AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[BigBoxaJunk]

The 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals just ruled that you must prove a need for concealed carry, as that right isn't guaranteed by the 2nd.

My use of the word "need" is in the context of "Why an AR when an M-1 or a 1903 Springfield will do?" You might want a 30-round mag, but what is the compelling need for one?

Concealed carry is an action, not a possession. Again, why should I argue why I need one when it hasn't been established that need has any bearing on my ability to own one?

Why a big diesel 4X4 truck when a more gas-efficient smaller truck can haul my firewood?

 

[david890]

SERIOUSLY?! You're just completely changing your whole argument. Up till now you've been arguing that limited need allows for gov't mandated limited ownership. Now you're saying, "own whatever you want - no limits; just don't shoot anyone."

As long as you and others demand unlimited ownership of any and all firearms, then I must resort to a plea of "just don't shoot anyone". My stance on ownership hasn't changed.

 

[david890]

Concealed carry is an action, not a possession. Again, why should I argue why I need one when it hasn't been established that need has any bearing on my ability to own one?

My bad. I meant, "A concealed carry permit". Better?

And yes, you would have to argue why you need one in some jurisdictions.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

My bad. I meant, "A concealed carry permit". Better?

And yes, you would have to argue why you need one in some jurisdictions.

No, not really. I can own as many cars as I want, but that doesn't automatically give me the right to drive them, unless I also have a driver's licence.

And, I'm not required to provide a reason why I need an AR, a 50 round mag, or a truck with really big tires, in the jurisdiction where I live so I see no productivity in arguing my need of any of those things with anyone other than my wife.

 

[david890]

And if we ask where the line should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable lethal, the answer would most probably be "I can't define it, but I'd know it when I see it."

Lots of issues have undefined limits, yet we impose them all the time. What is a "safe" speed limit for a given street? Well, for I-465, that limit has been set. Is it IDEAL? No, because road conditions change; I-465 at 55MPH is fine for sunny and dry, but at night and in the rain? Not so much.

Why 18 years old to vote? Why 21 years old to drink? Why is pot legal in CO but not IN? All are artificial limits.

 

[david890]

No, not really.

Yes, you would. See the 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals ruling on concealed carry.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Lots of issues have undefined limits, yet we impose them all the time. What is a "safe" speed limit for a given street? Well, for I-465, that limit has been set. Is it IDEAL? No, because road conditions change; I-465 at 55MPH is fine for sunny and dry, but at night and in the rain? Not so much.

Why 18 years old to vote? Why 21 years old to drink? Why is pot legal in CO but not IN? All are artificial limits.

I agree with all of those points, except that engineering considerations usually add some semblance of validity to speed limits at the upper ends of the scale.

And, when it comes down to it, people who know more about it could explain to us that the line between acceptable and unacceptable lethality in firearms is already there, albeit as inexact and imperfect at voting age or drinking age, but it's there and it's fine.

 

[wagyu52]

Are you suggesting Mateen could have killed 49 in Orlando with a K98? Really?

Citations, please. I'd love a link to where you got your "training and skill of the shooter" claim....

Lol, come on, he had 3 hours!?! He could have killed 49 with a YouTube video of Hillary Clinton in that time.

Ex Marine lance corporal Charles Whitman shot 46 people killing 14 in the same time frame as Mateen, from a 300 foot tower, taking return fire, with a 6MM Remington 700. Haven't you seen Full metal jacket?


Oh, correction Whitman shooting only lasted 90 minutes so he did it in 1/2 the time.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I learned many really interesting things from watching Ken Burns documentary about prohibition. One was that many of people in favor of prohibition as well as the ones who voted to pass it didn't think that the passage of prohibition would necessarily prevent THEM from the responsible (in their minds) use of alcohol. Bootleggers sold alcohol right there is the houses of congress. And another interesting thing was that underage drinkers had a much easier time getting alcohol DURING prohibition than after, since the legal sellers of alcohol were more discriminating and tended to follow the law than the bootleggers.

 

[david890]

Marine corporal Charles Whitman shot 46 people killing 14 in the same time frame as Mateen, from a 300 foot tower, taking return fire, with a 6MM Remington 700. Haven't you seen Full metal jacket?


Oh, correction Whitman shooting only lasted 90 minutes so he did it in 1/2 the time.

Uh, NO. Mateen was barricaded in the bathroom with hostages for most of his attack. He spent quite a long time on the phone with police negotiators, 911, checking FB, etc. Whitman? No so much. BTW, Whitman also had a .35 pump rifle and an M-1 Carbine, plus several other firearms. I don't recall a breakdown of the killing by weapon.

 

[KG1]

The 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals just ruled that you must prove a need for concealed carry, as that right isn't guaranteed by the 2nd.

My use of the word "need" is in the context of "Why an AR when an M-1 or a 1903 Springfield will do?" You might want a 30-round mag, but what is the compelling need for one?

Truly FREE human beings don't go through life having to give a compelling reason to anyone for "needing" anything. You may wish to wear those shackles. Others do not. That's the point you apparently will never get. Liberty has passed you by.

 

[ATM]

The 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals just ruled that you must prove a need for concealed carry, as that right isn't guaranteed by the 2nd.

My use of the word "need" is in the context of "Why an AR when an M-1 or a 1903 Springfield will do?" You might want a 30-round mag, but what is the compelling need for one?

When the government rules that you must prove a need in applying for permission to exercise any right, that ruling as well as the body making the ruling have reached a level of illegitimacy best ignored.

Nullification, my friends, it is our duty to judge the law as well as the facts in any trial.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

And yes, you would have to argue why you need one in some jurisdictions.

So, what you're saying is that if there IS a law somewhere in America, then that means it must be right and just? How about those laws that once allowed white people to own black people? Or, the laws that prohibited white people from marrying black people? Or the laws that prohibit same sex marriage? Were/are those laws also right and just?

 

[BugI02]

First murder was via bludgeoning and stabbing. Next five or six were via sawed off 12 gauge (take that UK) and the rest were via rifle fire although I could not find a breakdown via weapon in a cursory check. Several of the victims in the quad were shot through and through so it may not be known (likely no ballistic evidence to recover) although based on the accuracy of fire at the ranges the victims were struck at, I would bet most were the 6mm. The Remington Model 141 was nowhere near the snipers rifle that the 700 was - sort of like sniping with a Winchester Model 71

Oh, and by the way

"Martinez later credited the numerous civilian shooters for saving "many lives" by forcing Whitman to take cover, limiting his range of targets."

Martinez was one of the two police officers who ended the sniper's rampage. I wonder why no one returned fire at Pulse

 

[wagyu52]

I don't recall seeing Mateens time on trigger. Do you have that?
He still went through and killed wounded plus the victims lying wounded for up to 3 hours, 11 died in route to the hospital. Hard to say that was due to the rifle he used.

Ok, What's your point? Whitman had more rifles but less firepower, (Acording to your theory) you can only shoot one rifle at a time He was under fire and engaged targets up to 100x the range. He had 1/2 the time and 1/2 the casualties. Not seeing how Mateen is more lethal than Whitman.

Agin training trumps firepower.

 

[printcraft]

Nobody needs a 32oz soda. Increased sugar intake over a 12 oz. soda can lead to increased risk of diabetes and will kill you eventually. ESCALATION OF LETHALITY!!!!000!!

 

[printcraft]

Your computer has the potential to fail and you'd lose all the stuff on the HD. Has that happened?

NO. I use a superior mac products......

See also, "Cocoanut Grove Fire"; "Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire"; "The Station Nightclub Fire". For some reason, we came up with laws restricting what materials could be used in construction due to flammability and out-gassing, how many people could be inside a venue at once based on number of exits, if pyrotechnics could be used, etc. Silly liberals, not wanting to burn to death....

... we are not talking about building materials here..... Stop moving the goalpost.
Could YOU go to a nightclub, block an exit, go in the other door with a 5 gallon can of gas and mass murder hundreds of people?

 

[Gary119]

By such reasoning, there should be no laws whatsoever. SOMEONE will find a way around them. Cain didn't need an AR to slay Abel. A club of 50 "Abels", OTOH...

No, but the laws will only affect the law abiding. But Cain would need a AR if Able had a AR.

Let get back to the NEED for a AR and high capacity magazines, to solve the problem lets just give every male/female say over the age of 18 an AR and a high capacity magazine? To go along with that lets give them say 2-4 years training in how to use it, meaning in the military. So now everyone will have an AR and training to use it. Sounds good to me how about you?

Do you think Mateen would have entered that night club knowing 2-300 other people had AR's?

 

[jamil]

Is my 80% figure correct? No; it's higher. "Will of the people" (except when it comes to guns....).

Let's look at gay marriage. "MUCH smaller percentage"? Well, >50% is smaller than 90%, but it's the MAJORITY opinion, so, yes, "will of the people", ya know. As for bathrooms, that issue is a diversion by the GOP, in response to the "Obergefell vs. Hodges" SCOTUS ruling. ALL of the bathroom laws came AFTER the ruling, not before. And to use the logic of many here, why even have bathroom laws? A perv won't obey the law, so what good does it do?

Many rights aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but I suspect you'd still like to have them. Miranda rights, for example. Concealed carry isn't mentioned, and the 0th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a permit may be denied. I strongly doubt SCOTUS will hear any such case.

Well, you have a link. I'm sure you've read it to make sure there aren't any discrepancies in the polling. So you must be right.

Wait.

What?

Only 47% of the ~90% who said they wanted extended background checks were disappointed or angry that nothing passed? Huh? Wow. I would have thought that if the "will of the people", encapsulated in 90% universal background check solidarity, some number reaching a definitive majority would be at least disappointed.

Wait.

There's more?

You mean 39% of the people who said they wanted extended background checks were relieved or happy that nothing passed? I think I've been sold a bill of goods. I mean, where's this willa-da-people stuff? Why isn't this number much closer to 10%?

It's your link. Seems like if the article says it "highlights an odd discrepancy"--that's a quote--you'd acknowledge that. But whatever.

So why the odd discrepancy? I'd like to see polling data on how effective people believe background checks are. It may be that many of that 90% would like to see background checks become more effective, but they don't believe that any of the proposed legislation would actually accomplish that. If there are new restrictions, and those new restrictions aren't effective, then rights are being denied for no good purpose.

 

[jamil]

Lots of issues have undefined limits, yet we impose them all the time. What is a "safe" speed limit for a given street? Well, for I-465, that limit has been set. Is it IDEAL? No, because road conditions change; I-465 at 55MPH is fine for sunny and dry, but at night and in the rain? Not so much.

Why 18 years old to vote? Why 21 years old to drink? Why is pot legal in CO but not IN? All are artificial limits.

If we're going to get into this discussion about when governments can restrict rights, let's stick with actual rights. Okay? The "people" own the roads. And by "people" I mean the bureaucrats ceded that power by legislatures. Nevertheless, rules for public "rights", otherwise known as privileges, can be collectively decided. Individual rights generally shouldn't be. What individual, constitutional rights have undefined limits? What constitutional rights are restricted as much as gun control zealots have proposed to restrict guns?

That question aside, let's talk about your "too leathal" argument. I think there is a line to draw on what a society can legitimately allow and still call itself free. Probably ATM is the only one here who might argue that individuals should be able to own and use nukes. So there is a line that nearly everyone will agree on.

The way I think of it is this. We all share the same world. Air, water, proximity, and on and on. Individuals in society shares those things. It should be none of the society's business what I do with my own property, until I actually impact someone else's inherent rights, directly or through collective resources.

Anyway, for me that provides a basis for society deciding when something is too dangerous for individuals to own or use. A factory on a river doesn't have the right to pollute the water that the community depends on. So society should have laws that deal with individual harm of shared resources.

Given all that, is it even possible for individuals to own nukes without impacting others? Probably not. So what about guns? Is it possible for people to own AR-15s with scary bayonet lugs, and shoulder thingies that go up, and pistol grips and collapsible stocks and 100 round detachable drum magazines, without impacting others' rights? Well, let's see what reality says. How many people own ARs now? How many people get killed by those ARs each year? Who are the people using those ARs to kill people? Given the very lopsided (favoring me) answers to those questions, it seems most reasonable that those are the people the state may be trusted with the authority to regulate.

Just because a very, very few people can't seem to own ARs (or Sig MPX) without shooting up a bunch of gays, or Jews, doesn't mean everyone should have to have their ARs regulated. If government has some sensible regulations to reduce the number of people killed, that doesn't punish innocent people, I think you'd see a lot more gun owners get on board with that. But when we hear intellectually dishonest arguments from the people who want to regulate US--not the criminals--US, we're just not gonna go for that.