Politics 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Agreed...the "right to bear arms" was built into out bill of rights over 200 years ago which was obviously way before ARs/assault rifles came to be and the have no practical purpose in the present and are only good for 2 things, killing people and mindlessly/foolishly/needlessly wasting 100s of dollars of ammo in a few seconds at the shooting range just to make some guy feel more macho so that he can then go home and masturbate to Rambo movies.
AR/Assult Rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) are already illegal to purchase in the US without a rigorous background check and permitting process. Almost nobody does this, and almost nobody owns these kinds of guns because they are not necessary.

You are either being deliberately ignorant of, or deliberately lying about the facts by equating the AR that the general population can buy with an assault rifle. I am saying this in the spirit of honest conversation. Not as an attack.
 
Last edited:
Nope, nope, and nope...and my reasons for not directly engaging certain posters instead of simply using the problematic "ignore" feature was clearly outlined about 2 months ago.
 
Nope, nope, and nope...and my reasons for not directly engaging certain posters instead of simply using the problematic "ignore" feature was clearly outlined about 2 months ago.
It's okay to say you don't know better. That's what honest dialogue is all about.

To summarize: there is no way to legislate the difference between the AR platform that is available today and the hunting rifles sold in this country for the last century. So if all we're talking about is making fully automatic rifles unprotected by the constitution then I'm fine with it. They've been illegal in this country virtually forever.

If this is trying to make semi-automatic hunting rifles illegal it doesn't stand a chance.
 
It's okay. I understand that acknowledging it would be devastating for your preferred narrative. But it's not logical to ignore it.

Again, I've done a TON of research on this topic, and I'm game to discuss it.
 
AR/Assult Rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) are already illegal to purchase in the US without a rigorous background check and permitting process. Almost nobody does this, and almost nobody owns these kinds of guns because they are not necessary.

Sounds like a model that would work really well for all the rest of the guns, then!

Because, let's face it, none of them are necessary either.

I believe you've solved the problem.

barfo
 
Sounds like a model that would work really well for all the rest of the guns, then!

Because, let's face it, none of them are necessary either.

I believe you've solved the problem.

barfo
If you can sell 38 states on that then you might be in business!

Unfortunately police take over 30 minutes to arrive... and that's in the city if they ever actually DO arrive. So good luck selling anybody on that...

From a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...ked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=7f82e0b0299a

What you would find by making all guns illegal would be that there would be far more fully auto assault rifles on the streets because they are easier to make than semi-auto. Semi-Auto does what people need, so there is no reason to break the law. But if you're already breaking the law to get a hunting rifle, why spend the extra time, effort, or money to make it semi-auto?
 
Last edited:
Preventing women from voting was oppressive of the weak. Further restricting gun rights is oppressive of the weak. You've been fooled.
No...I've lived half my adult life in a place where gun restrictions works...guns aren't fooling anybody around here, especially war vets. I find that insulting. Nobody ever hid the fact that women and minorities couldn't vote or that you can own guns in America...wide open situations don't "fool" people...they just exist. I lobby for what I believe in. I have grandchildren...I want a better world for them to grow into...one without gun violence.
 
Not as legally available in the US. You can't sell or buy an automatic AR-15 (or any gun) in the US without an expensive permit and extensive background check from the ATF. Very few people do this besides extreme collectors. It has been illegal to buy or sell fully automatic guns for nearly a century.

The AR-15 you can buy is semi-automatic and not capable of fully automatic fire (this means it is not an assault rifle).

To be clear. The AR15 people can buy have exactly the same functionality as any other type of hunting rifle you can buy in any caliber or brand.

I disagree with your definition of an assault rifle, here's the defintions for them from some dictionaries.

Dictionary.com


Meriam-Websters

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

From what I understand the primary distinction of an AR-15 and say a 30-06 is the design of the gun and their use cases. The AR-15 was designed for a military application, it was designed for use in combat, it was designed in such a way to make it easy on the operator to shoot large quantities of rounds both accurately and with great ease and control. Here's a very good interview with Terry Gross and another journalist from the WaPo who did a lot of research on the subject discussing what makes the AR-15 both popular and deadly.

Link

Yeah. I mean, any mass shooting that has made the news that we've all sort of - horrified by. You know, the Uvalde shooting down in Texas last year, that involved an AR-15-style weapon. Newtown, most famously, back in 2012 was an AR-15. Parkland, Fla., San Bernardino. The shooting in the movie theater in Aurora, Colo. You know, the Las Vegas mass shooting, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, involved AR-15s. So, you know, when the death toll gets really high, 10 or more, you know, these horrific things that just you can't look away from and horrify people, usually they involve AR-15s.

Here's some more good quotes on the subject.

Yeah, you know, it's something that some of the mass shooters even explicitly spell out, like, in their manifestos they leave behind, like the shooter in the Buffalo mass shooting just last year. I mean, he specifically said, I chose the AR-15 because it's, you know, very good at killing people...

one of the innovations and one of the things that made it so appealing to the military at first was it has this gas impingement system, which technically, basically, means that it redirects some of the energy from a fired bullet to reload the next bullet. And so there's less recoil, less kick on it. It's easier to keep aim, right? So instead of the front of the rifle kicking upwards with each bullet, it's easier to keep it on a constant target. So it's more accurate.

You know, it doesn't hurt. It's much easier to shoot. One of the things for folks who want to go out and fire 40 or 50 rounds at a range, you know, to do that with their big old hunting rifle, they'll bruise their shoulder after four or five rounds. The AR-15's sort of famously easy to shoot and doesn't have much kick... the AR-15 actually shoots a fairly small bullet. It's known as .223 or a 5.56, you know, these technical details. But it's a fairly small bullet, but it has a lot of powder behind it, gun powder behind it. And so it goes incredibly fast. And with that speed and it's - and how small the bullet is, when it hits a body, it sort of - once it goes in there, it doesn't just go right out the other side.

You know, you referenced some of the work we did, and we had this animation where it showed the difference between getting shot by a typical handgun round, like a 9-millimeter round versus an AR-15 typical round. A handgun round will go clear through you, that sort of pinhole on both sides. But when an AR-15 round typically hits you, it goes - makes that small entry wound, but then inside, it creates this shockwave, this blasting pattern that blows out the back side of people, causes internal injuries, and it's just devastating.

I don't mean this as hyperbole, but seriously why would someone need an AR-15? A handgun I can understand for self defense/ home defense, but an AR-15? Plus, from many self defense professionals I have seen they highly recommend a shotgun anyway because it's easier to hit a moving target with buckshot than with a single bullet. I dunno man, anyone advocating for having assault rifles as merriam-webster defines them is suspicious to me.
 
Let me add to this by stating the cops in Uvalde were slow to move in and confront the shooter because of the type of weapon he was using, an AR-15. They know what it can do, and were fearful of it. It's astounding to me that if cops are fearful of this thing, and they are slow to respond as a result of its deadliness, then it just seems to provide further arguments for why this and other weapons with similar designs should be outlawed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-shooter-because-of-the-rifle-he-used-report/

Also this is an older statistic but here's an article I found on the statistic of an AR-15, 26% of mass shootings at the time of this article being written were done with an AR-15.

https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107
 
If you can sell 38 states on that then you might be in business!

Unfortunately police take over 30 minutes to arrive... and that's in the city if they ever actually DO arrive. So good luck selling anybody on that...

From a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:



https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...ked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=7f82e0b0299a

What you would find by making all guns illegal would be that there would be far more fully auto assault rifles on the streets because they are easier to make than semi-auto. Semi-Auto does what people need, so there is no reason to break the law. But if you're already breaking the law to get a hunting rifle, why spend the extra time, effort, or money to make it semi-auto?

I disagree, you don't need to even pass an amendment. Dems just need to follow the same strategy as the Republicans, it will take a few decades but the roadmap exists. Simply get the right justices on the supreme court, pass a new law banning assault rifles, get a new case in front of the supreme court, and then overturn the Heller case from 2008 which was wrongly decided. Simple.
 
I disagree, you don't need to even pass an amendment. Dems just need to follow the same strategy as the Republicans, it will take a few decades but the roadmap exists. Simply get the right justices on the supreme court, pass a new law banning assault rifles, get a new case in front of the supreme court, and then overturn the Heller case from 2008 which was wrongly decided. Simple.
The supreme court has supported the individual right to own firearms for self defense multiple times.

It seems like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

What the Republicans have done has undermined the judicial branch in order to restrict the freedoms of the population. I don't think Democrats should do anything of the sort. IMO, Democrats should focus on strengthening our institutions for the purpose of empowering the people.
 
Let me add to this by stating the cops in Uvalde were slow to move in and confront the shooter because of the type of weapon he was using, an AR-15. They know what it can do, and were fearful of it. It's astounding to me that if cops are fearful of this thing, and they are slow to respond as a result of its deadliness, then it just seems to provide further arguments for why this and other weapons with similar designs should be outlawed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-shooter-because-of-the-rifle-he-used-report/

Also this is an older statistic but here's an article I found on the statistic of an AR-15, 26% of mass shootings at the time of this article being written were done with an AR-15.

https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107
Here's another good article on the subject, and it reminds me that the Heller decision actually was scoped to prevent states from preventing ownership of handguns within the home.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/
Seems like a reach. Seems like mental gymnastics to twist the actual words.

In order to have a capable militia (which is irregular infantry) you have to be able to call upon a population of people who have kept themselves trained and in the best fighting condition possible.

Militia is outside the control of the state except when needed. If it intended for the States to have the power it would have just said the States have the power. It wouldn't have said the the rights of the people to own and operate militia weaponry ( weapons equivalent to your average infantry soldier) shall not be infringed.

The constitution is a limit on the power of the government. It restricts the government and protects individual rights.
 
Let me add to this by stating the cops in Uvalde were slow to move in and confront the shooter because of the type of weapon he was using, an AR-15. They know what it can do, and were fearful of it. It's astounding to me that if cops are fearful of this thing, and they are slow to respond as a result of its deadliness, then it just seems to provide further arguments for why this and other weapons with similar designs should be outlawed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-shooter-because-of-the-rifle-he-used-report/

Also this is an older statistic but here's an article I found on the statistic of an AR-15, 26% of mass shootings at the time of this article being written were done with an AR-15.

https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107
It seems reasonable that the AR would be used a lot. It's the most popular rifle in the US.

And let those scared "Police" watch this comparison of the AR15 (.223/5.56) round compared to other hunting rifle rounds...

 
Last edited:
Been there, done that, and certainly not going back for a chance at some worthless t-shirt.
 
So all that being said... how do you legally differentiate a semi-automatic AR from a semi-automatic hunting rifle? Or is the proposal only for fully automatic rifles? Or is it for all semi-automatic guns?
 
Been there, done that, and certain not going back for a chance a a worthless t-shirt.
I love how your position has been so thoroughly debunked that you can't even hit the reply button to a person you disagree with.

Feel free to enlighten us all. How do you differentiate an AR15 from a hunting rifle?
 
Seems like a reach. Seems like mental gymnastics to twist the actual words.

In order to have a capable militia (which is irregular infantry) you have to be able to call upon a population of people who have kept themselves trained and in the best fighting condition possible.

Militia is outside the control of the state except when needed. If it intended for the States to have the power it would have just said the States have the power. It wouldn't have said the the rights of the people to own and operate militia weaponry ( weapons equivalent to your average infantry soldier) shall not be infringed.

The constitution is a limit on the power of the government. It restricts the government and protects individual rights.
A capable militia. A well regulated militia, which is what the text states. I'm not in fighting shape. I am not in the best shape possible. I have never trained. But I can go in and purchase a gun today. Why is the well regulated militia part routinely ignored?
 
A capable militia. A well regulated militia, which is what the text states. I'm not in fighting shape. I am not in the best shape possible. I have never trained. But I can go in and purchase a gun today. Why is the well regulated militia part routinely ignored?
That's an excellent question, and I'm glad you asked. It's not ignored, it just doesn't mean what you think it does in this context (militia's are renowned for being out of control). Well regulated at the time was used in reference to being "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected". They addressed this in Heller, actually.

Here are some examples of the term being used in writings of the time...

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Excerpt from:
A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)

"With the general introduction of clocks and watches into use about a century
ago this kind of solar time went out of common use, since no well-regulated clock could keep the time correctly. The earth in its orbital motion around the
sun goes faster in some parts of its orbit than in others, and in consequence
the sun appears to move more rapidly among the stars in winter than in
summer, moreover, on account of the convergence of hour circles as we go
away from the equator, the same amount of motion along the ecliptic
produces more effect in winter and summer when the sun is north or south,
than it does in the spring and autumn when the sun is near the equator, and as
a combined result of these causes and other minor ones true solar time, as it is
called, is itself not uniform, but falls behind the uniform lapse of sidereal time
at a variable rate, sometimes quicker, sometimes slower. A true solar day
from noon to noon, is 51 seconds shorter in September than in December"

Again, it's important that you don't forget that the constitution doesn't restrict individuals from anything. It protects the rights of individuals by placing restrictions on the government.

It doesn't make sense that it would be placing any restriction on the people. It specifically says that the peoples rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It only mentions the militia to set the standard for why those rights are protected. Protecting the rights of civilians to own and operate similar weapons as your average infantry soldier. Giving us a much larger population of civilians who are familiar with the weapons.

Thereby drastically improving the speed at which a larger militia could be assembled as well as the effectiveness of said force.
 
Last edited:
Nobody needs semi-automatic guns at all in the private sector...people have hunted forever with manually chambered rifles and shotguns. A good hunter needs one shot....two at the most. If you shoot more than that you spoil the meat with adrenaline from their fear. Nobody needs handguns either. They are designed to shoot people. Stop shooting people! End gun culture in America and start building a healthy, safer society for young people to grow up in.
 
Nobody needs semi-automatic guns at all in the private sector...people have hunted forever with manually chambered rifles and shotguns. A good hunter needs one shot....two at the most. If you shoot more than that you spoil the meat with adrenaline from their fear. Nobody needs handguns either. They are designed to shoot people. Stop shooting people! End gun culture in America and start building a healthy, safer society for young people to grow up in.
I understand that is your opinion. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes. We could make much more substantial changes than that in a decade if we'd stop chasing these red herrings the political parties keep shoving down our throats.

Hunters have been using semi-automatic hunting rifles for nearly a century.

Gun laws make a very marginal difference at best in the US. The vast majority of states would not enforce any gun laws. And they will not in our lifetimes.

It's easier and cheaper to make a full automatic than it is to make a semi automatic. So again, outlawing all semiautomatic will encourage more full automatic to hit the black market. And 3/4 of the states will likely not enforce the bans for decades.

You're asking for another prohibition situation.
 
Last edited:
Whether they are used or not, what’s the justification for having an assault rifle such as an AR-15?

What is the justification or reason for owning a car that is capable of going 200 mph?
 
Let me add to this by stating the cops in Uvalde were slow to move in and confront the shooter because of the type of weapon he was using, an AR-15. They know what it can do, and were fearful of it. It's astounding to me that if cops are fearful of this thing, and they are slow to respond as a result of its deadliness, then it just seems to provide further arguments for why this and other weapons with similar designs should be outlawed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-shooter-because-of-the-rifle-he-used-report/

Also this is an older statistic but here's an article I found on the statistic of an AR-15, 26% of mass shootings at the time of this article being written were done with an AR-15.

https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107

An AR is no more scary than any other rifle. A higher caliber rifle would defeat their body armor, whereas their armor might withstand a shot from an AR. I don't think the type of gun played any role at all in their reasoning to go in or not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top