AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[david890]

Something happened in 1986...

Nothing that you couldn't easily work around...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

At no time have I said I have no problem with other guns. I used to own an FN 5-7, and that's a pretty deadly pistol, much more so that the .32 S&W my grandfather owned. Again, it's an issue of CAPACITY AND SPEED OF LOADING. I'm sure the folks at FN had ESCALATION OF LETHALITY in mind when they designed it. But does the average person need an FN5-7 around the home, if anywhere?

One of the largest massacres in the world was committed with a five shot revolver as your grandfather owed.

Large capacity .22magnums have been around for decades.

 

[Rookie]

Nothing that you couldn't easily work around...

Really? Please tell me how I can easily (LEGALLY) get an Hk MP7. I'm dying to get one and have the money.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I note that he still has not told us about Eli Whitney.

As well, he has said nothing in response to my illustrating that the Winchester M70 is a deadly weapon of war and escalation.

 

[BugI02]

And you've hit on my main point: the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN ASPECTS OF THE AR PLATFORM ARE SOUND AND SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED OR BANNED. Namely, that the design of the AR, which placed the barrel, bolt and stock in line resulted in reduced recoil and reduced muzzle rise. I would not be able to shoot .308 today if not for my .300 Blackout (I haven't shot an AR-10, so I can't speak about its recoil on my bad neck).

The issues being raised are, again, the power of the round and the capacity of the firearm (both in terms of magazine capacity and speed of reloading). It is not a great design challenge to create an 5-8 round internal magazine, nor to make reloading a slower, more complicated process. Either would reduce the ability of someone to use such a modified AR in scenarios such as Aurora, Sandy Hook or Orlando. It would not prevent it, but it would REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD, which is what a lot of people want.

It would seem that a Garand would meet your criteria, yet it delivered a rate of fire and reload capability sufficient to prosecute total war. Wouldn't like to face either but if I had to choose I'd rather face .223 in an urban combat scenario. A lot tougher to find cover that would stop a 30-06

 

[Rookie]

At no time have I said I have no problem with other guns. I used to own an FN 5-7, and that's a pretty deadly pistol, much more so that the .32 S&W my grandfather owned. Again, it's an issue of CAPACITY AND SPEED OF LOADING. I'm sure the folks at FN had ESCALATION OF LETHALITY in mind when they designed it. But does the average person need an FN5-7 around the home, if anywhere?

https://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw

He should be illegal.

 

[KG1]

**** it. Let's just go back to using muskets.

 

[david890]

Article XII, §1. IND. CONST.

10 US Code 311(a) would seem to precedence over Ind. Const. XII: "... except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state." I'm over 50, so by 10 USC 311(a), I'm too old. Too old for Uncle Sammy, too old for Indiana.

However, IANAL, so perhaps my reading is in error.

 

[david890]

Really? Please tell me how I can easily (LEGALLY) get an Hk MP7. I'm dying to get one and have the money.

Get your Class 3 license and buy a Post-86 sample.

Okay, not that easy, but not impossible.

 

[BogWalker]

At no time have I said I have no problem with other guns. I used to own an FN 5-7, and that's a pretty deadly pistol, much more so that the .32 S&W my grandfather owned. Again, it's an issue of CAPACITY AND SPEED OF LOADING. I'm sure the folks at FN had ESCALATION OF LETHALITY in mind when they designed it. But does the average person need an FN5-7 around the home, if anywhere?

Okay, so it was perfectly fine and dandy when you owned the FN, but the average person doesn't need one around the home so let's heavily regulate them and relegate them to a designated shooting location from which they cannot be removed (oh how gracious of you to not suggest total confiscation).

You've also said similar things about Steyr AUGs, "hi-capacity" magazines, and AR-15s.

From this I once again propose you believe yourself to be a bit more qualified to own a firearm than the average firearm owner or American citizen for that matter.

If you really think it is safer for everyone that ARs not be kept in the home why do you keep one (several?) in your home? The antis I know who believe firearms in a home are dangerous don't keep one. They practice what they preach; with you it's "do as I say not as I do", and I think the reason for that is quite obvious.

 

[Rookie]

Get your Class 3 license and buy a Post-86 sample.

Okay, not that easy, but not impossible.

And when I give up my Class3, do I get to keep it? No. Seems like we lost something in 1986...

 

[david890]

It would seem that a Garand would meet your criteria, yet it delivered a rate of fire and reload capability sufficient to prosecute total war.

Only when compared to the German K98s or Japanese Type 37 or 99s. I suspect GIs got a bit nervous when they started seeing Sturmgewehrs on the field...

 

[actaeon277]

The very position of ISIS and "radical Muslim extremists". Islam or nothing.

So, how is the "no middle ground" for the 2A folks different? There's really no middle ground whatsoever? There's NOTHING on which we can agree??

So when "radical Islam" wants to chop your head off and kill you, are you going to compromise and lose a leg?

We've already compromised.
I've posted the national firearms acts and bans.

Each time we were told, that's it, just be reasonable. This is all we want.

Each time it wasn't enough, they wanted more.

So yes, we're done.

 

[BugI02]

No, I wouldn't be fine with it. OTOH, I would have no legal recourse, as Congress [STRIKE]has the sole authority[/STRIKE]may attempt to determine the scope of those rights in ways that conform to the Constitution, as determined by SCOTUS.

Fixy

 

[GIJEW]

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

[FONT=&amp]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=&amp]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=&amp]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.

Regarding "obama's numbers", he'd like to take credit, but the decline in violent crime started before he took office and has paralleled the expansion of "shall issue" CCW laws, though there are other causes at work too. The numbers in question are the prosecutions for criminals violating federal gun laws such as possession=5 years in prison, etc. I recall that eric holder stopped "operation exile" where fed. and local prosecutors double teamed criminals in order to maximize the amount of jail time they did.

Who said anything about scraping existing laws? My point is that demanding more laws because criminals violate whatever laws exist, is not a rational approach to solving the problem. That problem requires enforcement.

Back to your issue of power&capacity/escalation of lethality: I (and others) already provided scenarios where there is a need for the public to have those. The issue that you overlook is that we have a right to them and don't need to bow and scrape and justify that need to the government.

I'll repeat what has been said upthread:

Most of the enumerated rights predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a list of out-of-bounds-markers for the federal government, not a list of priviledges that it might--or might not--condescend to grant us.

The militia in the 2A is NOT a branch of government. The Constitution prohibited the states from maintaining troops or ships of war in peace time unless they were in imminent danger or Congress approved (that didn't happen until 1903 when the nat'l guard was established) The militia was the same "the people" spoken of in the rest of the BOR.

In 18th century English "well regulated" also meant "well organized, well trained/prepared, etc". Since the founders were very clear about the RKBA being a safeguard against tyranny, the notion that the fed. gov't should have regulatory control over the people being armed seems illogical

 

[BugI02]

Dude, that's so 1865....


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

No, I meant abolition. I meant to reference the last time the government attempted to control and abolish something that a substantial portion of the population thought they were within their (state's) rights
to maintain. And I absolutely see the potential to end up in the same place (civil war)

There will always be some for whom Molon Labe is not just a slogan on a t-shirt

 

[david890]

Okay, so it was perfectly fine and dandy when you owned the FN, but the average person doesn't need one around the home so let's heavily regulate them and relegate them to a designated shooting location from which they cannot be removed (oh how gracious of you to not suggest total confiscation).

I don't recommend that average person take a McMillan Mini-Gun home with them from Knob Creek (though I do recognize that the owner takes it home).

You've also said similar things about Steyr AUGs, "hi-capacity" magazines, and AR-15s.

I've said a lot of things. Be specific.

From this I once again propose you believe yourself to be a bit more qualified to own a firearm than the average firearm owner or American citizen for that matter.

Given the number and variety of firearms I've owned over the years, the number of rounds I've fired, as well as doing my own reloading, I probably am more qualified than the "average" firearm owner. Don't forget that 100 is an "average IQ", and I'm smarter than that (tested around 140). How capable do YOU think the "average" firearm owner is?

If you really think it is safer for everyone that ARs not be kept in the home why do you keep one (several?) in your home?

As stated before, I have quite an investment in them.

The antis I know who believe firearms in a home are dangerous don't keep one. They practice what they preach; with you it's "do as I say not as I do", and I think the reason for that is quite obvious.

I am NOT an "anti". Again, I'm seeking some middle ground between the two extremes.

 

[actaeon277]

David, you said you have no internet at home.
We can continue tomorrow dude.
Get some rest.

The argument will still be here.

 

[KG1]

David, you said you have no internet at home.
We can continue tomorrow dude.
Get some rest.

The argument will still be here.

This argument will always be somewhere.

 

[GIJEW]

The very position of ISIS and "radical Muslim extremists". Islam or nothing.

So, how is the "no middle ground" for the 2A folks different? There's really no middle ground whatsoever? There's NOTHING on which we can agree??

I don't like red herring, thank you. If you want Islam or nothing you can choose to go to iran or s. arabia where sharia is the law of the land.

Here OUR Constitution is the law of the land. How about agreeing on that? Our civil rights (not the only 2A) are being infringed by incremental statist creep, and if we keep on with this one sided "meet in the middle" game, there won't BE any middle ground and our freedom will be irreparably damaged