Ok so we have yet another shooting and naturally the uproar is there. It will die down like it always does in a week or so but nonetheless, what are your thoughts on gun control, shootings, etc.? I understand this is a controversial topic but interested in the members of IPS thoughts. Try to keep it clean but at the same time, be honest, be blunt and say what you feel.

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

---

No. AR is the buzz weapon everyone is upset about. I don't think a ban on them will help do anything really. I was just offering dialogue of some middle ground that might help the other side.

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

---

No. AR is the buzz weapon everyone is upset about. I don't think a ban on them will help do anything really. I was just offering dialogue of some middle ground that might help the other side.

---

Agreed. From personal experience, the system used to "clear" someone to buy a gun is failed. By law, they made us call in each NICS form filled out, even when the potential buyer admitted to having a felony. 90% of the time, NICS would clear that person to purchase the weapon. Boggles my mind when I saw this happen over and over again. Gun restrictions aren't the answer. Better paperwork process, background checks, etc can possibly be. No criminal is going to buy a gun legally to begin with so you can't stop that. You can however, have better enforcement when it comes to the paperwork required to purchase a long gun. A pistol requires a permit so when I was doing it, there was no NICS paperwork to call in.

Banning "ARs" would do nothing but give some a political win and lull society into a false comfort until the next kid used a semiatutomic hunting rifle, pistol, knife, pipe/pressure cooker bomb, etc. It is crazy how many people have no clue about firearms, but eat up anything the media says. The USA will never rid itself of firearms or should they.

I can think of nothing that would stop school shootings short of making them a hardend target but then they could just wait until the bell rings to go home. Should we close up holes in the adminstrative side of buying a firearm mabye, but that will not stop anyone willing to steal one.

It really is a heart/mental health issue. If you dont stop the desire to commit the crime it is going to keep happening with various methods.

Touchy subject. I'm a gun owner, farmer, hunter and nothing is better in my book than getting a group together to shoot doves or skeet. I'm simply amazed at the number of AR' s available in the gun stores. I had a twitch to buy a Browning semi automatic on a beach trip a few weeks ago. I went in Bass Pro and it seemed that half the guns in there were some type of AR. I think the worst thing in the world was when the ban on them was lifted. Personally, I have no practical use for one. The cat is out of the bag now and it's going to be damn near impossible to put it back. They are too easy to get and box after box of clips and ammunition on the floor to buy in every gun store you go in. I realize this is a very slippery and if one thing goes away where does it stop? The answer for this is very complicated and way above my pay grade.

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

---

No. AR is the buzz weapon everyone is upset about. I don't think a ban on them will help do anything really. I was just offering dialogue of some middle ground that might help the other side.

---

AR-15 have high capacity mags plus the potential to make them fully automatic.
Pistols are fine, hunting rifles are fine, shotguns are fine, but AR-15 are military grade weapons. Look lets use common sense Ban AR-15's.....Create a centralized national background check with automatic 7 day waiting period on all guns........raise the age to 21 to buy any gun......Create a registry for the guns and a license for the gun owner which incorporates training and renewal test every couples of years

wolfblood72 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

---

No. AR is the buzz weapon everyone is upset about. I don't think a ban on them will help do anything really. I was just offering dialogue of some middle ground that might help the other side.

---

AR-15 have high capacity mags plus the potential to make them fully automatic.
Pistols are fine, hunting rifles are fine, shotguns are fine, but AR-15 are military grade weapons. Look lets use common sense Ban AR-15's.....Create a centralized national background check with automatic 7 day waiting period on all guns........raise the age to 21 to buy any gun......Create a registry for the guns and a license for the gun owner which incorporates training and renewal test every couples of years

---

So ban AR-15s because they are high capacity? You do realize I can go buy a 60 round clip for just about any pistol I want to right? Also, I can take a clip fed semi auto rifle and buy an extended clip for it as well. Now, yes you can turn an AR-15 into a fully auto gun but with just the slightest bit of research, you can figure out how to do the same with any gun. So why ban an AR-15 and not the others? Just a simple question up for discussion

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

wolfblood72 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

---

No. AR is the buzz weapon everyone is upset about. I don't think a ban on them will help do anything really. I was just offering dialogue of some middle ground that might help the other side.

---

AR-15 have high capacity mags plus the potential to make them fully automatic.
Pistols are fine, hunting rifles are fine, shotguns are fine, but AR-15 are military grade weapons. Look lets use common sense Ban AR-15's.....Create a centralized national background check with automatic 7 day waiting period on all guns........raise the age to 21 to buy any gun......Create a registry for the guns and a license for the gun owner which incorporates training and renewal test every couples of years

---

So ban AR-15s because they are high capacity? You do realize I can go buy a 60 round clip for just about any pistol I want to right? Also, I can take a clip fed semi auto rifle and buy an extended clip for it as well. Now, yes you can turn an AR-15 into a fully auto gun but with just the slightest bit of research, you can figure out how to do the same with any gun. So why ban an AR-15 and not the others? Just a simple question up for discussion

---

Part of the Assault rifle ban of 1994 had a list I just didn't list them all, but high capacity mags were part of it..... nothing over 10 round Mag. We should look at tweeking that ban. I have no issue with the AR-15 type weapons as long as they lower capacity of the mags and can assure modification cant be made to them.

wolfblood72 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

wolfblood72 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

If you ban sales of "AR's" which are semi automatic unless illegally tampered with, shouldnt you also ban any pistol not a revolver or rifle not a pump or bolt action and same for shotguns? By some people's definition, all those are "assault weapons." Generally asking in the spirit of conversation. As for the buy back. What good will that do to all the people who want to use a gin, knife etc for bad?

---

No. AR is the buzz weapon everyone is upset about. I don't think a ban on them will help do anything really. I was just offering dialogue of some middle ground that might help the other side.

---

AR-15 have high capacity mags plus the potential to make them fully automatic.
Pistols are fine, hunting rifles are fine, shotguns are fine, but AR-15 are military grade weapons. Look lets use common sense Ban AR-15's.....Create a centralized national background check with automatic 7 day waiting period on all guns........raise the age to 21 to buy any gun......Create a registry for the guns and a license for the gun owner which incorporates training and renewal test every couples of years

---

So ban AR-15s because they are high capacity? You do realize I can go buy a 60 round clip for just about any pistol I want to right? Also, I can take a clip fed semi auto rifle and buy an extended clip for it as well. Now, yes you can turn an AR-15 into a fully auto gun but with just the slightest bit of research, you can figure out how to do the same with any gun. So why ban an AR-15 and not the others? Just a simple question up for discussion

---

Part of the Assault rifle ban of 1994 had a list I just didn't list them all, but high capacity mags were part of it..... nothing over 10 round Mag. We should look at tweeking that ban. I have no issue with the AR-15 type weapons as long as they lower capacity of the mags and can assure modification cant be made to them.

---

Agreed. The problem is, where do you draw the line. Some say do nothing and others say go extreme. Sadly, this country ain't able to agree on whether they should wipe their ass after taking a **** so I doubt they will figure this out either.

I'm biased because i own an so called AR rifle or 2

Don't agree to a ban
Canceled my NRA membership when they started making some very hate filled propaganda type videos for political reasons

I do agree with
Raising the minimum age to purchase from 18 to 21
For all semi automatic long guns
If an 18 year old wants a hunting rifle or shotgun there are plenty of non semi auto options available
Also regulate ar sales the same as pistols require permit from sheriff dept or concealed carry permit we all do this in north carolina for pistols shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings if we do it for AR's

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

---

Well a clip and a magazine are two different things w/ guns. So it does, in fact, change what it is.

My personal take.

1) An AR actually does have a purpose. Both my wife and daughter use it to hunt because it is light weight and low recoil. my wife is about 110lbs and my daughter is just a smidge over 100lbs. Plus it is quite the fun gun to use if you are target shooting.

2) Raise the age limit to 21, I am cool with that. Not sure how this would stop anything, but I cannot come up with a justifiable reason to not do it.

3) Loosen HIPPA laws to tie in mental health to background checks. But this has to be severely limited and not leave a major loophole to prevent people from purchasing a gun if they so desire.

4) Reinstate teaching hunting safety in schools (as an after school program). I was able to take it in school, but is has been pretty much removed.

5) Absolutely no to a registry. We have already seen that abused by the media and government.

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

---

Well a clip and a magazine are two different things w/ guns. So it does, in fact, change what it is.

---

Thank you for your insight. Would you like to add any the original post? Basically, would you like to make a suggestion or just go to Webster's for the definition of clip and magazine? We can go back and forth but the fact is, they are used interchangeably with one another. The fact remains, they may mean something different but they both say the same thing. Would love to hear your suggestion on what can or should be done about the supposed gun problem in this country.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

---

Well a clip and a magazine are two different things w/ guns. So it does, in fact, change what it is.

---

Thank you for your insight. Would you like to add any the original post? Basically, would you like to make a suggestion or just go to Webster's for the definition of clip and magazine? We can go back and forth but the fact is, they are used interchangeably with one another. The fact remains, they may mean something different but they both say the same thing. Would love to hear your suggestion on what can or should be done about the supposed gun problem in this country.

---

Take a chill pill, I hit submit to early before I completed my original post and went back and edited it. I was simply trying to click off of this to answer a work email and hit post in error. My work email notification pops up right beside where the "post" is on this forum.

And to add, and this is not directed at anyone specifically, the reason people get so up in arms about the terminology is the fact it pretty much shows that the person/ people who are discussing it dont truly understand what they are talking about. Its hard to get one side to listen to you when they think you have no clue what you are talking about.

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

---

Well a clip and a magazine are two different things w/ guns. So it does, in fact, change what it is.

---

Thank you for your insight. Would you like to add any the original post? Basically, would you like to make a suggestion or just go to Webster's for the definition of clip and magazine? We can go back and forth but the fact is, they are used interchangeably with one another. The fact remains, they may mean something different but they both say the same thing. Would love to hear your suggestion on what can or should be done about the supposed gun problem in this country.

---

Take a chill pill, I hit submit to early before I completed my original post and went back and edited it. I was simply trying to click off of this to answer a work email and hit post in error. My work email notification pops up right beside where the "post" is on this forum.

And to add, and this is not directed at anyone specifically, the reason people get so up in arms about the terminology is the fact it pretty much shows that the person/ people who are discussing it dont truly understand what they are talking about. Its hard to get one side to listen to you when they think you have no clue what you are talking about.

---

Been working on guns for years. I use the words interchangeably often. Doesn't mean I "don't truly know what I am talking about." Again, what would you suggest be fine about this supposed gun issue in the country? Should we can guns? Should there be tougher background checks? Should there be a waiting period? Should there be smaller "clips" or "magazines" available? What would be your suggestion?

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

---

Well a clip and a magazine are two different things w/ guns. So it does, in fact, change what it is.

---

Thank you for your insight. Would you like to add any the original post? Basically, would you like to make a suggestion or just go to Webster's for the definition of clip and magazine? We can go back and forth but the fact is, they are used interchangeably with one another. The fact remains, they may mean something different but they both say the same thing. Would love to hear your suggestion on what can or should be done about the supposed gun problem in this country.

---

Take a chill pill, I hit submit to early before I completed my original post and went back and edited it. I was simply trying to click off of this to answer a work email and hit post in error. My work email notification pops up right beside where the "post" is on this forum.

And to add, and this is not directed at anyone specifically, the reason people get so up in arms about the terminology is the fact it pretty much shows that the person/ people who are discussing it dont truly understand what they are talking about. Its hard to get one side to listen to you when they think you have no clue what you are talking about.

---

Been working on guns for years. I use the words interchangeably often. Doesn't mean I "don't truly know what I am talking about." Again, what would you suggest be fine about this supposed gun issue in the country? Should we can guns? Should there be tougher background checks? Should there be a waiting period? Should there be smaller "clips" or "magazines" available? What would be your suggestion?

---

#1, as I stated in my post, that comment was not directed at you personally, I dont know what you know about guns one way or the other. It is just a general statement that I would believe would help both sides talk. IMO, if you sound like you know what you are talking about, more people would be receptive to what you have to say about a specific topic. And that is anything, not just guns.

#2, I edited my original post in this thread with my thoughts. But to add to that and address a couple of things you specifically asked about here in this post. Here are my additional thoughts:

A) No, cannot/ should not get rid of guns.

B) HIPPA laws need to be relaxed to tie mental health into background checks.

C) I think waiting periods are a warm and fuzzy and really do nothing one way or the other. I think the better bet is to invest in the tech to get accurate information into the FBI database for the background checks.

D) Reducing magazine sizes is another warm and fuzzy, it wont really do anything to prevent mass shootings. But if you want to limit it to 10 vs. 30, have a ball with it. Just means a shooter has to load more often, but it takes just a few seconds to switch. Will that few seconds make a difference?

I believe few things should be looked at. Give the FBI the resources necessary to investigate these threats. Just like we saw with this latest shooting, the signs were there and the FBI was notified. It could have been prevented if the FBI had the necessary resources IMO. Staff armed resource officers at schools when there is a threat made, regardless of how serious its deemed to be. IMO, the moment the FBI received the threat about the shooting, call the local sheriff department and have them be a presence at the school. Also randomly rotate them from schools that dont have full time resource officers currently.

IMO, one other issue. Parental responsibility. There is a reason that video game is for 18 years and older, but you let your 12 year old play it so he can be the "cool kid." We, IMO, are numbing young minds with allowing them to see violence on TV/ Video games to the reality of death. Also look at what is considered an R rated move now vs 20 years ago. We keep loosening the reigns and kids are seeing things before they are mature enough to handle it.

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Dex76 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Steven said:

---

PS if you use the word clip instead of magazine when talking about any semi automatic rifle or pistol
Please take a fire arm safety course ASAP
Just saying

---

And PS, if I want to call it a clip and not magazine, it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

---

Well a clip and a magazine are two different things w/ guns. So it does, in fact, change what it is.

---

Thank you for your insight. Would you like to add any the original post? Basically, would you like to make a suggestion or just go to Webster's for the definition of clip and magazine? We can go back and forth but the fact is, they are used interchangeably with one another. The fact remains, they may mean something different but they both say the same thing. Would love to hear your suggestion on what can or should be done about the supposed gun problem in this country.

---

Take a chill pill, I hit submit to early before I completed my original post and went back and edited it. I was simply trying to click off of this to answer a work email and hit post in error. My work email notification pops up right beside where the "post" is on this forum.

And to add, and this is not directed at anyone specifically, the reason people get so up in arms about the terminology is the fact it pretty much shows that the person/ people who are discussing it dont truly understand what they are talking about. Its hard to get one side to listen to you when they think you have no clue what you are talking about.

---

Been working on guns for years. I use the words interchangeably often. Doesn't mean I "don't truly know what I am talking about." Again, what would you suggest be fine about this supposed gun issue in the country? Should we can guns? Should there be tougher background checks? Should there be a waiting period? Should there be smaller "clips" or "magazines" available? What would be your suggestion?

---

#1, as I stated in my post, that comment was not directed at you personally, I dont know what you know about guns one way or the other. It is just a general statement that I would believe would help both sides talk. IMO, if you sound like you know what you are talking about, more people would be receptive to what you have to say about a specific topic. And that is anything, not just guns.

#2, I edited my original post in this thread with my thoughts. But to add to that and address a couple of things you specifically asked about here in this post. Here are my additional thoughts:

A) No, cannot/ should not get rid of guns.

B) HIPPA laws need to be relaxed to tie mental health into background checks.

C) I think waiting periods are a warm and fuzzy and really do nothing one way or the other. I think the better bet is to invest in the tech to get accurate information into the FBI database for the background checks.

D) Reducing magazine sizes is another warm and fuzzy, it wont really do anything to prevent mass shootings. But if you want to limit it to 10 vs. 30, have a ball with it. Just means a shooter has to load more often, but it takes just a few seconds to switch. Will that few seconds make a difference?

I believe few things should be looked at. Give the FBI the resources necessary to investigate these threats. Just like we saw with this latest shooting, the signs were there and the FBI was notified. It could have been prevented if the FBI had the necessary resources IMO. Staff armed resource officers at schools when there is a threat made, regardless of how serious its deemed to be. IMO, the moment the FBI received the threat about the shooting, call the local sheriff department and have them be a presence at the school. Also randomly rotate them from schools that dont have full time resource officers currently.

IMO, one other issue. Parental responsibility. There is a reason that video game is for 18 years and older, but you let your 12 year old play it so he can be the "cool kid." We, IMO, are numbing young minds with allowing them to see violence on TV/ Video games to the reality of death. Also look at what is considered an R rated move now vs 20 years ago. We keep loosening the reigns and kids are seeing things before they are mature enough to handle it.

---

Agree with everything you suggested as it pertains to background checks, FBI database info, magazine or clip size, games, etc. As someone who worked in an industry where gun sales were common, calling the info in on a background check for someone who admitted to a felony and hearing the person on the other end say "approved" really chapped my ass. By law at that time, if they were approved, you had to sell the gun. Never made sense to me

-Regulate guns like cars, including written/eye/use tests + required insurance
-National registry of gun ownership
-Universal background checks
-Bring back federal assault weapons ban

I have nothing against guns, but the fervor around military-grade weapons makes absolutely no sense to me.

Requiring insurance makes no sense to me. It's just a punitive thing to do to gunowners to make non-gun owners feel like they are doing something. If you have insurance on guns, does that do something to lessen the impact of the 17 kids that were killed?

Also, the national registry is absurd. That need not happen. What benefit does that provide?

^ We require a registry and insurance for vehicles. Do you believe we should have those? The registry should be tied into your "license" like it is with the DMV. Take all the tests, show proof of insurance, and you get a license. With a national registry you would be able track the possession of guns, who has them, is who bought them fit to own, etc. Why is that a bad idea?

Why do you need to track who owns guns legally? What does that do to fix any problem?

You can certainly try to improve methods for screening. A registry does nothing to improve that.

Comparing guns to cars is irrelevant. Should we also be required to register and have insurance on our steak knives, shovels, axes, and baseball bats as well?

We don't need to add new government agencies and give the insurance industry a financial boost just to pretend we are doing something to curb gun violence.

PackBacker07 said:

---

-Regulate guns like cars, including written/eye/use tests + required insurance
-National registry of gun ownership
-Universal background checks
-Bring back federal assault weapons ban

I have nothing against guns, but the fervor around military-grade weapons makes absolutely no sense to me.

---

1) A Car is not a constitutional right, a gun is. You want to increase training? Cool, I dont think that is a bad thing. Everything else you stated is absurd and will not happen.

2) HECK to the NO! Never, I dont care what the law is, I would NEVER register my gun. We have already seen the abuse by the government with this. NO!

3) Please explain universal background checks? We already use the FBI database for the background check.Cannot get more universal than that.

4) This is sticky, what is considered an"assault weapon?" Pretty much what the original definition of an assault weapon was it had to be an automatic rifle (Yes I know that the definition changed with a bill that went through congress back in the 90's with the "assault weapon ban"), which you cannot just go an buy, there is a special license you have to obtain to get one, and it aint easy. Most gun advocates stick with the original definition, not some definition that was created to fit an agenda.

I assume by "military grade" you mean an AR-15.An AR-15 is not military grade because it is a semi-auto and not full auto, which is what the military uses. The AR-15 is a commonly used hunting weapon actually. More than you might would probably think.

jhawker67 said:

---

Sorry, I don't trust idiot politicians who think they are above the law, I am a free man made by my Creator and have unalienable rights, I am not a subject of a monarch or a corrupt government, end of story.

If you don't want to own an AR, that's your choice, but NO ONE has the right to deny me of my right to own one. If anyone has a problem with that, then there are plenty of countries you can move to live under those rules, but this is America.

---

I think what's missing is a complete understanding of the US constitution. People have all rights and they give the government means to create laws to protect those rights. Government has Zero rights. Your personal rights end where another person rights begin. It's really that simple.

I am not a gun owner or NRA member. I am a person that believes in my rights coming from God, not government. The original amendments were added because certain states didn't trust how future politicians would interpret the constitution. The second amendment is the amendment that takes all this conversation and throws it out the window. I will argue against any legislation against guns because of the second amendment.

People are always selective about what legislation should be passed based on their emotional thought at any given time. Start thinking about an issue where you are in the minority, then ask about the constitutionality of it. You will find that the law is probably not constitutional.

packgrad said:

---

Ban new sales of ARs. Offer a buy back program for existing ARs, but not mandatory. I personally don't think that will help much, but it could help satisfy some.

---

Absolutely not. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to essentially have the citizenry act as a "militia" or army that protects the nation. That means citizens have the right to military-grade weaponry. This is clear from the plain language of the 2nd Amendment as wells as the intent of the Founders.

Further reading with proof on this here.

excerpt:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The phrase "well regulated" does not mean what modern-day leftists would have us believe -- ie, that it supposedly means this militia "restricted" the people's access to the firearms, or that it limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only. The phrase "well regulated", in the lingo of the late 18th century, essentially means "well equipped and well trained" or "kept in proper working order", which is also overwhelmingly confirmed by the writings of the Founders and others around that time in history. In modern terminology, "regulated" is still sometimes used in this way -- such as referring to a watch or violin that is in proper working order as "regulated."

Therefore, in the vernacular of modern times, the first part of the text of the Second Amendment basically states that "a well equipped and well trained civilian army is necessary for the security of a free nation." A well-equipped or well armed military is necessary for the defense and security of the nation. Not an army or militia that is restricted or limited in its right to keep and bear arms, which is preposterous.

The second part of the text of the Second Amendment is fairly unambiguous and straight-forward, with one exception which may warrant further explanation. The terms "keep and bear" not only mean that the people have the right to own firearms, as noted by the term "keep". As expressed by the term "bear", the people also have the right to carry firearms on their person.

Banning or deeply regulating certain types of weapons will not stop people from committing mass killings.

I wish we would spend some time trying to figure out why people feel the need to kill other people in this method. Gone are the days of maybe getting in a fight or shooting one person you are mad at. Now they want to just kill the whole school.

And I find it extremely interesting that the same people who say they want to take away our guns because they "care about the children" are the same people who champion the mass murder of almost a million children each year in the United States -- ie, abortion.

The hard Left does not give one rat's you know what about the lives of children. They want to ban guns simply because it's part of the totalitarian agenda of the communist Left. They have no problem if the cops and military are armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. They want citizens disarmed and in subjection to the government/State.

I have no problem if everyone elses weapins were confiscated.

I have no problem if everyone elses weapins were confiscated.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

And I find it extremely interesting that the same people who say they want to take away our guns because they "care about the children" are the same people who champion the mass murder of almost a million children each year in the United States -- ie, abortion.

The hard Left does not give one rat's you know what about the lives of children. They want to ban guns simply because it's part of the totalitarian agenda of the communist Left. They have no problem if the cops and military are armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. They want citizens disarmed and in subjection to the government/State.

---

Yup. The whole thing is a joke.

Some perspective is needed on deaths by firearms too. There is not some "epidemic" of homicides right now. Even if there were, that is not justification to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. The reality is that violent crime in the USA peaked back in the early 1990s, and has been falling steadily over the past few decades. See here for admission by CNN of all sources.

Here are the CDC stats on deaths by injury, including firearm deaths.

Around 30,000 die from firearms each year in the USA. But around 20,000 of those are suicides. Only about 10,000 are homicides.

By comparison, around 55,000 people die each year from poisoning (see CDC link), with about 45,000 of those being unintentional.

About 35,000 people die in the USA every year from car accidents. So where is the outcry by the Left for more "car control" or other preventative measures to prevent deaths of children in car accidents? What about raising the age to drive to 21?

Of course, as is clear by looking at the issue of abortion, these are rhetorical questions. The Left does not truly care about "saving the children" or preventing deaths.