AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[Dirtebiker]

Never. Suppressors simply aren't dangerous for civilians, unless you use one to bludgeon someone. Also, the reason I purchased them was to PREVENT ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO MY HEARING. As noted previously, my tinnitus is pretty bad and I don't want to make it worse.



But why? What it is about a semi-auto with a detachable mag that FUNDAMENTALLY changes your desire to shoot? If there were no semi-autos, you would NEVER go shooting? I doubt it. You'd be at the range with a bolt-action.



No, the issue, once again, is CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING. As it was in Sandy Hook. And Aurora.

Yes, people drink and drive, but the worst I saw with that crime was 26 dead in KY, and that's only because Larry Mahoney hit a BUS. How many people died in the worst "texting and driving" incident? How many have died at the hands of a single knife-wielder? What's the largest number of deaths in a single beating rampage?

My point is that, even after being engaged by a trained, uniformed OPD officer, Mateen was still able to kill 49 people. Are you really suggesting the same body count for someone with a knife, club or automobile? I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying we wouldn't see example after example after example.

ISIS has made it clear that our laws are so lax that future "soldiers" should use whatever guns they can get! No need for a risky suicide belt when you can get an AR and a 100-round drum mag without raising red flags! I have little doubt the next attack - and there will be one - will use an AR or AK, and very likely legally purchased by the shooter.

Finally, no, I would NOT have felt "better" had the guy used a bomb. What a ridiculous statement.

I said I wouldn't quote him again, I changed my mind.
David, don't you think there is an advantage to a bad guy using a suppressor?
Even if you could wave your magic wand and get rid of ALL guns, anyone wanting to do harm STILL will!
ONLY 49 victims were killed in Orlando in what, more than three hours?
In three hours the killer could have easily killed that many with a knife, his hands, or many other weapons.
How fast could he have killed the whole building full of people with a bomb or by driving a truck full of gasoline into it?
you keep asking why anyone NEEDS certain weapons. That is not even a question that deserves an answer as WE don't have to have a reason to own ANY legal item!

 

[actaeon277]

I for one welcome our new overlord.
I am tired of making hard decisions, and am glad someone smarter came along to shoulder the load.

All hail Caesar

 

[actaeon277]

By the way.
Magazine limits affect the law abiding defender.
The guy that's carrying what's in his gun, and MAYBE one or two extra mags.
At least until they make a law to ban having a second mad.

The law breaking criminal though, can bring a dozen extra mags.
Reload at will.
Even bring mags with higher capacity.
How many are already out there?
Not to mention, how easy for a neighborhood criminal to fabricate them and sell.

 

[BE Mike]

Many of the murderers in Louisville are already prohibited from owning firearms. People who think that more stringent firearms restrictions will keep them out of the hands of terrorists and criminals are living in a dreamworld.

 

[Dirtebiker]

A faucet doesn't have the CAPACITY to drown someone (though infants/toddlers have drowned in 2" of water left in buckets). The powerhouse outflow of the Hoover Dam, or a tsunami, OTOH....



Again, the issues with those 2 - as they are with the AR - would be CAPACITY and SPEED OF RELOADING. So, no, if ARs face restrictions, then so do SKS and AKs.

"Own" and "use" are two different issues. As I've stated previously, there are a lot of weapons a civilian does not NEED to own. However, having them available for people to shoot in a "well-regulated" area (e.g., Knob Creek) is fine with me.



Part of regulation would be restricting magazine capacity; perhaps 5, perhaps 10. There's no requirement that hi-cap mags be grandfathered. As I've stated before, giving up my 30-round mags would require proper compensation on the part of the government, as was the case in Australia. Would everyone give up their hi-cap mags? Of course not. But then they run the risk of becoming a felon and losing 2A rights completely.




I really want to know...when someone comes across as intelligent (as you have) yet can abide NO limits on firearms. You seem to do okay with speed limits, mandatory auto insurance, seat-belt laws, not being able to buy beer on Sunday, etc. There are lots of limits and controls in your life. There are limits on the 1st Amendment that you appear to accept, so how are controls/limits on the 2nd fundamentally different than those limits on the 1st?

Make your case...Please...

"shall not be infringed"!
your turn.

 

[maxipum]

As much as I hate to admit it (having been born and raised here) the ******* quotient in Bloomington is exceptionally high and I can't help but think this david fellow is a major contributor.

 

[sharkey]

A faucet doesn't have the CAPACITY to drown someone

Somehow, I think Andrea Yates would disagree with you. She had a faucet, the flow rate of which could be measured in GALLONS. GALLONS per MINUTE!!

Clearly, we should blame the tool and confiscate it from the People, amirite? Wal-Mart carries faucets for about $20 new, so $5.99 per used faucet should be just compensation for you to turn in all your assault fixtures.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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"?



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).

You need an AR, but I don't!? No! Neither of us do. But that's not the point, and YOU know that, so why keep up your ridiculous arguments?

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

I will "properly compensate " you. I will give you market value for your AR's if you promise to not replace them.

 

[jamil]

I still want him to show me the laws against hate speech. Just wander over to gawker. All kinds of hateful speech going on over there.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Wow. Dude. Go back and read from the start. If that's too much trouble, I have had 2 blown discs in my neck. Two surgeries resulted in 3 fused vertebrae. The recoil of a bolt-action rifle snaps my shoulder back, but my neck doesn't flex properly; it hangs up at the bottom of the fusion, causing inflammation and pain down my arms that lasted 2-4 days. Even with opiates, the pain was intense.

With the design of the AR, almost all of the recoil is absorbed. There's only a fraction of the felt-recoil of a bolt-action.

[Discussed ad nauseum....]

I've got at least five herniated discs, I go to work every day (in pain), and I'll shoot any gun I can get my hands on. Quit whining!

 

[ghuns]

No, the issue, once again, is CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING. As it was in Sandy Hook. And Aurora.

What was the "issue" in the Va Tech shooting? Do you support a ban on Glock 9mm's and Walther .22s? If not, please justify your "need" for either.

Two things: first, there is the inherent LETHALITY of the implement; you cannot ignore that or simply blame the user. A 3,000lb car traveling 100 MPH can do a lot of damage...

Cars are FAR safer than 100 or even 20 years ago. As lethality increased, so did measure to protect the occupants: seat-belts, crumple-zones, air-bags.

Cars are undoubtedly safer. I own two on this list...

Safer cars: 9 models had zero deaths in study

The Audi A4, Kia Sorento, Lexus RX 350, Subaru Legacy, Toyota Highlander and Volvo XC90, among midsize vehicles, scored an overall death rate of zero for the years examined by the study.

If the .gov mandated ONLY the cars on that list be sold, we'd magically have zero traffic deaths. Is that something you'd be in favor of?

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.

Yup, road conditions, traffic, vehicle condition, etc all play a role. But if the goal is minimizing lethality, wouldn't setting the limit for the worst case conditions make more sense? Most passenger vehicles on the road today make a crash at speeds under 35 miles per hour almost 100% survivable. A 35MPH max nationwide speed limit, and cars electronically limited to the speed, would save countless lives. Orders of magnitude more lives than a ban on any specific class of firearms or accessories. So why not?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt the Younger (1783)

I've heard that before somewhere. Can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[printcraft]

[video=youtube;wyD9ftpzKj0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyD9ftpzKj0[/video]

 

[david890]

ONLY 49 victims were killed in Orlando in what, more than three hours?

Most of the victims died within a few minutes, or certainly within a half-hour. The rest of the time, he was barricaded in the bathroom talking to cops, checking FB, etc.

 

[david890]

"shall not be infringed"!
your turn.

"Well-regulated militia..."

 

[david890]

Somehow, I think Andrea Yates would disagree with you. She had a faucet, the flow rate of which could be measured in GALLONS. GALLONS per MINUTE!!

So, you're claiming the cause of those kids dying was ONLY the water, and not Dear Ol' Mom holding them underneath it?

Stay away from fire, Strawman.

 

[Rookie]

So, you're claiming the cause of those kids dying was ONLY the water, and not Dear Ol' Mom holding them underneath it?

Stay away from fire, Strawman.

Wait, was it the water or the mother that was evil?

 

[david890]

I still want him to show me the laws against hate speech. Just wander over to gawker. All kinds of hateful speech going on over there.

Here's the SCOTUS ruling: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).

"In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

 

[david890]

What was the "issue" in the Va Tech shooting?

It's hard - if not impossible - to determine the true intent of the mentally ill.

Do you support a ban on Glock 9mm's and Walther .22s? If not, please justify your "need" for either.

A ban on the firearm itself? No. A ban on the 33-round mag for that Glock? Essentially, yes. No civilian "needs" a 33-round magazine. Now, I realize there are shooting competitions that use high-cap mags, so their use would be limited to proper ranges.

Cars are undoubtedly safer. I own two on this list...

Safer cars: 9 models had zero deaths in study

If the .gov mandated ONLY the cars on that list be sold, we'd magically have zero traffic deaths. Is that something you'd be in favor of?

That's an specious claim.

Yup, road conditions, traffic, vehicle condition, etc all play a role. But if the goal is minimizing lethality, wouldn't setting the limit for the worst case conditions make more sense? Most passenger vehicles on the road today make a crash at speeds under 35 miles per hour almost 100% survivable. A 35MPH max nationwide speed limit, and cars electronically limited to the speed, would save countless lives. Orders of magnitude more lives than a ban on any specific class of firearms or accessories. So why not?

The goal is MINIMIZING lethality. We'll never eliminate it, as you noted with your "almost 100% survivable" statement. As to "why not", because most people wouldn't support it. The majority DO support things like universal background checks and "No Fly - No Buy", yet the GOP ignores their concerns out of hand.

BTW, 1783 was vastly different that today. Wonder what the young Pitt would have to say about gun violence in Pittsburgh or Philly?

 

[jamil]

Here's the SCOTUS ruling: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).

"In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

I kinda thought that's where you'd go. Conspicuously missing from the quote are the words, "because they don't need to say that". Instead, the "very utterances inflict injury". What injury is inflicted by the mere ownership of any firearm?

Purpose is determined by intent. In most regulation of speech, it's not necessarily that the speech is prohibited, it's that after having found an intention to cause harm, the 1A can't be used as a defense against prosecution. That is not anywhere near the equivalent of your subjective criteria you're proposing for limitations to the 2A.

So, got anymore?