After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

So here is my idea. Outright banning AR15 should be off the table. Why? 2nd amendment is not for hunting. 2nd amendment is not for self defense. Guns are meant for deterring violence and for commiting necessary violence. Lets remember that fully automatic weapons and explosives are already all but illegal. An AR15 is not all out warfare machinery realistically. A ban is not American, its not freedom, its not the 2nd amendment, its not how we do things.

Now here is the idea. Just as it is currently illegal to carry a loaded concealed firearm unless you have a permit to do so, lets do something similar with AR15s. Concealed carry permits are well within the grasp of most sane and intelligent people to acquire. We can implement a similar system for people to go through in order to obtain AR15s.

Lets not look at it as red tape or hoops to jump through. Lets look at it as a system to foster, encourage, cultivate a group of intelligent responsible people to acquire these guns. It will be far from impossible for people to acquire these guns, but it will make sure their background is clean, their skills and knowledge are up to par, and they are in stable mental condition.

 

So if the Second Amendment is not for hunting or self defense, but for "committing necessary violence", who is this violence directed against and who decides if it is necessary? "A ban is not American, its not freedom, its not the 2nd amendment, its not how we do things." Who is we? The other nutjobs in the militia? "Stable mental condition" my ass!

 

Well that shows to go you that you don't know squat about those ideologies. Socialism and communism are about economic equality. The notion of yeoman individualists using guns as equalizers is petit bourgeois leveling, and a clear diversion from the main tasks of proletarian control--State ownership of the means of production and liquidation of the last vestiges of capitalism. When that happens, Marxist ideologues think that issues of private gun ownership will be irrelevant. In societies where communal values predominate, people will not be interested in killing each other. Your bourgeois notion is also delusional. Anybody who watches TV westerns knows that the average citizen on the street is no match for the gunslingers, and no matter how fast the fastest gun in the west is, there is always some punk kid ready to test his mettle..

 

The 2nd amendment is not for hunting. The 2nd amendment is not for self defense. Period. The we is Americans. No one is forcing you to own a gun. But the right to do so is afforded us in The Bill of Rights. Period. Calm down.

 

How many times does it need to be asked: if the Second Amendment is not about hunting or home self-defense, what is it about?
As for your statistics about more people being killed by knives and handguns, those are misleading. ARs kill more people more efficiently than knives and hand guns, and are therefore a favorite weapon in mass shooting. Killings in knife fights and by handguns tend to happen in domestic situations or petty crimes smaller in scale then the mass shootings though adding up. It is not unreasonable for society to take action against mass shootings and to focus on school violence, since this is the issue du jour.

 

Only fascists want to own AR-15s or AK-47s or any other high-powered semi-automatic rifles. That's reason enough to want them banned. Almost 1/2 million Americans died fighting fascism in WWII. Now it seems we need to fight them on our own soil.

 

Well, I put forth my idea to remedy the issue du jour. And you really didnt say anything about it. Was it not good enough for you because it is not a full blown AR ban?

 

The bar for what constitutes being a fascist now is set so low and that label is thrown around so flippantly that it doesn't have the effect it should. Pretty sure I'm not a fascist, but if you say so, then ok.

 

Hey, buddy. You seem to be the one whose agitated.That "Period" sounds pretty dogmatic, but it's an interpretation of the Second Amendment that not everybody shares.The Courts have made clear that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment doesn't preclude reasonable regulations. There is no specific right to own ARs, and presumably they could be regulated.

 

The 2nd Amendment was originally so the government could quickly form a standing army if the U.S. was attacked. Our Founding Fathers were against having a standing army. Since we have a standing army now, the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. Eventually, sanity will prevail and it will be repealed.

 

What is your definition of a "fascist?"

 

Taking guns away

 

Your idea does provide for regulation of ARs, I think a full AR ban makes more sense, but a system for highly regulating them as you propose is worth considering.

 

So you're saying that Australia has a fascist government?

 

Well lets be careful with our language. I did not say highly regulated. The mindset needs to be more like facilitating responsibility and safety versus "highly regulated" which can have the conotation of impossible. Analogous to that which is required for obtaing a concealed carry permit. Or the hunters safety course that is required to obtain a huntinh license. Its constraints directed at fostering responsibility and safety as opposed to barriers making the object virtually unobtainable.

 

I wouldn't want to live there. No offense to anyone who lives in Australia. I'm sure its a nice country. I'd like to visit.

 

Fascists tend to be pro-gun. After WWI, the U.S. and our allies prohibited Germans from owning guns. Hitler got rid of those restrictions for Aryans -- many of whom murdered Jews and other "undesirables."

 

Youre saying Hitler was pro gun for a segment of the population. Pro gun for certain people and pro gun are not the same thing. He was anti gun for another segment of the population. Looks like youre arguing against yourself if you actually think.

 

Bullshit argument. If there is a ban on AR-15s in the US it will be American. If there is a ban that will be the exact amount of freedom you get. If there is a ban then that is how we amend the 2nd amendment. If there is a ban then that will be exactly how we do things.[/QUOTE]

 

I support a better background check system that doesn’t take away someone’s due process. How are we going to get to that, I have no idea. Democrats don’t want to work with Republicans and Republicans don’t want to work with Democrats. Placing an age limit over 21 on firearms is dumb. How will a 20 year old mother protect her family should a burglar break in their home?
I can’t remember the number, but weren’t the cops called to Cruz’s house 30 something times for threats or something similar? A restraining order would have made his background check I have never been one to ban anything from law abiding citizens. I like choices to own whatever I want to buy with the money I earn. Yes I fully believe the 2nd amendment protects our natural right for self defense and “not infringed” means just that. Hands off!

Schools need metal detectors, law enforcement presence, and allow teachers that want to legally carry a weapon be allowed to do so. Teachers that carry must keep it concealed on their person at all times (not in their purse or desk drawer). Also the same should apply to parents dropping their children off. If you carry and train with your firearm (legally, sanely, and responsibly of course) you should be allowed to carry anywhere.