A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,131
    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".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    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.
    "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.
    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.
    No, just a slippery slope to exploit.
    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:

    Like I said elsewhere, radical leftist.
    You know, if you could ever demonstrate your knowledge of history, law, or grammar you wouldn't have to keep trying to convince people.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    10,838
    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 .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    883
    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.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  8. river

    Messages:
    10,838
    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 .
     
  9. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    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.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  10. river

    Messages:
    10,838
    gun control should be about first and fore most about the mental maturity of the applicant of the firearm
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,558
    Every reply you have ever posted that begins with the word "if" is bullshit, and can be simply ignored.
    The time it took to change a magazine is what stopped the Waffle House shooter mid-rampage. Not the only example, either.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    And so weapons designed to be modified easily like that can be even more severely restricted.
     
  12. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    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.
    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?
    Handguns and AR-15s are ineffective against large animals. Your ignorance is showing again.
    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.
    Easy enough to save their lives.
    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 likes this.
  13. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    883
    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.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,237
    Power (guns) with out wisdom is always ultimately self destructive hence collective regulation steps in to make up for it.
    (M)
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,558
    Every single claim beginning with "if", from you, is bullshit.
    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
    Without costing others theirs. Right?
    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.
    The failures of reading comprehension in this matter are getting weirder by the post.

    This is becoming comedy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    883
    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
     
  17. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,904
    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.
     
  18. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,904
    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.
     
  19. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    883
    ??? are you being serious?

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

    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.


    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

     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,131
    "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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  21. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    So you're not advocating for any restrictions base on rate of fire. Good.
    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.
    Owning a gun, itself, costs no one their lives.
    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.
    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).
     
  22. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    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.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,558
    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:
    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.
    You post things like that a lot. You never check. You're always wrong, but you carefully never find out.
    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.
    Nobody did. What somebody did was argue that they need high capacity magazines to defend themselves against a charging grizzly.
     

Share This Page