Indiana badasses

[rcubed]

Thats where the problem lies. No way you can remove all the guns, I am not unrealistic.

But I don’t understand why anyone needs anything near an assault rifle. Let alone a young male (18 in uvalde, 20 in IN) who buys 2 AR-15 style rifles within 2 days.

I agree with people when they say there are mental health issues that are not dealt with. But it also seems a lot easier to not sell these types of weapons meant to kill quickly in large amounts than it is to try to identify and deal with all the crazies.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by rcubed

Thats where the problem lies. No way you can remove all the guns, I am not unrealistic.

But I don’t understand why anyone needs anything near an assault rifle. Let alone a young male (18 in uvalde, 20 in IN) who buys 2 AR-15 style rifles within 2 days.

I agree with people when they say there are mental health issues that are not dealt with. But it also seems a lot easier to not sell these types of weapons meant to kill quickly in large amounts than it is to try to identify and deal with all the crazies.

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.

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

Absolutely. Exactly how it was intended.

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.

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by rcubed

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.

[rcubed]

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.