State-by-State Gun Laws

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
DonTom said:
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Click to expand...

Best I can tell, this so-called "militia" are all out to lunch, or the definition of "tyranny" has drastically changed.
 
Last edited:
You pick, Zippy. I don't think there was ever destined to be a winner.
 
The interpretation of the Constitution is the opinion of each person that reads it. It was authored in an era when blacks were 3/5’s of a person and women were chattel. I admire the men that wrote it given what they had to work with.
2A advocates interpret it as an all in when it comes to arms. But do you really think you should be able to purchase the same weapons that a modern military does? The founding fathers had no idea what weapons in the future would look like.
I don’t have the fix for gun violence or for that matter any kind of violence. I’m pretty sure more guns will not help. Neither will thoughts and prayers. I just try to stay away from folks when I know they are carrying. A gun is not a need; it’s a want.
 

DonTom said:
My question did not say or imply such. How would I know if I don't ask about where you draw the line? It's difficult for me to tell when you want at least part of it thrown out, unlike me, who is happy with the rules we set for our government as they are.

-Don- Reno, NV
Click to expand...
This is what is laughable. The answer is to ban them all and the AR ban is just a step towards that.
 
Babe2201 said:
The answer is to ban them all and the AR ban is just a step towards that.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt in my mind that the gun control side will not be happy until only criminals have all the guns.

But do they even realize it? I have yet to have anybody tell me at what new law all further gun control stops.

-Don- Reno, NV
 
Oldgator73 said:
The interpretation of the Constitution is the opinion of each person that reads it. It was authored in an era when blacks were 3/5’s of a person and women were chattel. I admire the men that wrote it given what they had to work with.
2A advocates interpret it as an all in when it comes to arms. But do you really think you should be able to purchase the same weapons that a modern military does? The founding fathers had no idea what weapons in the future would look like.
I don’t have the fix for gun violence or for that matter any kind of violence. I’m pretty sure more guns will not help. Neither will thoughts and prayers. I just try to stay away from folks when I know they are carrying. A gun is not a need; it’s a want.
Click to expand...
Seeing how part of the reasoning of the 2A was to defend against a tyrannical government that would absolutely mean we should be allowed to. You are right the founding fathers did not have any idea how much they would advance. One might come to the conclusion that is why they did not specify. Yes you could buy a cannon.

As far as a gun not being a need there are a lot of people that use them in self-defense every year that might have an argument against that. I hope you are in never of need of one or if you are someone around you has one.
 
DonTom said:
There is no doubt in my mind that the gun control side will not be happy until only criminals have all the guns.

But do they even realize it? I have yet to have anybody tell me at what new law all further gun control stops.

-Don- Reno, NV
Click to expand...

Perhaps the answer is multi-faceted. All of you have maintained that you're smarter than anyone who supports gun control but play dumb when it comes to this. The pro-gun are capable of coming up with a reasonable answer but seem to refuse to do so.

When mass shootings show a significant decline?

When the pro-gun stop trying to subvert and destroy reasonable controls? i.e. 3D-printing ghost guns or lobbying against obviously beneficial things like red flag laws. The responsibility is just as much on the pro-gun cohort as it is on those who own guns and also support good safety legislation.

Babe2201 said:
Seeing how part of the reasoning of the 2A was to defend against a tyrannical government that would absolutely mean we should be allowed to. You are right the founding fathers did not have any idea how much they would advance. One might come to the conclusion that is why they did not specify. Yes you could buy a cannon.

As far as a gun not being a need there are a lot of people that use them in self-defense every year that might have an argument against that. I hope you are in never of need of one or if you are someone around you has one.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know tyranny from a hole in the wall.
 
Skookum said:
Perhaps the answer is multi-faceted. All of you have maintained that you're smarter than anyone who supports gun control but play dumb when it comes to this. The pro-gun are capable of coming up with a reasonable answer but seem to refuse to do so.

When mass shootings show a significant decline?

When the pro-gun stop trying to subvert and destroy reasonable controls? i.e. 3D-printing ghost guns or lobbying against obviously beneficial things like red flag laws. The responsibility is just as much on the pro-gun cohort as it is on those who own guns and also support good safety legislation.



You wouldn't know tyranny from a hole in the wall.
Click to expand...
Wow. Not sure where that came from. If I don't please tell me how that makes a difference on what the founding fathers were thinking when they created the 2A.
 
Skookum said:
When mass shootings show a significant decline?
Click to expand...
That will only happen when people go after the First Amendment to put a stop to copycat crime.

60 years ago, we had very few mass shootings. Since then, two things have changed. A lot more gun laws and a lot more mass shootings. Copycat crime is the main reason. So why do people go after the 2nd amendment when the first amendment is the real cause of the big increase in mass shootings?

If a person wants to murder many people, they will find a way. Tim McVeigh murdered the most, no gun was used.

If he used an AR-15 instead, think of how many lives would have been spared.

The AR-15 is used in most crimes where a rifle is used. Nowhere near the crime where handguns are used.

Could the reasons why AR-15 is the most used rifle in crime also be for the same reason as it is the most commonly used rifle for almost everything? It has been the bestselling rifle in the USA for quite a while. That alone makes it the most likely rifle to be used in crime. But it has quite a way to go to catch up with the murders where a knife is used.

-Don- Reno, NV
 
The term "mass-shooting" has been redefined so many times I lost count. It's now down to 4 being shot is a mass shooting, or have I missed yet a new revision.
I suppose technically 1 being shot can be called a mass shooting, because the shooter was shooting a mass.
Yesterday an 85 yr old woman shot and killed a home intruder who had threatened and beat her. The right to bear arms is alive and well - in Idaho.
 
Ray-IN said:
The term "mass-shooting" has been redefined so many times I lost count. It's now down to 4 being shot is a mass shooting, or have I missed yet a new revision.
I suppose technically 1 being shot can be called a mass shooting, because the shooter was shooting a mass.
Yesterday an 85 yr old woman shot and killed a home intruder who had threatened and beat her. The right to bear arms is alive and well - in Idaho.
Click to expand...
Sure is a good thing she wanted a gun and didn't "need" it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 487 (members: 13, guests: 474)

Forum statistics

Threads
132,190
Posts
1,391,765
Members
137,899
Latest member
boklm
Back
Top Bottom