AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[raptrbreth]

There are already restrictions, when does it end?

 

[david890]

I think the true crux of this discussion is that if I am facing an existential threat then I want the maximum lethality I can realistically bring to that confrontation.

So, why don't you demand hand grenades, or an Uzi? Scrap the CGA and NFA and let everyone carry whatever they choose? Because there are a LOT of people who would misuse and abuse such things.

Guns are designed to maximize lethality.

Not really. They are designed to be lethal, but an AR with a 100-round drum mag is certainly more lethal than a K98 or 91/30. And that has been my point throughout this thread: ESCALATION OF LETHALITY.

We went through this with the A-bomb and the Russians. First we had A nuke, then some nukes. Then the Russians (and Brits and French and Paks and Indians and Chinese and NORKS) had some, so we built the H-bomb. Then the Russians built their H-bomb. Eventually, both sides ended up with 25,000 or more each, and there have been more than one instance where they could have been used, but someone stepped in. Escalation of lethality.

There is also a deep and widespread distrust of governments (real) motives for doing anything, and until you can work on mitigating that you're going to have little success in persuading anyone on our side of the fence to accept more restrictions that prima facie will not accomplish their stated purpose

But should those who have little or no distrust of everything the government does be held hostage to the fears of a very small minority? If 80% of Americans want universal background checks, is that not good enough for you? That's the will of the PEOPLE, not "the government".

And persuade is what you must do. Attempts to elect a Clinton so you can pack the SCOTUS with enough justices to uphold unconstitutional laws will only succeed in making a lot of us (technically) criminals, and an attempt at confiscation brings us right back to 155 years ago when government badly overstepped its authority, from the point of view of roughly half the country

First, electing ANYONE means "packing the Court" with like-minded justices, be it left- or right-wing. You think the Roberts court has been a paragon of legal thought? Citizens United and Hobby Lobby were GOOD decisions? Yikes.

If controls are passed and you choose not to obey, that's on you. Feel free to drive 100 MPH on the highway if you think speed limits are "TYRANNY!!", but don't be surprised when you get ticketed or arrested and your car confiscated (asset forfeiture, you know).

 

[printcraft]

There are already restrictions, when does it end?

When they are all gone and you are safely loaded on the cattle car.

 

[indiucky]

A faucet doesn't have the CAPACITY to drown someone (though infants/toddlers have drowned in 2" of water left in buckets). The powerhouse outflow of the Hoover Dam, or a tsunami, OTOH....



Again, the issues with those 2 - as they are with the AR - would be CAPACITY and SPEED OF RELOADING. So, no, if ARs face restrictions, then so do SKS and AKs.

"Own" and "use" are two different issues. As I've stated previously, there are a lot of weapons a civilian does not NEED to own. However, having them available for people to shoot in a "well-regulated" area (e.g., Knob Creek) is fine with me.



Part of regulation would be restricting magazine capacity; perhaps 5, perhaps 10. There's no requirement that hi-cap mags be grandfathered. As I've stated before, giving up my 30-round mags would require proper compensation on the part of the government, as was the case in Australia. Would everyone give up their hi-cap mags? Of course not. But then they run the risk of becoming a felon and losing 2A rights completely.




I really want to know...when someone comes across as intelligent (as you have) yet can abide NO limits on firearms. You seem to do okay with speed limits, mandatory auto insurance, seat-belt laws, not being able to buy beer on Sunday, etc. There are lots of limits and controls in your life. There are limits on the 1st Amendment that you appear to accept, so how are controls/limits on the 2nd fundamentally different than those limits on the 1st?

Make your case...Please...

Nah...I'm done...

I like INGO and my well thought out response came out (very) harsh so I just erased it all...I refuse to ridicule someone on a public forum nor do I want to get banned...

I believe you know you are wrong but are bored and far be it for me to take away a man's entertainment.....

I respect your opinion...Many folks on the east coast and west coast feel the same as you...I wish you the best of luck with your financial woes....

God Bless

 

[david890]

Yeah to go along with the drunk driving analogy. There are laws upon laws against it. Many people have lost their driving privileges and have even went to jail only to get behind the wheel and drive drunk and kill someone. It's happened many, many times proving it's not the implement it's the person behind such an act.

Two things: first, there is the inherent LETHALITY of the implement; you cannot ignore that or simply blame the user. A 3,000lb car traveling 100 MPH can do a lot of damage. Second, yes, there are habitual traffic offenders. For those rare cases, life in prison might be the only way to stop them (blinding them might do it, but I suspect SCOTUS would not allow that). Should we really put them away for life? Perhaps.

However, drunk driving really isn't an appropriate analogy, is it? Cars are FAR safer than 100 or even 20 years ago. As lethality increased, so did measure to protect the occupants: seat-belts, crumple-zones, air-bags. We even got the lead out of gasoline! We're nearing the point of autonomous vehicles; would you feel okay giving up all control of your car to a computer that can perform far faster (and better, eventually) than you? I would. However, does than mean I no longer wish to drive? Of course not. I could take an autonomous car to a track, then I can do laps in a Porsche or Corvette with little/no risk to anyone but me.

 

[david890]

But you don't need a tv or computer/ internet. You'd do much better getting books from the public library. Want to communicate? You don't need a cell phone or any other kind of phone. Just write letter.

Not true. TVs/radios are vital for alerting people when bad weather approaches. The Internet is better than the old card catalog at the library, and I can access information not held locally. A phone is handy in case of fire.

(It can be argued we are losing *something* by not writing letters, reading more, etc., but that's for another thread.)

 

[JettaKnight]

Again, the issues with those 2 - as they are with the AR - would be CAPACITY and SPEED OF RELOADING. So, no, if ARs face restrictions, then so do SKS and AKs.

Wait, AK patterned guns too? Well now, I guess I'll take notice. (EDIT: guess I'll pick up for Indiucky now)

"Own" and "use" are two different issues. As I've stated previously, there are a lot of weapons a civilian does not NEED to own. However, having them available for people to shoot in a "well-regulated" area (e.g., Knob Creek) is fine with me.

Isn't that cute? We can be just like Eastern Europe in that's there's a select number gun ranges with "cool" guns for your bachelor party.

Part of regulation would be restricting magazine capacity; perhaps 5, perhaps 10. There's no requirement that hi-cap mags be grandfathered. As I've stated before, giving up my 30-round mags would require proper compensation on the part of the government, as was the case in Australia. Would everyone give up their hi-cap mags? Of course not. But then they run the risk of becoming a felon and losing 2A rights completely.

For AK's and AR's, 30 round magazines are standard capacity. Are your referring to 40, 45, and drum magazines? Or perhaps you'll just follow Jason La Canfora's lead and call the AR-15 a machine gun.

I really want to know...when someone comes across as intelligent (as you have) yet can abide NO limits on firearms. You seem to do okay with speed limits, mandatory auto insurance, seat-belt laws, not being able to buy beer on Sunday, etc. There are lots of limits and controls in your life. There are limits on the 1st Amendment that you appear to accept, so how are controls/limits on the 2nd fundamentally different than those limits on the 1st?

(Almost) every one of those laws should be repealed.



You're arguing for limitations on ownership, whereas most people are OK with limitations on actions, i.e. it's illegal to shoot someone.

 

[david890]

There are already restrictions, when does it end?

Does it need to be so EASY to kill??

 

[david890]

(Almost) every one of those laws should be repealed.

See? You DO support some limits!!!

You have to make a choice: all, some or none. Which is it? All speech, some speech (as you seem to imply above) or no speech?

If you support some limits on the 1st, why not on the 2nd? How are they fundamentally different?

But wait...INGO has limits on speech, if I'm not mistaken...how can that be...isn't free speech "inalienable"?

 

[LPMan59]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

ill just assume that this is all sarcasm. Otherwise I don't have anything to say to you within the confines of the site rules.

 

[LPMan59]

See? You DO support some limits!!!

You have to make a choice: all, some or none. Which is it? All speech, some speech (as you seem to imply above) or no speech?

If you support some limits on the 1st, why not on the 2nd? How are they fundamentally different?

But wait...INGO has limits on speech, if I'm not mistaken...how can that be...isn't free speech "inalienable"?

ok now having read this, I see you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JettaKnight]

See? You DO support some limits!!!

You have to make a choice: all, some or none. Which is it? All speech, some speech (as you seem to imply above) or no speech?

If you support some limits on the 1st, why not on the 2nd? How are they fundamentally different?

But wait...INGO has limits on speech, if I'm not mistaken...how can that be...isn't free speech "inalienable"?

Speed limits are dumb and artificially limits the flow of traffic
Mandatory insurance is a way to keep the small claims court free from all the messes of people w/o insurance
Seat belt laws are as dumb as MC helmet laws, which we don't have
All alcohol should be available every day

So, I guess I don't agree with any of them.


Limits to speech are dictated by how they affect others. My ownership of an AR-15 does not affect anyone but maybe my wife's shoe budget.


INGO is not the gov't. I'm not going to fight that strawman you've erected.

 

[david890]

Speed limits are dumb and artificially limits the flow of traffic

There are LOWER limits as well as upper. Many roads post limits as anything faster would be unsafe.

Mandatory insurance is a way to keep the small claims court free from all the messes of people w/o insurance

You say that like tons of uninsured motorists are a GOOD thing...

Seat belt laws are as dumb as MC helmet laws, which we don't have

I'll wear my seat belt, thanks, just as I wore a helmet with my HD Sportster 1100. The government has no duty to protect you from yourself.

All alcohol should be available every day

On this we can agree...

Limits to speech are dictated by how they affect others. My ownership of an AR-15 does not affect anyone but maybe my wife's shoe budget.

It the USAGE of speech that affects others, just as is the USAGE of your AR-15. I don't care if you own 500 of them; I care if you use ONE to kill four dozen people in a nightclub.

 

[printcraft]

It the USAGE of speech that affects others, just as is the USAGE of your AR-15. I don't care if you own 500 of them; I care if you use ONE to kill four dozen people in a nightclub.

So you are implying that the millions of American that own an AR are obviously killers in waiting?

Got it.

 

[churchmouse]

Limits to speech are dictated by how they affect others. My ownership of an AR-15 does not affect anyone but maybe my wife's shoe budget.


INGO is not the gov't. I'm not going to fight that strawman you've erected.

+10.......

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So, why don't you demand hand grenades, or an Uzi? Scrap the CGA and NFA and let everyone carry whatever they choose? Because there are a LOT of people who would misuse and abuse such things.



Not really. They are designed to be lethal, but an AR with a 100-round drum mag is certainly more lethal than a K98 or 91/30. And that has been my point throughout this thread: ESCALATION OF LETHALITY.

We went through this with the A-bomb and the Russians. First we had A nuke, then some nukes. Then the Russians (and Brits and French and Paks and Indians and Chinese and NORKS) had some, so we built the H-bomb. Then the Russians built their H-bomb. Eventually, both sides ended up with 25,000 or more each, and there have been more than one instance where they could have been used, but someone stepped in. Escalation of lethality.



But should those who have little or no distrust of everything the government does be held hostage to the fears of a very small minority? If 80% of Americans want universal background checks, is that not good enough for you? That's the will of the PEOPLE, not "the government".



First, electing ANYONE means "packing the Court" with like-minded justices, be it left- or right-wing. You think the Roberts court has been a paragon of legal thought? Citizens United and Hobby Lobby were GOOD decisions? Yikes.

If controls are passed and you choose not to obey, that's on you. Feel free to drive 100 MPH on the highway if you think speed limits are "TYRANNY!!", but don't be surprised when you get ticketed or arrested and your car confiscated (asset forfeiture, you know).

Funny, even if your 80% figure is correct (and I doubt that), why is it okay to trample the rights of 20%? Look at the gay marriage or gender-neutral bathroom issues. We're talking about a MUCH smaller percentage of the population, but "the will of the people" be damned. We'll bend over backwards to accommodate that very small minority, so why is it so hard to accommodate the 20% (actually considerably larger than that, but we'll play along with your number)? Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? Especially since gay marriage and gender-neutral bathrooms are NOT guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[BogWalker]

So you are implying that the millions of American that own an AR are obviously killers in waiting?

Got it.

Except for him. He's informed us upthread he is much more trustworthy of owning a firearm than you or I.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Except for him. He's informed us upthread he is much more trustworthy of owning a firearm than you or I.

Right, I mean, he reloads 'n stuff.

 

[KG1]

I just bought another AR. Feeling pretty good right about now. It's just going to be a range gun.

(for now until I get it dialed in as my new goto HD rifle)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I just bought another AR. Feeling pretty good right about now. It's just going to be a range gun.

(for now until I get it dialed in as my new mass killing machine)

FIFY...