AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[david890]

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

Nice Ad Hom, dude.

 

[jamil]

Again, what I "need" is the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of the AR. Specifically, the INLINE BARREL, BCG and BUFFER ASSEMBLY. Nowhere - NOWHERE - have I argued that I - and only I - "need" a hi-cap mag along with those fundamental design features.

Do not put words into my mouth.

You haven't proven your need for that. And if you get to say that YOUR needs are a legitimate reason to own one, there are millions of gun owners who can do the same. Again. Millions vs <300 deaths per year. Seems like if you're really concerned about reducing deaths there are causes orders of magnitude more fruitful than that.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Now, why would a government engaged in forcible confiscation go to the trouble of compensating someone? Wouldn't they just confiscate and call it done?

For the same reason that a parent might bribe a kid with a cookie to take a bath.........it's much easier if the kid takes the bath willingly, AND, the parent doesn't get as wet in the process.

 

[jamil]

Nice Ad Hom, dude.

It's just an observation.

 

[david890]

Do you know what "well regulated" means?

That is a phrase that has been debated since the Bill of Rights was adopted. The answer depends upon whom you ask...

 

[JollyMon]

Why Do You Need Those Fundamental Designs? You still havent answered.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

That is a phrase that has been debated since the Bill of Rights was adopted. The answer depends upon whom you ask...

What it means hasn't changed, only what some people WANT it to mean.

 

[david890]

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

Congress is well within their right to regulate both. They've already (with their business friends) out-sourced almost every chip factory to Asia, while allowing the Internet providers to merge, thereby cutting competition.

But where's the outrage for either of those?

 

[KLB]

Why do you discount a unidirectional dependency? It's reasonable to say that a militia comprising the people, requires the right to KBA. However, the right to KBA does not require a militia. Mentioning the militia doesn't imply that maintaining a militia is the only legitimate reason to KBA.

Exactly.

 

[jamil]

Congress is well within their right to regulate both. They've already (with their business friends) out-sourced almost every chip factory to Asia, while allowing the Internet providers to merge, thereby cutting competition.

But where's the outrage for either of those?

Oh, I'm outraged over that as well, but this discussion is about you wanting to ban my AR15 while making yours acceptable.

 

[david890]

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.

It seems you have no concept of a ASSET. It may not generate income, but it still has VALUE and WORTH to me.

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.

Except for the fact that shooting a bolt-action rifle causes significant and prolonged pain. The fundamental design of the AR - regardless of magazine capacity - doesn't cause pain when I shoot.

 

[jamil]

It seems you have no concept of a ASSET. It may not generate income, but it still has VALUE and WORTH to me.



Except for the fact that shooting a bolt-action rifle causes significant and prolonged pain. The fundamental design of the AR - regardless of magazine capacity - doesn't cause pain when I shoot.

I'm beginning to see the disconnect with the rest of INGO. Sorry I didn't see it before. May have been able to save us all a lot of time writing replies. This is entitlement.

 

[david890]

I already offered to pay for his wifi for a year in exchange for his AR that he can comfortably shoot but doesn't need. He's all talk.

The best WiFi I could get would be $50/mo, or $600 for the year. My AR has more value than that.

 

[JollyMon]

Except for the fact that shooting a bolt-action rifle causes significant and prolonged pain. The fundamental design of the AR - regardless of magazine capacity - doesn't cause pain when I shoot.

I heard from a journalists that the AR15 bruises your shoulder..... I have never had that happen from a bolt action.... not a good enough reason.

So you would be happy with a single shot ar15..... until you manually load one round into the chamber after every shot..... you are a hypocrite

 

[jamil]

The best WiFi I could get would be $50/mo, or $600 for the year. My AR has more value than that.

Do you honestly think authorities would compensate you even that much when they implement their [STRIKE]confiscation[/STRIKE] "buyback" program?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Except for the fact that shooting a bolt-action rifle causes significant and prolonged pain. The fundamental design of the AR - regardless of magazine capacity - doesn't cause pain when I shoot.

So, then for those of us for whom shooting an AR causes significant and prolonged enjoyment, that seems to fit with your definition of "need".

 

[BogWalker]

Now, why would a government engaged in forcible confiscation go to the trouble of compensating someone? Wouldn't they just confiscate and call it done? As for "the same people", again, I think that would be the respective Congress (state or federal).

So you spend several dozen pages of this thread justifying why ARs should be confiscated, say you will give yours up when compensated for that confiscation, but then say that it's highly doubtful they would compensate.

What the hell do you want? You want confiscation. Then you want compensation. But you don't want confiscation without compensation. But you know confiscation won't have compensation. But you still want confiscation?

Let me update my offer: I'll give you a Zastava Mini-Mauser in .223 Remington. That will have minimal recoil and can be easily suppressed after threading the barrel.

 

[david890]

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.

Assets retain their value, even after you purchase them. I can't afford to simply throw away such assets. If you don't agree, give me your car (or truck, as the case may be), your house, your guns, etc. Everything you own. After all, you paid for it; money out the door. No more value in those items whatsoever, right?.

[/QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]

Well, you answered your own question with "fair market value". I suspect we could look to how Australia did it as a model.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[david890]

You understand this, but for those like the OP lacking such discernment, criminals (and terrorists) by definition disregard the law. The government has no realistic way of controlling those people.

Ergo, no laws whatsoever, as only the honest, law-abiding person will ever follow them.

I'm sure you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit. Otherwise, you're nothing but a lowly criminal, lost to society. Uncontrollable. A bogeyman.