Absolutely. Exactly how it was intended.

You cant remove all gun. Wild animal populations would explode, then probable crash for a lack of food and forage. And thats just one example.

You cant drive a car without a license. A minor in IN must show proof of passing a safety class, and a given number of driving hours with an instructor. You cant get a bank loan without a credit check. I believe you can not get a hunting license in IN as a minor without taking a safety class.

We can have sensible laws that protect both parties. It will take compromise. There are no absolutes with the Constitution.

Indiana badasses
 

Again originalism. I don’t think the founding fathers meant what we have now. They wanted to be able to protect themselves from the english. They had muskets at the time, not assault rifles.

Second amendment says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Random 18 year olds with ar15s is not a well regulated militia with the intent of protecting the country.

You need to understand the constitution, which you obviously do not. That is not a slam, it is just factual as most don't. There was no standing army at the writing of the constitution. Militia is you, I and everyone.

The weapon is irrelevant, the technology of the weapon is irrelevant, how many rounds it will fire are irrelevant. The constitution is to prevent government from infringing on us. It is not a document in which the government grants you rights with. The puckle gun is the first fully auto, and predates the constitution by some 60-70 years. Facts are inconvenient for the cries of the those who get their knowledge from the media.

AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Not even close. It is not used by any standing armies on the planet. It is simply a semi-automatic the same as a 9mm handgun. One trigger pull, one round fired. Assault rifles have been banned since 1932 without a tax stamp from the ATF. Even if you have a stamp you can't own anything currently issued to the military. Another huge infringement. The founders actually had better than military grade weapons at the time. Their barrels were rifled which made them far more accurate than the British smooth bored weapons.

People who get their firearm knowledge from media should stay out of gun debates, they are not equipped. Mercifully the founders didn't write our constitution with feelings in mind.

How about we start issuing a permit to exercise the 1st. amendment? I mean if it is ok to do it to one amendment why not all of them? Weakening any part of the constitution weakens the entire document.

Indiana badasses
 

Exactly my point. No standing army meant need for the armed militia. We have an army, we dont have a militia any more.

I have read about puckle guns before. And if i recall the fire rate was still quite small and was a bitch to reload. Not to mention i think there were only a few made.

You claim to be a constitutional scholar, ok i guess we have to take your word for it. But again, times change and the original intent of the second does not match todays times. Call an ar15 what you want, i still think there’s no place for it in the hands of random untrained people. Oh and in terms of hand guns, bullets from an AR-15 and weapons similar to it travel almost three times faster than those of a routine handgun. The shooter can cause more damage while being less accurate, and the wounds are often far more lethal.

We will never agree on this. I go round and round with a friend here, same arguments.

The constitution is absolute. Where do you get your information from?
Driving is a privilege and not an inalienable right.
Getting a loan is an option.
You're comparing things to a right that are not inherently related.

20,000 gun laws on the slate nationwide and federal level. Enough compromise has been made.

Slavery was legal and now its isnt. Women were denied the vote now they have it. And your right to a gun was to maintain a militia. That need no longer exists, we have a standing army. Nothing is absolute

Most gun crime is committed with handguns but it’s the scary “assault weapons” that get all the attention.

If I believed for a single second that a ban on AR’s would be the end of it, I’d be inclined to support such a ban. But it wouldn’t be, because the weapon itself is not the problem.

The problem, as I said before, is a society that is creating these people.

So we get rid of AR’s and then when the next shooting happens, which it inevitably will, the same people will be back saying “we have to do something”. And on and on it goes.

So no, f**k that noise.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols. The idea that it can’t be done without long rifles is ridiculous.

You’re essentially saying “something needs to be done. Let’s try this and see if it works” You’re taking constitutional rights away from MILLIONS of Americans, hoping it works.

It’s bullshit and it shouldn’t even be considered.

Im all for more state and fed attention to mental health. Red flag laws need to be passed and MAINTAINED, spend the money on tracking and execution.

The ARs are a real problem for a lot of reasons. Its all well and good to have security officers in the schools. In our community, they have a taser and a pistol and body armor. But they are outgunned by the kid with the AR. So do we get them a bigger gun? Build a moat around the schools and put up watch towers? Make the schools a fortress that looks like a prison? Artillery beats armor. Every time.

There needs to be a federal clearing house for a background check. Most honest gun owners will clear it. Yes, you pay a fee. When you pass it its tax deductible. Almost all of my friends who hunt are fanatical on the care, maintenance, and safety with a gun. Im betting if states organized a safety program in every county, you would have plenty of excellent instructors to make it work.