AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[VERT]

I think David is misinterpreting the phrase Well Regulated as it would have been used by the founding fathers and writers of the time.

 

[KG1]

And While we're on the subject of Columbine let us not forget the propane bombs that were brought in that they originally planned to detonate. That alone could've created mass casualties. Mass killers will always find a way to commit their evil deeds.

 

[KG1]

I think David is misinterpreting the phrase Well Regulated as it would have been used by the founding fathers and writers of the time.

Yeah. Well Regulated means only being allowed to use a certain amount of rounds.

 

[VERT]

And While we're on the subject of Columbine let us not forget the propane bombs that were brought in that they originally planned to detonate. That alone could've created mass casualties. Mass killers will always find a way to commit their evil deeds.

Seems to me it is not a gun problem or even a bomb problem.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think David is misinterpreting the phrase Well Regulated as it would have been used by the founding fathers and writers of the time.

Precatory language is attached to the statement of purpose, not the right.

 

[david890]

Only 5-8 rounds in an internal magazine. I see a lot of shooting sports being affected. But sport shooting is not the issue. Of course those same people participating in those sports with growing interest are also the same people who might support a RTKBA

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.

 

[david890]

Then I'm sure you'd be fine if Congress declared that the freedom of speech and the press as defined in the 1st amendment only applied to documents that were written with quill and ink or news that was spread by the town crier, since you know, that was the technology available at the time?

No, I wouldn't be fine with it. OTOH, I would have no legal recourse, as Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights.

 

[david890]

Which is why we have to very carefully consider who we elect to the executive branch. There is no perfect choice but it is clear who would be bad for the security and prosperity of this country. If faced with two bad choices I am going to go with the one I haven't tried before.

ALRIGHT!!! WE GOT A BERNIE SUPPORTER HERE!!!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

What? Hunting has no bearing on the right to arms.

Game belongs to the State of Indiana, thus the General Assembly controls the harvesting rules.

So, if 80% of Americans want universal background checks, why don't we have them?

Because they are illegal, feckless and unenforceable. Just like Indiana's universal background check that was repealed out of embarrassing failure.

But that AR and the drum STAY AT THE RANGE.

Illegal.

 

[actaeon277]

Well. david890 convinced me.
In fact, his arguments work so well, I move that we all write Congress to get rid of ALL guns, knives, spears, etc.
After all, his arguments work for ALL guns, or weapons.

 

[actaeon277]

What? Hunting has no bearing on the right to arms.

Game belongs to the State of Indiana, thus the General Assembly controls the harvesting rules.



Because they are illegal, feckless and unenforceable. Just like Indiana's universal background check that was repealed out of embarrassing failure.



Illegal.

Let's not forget the 80 percent came from a poll at a very liberal college. It was not "All Americans".

If it were true, we'd have it already.


Oh, and let's not forget Canada thinks their UBC is an abysmal failure.

 

[GIJEW]

Freedom from mass shootings.
Freedom from over-penetration.
Freedom from shootings by toddlers.
Freedom from in-discriminant drive-bys.

WTF? Because criminals and sociopaths will break laws prohibiting murdering, maiming, raping, and robbing--with whatever weapon is available--then we need "mo' betta' laws" to stop them? That's delusional, the only thing that stops people like that is force, either from law enforcement or their intended victims. You talk as if we don't have any laws regulating firearms! Maybe you should talk to obama about his malfeasance, demanding more laws while not enforcing the existing ones?

 

[david890]

Battling up San Juan Hill the spanish infantry mausers delivered near overwhelming firepower compared to The Fifth Corps' Krags.
The same was true later of those who met the 1911 in battle in comparison with their revolvers or met the M1A with their mausers
Those guns were front line military weapons in their heyday and now are a proud part of many firearms collections
The AR is following a well established path and is not terribly different from its forbears

Except for CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING, which are the primary issues concerning the AR. What you have described is an ESCALATION IN LETHALITY from 100 years ago to the present, a goal of the DESIGNERS OF MILITARY WEAPONS. The Winchester Model 70 is essentially the same firearm as when it was first designed, as it was perfectly fine for hunting then as it is now. Deer aren't becoming tougher or bullet-proof. The fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo each killed more than either A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so why did we build A-bombs? Escalation of lethality. Same reason Edward Teller developed the H-bomb after the Soviets developed their own A-bomb.

Do we really need to continue that escalation (e.g., a 100-round drum mag for the AR)? I have no problem with anyone shooting just about anything at a proper range. If you wish to spend $$$ to shoot a Mini-Gun at Knob Creek (or $2500 to pop off a round from an Abrams while visiting Ft. Knox - if they would let you) more power to you. But do we need hi-power, hi-cal ARs around the home? Is there not another firearm with which you can defend yourself?

 

[david890]

I think David is misinterpreting the phrase Well Regulated as it would have been used by the founding fathers and writers of the time.

Enlighten me with your opinion. IMHO, "well-regulated" means "organized and run by people recognized by their peers as competent". Kind of how the Amish or Quakers select their elders to lead them; it's by consensus of the people, not by force or coercion.

 

[BugI02]

No, I wouldn't be okay with losing my pistols (I own several) or my shotgun (just the one). OTOH, I see no NEED for someone to own a 33-round mag for their Glock. 5-8 is enough for most people.

As for your example, you did not face Mateen, so kindly don't armchair-quarterback the actions of the cop; I have no doubt he wishes he could have done more than he did. I'm also guessing Mateen was much closer than 70 yards to that cop; it's a miracle he even survived. I would argue your example of the airman is an exception, not the rule.

And there are already legislators in states, just waiting to climb on your coattails, who think ten rounds in a magazine is too many and you don't need that.
The other side of this argument (from me) are creeping abolitionists who cannot be trusted. The changes in laws they propose would never have prevented the events they are a reaction to, and so do not make sense or serve their stated purpose
This, like the other fight over abolition, will come to blows

 

[david890]

WTF? Because criminals and sociopaths will break laws prohibiting murdering, maiming, raping, and robbing--with whatever weapon is available--then we need "mo' betta' laws" to stop them? That's delusional, the only thing that stops people like that is force, either from law enforcement or their intended victims. You talk as if we don't have any laws regulating firearms! Maybe you should talk to obama about his malfeasance, demanding more laws while not enforcing the existing ones?

Here are Obama's numbers since he took over from Bush.

[FONT=&quot]According to the FBI’s most recent annual compilation of crime reports published Dec. 14, there were 2,216 fewer murders and deaths from nonnegligent manslaughter in the U.S. during 2014 than in 2008, the year before Obama first took office. That’s a 13 percent reduction in the number of homicides.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The drop in all violent crime — including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — is even greater. There were 229,078 fewer violent crimes in the U.S. in 2014 than in 2008, a drop of 16 percent, according to the FBI.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And because the U.S. population was growing, the violent crime rate dropped even faster than the absolute numbers. In 2014, the homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, down from 5.4 in 2008.[/FONT]


Now, lets' back on issue.

You talk as if we have no laws regarding murder, maiming, rape, robbery, etc. Should we scrap those laws because they CANNOT stop a determine criminal or sociopath? Of course not.

But that is not the issue. Again, the issue is POWER AND CAPACITY. It is the ESCALATION OF LETHALITY. Address those, please.

 

[BugI02]

You are a troll looking for attention.

AdHom and an unfair attack by inspection. He has been respectful and articulate and is allowed to have a viewpoint at variance with the INGO mainstream

Stand down

 

[david890]

This, like the other fight over abolition, will come to blows

Dude, that's so 1865....


(Yes, I know you mean "abortion". But SCOTUS already ruled on that.)

 

[actaeon277]

So, if violent crime is down, as you just stated, why are we discussing ANY gun control?

 

[GIJEW]

Except for CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING, which are the primary issues concerning the AR. What you have described is an ESCALATION IN LETHALITY from 100 years ago to the present, a goal of the DESIGNERS OF MILITARY WEAPONS. The Winchester Model 70 is essentially the same firearm as when it was first designed, as it was perfectly fine for hunting then as it is now. Deer aren't becoming tougher or bullet-proof. The fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo each killed more than either A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so why did we build A-bombs? Escalation of lethality. Same reason Edward Teller developed the H-bomb after the Soviets developed their own A-bomb.

Do we really need to continue that escalation (e.g., a 100-round drum mag for the AR)? I have no problem with anyone shooting just about anything at a proper range. If you wish to spend $$$ to shoot a Mini-Gun at Knob Creek (or $2500 to pop off a round from an Abrams while visiting Ft. Knox - if they would let you) more power to you. But do we need hi-power, hi-cal ARs around the home? Is there not another firearm with which you can defend yourself?

What "hi-power, hi-cal ARs" are you talking about, a Hornady Bushmaster 450--one suitable for HUNTING big game? Comparing a .223 to your 30-06 ought to clarify that for you. Likewise, read what the FBI found regarding over penetration, you might rethink your 870 as a go to HD gun.

What the benefits of an AR that one might NEED for HD?

Depending on stature or whether one is disabled: Low recoil

It's more compact than most other long guns--unless you chose a bullpup, different boogie-man gun--and better suited for use in a building

If you're facing multiple assailants you will absolutely NEED CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING

BTW, when I called you a "token gun owner" upthread, I said that in the context of you being the rare gun owner who will stand with the anti-gun lobby and passionately espouse their stuff. Their gun owner that they can point to and say "see gun owners support our agenda"