A Gun control solution - perhaps

[sculptor]

Fantastic solutions ain't solutions!

We have a bill of rights and a set of laws. Some of those laws infringe on the stated right. Some challenges to those laws that infringe may make their way through the court system and be heard by the supreme court. For much of it;s history, the supreme court pretty much allowed those infringements as "states rights", stating that the bill of rights only restricted the federal government.
Then, more recently, the 14th was used to control the states' restrictions/infringements on/of the 2nd.
Currently, there is a flurry of restrictive state laws banning auto loading rifles that bear a resemblance to military assault weapons.
One idiot judge upheld a restrictive/infringing law by calling an ar15 a weapon of war.

I expect that the supreme court is waiting for what they would consider a well phrased challenge to one of these reactionary laws.

It seems that during an election year, many politicians will take a poll, and then follow the whim of the mob in hopes of getting re-elected and willy nilly write laws that are in direct violation of our rights.

.............................................
old joke
A french revolutionary is sitting at an outdoor cafe with his assistant when a loud and seemingly angry mob goes by.
Turning to his aid, the revolutionary said: "Quick, find out where they are going so that I may lead them".

 

[Vociferous]

Your two sentences are presented as if the second one follows. It doesn't.
I said nothing about "banning", even high RPM weapons like the Ruger there, and plenty against it - including explicitly inviting you to participate in getting the law right.
And you forgot about the magazines.

If you're advocating for bans/restrictions based solely on rate of fire, it directly follows that you're advocating for banning/restricting most rifles and handguns. I'm already involved in getting the law right. Just not what you think is "right."
There are 33 round magazines for handguns, and the time it takes to change a magazine is inconsequential. But you would already know that if you knew much about guns.

My point was that the 2nd Amendment is not going to protect high RPM weapons and large magazines, which most people want severely restricted, unless you corrupt the Court even beyond its current borderline state. And if you do that, your goals of freedom and such are living on borrowed time.

"Most people" who have been convinced an AR if full-auto and high-powered. Aside from voter referendums in blue states, that's just an argument ad populum. Doesn't speak to the ability of new restrictions to withstand legal challenge.
That you think conservative justices are "corrupt" betrays your unabashed radical leftism.

Btw: note the slippery rhetoric in the descriptions of the two rifles in #408. For example: "Semi automatic but for some reason is commonly called an assault rifle". "For some reason"? As you must know, because you are calling other people ignorant, the reason that thing is called an "assault rifle" is that it was marketed as such, labeled an "assault rifle" by the sales and advertising departments of its manufacturers - that was before the too common nature of the kinds of assaults too many of its buyers had in mind became part of the ugly common knowledge of our day.

No, still your ignorance there. An "assault weapon" has selective-fire (including fully-auto) capabilities. An "assault rifle" is a political term and misnomer used to demonize the AR-15 (Armalite rifle) and confuse the uninformed. Seems that propaganda is working on you.

Whatever, we can figure it out. It's not an impossible task to sort out.

No, just a slippery slope to exploit.

Except in the case of weapons that can be more easily fired at high rates by the unskilled, and/or can be easily modified to produce automatic fire - designed to make circumventing the ban on automatics easy

And of course those with large magazines, so that rapid fire is more easily sustainable and targets have no interruptions to take advantage of.

Also weapons more easily fired for self-defense by the less skilled. Rapid fire modifications negate any ease of use argument.
Magazine size rate of fire comparison @4:10, and opportunity to tackle shooter during mag change @9:38:

Severe and enforced restrictions on AR-15s might have been of benefit, as well.

Cool thing is, there are steps we can take toward all four of those things at once - such as voting every single Republican Congressman out of office seven months from now.

Like I said elsewhere, radical leftist.

no you were acting aggrieved and out raged its kinda of your go to move. no irrational and nonsensical is calling someone a troll simply because they disagree with your propaganda. i've study history and law here. you like most gun nuts, and you are objectively a nut i recall my previous interactions with you, feel like only are allowed to have a valid opinion on guns. if it disagrees with you it must be wrong.

You know, if you could ever demonstrate your knowledge of history, law, or grammar you wouldn't have to keep trying to convince people.

 

[river]

I havn't read the whole thread , but wouldn't be prudent to have a minimum age of at least 25yrs and a back ground check as well ?

Is this not reasonable ? I think so .

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I havn't read the whole thread , but wouldn't be prudent to have a minimum age of at least 25yrs and a back ground check as well ?

Is this not reasonable ? I think so .

is it rational to refuse the right to vote for anyone under 25?
is it rational to not allow military service for anyone under 25?
what about driving and other adult things?

one of the reasons I say it's not rational is becuase of the arbitrary age. If a perosn is considered an adult with the right to vote at 18, then they should also be held responsible for their own actions. period. full stop.

the selection of an "age" for handguns simply says "you're not an adult".
as such, why then allow them to vote, be in the military or live on their own without parental supervision?


IMHO - if the age of 25 (or anything other than 18, the current age of "adult" in the US) is chosen then parents should be held responsible for all the actions of the child until that age considering they're not adult enough to be responsible for themselves.

 

[river]

is it rational to refuse the right to vote for anyone under 25?
is it rational to not allow military service for anyone under 25?
what about driving and other adult things?

one of the reasons I say it's not rational is becuase of the arbitrary age. If a perosn is considered an adult with the right to vote at 18, then they should also be held responsible for their own actions. period. full stop.

the selection of an "age" for handguns simply says "you're not an adult".
as such, why then allow them to vote, be in the military or live on their own without parental supervision?


IMHO - if the age of 25 (or anything other than 18, the current age of "adult" in the US) is chosen then parents should be held responsible for all the actions of the child until that age considering they're not adult enough to be responsible for themselves.

I get you TCS , but at the same time have a multi bullet , semi-automatic firearm , is not comparable to neither military service and driving a car .

At 18yrs old we all know the ego , anger that can arise from simply having no idea of what LIFE actually means .

 

[Vociferous]

so what part of adequate "gun management and regulation" didn't you understand... of course adequate enforcement is included as is background checks on mentally disturbed people.
I mean... I agree with you, however your "wrong on so many levels" is in fact inappropriate and perhaps a tad "reflexive".

When you advocate for gun bans and punishing law-abiding citizens, you're outside of "adequate" and into "infringement" territory. Until you can manage to understand that, most your posts are completely irrelevant to the US.

 

[river]

gun control should be about first and fore most about the mental maturity of the applicant of the firearm

 

[iceaura]

If you're advocating for bans/restrictions based solely on rate of fire, it directly follows that you're advocating for banning/restricting most rifles and handguns.

Every reply you have ever posted that begins with the word "if" is bullshit, and can be simply ignored.

There are 33 round magazines for handguns, and the time it takes to change a magazine is inconsequential.

The time it took to change a magazine is what stopped the Waffle House shooter mid-rampage. Not the only example, either.

Doesn't speak to the ability of new restrictions to withstand legal challenge.

Doesn't have to. The legal challenge is where the people who want unrestricted access to such equipment get to argue their need to have it on hand to defend themselves against charging grizzly bears and the like.

An "assault weapon" has selective-fire (including fully-auto) capabilities. An "assault rifle" is a political term and misnomer used to demonize the AR-15 (Armalite rifle) and confuse the uninformed. Seems that propaganda is working on you.

I informed you where the term "assault rifle" came from in describing the AR-15s and equivalents. It's in the historical record. I agree that it is a misnomer used to confuse and deceive - but that's how gun marketing to some people works. The word "assault" seems to have been replaced by "tactical" - a better term, as it can be more easily spread around to flashlights, toothbrushes, etc, as well.

Also weapons more easily fired for self-defense by the less skilled.

So a compromise is in order. How easy do we want to make it for the completely unskilled and inexperienced to operate a firearm in a high stress situation?

Rapid fire modifications negate any ease of use argument.

And so weapons designed to be modified easily like that can be even more severely restricted.

 

[Vociferous]

Every reply you have ever posted that begins with the word "if" is bullshit, and can be simply ignored.

If you're not advocating for some extra restrictions on guns with certain rates of fire then you've just been trolling. Suspected as much.
That rate of fire includes most rifles and handguns.

The time it took to change a magazine is what stopped the Waffle House shooter mid-rampage. Not the only example, either.

No, the guy who stopped the shooter said he didn't know if he was reloading or the gun was jammed.

"His gun either got jammed or he was trying to reload, not exactly sure," Shaw told WTVF.
https://www.insideedition.com/man-hailed-hero-after-wrestling-gun-away-waffle-house-shooter-42687​

So since that didn't pan out, where are your other examples?

"Most people" who have been convinced an AR if full-auto and high-powered. Aside from voter referendums in blue states, that's just an argument ad populum. Doesn't speak to the ability of new restrictions to withstand legal challenge.
That you think conservative justices are "corrupt" betrays your unabashed radical leftism.

Doesn't have to. The legal challenge is where the people who want unrestricted access to such equipment get to argue their need to have it on hand to defend themselves against charging grizzly bears and the like.

Handguns and AR-15s are ineffective against large animals. Your ignorance is showing again.

I informed you where the term "assault rifle" came from in describing the AR-15s and equivalents. It's in the historical record. I agree that it is a misnomer used to confuse and deceive - but that's how gun marketing to some people works. The word "assault" seems to have been replaced by "tactical" - a better term, as it can be more easily spread around to flashlights, toothbrushes, etc, as well.

You certainly made up some nonsense and never supported it. Show us this supposed "historical record."
Oh, so it wasn't "assault", it was "tactical" now. Backpedaling since you know you can't support your previous claim.

So a compromise is in order. How easy do we want to make it for the completely unskilled and inexperienced to operate a firearm in a high stress situation?

Easy enough to save their lives.

And so weapons designed to be modified easily like that can be even more severely restricted.

Go ahead, ban bump stocks. Anyone can do the same thing with a couple of shoe laces or just practiced technique. You going to ban shoe laces and techniques next? Hahaha!

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I get you TCS , but at the same time have a multi bullet , semi-automatic firearm , is not comparable to neither military service and driving a car .

At 18yrs old we all know the ego , anger that can arise from simply having no idea of what LIFE actually means .

But that doesn't change in the military, nor does it change in a car. It is something we have to learn for ourselves as we progress through life. It isn't something that can be taught or shared as it's usually a deeply personal thing: my meaning is nowhere near anyone else's meaning

it's like the Oglala view on faith or beliefs: it's a personal thing and no one else has the right, ability, knowledge or experience that is exactly the same as yours, therefore no one can tell you how to believe. They can help you search. they can help you try to understand (from their perspective, which might help you comprehend your own issues) ... but they can't say you're wrong. Especially if you're lead to walk a certain path regardless of the rest of the people.

I think this is one reason I dislike any restrictions that are arbitrarily based on random numbers when dealing with age. There really is no more rational reason to accept 21 over 27 and 4 months, 13 days, 7 hours and 42 minutes. Responsibility doesn't know an age... some people start working to help support the family considerably younger than others.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Power (guns) with out wisdom is always ultimately self destructive hence collective regulation steps in to make up for it.
(M)

 

[iceaura]

If you're not advocating for some extra restrictions on guns with certain rates of fire then you've just been trolling.

Every single claim beginning with "if", from you, is bullshit.

No, the guy who stopped the shooter said he didn't know if he was reloading or the gun was jammed.

You mean "yes" - The time it took to change a magazine is what allowed the intervention.
That break saved many lives. Here's what the weapon looked like, in the break: https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/988055742363193344/photo/1

Easy enough to save their lives.

Without costing others theirs. Right?

Oh, so it wasn't "assault", it was "tactical" now.

It was "assault" then, it's "tactical" now. I don't know why - maybe "assault" has bad connotations, for some reason, maybe the superiority of "tactical" won out. But you can hardly blame people for using the same terms the manufacturers used to describe things.

Handguns and AR-15s are ineffective against large animals. Your ignorance is showing again.

'And so weapons designed to be modified easily like that can be even more severely restricted'
.Go ahead, ban bump stocks. Anyone can do the same thing with a couple of shoe laces or just practiced technique. You going to ban shoe laces and techniques next? Hahaha!

The failures of reading comprehension in this matter are getting weirder by the post.

This is becoming comedy.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Power (guns) with out wisdom is always ultimately self destructive hence collective regulation steps in to make up for it.
(M)

power is a subjective term and dependent upon the interpretation of the user.

Wisdom is also subjective (and conditional). you can't expect everyone to have the wisdom to survive in the wilderness with only a knife, a shoelace and a coke can.

training and experience aren't always the same thing as wisdom as you can have both and still be dumb as a rock with regard to firearms... I've had left extremists who are college educated tell me that the AR-15 shooting a .223 is completely different than a .223 hunting rifle

 

[pjdude1219]

Handguns and AR-15s are ineffective against large animals. Your ignorance is showing again.

guns in general offer a poor defense against bears. your better off carrying bear spray. now for hunting them yeah you need some weight. but trying to use weaponry designed to hunt large game as a way to dismiss concerns about weapons designed to kill humans is dishonest. ancient indians used to use bows similiar to the english and welsh long bows to hunt elephants and an ar 15 is signifigantly more powerful than than those.

 

[pjdude1219]

training and experience aren't always the same thing as wisdom as you can have both and still be dumb as a rock with regard to firearms... I've had left extremists who are college educated tell me that the AR-15 shooting a .223 is completely different than a .223 hunting rifle

so every gun that shoots the 223. has the exact same characteristics? i would have thought some with your vaunted expertise in fire arms wouldn't say something so ignorant. there are a variety of variables that would effect it. considering you your self have whined about comparing the ar-15 to the m-16 when the main notable difference in performance is the rifling im pretty sure the ar-15 is more similiar to that than a gun that has completely different design.

a .357 magnum and a 357. sig wouldn't be the same thing would they.

also your probably ignoring the main argument against the ar-15 that being it was designed as a military rifle it can be quickly and cheaply(reletively speaking) be turned into something sowing people down easily while a 223. hunting rifle well cant.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

guns in general offer a poor defense against bears. your better off carrying bear spray.

??? are you being serious?

so every gun that shoots the 223. has the exact same characteristics?

1- the damage to a target from any .223 is going to be relatively the same, depending on range, placement etc. It doesn't matter what platform fires the round.

2- given similar barrel lengths, rifling, etc and shooting under the same conditions, the ballistics are going to be pretty close to the same with minimal differences. (see #4)

3- the biggest difference shooting a .223 from different platforms will be the comfort with which the shooter adjusts to. Some people prefer the pistol grip and some don't

4- you're confusing accuracy with ballistics. Ballistics includes the factors that affect the round because that is the definition of ballistics -

the field of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles, especially bullets, unguided bombs, rockets, or the like; the science or art of designing and accelerating projectiles so as to achieve a desired performance.

Accuracy requires ballistics, or the knowledge of how conditions will affect the flight of the round.

a .357 magnum and a 357. sig wouldn't be the same thing would they.

not only are they not the same, but they're different too

however, a .223 AR round and a .223 hunting rifle round are exactly the same. it's like comparing the 1969 Camaro to the 1969 Camaro.
comparing the .357 Mag and the .357 Sig would be like comparing the Mustang to a Camaro. just because they're both cars doesn't mean they're both the same car.

also your probably ignoring the main argument against the ar-15 that being it was designed as a military rifle it can be quickly and cheaply(reletively speaking) be turned into something sowing people down easily while a 223. hunting rifle well cant.

wrong - most hunting rifles can have modifications cheaply and easily done
it is a main selling point and has been for some time. Modifications to make your weapon unique and allow it to function based upon your need

the AR isn't the military rifle. the M-16 is.
More to the point, as I've noted (elsewhere), the gas operated semi-automatic cycling mechanism was first functional and built in 1883-1884 by Karel Krnka (Jaroslav Lugs (1973). Firearms Past and Present. Grenville Publishing Co Ltd.)

the only unique thing about the M-16 when it was sold to the military was: it was light, had a selective mode of fire, smaller rounds allowing for the ability to carry more ammo, was easily broken down and cleaned with no tools, and had plastic on it.

the previous service rifle, the M-1, was a Gas Operated U.S. Service Rifle

 

[sculptor]

"Drop in" full auto sear for converting an ar15 to full auto-----if it ain't old it's a felony. And, since the ban, these things(if legal) are a tad pricey.

 

[Vociferous]

Every single claim beginning with "if", from you, is bullshit.

So you're not advocating for any restrictions base on rate of fire. Good.

You mean "yes" - The time it took to change a magazine is what allowed the intervention.
That break saved many lives. Here's what the weapon looked like, in the break: https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/988055742363193344/photo/1

As usual, you're uninformed about types of gun jams, namely a double-feed, that requires removing the mag to clear.
At some point a rational person would realize that they are far to uneducated, and have the common sense to quit making a fool of themselves.

Without costing others theirs. Right?

Owning a gun, itself, costs no one their lives.

It was "assault" then, it's "tactical" now. I don't know why - maybe "assault" has bad connotations, for some reason, maybe the superiority of "tactical" won out. But you can hardly blame people for using the same terms the manufacturers used to describe things.

No, you'd have to support that claim for it to rise above your deserved level of credibility.
Sounds like you're just lying again.

The failures of reading comprehension in this matter are getting weirder by the post.

This is becoming comedy.

AR-15s are not "designed to be modified like that", e.g. "Rapid fire modifications."
Since only the modification itself is "designed" to do so, they are all that fall under your proposed restrictions.
If you learn how make educated arguments, you wouldn't constantly stumble over your own ignorance (and feel the need to blame others for it).

 

[Vociferous]

The legal challenge is where the people who want unrestricted access to such equipment get to argue their need to have it on hand to defend themselves against charging grizzly bears and the like.

Handguns and AR-15s are ineffective against large animals. Your ignorance is showing again.

guns in general offer a poor defense against bears. your better off carrying bear spray. now for hunting them yeah you need some weight. but trying to use weaponry designed to hunt large game as a way to dismiss concerns about weapons designed to kill humans is dishonest. ancient indians used to use bows similiar to the english and welsh long bows to hunt elephants and an ar 15 is signifigantly more powerful than than those.

Try to keep up with the discussion.
It was an ignorant straw man that the need for an AR-15 is ever argued as a defense against bears.
And it's your new straw man that anyone argued that the much higher-powered rifles necessary against bears have anything to do with, much less dismiss concerns about, owning an AR-15. The straw man and dishonesty are yours.
But yes, there are hunting rifles far more effective against bears than bear repellant.
Hunters of just about any game often use both bows and rifles. They have similar killing capabilities, only the bow takes greater mastery. Few hunt deer with AR-15's, but many hunt deer with bows. So again, you're hoisted on your own ignorance.

 

[iceaura]

As usual, you're uninformed about types of gun jams, namely a double-feed, that requires removing the mag to clear.

And as usual you didn't bother to actually read my post - the time it takes to reload was the issue, and reloading was a sufficient explanation for the event. Like this:

You mean "yes" - The time it took to change a magazine is what allowed the intervention.

That's what my argument depended on. It was a response to people here who claimed that reload time is too short to matter. (Usually the same people who insist on their need for large magazines, because reload times are critical).
As far as whether it was a reload or a jam, Fox News is the only source I've found that reported it as a jam only, without caveat. But not everything Fox says is false - maybe they were right. Irrelevant to my argument either way.

No, you'd have to support that claim for it to rise above your deserved level of credibility.
Sounds like you're just lying again.

You post things like that a lot. You never check. You're always wrong, but you carefully never find out.

AR-15s are not "designed to be modified like that", e.g. "Rapid fire modifications."

Tell that to the people who buy it for that reason: https://moderncombatandsurvival.com...eapons/best-ar-15-modifications-home-defense/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html
https://www.elites2llc.com/product-page/bump-stock-for-ar-15-bump-fire-systems
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...on-minute-geissele-ar-15-rapid-fire-trigger-/

Or, safer, realize that your problem there was poor reading comprehension in the first place - you got my argument backwards somehow - and maintain dignity in silence.

It was an ignorant straw man that the need for an AR-15 is ever argued as a defense against bears.

Nobody did. What somebody did was argue that they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves against a charging grizzly.