, 2A is not only regulated to firearms? The word used in 2A is arms. For a well regulated militia. You did nothing to address my point about arms ownership and lines in the sand each person has. You deflected to firearms, of which that is but one part of arms. And yes, firearms will always be present in our society. No one is claiming otherwise.. We can never ever remove all dangerous individuals from society. We don't know they are dangerous in many cases, until after the fact. But are you pushing for removing those individuals who might be deemed dangerous? What exactly is your term for dangerous and who is that determined nation wide?
1) you appear to not know that at the AR 15 is not a machine gun 2) nor do you know that all machine guns made after May 1986, cannot be owned by private citizens 3) and that legally registered (ie capable of being owned by private citizens) require a year long wait, fingerprints, a 200 dollar tax stamp and cannot be bought for under 7 thousand dollars-with most good ones running from 15-35K
Seriously. You call yourself a gun wizard and you don’t know the difference between a semi auto and....... a weapon with an effective range of 550 yards fired at 800 rounds per minute ? That’s 11 to 15 rds per second.
you appear not to be able to read as I never said an AR 15 was a machine gun if it was, then we would not be having this discussion
