Do you support a ban on purchasing semi-auto AR-15 style rifles?
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
I would not support an across the board ban. But, I would support age limits regarding purchasing the weapon. I would also make it a crime to provide an underage person with the weapon. There would have to be some new gun show legislation regarding the weapon. More stringent background checks might not work, but, I'm open to suggestion. At this point, common sense dictates that something be done. Shouldn't be Dem v. Rep or Conserv v. Lib.
Need to have a ban on manufacturing them first. Then a buyback. Finally make them subject to strict registration and licensing.
If semi-auto centerfire rifles go away tomorrow…it wouldn’t bother me a bit. But I still don’t think I would support a ban knowing that it wouldn’t end there.
A ban on rifles in general would be a drop in the bucket in reducing gun deaths. It would reduce the most sensational ones for sure, but most murders with guns are not committed with long barrel weapons of any type.
Yep. Just stating that the elimination of semi-auto centerfire rifles would not affect me personally.
So a ban would be worth it assuming it could be artfully crafted to still allow sportsmen their rifles?
If you asked me a few years ago, I'd oppose this one, but after being educated by folks like @INRanger27, I now support this. This particular firearm configuration is just too efficient at murdering large numbers of people. Old-fashioned bolt-action .223 with a five cartridge capacity? I'm fine with that. But the rifles that are designed to deliver the same ammo at high speed in high capacity - there's no good reason for the public to have those.
I am not for a ban. Raise the age to purchase the rifles that shoot .223, 5.56, and/or 7.62 and have higher capacity magazines to 21, but leave things like .22, .308, and .30-06 at 18. The former are more of what I would consider to be "Don't Tread on Me" rifles while the latter are more clearly hunting rifles. Background checks already exist, you want to do a couple day waiting period, whatever...no biggie. Those are only effective if the government is on their game though and they have been off it before. I also wholeheartedly support certain types of red flag laws. Things like pending cases, domestic violence within a certain timeframe, or having the cops called on you for threatening to shoot a place up should put you on a list for a bit.
Nobody under 21.
That's the Federal statue for handguns.
Common sense that it should apply for long guns. Nobody under 21 is allowed to drink beer. They sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.
That's the Federal statue for handguns.
Common sense that it should apply for long guns. Nobody under 21 is allowed to drink beer. They sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.
We going to raise the age to join the military to 21 as well?
18 is an adult on everything but the drinking age. If a 20 year old wants to buy a shotgun to go deer hunting, they are going to have to go ask someone to do that for them? I did not live at home when I was 20, so I would have to have somebody buy a gun and give it to me who was over 21 under those rules (which is an illegal straw purchase now).
Isn't renting a car 25?
I would be happy to raise the "assault weapon" age to 21 (or even 25). People don't need them to hunt deer
Insurance industry sets that age for cars. Risk pool....
I said yes. I support banning convicted felons from owning an AR-15.
So maybe require insurance on ARs and let the insurance company solve the problem?
I've never read one of those policies but I suspect they track immunity in that they largely cover commercial shit and only injuries arising from product defects. If immunity were lifted or if ambulance chasers keep doing end runs around immunity by way of marketing/merchandising practices you may see the insurance industry rate risk like in other insurance industries
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
This argument doesn’t make sense to me. If you knew how much training a soldier goes through at 18 before he’s even allowed to see a military rifle you’d reconsider your post - which is high on cliche and low on logic. I don’t mean that nastily.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I voted yes in spirit but my position is really that they should be legal but not for home ownership. Ranges, etc can have them for practice but not at home.
First off I do not own an AR-15, but what if I owned a 12 gauge with a drum that housed 30 shells would that be considered a different form of assault weapon? Most mass killings are close range the 12 gauge would do similar or worse damage. I know the Vegas incident was long range but most aren't so I would think a shot gun or handgun with multiple clips would do the same damage.
Both the 4th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have declared an under 21 ban unconstitutional. Why would anyone jeopardize legislation by including unconstitutional provisions unless they are about election issues rather than good legislation? OH, perhaps the proponents aren't serious.
But IF proponents want to pass effective legislation, they should do a very thorough examination of the real facts of these shooting events and tailor legislation designed to prevent further occurrences. So far - my memory only goes back about 50 years on this issue - other than the Federal Firearms Act, no legislation has ever been seriously discussed with any remote possibility of enactment which would have changed any outcome regarding mass shootings and especially school shooting. One can only wonder if the intent of proponents is to enact serious legislation that will prevent such future mass shooting cases. It appears the proponents are not serious.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Soldiers are not allowed to have weapons in their barracks, are they?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Lord no. Or their homes.
Yes, what is your problem with that? We have accepted that people under 21 aren't responsible enough to drink. But they are responsible enough to own guns? That's some seriously disjointed logic.
Military is an obvious exception. Your post is embarrassing to even mention that.
I'd prefer a ban and put AR15 style weapons in a category with other banned arms like nukes, tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, hell.... even large amounts of FERTILIZER purchases are restricted.
If not an outright ban, a lower compromise could settle on at least requiring intensive training. On the order of the time spent in the military on the proper use of weaponry.
If not an outright ban, a lower compromise could settle on at least requiring intensive training. On the order of the time spent in the military on the proper use of weaponry.
So a 19 year old soldier TRAINED to use these weapons, or even a 25-year old Marine who is trained and I believe has to earn a marksman rating, cannot have their weapon in their barracks or home, but we want every 18 year old to be able to buy one and have it with no training, no idea what they want it for?
How does it not make sense to boost the age to 21?
Go back and fact check. What round kills the most people? It’s none of the ones you want to ban. Stats do matter and the biggest issue right now in crafting legislation is the (no offense) the ignorance of people in general. It’s also the ignorance and sensationalism of the media and government. It’s very complicated. Eventually toes will get stepped on.
Only reason i can see is it would be a less desirable alternative to a ban.
Assault rifles by definition are already banned. The new made up term is “assault weapon”. This was a made up term to categorize sport rifles. It makes them sound scary.
It’s true. I’m simply pointing out when and why the term changed. It changed because the original term wasn’t proper. Assault rifle by definition is not an AR-15. Its not a selectable fire arm. That’s when the term “assault weapon” was born. Might sound small but it was a constant argument point by the right.
Similar threads
