AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[jamil]

"No way"? Really? Just impossible? We've already put limits on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. We can certainly put limits on mag capacity. Would that stop 100% of illegal usage? No, but then speed limits don't stop speeders. So, why have speed limits?

As for examples, see PRIOR RESTRAINT. Give out classified info and see what happens.

Let's keep this on point. Is the justification for prior restraint because there's no "need" for people to give out the information, or is it deemed to have caused some harm, which is an objective purpose for the law? Because that's kinda what I asked for. Because you continue to insistence that "need" is a determinant for restricting rights. I asked for examples of *subjective* reasons to restrict other rights the way you want to apply subjective reasons to restrict the 2A. So let's try this again.

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

Find examples where restrictions on rights are as subjective as that.

David's opinion that the AR is not appropriate for most applications is not an acceptable reason to restrict rights. I am a little biased, but Jamil's opinion that AR-15s are an excellent platform for home defense, varmint control and other hunting, and well as for competition shooting, supersedes david890s opinion that they aren't appropriate. And plus, I beat you tens of millions to a few hundred in empirical data. Millions and millions of citizens seem to find them appropriate for many legitimate uses compared to the few hundred that find illegitimate uses.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Nope. I'm saying to ban (or highly restrict) anything that could potentially be used to harm a LARGE NUMBER of people in a VERY SHORT time.



Yes, I did. It's called "the legislative branch".

Where do you draw the line with anything? pressure cookers? knives? fertilizer? water? peanuts?

 

[indiucky]

Why does anyone try and argue with this guy? He's clearly not gonna understand.

The same reason we take a .410 dove hunting or squirrel hunt with a .22 revolver....It's good sport.....

 

[BogWalker]

And yet I hear no demand to throw out the "No Fly" list from this forum. Why is that?

Uh, are you even on INGO?

 

[indiucky]

Where do you draw the line with anything? pressure cookers? knives? fertilizer? water? peanuts?

Abortion....

I am curious what he believes the limit should be on the number of abortions an individual can get....One does not technically "need" an abortion.....

 

[BugI02]

I predict your dismissal as a 'bitter clinger' in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[indiucky]

I predict your dismissal as a 'bitter clinger' in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[jamil]

IANAL, but I suspect you have standing to challenge the Patriot Act. Please do so.

The patriot act is what happens when people with political capital will into law what they want to be able to do, regardless of constitutionality. It's constitutional because enough black robed people said it is.

 

[jamil]

The same reason we take a .410 dove hunting or squirrel hunt with a .22 revolver....It's good sport.....

There is no line to be drawn. In a collectivist society, laws are at society's whim. Well, actually, laws are at the whim of elites who tell society what they need and what they don't. Greater good.

 

[Hohn]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already-- I only read the first 5-6 pages of the thread.

There is one core fallacy that underpins all the arguments about ammo capacity and what someone "needs" in terms of firepower or rate of fire and so forth. And it is indeed a fallacy.

That fallacy is the idea that 49 people dying in close proximity to each other, by the same cause, is somehow more tragic than if they had died over a longer period of time as a result of separate causes of death.

If the same 49 people had been mugged and killed in different places of the city, by different people, at different times over a six month period, for example, nobody would care at all what weapons were used, or the motivations of the person doing the crimes.


On September 11th, 2001, it's a statistical certainty the someone was killed by a drunk driver. Did that person's family get a million dollars from the Feds? No. Why not? Because dying in the twin towers made you a special class of victim, and you and your family apparently deserve more justice than those people who also died that day, but were loved no less by those who cared for them.

This is why we see headlines for San Bernardino, but nothing for the exact same number of people that die in most typical weeks in Chicago-- by the exact same cause of death: being shot to death.

49 people shot to death in a club is the "worst shooting in our nation's history (ignoring Wounded Knee, I supposed). Yet 49 people being shot within a similar period of time elsewhere in the state of Florida? Meh, that's just life, right?


What is the root of this fallacy?

I think it is simple. I think that a typical bleeding heart liberal thinks it's more tragic because it's more tragic to THEMSELVES. A person who loses a loved one isn't comforted by the fact that nobody else was also murdered at the same time.

But the bleeding heart liberal? Oh, he's SO MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE knowing that all those deaths are split into smaller, separate events. It spares him his own personal trauma of having to deal with how much evil there is in the world. It allows him to talk about "senseless" acts of violence (senseless only to the person who denies the evil and crazy in the world). His worldview and its belief in inherently good people are violently and authoritatively refuted by the mass shooting. But when those shootings are split into smaller events? He can deny those, ignore them. The media won't cover it. There's no widespread emotional reaction. There's no reason to think it could be capitalized upon to seize political power.


So the liberal really doesn't care about saving lives. He cares not at all about the number of people who die from a GSW. What he cares about is whether he will be exposed to it-- his own personal trauma. Sure, it's tragic that someone had a loved one die in the club, but it his mind, it's JUST as tragic that he has to live in a world where such things happen. That someone can't see the obvious solution and just "do something" about the "gun problem."


You see, a gun grabber, like most Statist/Leftist types, is a selfish narcissist. He hates liberty because of how you might use yours. And if you use yours differently than he thinks you should, you are a hateful racist, a bigoted ignorant moron.

And because HIS OWN emotions are the only ones that matter-- the arbiters of what is truth, far above anything science or reason may demonstrate-- he wants those emotions spared, their exquisite, enlightened sensitivity exposed only to pre-filtered events that perpetuate his confirmation bias.

So a mass shooting, to the liberal, is FAR more tragic than other means of death over other spans of time or distance. Because HE is traumatized, and he cares nothing for the actual victims.

So he will indulge all manners of illogical, untrue, even counterproductive policy recommendations that cannot save a single life or bring one back from the dead. Because it's not about saving lives in general. It's about saving one particular life (his own) from the discomfort of seeing the ugly reality of human depravity.

So if you think it's OK to have 10 rounds of lethal force, but not 30, you are exactly this kind of narcissistic liberal. If you believe that 10 people dead or wounded is acceptable, but 30 is not, you are exactly this kind of narcissistic liberal. If you believe that 10 people shot is terrible, but 10 people stabbed to death is just part of life, you are exactly this kind of narcissistic liberal. If you want to ban "assault rifles" but not handguns, airguns, knives, compound bows, cordless tools, garden implements, or any of the other means someone can harm someone else-- you are EXACTLY this kind of narcissistic liberal.



H

 

[jamil]

Hohn.

Undoubtedly david890 will disagree. But I think you hit on some really good points, which "greater good" minded people just won't get. They consider themselves as the moral ones. Well, we consider ourselves as the moral ones, and punishing everyone for the sake of the few as immoral.

Problem is, his kind is winning. Common sense is drifting left ever so quickly. To people who value personal responsibility and individual liberty, we think this new world is bat **** crazy. And the new world thinks we're bat **** crazy.

It's like an article I read several months ago about divided America. It's Cracker Barrel vs Whole Foods.

 

[BluePig]

Where do you draw the line with anything? pressure cookers? knives? fertilizer? water? peanuts?

Large airliners? Skyscrapers?

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Gary119]

Hohn, excellent post!

 

[Gary119]

Hohn.

Undoubtedly david890 will disagree. But I think you hit on some really good points, which "greater good" minded people just won't get. They consider themselves as the moral ones. Well, we consider ourselves as the moral ones, and punishing everyone for the sake of the few as immoral.

Problem is, his kind is winning. Common sense is drifting left ever so quickly. To people who value personal responsibility and individual liberty, we think this new world is bat **** crazy. And the new world thinks we're bat **** crazy.

It's like an article I read several months ago about divided America. It's Cracker Barrel vs Whole Foods.

I don't think his kind is winning, I think we are losing! We are losing the "hey son/daughter want to go hunting/ fishing/camping/shooting"? People are getting away from the "need" for a gun/fishing pole/tent/anything nature. More and more people have never touched a gun let alone shot one, there is no back history.

 

[jamil]

I don't think his kind is winning, I think we are losing! We are losing the "hey son/daughter want to go hunting/ fishing/camping/shooting"? People are getting away from the "need" for a gun/fishing pole/tent/anything nature. More and more people have never touched a gun let alone shot one, there is no back history.

That's a good point. It also goes a lot towards what I said earlier about Cracker Barrel vs Whole Foods. Urban dwellers are more likely to think collectively. Their world has more human interaction. Apartments where their neighbors are on the other side of a wall and the closest 20 neighbors are within 50 feet. Busy streets, busy sidewalks, lots of buildings full of people doing "work" that doesn't require physical exertion. Emergency services are usually a few minutes away.

It's natural for people to project that world on everyone if they've never experienced anything else. And if they can project their world view on everyone they can also impose their ideas on everyone. For example, "you don't 'need' an AR-15". But there's another world. Rural areas have people who live further apart. To count their closest 20 neighbors they might need to widen the radius to miles instead of feet. They might spend all day working within the boundaries of their own property, outside, or maybe inside. Because of the sparsity of people, services aren't just across the street or around the block. Emergency services aren't just minutes away, they may be hours away. Maybe, in an apartment building in a city of millions of people living within a few square miles, one can think 'need' matters as far as restricting rights. What about the person who lives an hour or two from the nearest sheriff's office?

But in the US 80% of the population is considered urban. Our laws are more and more becoming collective, group oriented as urban culture replaces small town America. Our kids grow up, move to cities, get jobs in offices, restaurants. The idea of individual liberty is being replaced by group liberty, which is actually not liberty at all. And so many urban dwellers don't really care. That's why I think people like david890 are winning. They're winning through attrition because generation to generation, fewer people teach their kids about personal responsibility, and individual liberty. And more collective minded people become teachers, and people of influence, and the kids that we haven't taught about individual liberty are being taught about group liberty.

 

[KG1]

But It's toooo hard to preserve things like individual liberty and taking personal responsibility. We have issues much larger as a nation than gun problems.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Abortion....

I am curious what he believes the limit should be on the number of abortions an individual can get....One does not technically "need" an abortion.....

I'll bet the number is much higher than the number of AR's he thinks the "average" American should own.

 

[jamil]

I'll bet the number is much higher than the number of AR's he thinks the "average" American should own.

Well, it's simple. The SCOTUS ruled that abortions are a right. It's not like the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to indiv...wait.

 

[wagyu52]

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.

FALSE. Show me the link to a timeline that states most of the victims died in the first few minutes. It was the 3 hour wait that turned shooting victims into shooting deaths.
He also spent the time in the bathroom reloading mags, which proves how bogus your theory is that hi cap mags are somehow more lethal.