AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[M67]

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"?

So you really "need" an AR? Why can't you satisfy your paper killing desires with a 22 rifle? I remember you trying to make that case earlier

You can kill paper just as dead with a .22 as with one of them AR type rifles

 

[actaeon277]

Poll: Voters divided on role of government in gun control | TheHill

Did you guys know that voters are divided on the role of government in gun control?
I'm shocked.

 

[jamil]

Poll: Voters divided on role of government in gun control | TheHill

Did you guys know that voters are divided on the role of government in gun control?
I'm shocked.

Wait. That can't be right. What about "the will of the people" and all? You know, 90% favor background checks? Well, except only 47% are at least disappointed that no gun control passed, and 39% were relieved or happy. And now we find that half are afraid the government will go overboard? I'm beginning to think that perhaps the will of the people isn't as clear as we were led to believe. Now why do you suppose that anyone would say misleading things?

 

[printcraft]

Wait. That can't be right. What about "the will of the people" and all? You know, 90% favor background checks? Well, except only 47% are at least disappointed that no gun control passed, and 39% were relieved or happy. And now we find that half are afraid the government will go overboard? I'm beginning to think that perhaps the will of the people isn't as clear as we were led to believe. Now why do you suppose that anyone would say misleading things?

The science is settled.

 

[Dirtebiker]

"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?

Come on David! Which side are you on?
The Bill Of Rights is NOT The Bill Of NEEDS!
It doesn't matter what civilians "need"! This is The United States Of America! We don't have to justify anything to anyone!

 

[Dirtebiker]

"Token gun owner"? I had a pretty nice WW2 collection at one time: two M-1 Garands (Springfield and Winchester), two M-1 Carbines (Inland and National Postal Meter; both - unbeknownst to the folks who sold them to me - had been loaned to the Germans after WW2, making them twice as valuable as a period M-1 Carbine), a Japanese Type 37 and Type 99 "Last Ditch", and a MAS-36. The most I've paid for a single weapon was $3500 for an imported Steyr AUG (this was before MSAR started making theirs; I got my money back when I sold it). I also reload my own ammo - all four calibers. I'm hardly a "token gun owner".

If Mateen had tried to go in with a shotgun, I suspect he would have been shot by the uniformed (but off-duty) OPD cop at the door (who retreated into the club due to power of an AR vs. a service pistol).

James Holmes, that "bozo who shot up that theater in CO" fired 6 rounds from his Remington 870, switched to his AR, firing SIXTY-FIVE rounds from a 100-round drum mag, then 5 from his Glock. His AR mostly certainly WAS NOT "promptly jammed". For an "untrained goof", he managed to kill 12 and wound 70. Imagine if he had been trained; he clears the jam and finishes out with 30+ more rounds from that drum, in addition to his Glock.

No compromise for "progressives"? Here's the Wiki definition of a "Progressive": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism. I don't recall Teddy Roosevelt "coming back for more", unless you mean putting aside millions of acre of public land for national parks and such. Horrile!!! Seems to me there are pro- and anti-gun Progressives, if you'd take the time to explore further.

As for "no basis for compromise", that would be the 2A absolutists, such as the NRA and yourself. Newtown and 20 dead KIDS weren't enough to cause any meaningful change in gun laws (aside from some bans on semi-autos, which SCOTUS rightfully refuses to address, if you're one of the "State's Rights" folks). As for what happened in Australia, perhaps you should read this Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia. While firearms were confiscated, owners were compensated. As I noted in my post, how would you feel about receiving a new 1903 Springfield in exchange for your AR? Would it SIGNIFICANTLY affect your shooting habits? It would mine, but only because of the damage to my neck and the recoil of the 1903, not due to my shooting abilities.

Yes, there is an election coming. I'm enjoying watching the Trump campaign implode.

So, as long as the Government "compensates" you, you'd be ok with them taking any guns THEY think YOU don't need???

 

[Dirtebiker]

Mid-50s, Navy veteran, owner of several Class 3/NFA items.

None of which you NEED!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Also, the gun show loophole remains open, so anyone can bypass the background check, amirite?

.

What the hell is "the gun show loophole"?
If you want to call it a loophole, why not the private citizen loophole?
And while we're at it, how many criminals buy there weapons from licensed dealers, fill out the 4473, and have a background check run on them?

 

[Dirtebiker]

Sez you.

I would argue that the INTENT was for a "well-regulated militia" (now where did that come from??) take the place of the standing armies as they existed in Europe at that time, something the Founders did write about.

Nowhere does the 2A address the "quality" or "grade" of a weapon, as QA/QC was hit-or-miss in the days of hand-made muskets. As such, it's well within the right of Congress to restrict firearms to nothing more than a hand-made musket. That would not violate the 2nd.

You sir are full of s**t!!!!!!!

 

[Dirtebiker]

First, it is well within the right of Congress to restrict the airwaves. Those were not conceived in the 18th century (nor was the automatic rifle). Go ahead and broadcast on the the AM or FM band, but don't be surprised if the FCC comes knocking. You wanna broadcast? Get a license and use the proper (i.e., "Legal") frequencies.

Your interpretation is incorrect. It is an individual right only in the sense that the individual belongs to a well-regulated militia. Otherwise, the first sentence of the 2nd is completely unnecessary. Madison was an astute writer, so didn't include unnecessary language (and even the "necessary" language took 13 years to be ratified by all parties).

Now, I have no doubt the Founders understood that many people would own firearms to feed their families and defend themselves, but I doubt they ever imagined 1 firearm for every 3 Americans, as exists today, nor could they imagine the power and capacity of such firearms.

No, they probably assumed more like one (or more) firearm for EVERY American!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Well, we transitioned to a standing army (and Navy) not long after the Constitution was ratified, so the question really never came up. I suspect the closest we currently have is the National Guard, each managed by the individual states. I doubt your average American considers a bunch of locals led by some guy wearing a star on collar to be "well-regulated".



Those mediums are pretty much "owned" by the government. You have no "right" to any of them. You need a license to legally broadcast on certain bands/frequencies, and the content is "well-regulated" (no ****!).

Do you know what "well regulated" means?

 

[Dirtebiker]

And here is where we might find some common ground. It's in HOW AND WHERE certain firearms are being used that is the issue. I doubt many people would have a problem with hi-powered rounds being used on a proper firing range, nor would they object to hi-cap magazines for shooting competitions. Heck, I've been to Knob Creek and that was hella fun! I have a relative with a full-auto, suppressed MP-5, which is way cool to shoot. He also has a Barrett Mod. 99, and popping off a few rounds with that - while expensive - was also fun.

The question before us is HOW AND WHERE such firearms are to be used. Should an average hunter be allowed to use a Barrett Mod. 99 or Mod. 82 for deer hunting? Kinda defeats the purpose of getting a trophy mount or some venison, but who are we to say what someone can use to hunt? Well, MOST PEOPLE, that's who.

We elected people to state and federal office to REPRESENT OUR WISHES. So, if 80% of Americans want universal background checks, why don't we have them? I think much of the anger is that the vast majority of people feel our politicians no longer represent the average citizen, but instead cater to the whims of the few. Yeah, I getting off-track, but it seems like it takes a Sandy Hook or Orlando to get the attention of the politicians, or to make people angry enough to vote them out for ignoring them.

So, RTKBA is fine, but WITHIN CERTAIN GUIDELINES. Yeah, that's somewhat of a contradiction, but that's life. KBA whatever you want, so long as you're on a proper range and legally authorized (not a felon; no domestic abuse, etc.) to possess such items. ARs on a range with a 100-round drum? Fine. But that AR and the drum STAY AT THE RANGE. You want something for home defense? A Remington 870 is fine.

It is impossible to have "universal background checks" (I assume you mean a background check every time a firearm changes hands) without complete firearm registration!
Look back in history and see what "universal" registration leads to!?

 

[Dirtebiker]

So, RTKBA is fine, but WITHIN CERTAIN GUIDELINES. Yeah, that's somewhat of a contradiction, but that's life. KBA whatever you want, so long as you're on a proper range and legally authorized (not a felon; no domestic abuse, etc.) to possess such items. ARs on a range with a 100-round drum? Fine. But that AR and the drum STAY AT THE RANGE. You want something for home defense? A Remington 870 is fine.

Ok, I'm done quoting and responding to this idi.....guy.its just getting more and more ridiculous!

 

[Spyco]

Ok, I'm done quoting and responding to this idi.....guy.its just getting more and more ridiculous!

At this point, he might be getting his money's worth of entertainment from all the responses.

Or maybe he forgot to take his meds and had an epiphany that he had to share and argue about. You know how forgetful old people are when they are off their medication.

 

[jamil]

Ok, I'm done quoting and responding to this idi.....guy.its just getting more and more ridiculous!

Well hold on. He's not stupid. He told us how smart he is. But anyway, thanks for quoting all those posts. Stringing them together and reading his views again strung together has given us a bit of insight to this problem:

Suppressors. You don't want the tinnitus I have, and I don't want to make it worse when shooting.

I think that's not tinnitus. It may just be the cognitive dissonance caused by loving the things his ideology hates.

 

[chemteach]

At this point, he might be getting his money's worth of entertainment from all the responses.

Or maybe he forgot to take his meds and had an epiphany that he had to share and argue about. You know how forgetful old people are when they are off their medication.

Can you watch the cracks about old people and our meds and how they help us...you know?...what was thread about anyway?... some stoner from the sixties and his toys? Ah, the Sixties, talk about meds..........

 

[BE Mike]

It has been proven over and over again that "new" more restrictive gun laws do nothing more than restrict them from law abiding citizens. Until that sinks in, our OP will just be wanting more and more anti-gun laws when another terrorist is directed to kill, until the law abiding will have no guns. Yes, it is really that simple. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the current administration has failed to acknowledge and address the problem of home grown terrorists. The chief executive refuses even to say the term "Islamic extremist". They apparently don't put political pressure on Saudia Arabia and other countries where terrorist training flourishes. The current policy is to focus on gun control, which has been a political agenda of the chief executive since way before he became active in politics. We can only look to Mexico where guns are all but illegal, where in the period from 2007-14 there were 164,000 homicides. Whichever U.S. figures you look at, it far outpaces homicides here.

 

[Hawkeye]

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?

What is your compelling need to a computer and internet access? Those lead to bad things happening too. Porn, bomb-making sites, etc.

 

[BogWalker]

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.

And what if you aren't? What if the ban you push for results in uncompensated confiscations? I'm sure you would never imagine our benevolent overlords doing that though.

Your gun is paid off. It is not a source of livelihood for you. You have no need for it. You can indeed afford to get rid of it.

Hey, I think everyone has the right to self defense so I'll compensate you. Turn in your evil AR-15 and I will give you, yes free of charge, with ammo, a Mauser rifle. Five shot bolt action goodness. Just great for hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and any other needs. You've said so yourself.

 

[Hawkeye]

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.

Why can't you "afford" to give up your firearms? You've already paid for them. That money is out the door. What do you lose by giving them up, except the cost of buying ammunition and such to keep shooting them.

What is your "proper compensation? $5 per firearm? $50 per fiream? I doubt you are going to get "fair market value" for them. How aobut a McDonald's or Burger King gift certificate for a happy meal?