Justify banning this rifle...

[Missourian]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

I don't know what it is. But whatever it is I doubt it is any more lethal at any distance than a Remington 700 in 30.06 with an ordinary, well-zeroed, 3-9x scope and a clip-on bipod. The pistol grip is redundant.
Am I mistaken?

It is designed to shoot under a minute at 1000yds.

Good lord, man...you could empty that 20 round magazine in seven seconds and clear out a mall from a kilometer away!!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

Gun sales are booming, yet it's the same gun owners buying more guns.
How many "assault" rifles do they need to sleep at night?

How do you know it's the same gun owners buying more guns?

Sarah Brady says so?

"Indeed, this prolonged surge in gun sales has driven Sarah Brady’s group to some very creative spin; for example, Caroline Brewer, of the Brady Campaign, said, 'The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people are owning more and more guns.'

Sanetti doesn’t think the Brady Campaign’s spin has a syllable of truth in it; after all, he pointed out that the NSSF’s First Shots Program (a program that holds shooting lessons for the public) has been growing fast. 'Fun, new action-shooting sports, such as 3-gun and sporting clays, are also bringing in a lot of new shooters, especially women,' he says."

Why U.S. Gun Sales Are Shooting For The Moon - Forbes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, registration is nothing more then the first step to confiscation. The Government has no compelling need to know where LEGALLY obtained and owned weapons are.

Would you support a 6 month period where the Government was free to ignore the Constitution to clean up gangs and their weapons?

And there’s the problem typical of many Second Amendment ‘supporters.’

You make these highly hyperbolic and inaccurate statements which serve to only undermine an otherwise cogent argument.

Yes, registration does manifest an undue burden to the exercising of one’s Second Amendment rights, and there is indeed no evidence that registration reduces gun violence. But it has nothing at all to do with ‘confiscation,’ as no lawmaker or lawmaking body is proposing any such measure.

Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".

There isn’t even a ‘first step.’

There isn’t even a path to walk, for that matter.

If you and others on the right want to have a serious debate concerning the issue, then have a serious debate.

Idiocy about ‘gun confiscation’ is not a serious debate, it’s tinfoil hat nonsense.

I’ve been an advocate of Second Amendment rights since before the 94 ban, in those 20-odd years the most significant obstacle hasn’t been ‘gun-grabbers,’ it’s been the lunatic rightwing fringe burying their guns in the backyard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?

There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.

What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?

The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.
If a robber loses her legal gun during an attempted stick-up, the government has a compelling interest to find that legal gun's owner, Your Honor.

You sure you are a lawyer? That argument is so weak a 5 year old could destroy it. EXACTLY how does knowing she had a gun and it being registered help find it after it is stolen? You are aware when you report a weapon stolen they want the serial number in case they recover it?

 

[georgephillip]

There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.

What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?

The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.
If a robber loses her legal gun during an attempted stick-up, the government has a compelling interest to find that legal gun's owner, Your Honor.

You sure you are a lawyer? That argument is so weak a 5 year old could destroy it. EXACTLY how does knowing she had a gun and it being registered help find it after it is stolen? You are aware when you report a weapon stolen they want the serial number in case they recover it?

Obviously I'm not cut out for law...I was trying to create a scenario where a legal gun owner uses her legal gun to attempt a robbery. Apparently, stolen guns do not account for most criminal gun violence:

"An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. 'Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,' Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal."

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

 

[M14 Shooter]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

1) You think it's cool.
/thread

Another superb example of mindless ignorance. Well done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And there’s the problem typical of many Second Amendment ‘supporters.’

You make these highly hyperbolic and inaccurate statements which serve to only undermine an otherwise cogent argument.

Yes, registration does manifest an undue burden to the exercising of one’s Second Amendment rights, and there is indeed no evidence that registration reduces gun violence. But it has nothing at all to do with ‘confiscation,’ as no lawmaker or lawmaking body is proposing any such measure.

Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".

There isn’t even a ‘first step.’
There isn’t even a path to walk, for that matter.

If you want to confiscate guns, you need to know who has them, yes?
Thus, registration is a first step.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.
If a robber loses her legal gun during an attempted stick-up, the government has a compelling interest to find that legal gun's owner, Your Honor.

You sure you are a lawyer? That argument is so weak a 5 year old could destroy it. EXACTLY how does knowing she had a gun and it being registered help find it after it is stolen? You are aware when you report a weapon stolen they want the serial number in case they recover it?

Obviously I'm not cut out for law...I was trying to create a scenario where a legal gun owner uses her legal gun to attempt a robbery. Apparently, stolen guns do not account for most criminal gun violence:

"An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. 'Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,' Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal."

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

So hardly any guns are stolen and if the supposed legal buyer of the weapon commits a crime they are not going to leave said weapon at the crime scene, explain again how registration helps find a stolen gun or a weapon used at a crime scene when said weapon is taken away?

 

[hortysir]

Gun sales are booming, yet it's the same gun owners buying more guns.
How many "assault" rifles do they need to sleep at night?

Anything to support the bolded?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, if you're not military, its YOU who needs to justify having it.

But, start here -

This is what the Aurora shooter had. 100 rounds.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

1) You think it's cool.

 

[georgephillip]

Gun sales are booming, yet it's the same gun owners buying more guns.
How many "assault" rifles do they need to sleep at night?

Anything to support the bolded?

So far...just the Brady Bunch.

 

[hazlnut]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

1) You think it's cool.
/thread

Another superb example of mindless ignorance. Well done.

You misunderstand.

You are an uneducated, unsophisticated, and utterly worthless fridge right gun cultist.

You live in a fantasy world of Red Dawn and Walking Dead. That rifle only serves as a very dangerous prop in your pathetic little fantasies. You're not qualified to be in the police or military and have no valid reason to own and operate a weapon like that.

Because you think it's cool, we can conclude it has no practical purpose.

Get it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

1) You think it's cool.
/thread

Another superb example of mindless ignorance. Well done.

You are an uneducated, unsophisticated, and utterly worthless....

Another superb example of mindless ignorance. Well done

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[hortysir]

1) You think it's cool.
/thread

Another superb example of mindless ignorance. Well done.

You misunderstand.

You are an uneducated, unsophisticated, and utterly worthless fridge right gun cultist.

You live in a fantasy world of Red Dawn and Walking Dead. That rifle only serves as a very dangerous prop in your pathetic little fantasies. You're not qualified to be in the police or military and have no valid reason to own and operate a weapon like that.

Because you think it's cool, we can conclude it has no practical purpose.

Get it?

Helps to spell correctly when calling another 'uneducated'.



And calm down on the font size, assclown

 

[Triton]

Actually, if you're not military, its YOU who needs to justify having it.

But, start here -

This is what the Aurora shooter had. 100 rounds.

You left out the part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But at least someone finally addressed the OP after 4 pages.

 

[Jarlaxle]

1) You think it's cool.
/thread

Another superb example of mindless ignorance. Well done.

You misunderstand.

You are an uneducated, unsophisticated, and utterly worthless fridge right gun cultist.

You live in a fantasy world of Red Dawn and Walking Dead. That rifle only serves as a very dangerous prop in your pathetic little fantasies. You're not qualified to be in the police or military and have no valid reason to own and operate a weapon like that.

Because you think it's cool, we can conclude it has no practical purpose.

Get it?

No, actually, that rifle serves several purposes. It is a very expensive target rifle, more than likely owned by a competitive shooter.

The rest of your post is a truly pathetic mix of unsupported assertions, ad hominem attacks, and idiotic blather and is not worth responding to.

 

[Missourian]

Actually, if you're not military, its YOU who needs to justify having it.

But, start here -

This is what the Aurora shooter had. 100 rounds.

You left out the part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But at least someone finally addressed the OP after 4 pages.

Nerdly doesn't understand that "well regulated" means properly functioning.

A [properly functioning] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
​

 

[Noomi]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

The only reason someone needs a gun like that is to shoot multiple people in a short space of time.
It is not the gun needed for home defense, so ban it.