AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[actaeon277]

 

[BogWalker]

Here's an offer for david890.

You meet me somewhere. I'll bring my WASR, you bring your AR-15. We'll both go down to the local police department and offer them up for destruction.

No joke. I'll do it. If you really think they're that dangerous you'll jump on the offer to remove not just one but two from circulation.

 

[jamil]

Here's an offer for david890.

You meet me somewhere. I'll bring my WASR, you bring your AR-15. We'll both go down to the local police department and offer them up for destruction.

No joke. I'll do it. If you really think they're that dangerous you'll jump on the offer to remove not just one but two from circulation.

Um, I'll destroy them for you. Honest.

 

[indiucky]

Um, I'll destroy them for you. Honest.

I'll help jamil...We've been looking for a reason to meet....

 

[BE Mike]

One of the biggest problems we have is that the people drafting legislation and voting on it, as a group, are virtually clueless as to the details and unintended consequences of the bill. I once read from an Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Assn. representative that his job was to educate the legislators. He said, once all the facts were known, they usually made good decisions. Of course, you have the knee jerk types and the anti-gun types who want to pass sweeping and draconian legislation which negatively impacts the vast majority of law abiding gun owners. These people (I include the OP) don't really care about the majority, they just want guns (some just certain guns for now) outlawed. They don't really care if it would stop mass murders, but it'll make them feel better. Unfortunately no matter what laws are passed, people are going to kill other people. Some will commit mass murder. Unfortunately for a determined individual the means will be found, especially when the individual is being supported by an organization with the ability to support the individual. The focus needs to be on the individuals and the terrorist organizations and networks. How come we haven't heard of U.S. pressure on Saudi Arabia, et al to identify these training camps? Our current administration has failed in protecting us and to deflect that failure, they have caused their little minions to beat the drum for gun control, which has been their objective since before the election. Unfortunately many folks are tricked by the smoke and mirrors.

 

[actaeon277]

California Voters To Consider New Gun Control Measures In November


Yup. We must "compromise" to stop them from going any further.
Except, the inks not even dry on their last 4 gun control bills, and they're already spinning up more.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

California Voters To Consider New Gun Control Measures In November


Yup. We must "compromise" to stop them from going any further.
Except, the inks not even dry on their last 4 gun control bills, and they're already spinning up more.

Valerie Jarrett was speaking to the mayors' conference here in Indy yesterday and she was pushing the "smart gun" BS again. They just never give up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Valerie Jarrett was speaking to the mayors' conference here in Indy yesterday and she was pushing the "smart gun" BS again. They just never give up.

Personally, I am of the belief that people in positions of official authority who attack the Constitution should be tried, convicted, and executed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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?

You apparently don't understand the difference between a right and a conditional (and revocable) privilege. The only necessary justification for exercising a right is that it exists. I don't need a good reason to your satisfaction (or anyone else's) to speak, to worship as I choose, to be excused from self-incrimination, or any of a number of other rights. That includes my choice in arms.

Oh, and did the 9th Circus affirm the right to carry openly? If not, how do you justify activist judges making up their own law and own constitution? After all, to bear arms means to carry them. There is no denying that fact, only ignoring it.

 

[FWJK]

Just spent some time this morning reading this entire thread. Great work guys. Learned a lot.

 

[LarryC]

Unspeakable horrors were committed during the time of the American Revolution. The issue isn't about a generalized weapon, otherwise we would have to ban sticks, clubs, rocks, fists, feet, etc. Instead, the issue now before us is the ability of someone to use a hi-powered, hi-capacity firearm to commit unspeakable acts.

Ya know, people have used explosives to kill (e.g., 1924 Bath School Bombing), yet I don't hear people complaining about their inability to readily buy TNT, RDX or SEMTEX. We have lots of laws regarding explosives; why is that? Is it solely because explosives aren't considered "arms"?

Yeah, NO ONE can make explosives right? Seems to me there are a lot of our soldiers that are missing limbs from IED's made with various explosive compounds.
The REALITY of the situation is that all the Laws proposed would have exactly ZERO effect on Terrorist activities. The only effect of the laws is on the law ABIDING citizen. As to the Background check ~ Columbine was committed with stolen firearms ~ after he murdered his mother! The last one was committed by a person that not only passed all the background checks but was a SECURITY officer with clearance to carry firearms into a Courthouse. Any Criminal can obtain a firearm
Terrorists have the ability to obtain them from other terrorists. France and Germany have very strict firearm restrictions SURE WORKED FOR THEM RIGHT!! Anyone that believes ANY laws will keep dangerous weapons or explosives from a Terrorist or insane criminal is in my opinion VERY IGNORANT of real life. Laws like "NO GUNS allowed sure work well don't they? There are currently thousands if not millions of firearms possessed by Criminals - I am very sure they will never turn them in regardless of any law, however they will sell or trade them for drugs to another criminal.

No I don't believe I should have to pay to have a background check ran on my children to gift a firearm to them! The ones I will gift already have lifetime Indiana LTCH's.

I think you are about as much danger to gun ownership as the Brady campaign. And yeah, I will support and Vote for TRUMP.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/owners-ar-style-firearms-defend-weapon-choice-114401928--election.html

 

[KLB]

Has anyone found a list of mass murders in this country? I search and keep getting mass shootings. I found terrorist incidents, but that excluded incidents not deemed to be terrorism.

Of those, planes and bombs rule.

 

[jamil]

Has anyone found a list of mass murders in this country? I search and keep getting mass shootings. I found terrorist incidents, but that excluded incidents not deemed to be terrorism.

Of those, planes and bombs rule.

Obscurity by plurality. Everyone's talking about guns. That's what you're gonna get from Google. Might just poke around the FBI site.

 

[david890]

You apparently don't understand the difference between a right and a conditional (and revocable) privilege. The only necessary justification for exercising a right is that it exists. I don't need a good reason to your satisfaction (or anyone else's) to speak, to worship as I choose, to be excused from self-incrimination, or any of a number of other rights. That includes my choice in arms.

You apparently don't understand that "rights" have limits. Again, no hate speech allowed. Free speech as the FIRST thing the Founders wanted to protect, but others have imposed limits on that right. So, why not the 2nd?

My issue about "need" is simply this: is there something you can do with an AR that you CANNOT do with another firearm? As I've stated before, I can't shoot a bolt-action rifle anymore because it's too damn painful. However, I can shoot the same round with an AR and not suffer pain (or, at least it's not as bad). Now, before all the "he but not me" cries, I'd be fine with the same operational restrictions of a bolt-action for that AR: a slower cycling (possibly a mechanism to require the use of the charging handle after each shot), as well as a 5-round internal magazine. I suspect neither is beyond the skills of an engineer to create.

In my case, I "need" an AR because the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN (inline barrel, BCG and buffer) allows me to shoot without pain. What is your "need"?

Oh, and did the 9th Circus affirm the right to carry openly? If not, how do you justify activist judges making up their own law and own constitution? After all, to bear arms means to carry them. There is no denying that fact, only ignoring it.

There's also the fact there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes "arms" under the 2nd. Perhaps the Founders meant ONLY those 2 things at your shoulders, or perhaps ONLY knives. People also ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd all the time, yet I don't hear much argument about that.

No, the 9th didn't rule on open carry. Damn those pesky activist judges for keeping their decision so damn NARROW! HOW DARE THEY!!

BTW, I suspect you consider a judge to be "activist" when it's a decision with which you do not agree. Otherwise, that judge is an "Originalist" or "Strict Constructionist" (as if any judge can keep their personal beliefs out of a ruling).

 

[david890]

Has anyone found a list of mass murders in this country? I search and keep getting mass shootings. I found terrorist incidents, but that excluded incidents not deemed to be terrorism.

Of those, planes and bombs rule.

Likely because of that whole ESCALATION OF LETHALITY issue I keep bringing up. Someone found out how to turn a plane into a guided missile, so as to kill hundreds/thousands vs. tens/hundreds.

 

[david890]

Here's an offer for david890.

You meet me somewhere. I'll bring my WASR, you bring your AR-15. We'll both go down to the local police department and offer them up for destruction.

No joke. I'll do it. If you really think they're that dangerous you'll jump on the offer to remove not just one but two from circulation.

I can't afford to give up my firearms. However, I have said that if properly compensated, I would abide by a ban, just as the Australians did.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Where is "escalation of lethality" codified? Who gets to decide what inanimate object is too lethal to be possessed by men and women of this country? Is there a process for determining the maximum allowable threshold for lethality? I've read the Constitution a number of times and I simply don't recall that being a power delegated to the Feds by the states or the people.

ETA: will the same people that decide when the lethality threshold has been exceeded be the same ones that decide what proper compensation of our "assault weapons" will be when they're forcibly confiscated by police and/or armed forces----all equipped with fully automatic weapons?

 

[KG1]

My designation for "escalation of lethality" for me personally is whatever level of escalation it takes that I deem appropriate for me to stop a threat. That solely depends on the threat level presented and I will employ any tool that I deem necessary to end that threat post haste. It's not up to people like our friend david890 to dictate what I "need" to accomplish that goal. That's my decision alone.

 

[jamil]

My designation for "escalation of lethality" for me personally is whatever level of escalation it takes that I deem appropriate for me to stop a threat. That solely depends on the threat level presented and I will employ any tool that I deem necessary to end that threat post haste. It's not up to people like our friend david890 to dictate what I "need" to accomplish that goal. That's my decision alone.

Miss the quotes around "friend"? He's advocating the same intellectually dishonest points anti-gun zealots use, on a pro-gun site. That doesn't sound very friendly to me.