AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[david890]

You are correct. I'm the OP. I'm not an elitist hypocrite that says I'm the only one that should have AR's because none else can be trusted with them. Someone else is responsible for that. Carry on.

Please name that someone. Point out the specific post number in this thread.

 

[BogWalker]

Please name that someone. Point out the specific post number in this thread.

Post #157 you tell us you're more qualified than the average gun owner to own an AR-15.

 

[jamil]

Hate speech; inciting a riot. Neither is guaranteed under the 1st.

NFA items are not guaranteed under the 2nd. Your ATF Form 1 or Form 4 can be denied.

Oh, no no. First, you gave a subjective reason for banning a subset of rights and I asked you to provide examples as subjective as the one you gave.

"just that an AR (in its current design) is not appropriate for most applications"

Do you really think hate speech and inciting riots is equivalently subjective as your reason?

Show me subsets of rights guaranteed in the bill of rights which are banned because they're not appropriate for most applications. In other words, simply because someone has deemed that there's no need.

Restrictions on rights aren't generally proactive. In other words, your use of the right had to have caused someone harm, and the restriction is, that the constitution doesn't protect you from that. For example, there are already restrictions on the 2A. You can keep and bear arms, but the constitution doesn't protect you from prosecution or civil liability if you abuse that right. You can't use your firearm to intimidate, threaten, assault, murder people.

It's similar with the examples you gave. There is no way to proactively limit subsets of 1A rights in the same way you want to limit subsets of 2A rights, unless someone invents some kind of device that makes communication impossible if you're going to use it for harm.

You can use your free speech to say everything what you want, but you can't use free speech protections to incite a riot. And I disagree that laws against "hate speech" is constitutional, but even so, you've had to cause "harm" before anyone can be charged with that.

So, please try again. Find an example that fits yours.

ETA: Also, please cite where "hate speech" is actually prohibited by law.

 

[jamil]

NFA items are not guaranteed under the 2nd. Your ATF Form 1 or Form 4 can be denied.

Forgot this one. NFA is mostly unconstitutional in my opinion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nice Ad Hom, dude.

If you would say someone sensible once in a while it would stop people from reaching that conclusion.

 

[printcraft]

If you would say someone sensible once in a while it would stop people from reaching that conclusion.

Lets not go overboard now.

 

[jamil]

Are you claiming it CANNOT be done? The Australian Constitution required "just compensation" (and I think that would legally mean "fair market value", if you expect to have any success with a buyback program). They authorized $500M (Aus) and bought back 660,959 firearms, for an average of $746 (Aus) per firearm. Now, obviously, some were more expensive, so some owners got more in compensation, some less.

Are you claiming we should just accept things and pay Lockheed $1.3T for a failed fighter, yet a "just compensation" buyback is IMPOSSIBLE??? Why do we need 3,500 F-35 fighters? Aren't we just as safe with 3,000? We can use the money from those 500 unnecessary fighters (at an average of $178M each) to buy back firearms. Which is the bigger waste of money?

Why are you bringing all these false equivalencies into the discussion. Let's keep it focused on what it is. Answer the question the way it was asked. I kinda expect just a simple yes or no accompanied by a simple justification for your answer.

 

[jamil]

Ah, the old, "then we shouldn't have any gun controls" argument. Seriously dude.

He had a point.

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

Your response is not an argument against what anyone is saying. The laws you propose are preemptive. You want to confiscate tens of millions of firearms from millions of gun owners because a few over 200 deaths per year are attributable to rifles. In that context your reply doesn't follow.

 

[jamil]

Post #157 you tell us you're more qualified than the average gun owner to own an AR-15.

Well, don't forget that he thinks that his disabilities give him more right to own certain firearms that others shouldn't have. Some animals are more equal than other animals.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lets not go overboard now.

I know, that' asking a lot.

 

[jamil]

I think it might be beneficial if someone, who can't find something else to do with their time, could summarize the arguments that david890 has not addressed. I know he's smart guy and all--he told us--but I can see that someone, even with his 140 IQ, might have some capacity issues reading and answering all the points.

The one I want him to answer first is this:

What does need have to do with a Constitutional right?

I don't need Islam. Is it OK to ban it?

 

[BugI02]

Why yes, Boston and Philadelphia of 1776 were just chock full of armed citizens, carrying their muskets everywhere (and pistols concealed in pantaloons)!!!

You are more correct than you know, lolz. From: The American Revolution against British Gun Control

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.


The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.


Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.


Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.


Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.


The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later,
on April 19, 1775.



What would you bet that conditions were any different in Philadelphia?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

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

Not exactly, just no laws that hamstring law-abiding people while little effect on the people who commit the REAL CRIMES that folks like you seem not to be willing to recognize for some odd reason.

 

[jamil]

Not exactly, just no laws that hamstring law-abiding people while little effect on the people who commit the REAL CRIMES that folks like you seem not to be willing to recognize for some odd reason.

The odd reason: Collectivist mindset, or devil's advocate. I kinda lean towards the former.

 

[BugI02]

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.

You have not proven your 'need' for the more lethal .223. The M&P 15-22 meets all your other 'needs'. Turn in your too deadly AR and get one of these. I believe they can even be had CA kompliant



[h=2]SMITH & WESSON[/h][h=2]M&P 15-22 Tactical .22 Long Rifle 16 Inch Barrel 6-Position Collapsible Stock Black Finish A2 Pistol Grip 25 Rounds[/h][h=2]Dedicated .22LR platform. Lightweight high strength polymer upper and lower receivers. Removable 25 round magazine. Adjustable front and rear sights. AR15/M4 style features and controls. A3 style flat top upper receiver. Quad rail handguard accepts all 1913 Mil. Std. rail adaptable accessories. A2 pistol grip - receiver will accept most standard after-market AR15 pistol grips. Six position collapsible stock - receiver extension accepts Mil-Spec carbine stocks. Functioning charging handle. Two position receiver mounted safety. Bolt holds open on empty.[/h]View attachment 48132

 

[BugI02]

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.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner

But if he's a good little quisling gov't will let him keep (some of) his rights (for a while)

 

[jamil]

Ding ding ding. We have a winner

But if he's a good little quisling gov't will let him keep (some of) his rights (for a while)

And I think he'd be okay with that. I mean, we're all in this together right? It's for the greater good.

BTW, right after he answers Kirk's question, I'd like him to explain what problem his solution is needed to solve. He says banning stuff because no one needs them is a valid reason to ban it. But what about not banning stuff when stuff doesn't need banned? Lots of millions of rifle owners not killing people, vs a couple of hundred murders with rifles. That small number sounds more fixable by other means than banning any kind of rifles.

 

[BugI02]

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

Source: https://previousleigh.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/what-the-gun-buyback-cost/

There were about four million guns in Australia. One million were no longer in the legal category so a gun buy-back scheme was introduced to purchase these. The estimated average price was $500 per gun. Hence 500 million dollars was set aside. Only 640,000 guns were offered for purchase, hence $320 million was used or this purpose. About another 40 million dollars was used for administration and assistance to gun traders. Since the 500 million dollars had come from a medical levy the balance was distributed to medical research and welfare.

You were right, jamil. Make them illegal and their value is whatever gov't says it is

I don't believe I have any guns that are this low in real value at todays market prices

A cursory search did not turn up actual payments to gun owners rather than the averages. I also believe gun owners were inadequately compensated for infrastructure (in some cases gov't mandated by prior lawmaking) such as gun safes and alarm systems

 

[BugI02]

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?.

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.[/QUOTE]

See #438

 

[BugI02]

Ah, the old, "then we shouldn't have any gun controls" argument. Seriously dude.

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Seriously, dude?