Most Europeans consider it so because of the background in how monarchies managed land. Animals on land controlled by nobles were considered their property and could only be hunted with permission. In many places peasants who hunted were considered “poachers” and could be executed as thieves.
(For a cute cinematic example, see The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn and his big scene walking into a banquet hall with a dead stag on his back.)
I still think there are things that most would agree on, and it makes sense to start there.
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.
Excellent, closed minds are the best way to kill more kids so thanks for nothing.
That would be a fine zentrum sentiment indeed in a country where the small minority of kittens-in-blenders/dead-kids-are-the-price-we-pay-for-Second-Amendment-rights proponents didn’t enjoy a disproportionate amount of power when it came to blocking the efforts of those who opposed their position.
We don’t live in that country.
I’ll quote myself from upthread, because I never get tired of saying things over and over.
Please, exactly what sort of “common sense” gun restrictions would the GQP agree with? I suspect that if “Black people can’t own firearms” was proposed, they might agree with that, otherwise, the absolutist 2A worshippers are not reachable, IMHO.
If you genuinely think that’s the lesson which needs to be learned here, then I truly pity you.
Wow, do you hear yourself type? If it’s not worth having a dialogue here, why did you post? Why do you continue to post when you clearly want to blurt your opinion but get offended when people disagree with you?
There are many sides here. With gradations of convictions on what kind of restrictions are needed.
Binary thinking leads to less nuanced results.
This is not Congress. We are not legislators. Asking us what we’re willing to compromise on is not helpful or even meaningful, since we don’t win anything by offering concessions. Nobody is trying to make a deal with us.
It is never a good sign for veracity or reasonable arguments when you identify yourself in such a fashion as a preface to a post. Typically it means the subsequent statements will be the opposite. People should avoid such things if they want to be taken seriously. Just saying.
Reasonable people, aren’t the ones making the bad/stale arguments against gun control efforts we are discussing here.
There is no middle ground or room for reasonable discussion because the “2nd Amendment Enthusiasts” don’t believe in it, pay money to avoid it and actively vilify anyone who suggests it. Its gotten to the point that the premier gun rights organization outside of the NRA is an out and out right wing extremist supporter of domestic terrorism. (Gun Owners of America)
Sorry, but frankly your position means absolutely zilch to anyone taking this subject seriously. People who claim to support reasonable action, but do nothing, end up supporting extremists by their inaction. Who cares? I don’t. Nobody concerned with the subject will either.
It appears you are trying to paint the picture that people responding to you are somehow extremists and the real majority would claim otherwise. But that is clearly not the case.
And yet, you still came back with a self aggrandizing response which is the size of an entire volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Folks? AR-15 is a style of rifle. ( AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia ) You can buy them in a variety of calibers–including both .22 LR for varmint hunting ( https://palmettostatearmory.com/s-w-m-p-15-22-optics-ready-22-lr-ar-15-pistol-black-13321.html ), and typical military rounds like the 5.56x45mm ( https://palmettostatearmory.com/freedom-week/s-w-m-p-15t-mlok-5-56x45-ar-15-rifle-black-13492.html ). (There are heavier ones, but calibers for deer tend to be overkill for humans. As horrific as a wound from a 5.56x45mm is, those from .30-06 are worse.)
Don’t be surprised if when you suggest “Ban AR-15” you get pushback from guys who note (A) that’ll ban a lot more than the rifles that fire military calibers, and (B) that won’t ban other rifles firing military calibers–notably AK-47 style rifles ( AK-47 - Wikipedia ).
(There’s an argument to be made for banning modern firearms in general–big, little, pistol, rifle, whatever. Seems to work well for many of the democracies not backsliding towards authoritarianism.)
Why are you questioning our species? Do you believe us to be not human?
By “you” you mean you. You’re the only one here using the word “ban”.
Oh believe me, we know full well that we can expect ammosexual pedants to show up to any thread which implies that the AR-15 is some kind of military-grade weapon just because
But if the gun nuts want to quibble over technical details I say fine—ban all semiautomatic long guns for civilian use. Rifles, shotguns, all of them. If you need that shit to take care of your raccoon problem then you might as well just surrender to nature now.
If anything, the Americans who scream loudest about the evils of gun control are by and large the same people who have wholeheartedly embraced right-wing authoritarianism.
We already have a ban on AK-47 type rifles and several other foreign made assault rifle types thanks to an existing import ban. AR knockoffs filled the niche for Gravy Seals.
Semi auto guns rifles that can fire more than five rounds at a time are not made for hunting or any other legitimate civilian use. Arguing about the minutiae of these kinds of guns is a nonsense argument.
