Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[Uncensored2008]

With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.

I'm not a hunter either, the M1 has been used, but a folding stock for hunting seems odd.

 

[Gardener]

As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.

I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.

I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.

Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as you go through a background check you should be allowed to own an AR-15, AK-47, and most other assault weapon rifles.

I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Gardener]

I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?

I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.

I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.

What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.

Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.

I'm not comfortable with the state tracking the weapon sales of individuals. If our concern is whether a person is qualified to buy a gun, then license the person. But per weapon checks and registration is bound to lead to abuse, think the corrupt Eric Holder, the IRS, and the attacks on the Tea Party.

I don't want criminals to buy guns or the mentally ill, so a license showing that a person is legally qualified to purchase a weapon makes sense, but it's a "go / no go" test - the involvement of the government ends at the license - if a person has it, what they buy is their own business.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I guess that I wouldn't object to a "gun license" scenario. A basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms grants a license - no per weapon background checks or registration, just a certification that the buyer has passed a safety and criminal check, renewable every 10 years or so.

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Gardener]

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?

I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.

I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.

What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?

The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.

Choose your poison. Opposing background checks only helps criminals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?

Read more carefully.

A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.

Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?

I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.

I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.

What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?

The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and therefore infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?

Read more carefully.

A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.

Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.

Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there. I am, however, open to considering it. There doesn't appear to be any legal precedence that defines it as such at this point, although I may be missing something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prior restraint has to do with censorship, slander, and libel. What bearing does that have on the 2nd Amendment?

Read more carefully.

A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.

Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.

Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there.

Why does it "not really belong there"?
Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?

 

[Gardener]

I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.

I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.

What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?

The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.

Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.

Its simply verifying my testimony.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.

Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.

See "Prior restraint", above.

As you did not actually address my post, I shall assume you agree with it and have allowed it to stand.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Read more carefully.

A FORM of prior restraint, where the exercise of the right is restrained until the state determines that said exercise does not violate the law.

Prior restraint, in any form, is an infringement.

Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there.

Why does it "not really belong there"?
Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?

Such as the right to vote? The Constitution defines and protects that as well, but people still have to register in order to verify they fit the criteria. If you argument is therefore that having to register to vote is unconstitutional, I guess you would be consistent. But why is nobody making a big deal about that but they are about gun ownership?

I am not outright disagreeing with you. I am exploring the issue. Your position is that prior restraint, established as applying to the 1st Amendment, should apply or does apply to all other rights protected by the Constitution. That deserves to be explored. Whether prior restraint has a blanket application to the entire Constitution is not firmly established that I can see, other than being presented as one by those opposed to background checks.

 

[Missourian]

so you are ok with felons and illegal aliens owning guns in the USA?

I note that you do not disagree with my position, that background checks are a form of prior restraint.

I am perfectly OK with it being illegal for them to own/buy guns.

What does that have to do with opposing background checks because they infringe on the right to arms?

The only way to make sure felons and illegal aliens aren't buying guns is to have background chekcks or require a firearms license.

Choose your poison. Opposing background checks only helps criminals.

The only way to stop drunk drivers is to equip every vehicle with a breathalyzer enabled ignition.

Opposing breathalyzer enabled ignitions on every vehicle only helps drunk drivers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Doing a little research, it seems this concept is something some people are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment that may not really belong there.

Why does it "not really belong there"?
Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?

Such as the right to vote?

Such as -any- right.
Should the state be able to restrain you from leaving your house until it determies that you are not going someplace to commit a crime?

If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.

To that end:
The right to vote differs here in that the meaningful exercise of the right to vote necessitates that everyone is who they say they are and that they do indeed have the right to vote; the state, therefore, has a compelling interest in verifying these things prior to an election so that ther rights of legal voters are protected.

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

Do you hunt deer?

Explain why you feel a short barrel .223/5.56 is a "bad way to kill deer".

The round is too small dude. You can kill it but it would much more humane with something larger.

The barrel length isn't really the issue here. Just take the animal down fast and quick and with respect.

Skill and precision.