Opinion Where do you draw the line on gun regulation?

Why do you think people need assault weapons?
I'm all for protecting yourself and your property if you go through stringent mental health checks etc, but why do you NEED an AR15?

Why do you need a pen? You could just use a pencil.

An AR15 isn't an assault weapon. it's a semi-automatic rifle just like any other rifle for the last half century that are routinely owned, or 80ish years less routinely owned.

A better question would be why do I need a car that can exceed 100mph? Or a motorcycle that can exceed 150mph?

Register, enter into a system, complete a 4473 etc etc etc. Whatever you call it. Either way, you know what I meant.

It isn't 'etc.,' registering a firearm to you is different than a 4473 -- which is just a background check for purchasing a firearm. It's literally just a background check for whoever purchased the firearm when it was originally sold for the first time.
 
As a gun owner, I feel it should be similar to buying and operating a car. You should have to be tested and become licensed. You should have to be properly insured. You should have to under periodic renewal processes to renew your license. If you want to own a more advance or powerful firearm, they should have higher tiers, which require more stringent testing and annual medical screening(similar to a CDL)

It's way too easy to buy a gun in this day and age, and far too many idiots have them. Sadly the 2nd amendment gun nut crowd will refuse to ever consider any meaningful changes.
 
We don't NEED. But the Second Amendment isn't about "need" - shall NOT be infringed

COME_AND_TAKE_IT_DECAL__94577.1581957879.jpg
Say what?
The 2nd Amendment was absolutely about need. In fact, that need is written right into the Amendment if you bother to quote more than the last 4 words of it:

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 state had a need to defend itself from threats both foreign and domestic, and it needed to be able to do that without the federal government’s infringement on their ability to do so. The 2A is absolutely NOT about wants. It’s about need.
 
Why do you think people need assault weapons?
I'm all for protecting yourself and your property if you go through stringent mental health checks etc, but why do you NEED an AR15?

What's an assault weapon?
 
I dont have an issue with bans on particular assualt weapons (semi auto shotguns, automatic rifles, expslosive rounds) But thats where it needs to stop, alot of these politicians pushing for change have never had to deal with criminals attempting to mug you or breaking into your house or car at 3 in the morning.

The gun serves as deterrent in this aspect also.

So a semi automatic shotgun is an assault weapon now?
 
So a semi automatic shotgun is an assault weapon now?
You mean this bad boy, das spas 12

220px-Franchi_SPAS_12_Grip_Safety.jpeg

Yes, and furthermore they are even more effective for mowing down people especially given the right ammunition. Im pro gun, but after shooting some of the nicer semi auto shotguns I quickly realized their killing capabilities against large crowds with minimal aiming
 
You mean this bad boy, das spas 12

View attachment 879848

Yes, and furthermore they are even more effective for mowing down people especially given the right ammunition. Im pro gun, but after shooting some of the nicer semi auto shotguns I quickly realized their killing capabilities against large crowds with minimal aiming

Some people can pull the plug, add extra shells and use a pump near as quickly. Shotguns in general are a crowd nightmare so im not sure it being semi auto really makes a huge difference.
 
Some people can pull the plug, add extra shells and use a pump near as quickly. Shotguns in general are a crowd nightmare so im not sure it being semi auto really makes a huge difference.
I see your point there, but I raise you the point that most shooters are weak willy noodle armed incels
 
I see your point there, but I raise you the point that most shooters are weak willy noodle armed incels

Generally. But if they run some training like in bang bang you're dead, they only need to fire 2 or 3 times. 12 year olds can swing em for duck hunting, im sure a 17 year old pissant can lol though i hope they dont.
 
You mean this bad boy, das spas 12

View attachment 879848

Yes, and furthermore they are even more effective for mowing down people especially given the right ammunition. Im pro gun, but after shooting some of the nicer semi auto shotguns I quickly realized their killing capabilities against large crowds with minimal aiming

So it looks aggressive. That's it?
 
So it looks aggressive. That's it?
Anything that takes a detachable magazine, and possess other things (rails, etc) Is generally considered an assualt weapon.

Semi automatic shotguns are able to put out powerful area effect blasts in quick succession, with minimal aiming and can sustain this for quite awhile given the magazine size. It is an ideal weapon for crowds hypothetically speaking
 
Anything that takes a detachable magazine, and possess other things (rails, etc) Is generally considered an assualt weapon.

Semi automatic shotguns are able to put out powerful area effect blasts in quick succession, with minimal aiming and can sustain this for quite awhile given the magazine size. It is an ideal weapon for crowds hypothetically speaking

What does a rail system have to do with anything?
 
Where iyo opinion should the line be drawn on gun ownership? I think everyone agrees that civilians should not be allowed to own nukes. I think most reasonable people would conclude that civilians should not own armed drones. The current debates are around assault weapons. Where do you draw the line on weapon ownership? I'm personally fine with assault weapons.

I think owning a handgun should be harder than owning a shotgun, rifle or an assault weapon. The vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns because they are much easier to conceal than larger weapons for people seeking to commit crimes. This statistical point gets ignored by Democrats whenever they talk about gun regulation. Biden's solution to gun violence was to propose an assault rifle ban which would probably accomplish nothing. What if any gun regulation would you be in favor of?
I don't really share your hardcore anti-handgun stance because they're useful for self-defense whether in the home or as a concealed carry. Yes, most gun murders are committed with them. But most mass shootings, which are a big threat to innocent Americans from all walks of life, are committed with semi-automatic rifles with extended clips and sometimes bump stocks. But I don't necessarily support a blanket ban on "assault rifles" either.

I think we need common-sense solutions that are somewhere in between the people who effectively want to ban guns and the NRA which is simply a lobby for gun manufacturers. To be honest, I don't know what that entails exactly, but it should be based on the 2nd Amendment and what American voters want rather than special interests on either side.
 
As a gun owner, I feel it should be similar to buying and operating a car. You should have to be tested and become licensed. You should have to be properly insured. You should have to under periodic renewal processes to renew your license. If you want to own a more advance or powerful firearm, they should have higher tiers, which require more stringent testing and annual medical screening(similar to a CDL)

It's way too easy to buy a gun in this day and age, and far too many idiots have them. Sadly the 2nd amendment gun nut crowd will refuse to ever consider any meaningful changes.
So a test, license and insurance for a constitutional right? Would you support the same thing for the first amendment? Before a person can publicly speak or get on any kind of social media and type away they must take a test, be licensed by the government and must I have insurance in case their words causing any damage?

And generally equating cars with firearms, especially when it comes to the insurance aspect, is silly.
 
I don't really share your hardcore anti-handgun stance because they're useful for self-defense whether in the home or as a concealed carry. Yes, most gun murders are committed with them. But most mass shootings, which are a big threat to innocent Americans from all walks of life, are committed with semi-automatic rifles with extended clips and sometimes bump stocks. But I don't necessarily support a blanket ban on "assault rifles" either.

I think we need common-sense solutions that are somewhere in between the people who effectively want to ban guns and the NRA which is simply a lobby for gun manufacturers. To be honest, I don't know what that entails exactly, but it should be based on the 2nd Amendment and what American voters want rather than special interests on either side.
Banning certain guns based on how they look isn't common sense.
 
As a gun owner, I feel it should be similar to buying and operating a car. You should have to be tested and become licensed. You should have to be properly insured. You should have to under periodic renewal processes to renew your license. If you want to own a more advance or powerful firearm, they should have higher tiers, which require more stringent testing and annual medical screening(similar to a CDL)

It's way too easy to buy a gun in this day and age, and far too many idiots have them. Sadly the 2nd amendment gun nut crowd will refuse to ever consider any meaningful changes.
Then that also applies to voting as well. Can't have it both ways.
 
Banning certain guns based on how they look isn't common sense.
I agree. Were you just commenting in general, or was there something in my previous post that made you think I supported banning guns based on how they look?
 
Back
Top