Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[Vrenn]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do know you just supported Firearms Regulation, don't you. And you listed some very good points why. It's called "Common Sense".

There has always been firearm regulation; hundreds of laws written about firearms. My stance is we don't need anymore.

The earliest Gun Control we had was due to the Western Towns being shot up by cowboys coming in off the long trail. Stray Bullets have no conscience.

that's incorrect
First gun control was king George telling Americans they couldn't have guns

 

[Vrenn]

Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed. And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.

Normally I would agree with you. But they have total control over the federal government now, and the party is being run by radicals. On his website, Biden himself agreed to these things and more.

Bills are not an up and down vote. They haggle and may take one or two things out. But one way or another they are going to pass some form of this gun bill. Will it get stopped in court? That remains to be seen.

So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I. And I don't see any change coming soon. Just like the 5 and 10 round limits didn't survive the courts but the 15 did. Have you ever seen an AR with a 10 round mag? It's like something is missing. I do find that the 15 round was a bit much and would have rather it limited to 20 like the original mag.

How many rounds should you have in the case of a riot and rioters are coming towards your front door?

None. As a community, we would never allow riots and rioters to exist. When the community has had enough, the rioting stops.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

Cars get misused what's your point?
Laws, when they infringe on rights, are not acceptable
FYI you do realize more people are killed with handguns and blunt objects kill more people than rifles.

 

[Vrenn]

You do know you just supported Firearms Regulation, don't you. And you listed some very good points why. It's called "Common Sense".

There has always been firearm regulation; hundreds of laws written about firearms. My stance is we don't need anymore.

The earliest Gun Control we had was due to the Western Towns being shot up by cowboys coming in off the long trail. Stray Bullets have no conscience.

that's incorrect
First gun control was king George telling Americans they couldn't have guns

Actually, no. The first was the Magna Carte. King George was trying to maintain a failing nation. Doesn't make what he did was right but I sympathize with it. But since those days, we have outgrown anything that the Founding Fathers could even imagine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed. And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.

Normally I would agree with you. But they have total control over the federal government now, and the party is being run by radicals. On his website, Biden himself agreed to these things and more.

Bills are not an up and down vote. They haggle and may take one or two things out. But one way or another they are going to pass some form of this gun bill. Will it get stopped in court? That remains to be seen.

So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I. And I don't see any change coming soon. Just like the 5 and 10 round limits didn't survive the courts but the 15 did. Have you ever seen an AR with a 10 round mag? It's like something is missing. I do find that the 15 round was a bit much and would have rather it limited to 20 like the original mag.

How many rounds should you have in the case of a riot and rioters are coming towards your front door?

None. As a community, we would never allow riots and rioters to exist. When the community has had enough, the rioting stops.

You don't live in America do you? or were you asleep in 2020? it was accepted by democrats t allow riots in 2020

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do know you just supported Firearms Regulation, don't you. And you listed some very good points why. It's called "Common Sense".

There has always been firearm regulation; hundreds of laws written about firearms. My stance is we don't need anymore.

The earliest Gun Control we had was due to the Western Towns being shot up by cowboys coming in off the long trail. Stray Bullets have no conscience.

that's incorrect
First gun control was king George telling Americans they couldn't have guns

Actually, no. The first was the Magna Carte. King George was trying to maintain a failing nation. Doesn't make what he did was right but I sympathize with it. But since those days, we have outgrown anything that the Founding Fathers could even imagine.

in America we are talking about America

 

[Vrenn]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

Cars get misused what's your point?
Laws, when they infringe on rights, are not acceptable
FYI you do realize more people are killed with handguns and blunt objects kill more people than rifles.

You are using the same tired info that just gets you ignored by the majority.

Of course Cars kill. But Cars don't kill per killing nearly the number that a fully equipped soldier armed with an AR and 4 mags of 30 rounds each can.

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

And when many areas and states moved to the 15 round limit per mag, it broke the CultAR and the really horrendous mass murders stopped. Now it was just as efficient to use a handgun and the body count is much lower. While you can't stop the shootings, you can minimize the body count.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

Your logic is very flawed. Cutting magazine capacity in half does not equate to cutting body count in half. That's a ludicrous statement. It simply means that the shooter must change mags more often - a task that takes less than 2 seconds.

The beauty of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy is that the majority doesn't get to vote to take the rights away from the minority. Polls don't mean crap. What it takes to change the rules is two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then greater than 50% of the legislators in three-quarters of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution.

So you bring 4 Mags makes it more difficult. That means you have 60 rounds instead of 120. And I can change a mag on an AR in about 1 second so there is no point there. The shooters are not usually that profient. I've seen combat troops drop a fully loaded mag in the confusion. So you have half the rounds. Do the math here. But mostly, it takes the advantage the AR has over the 15 round handgun. Put your mind in the mind of the potential mass shooter. It's not a fun place to be. When the ban was lifted on the AR, the real killing started and almost became a nearly every day ocurrance for those going for the record. We broke the cycle with that simple regulation.

the ban did not stop any mass shootings
It's already a criminal act to commit murder

 

[Vrenn]

Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed. And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.

Normally I would agree with you. But they have total control over the federal government now, and the party is being run by radicals. On his website, Biden himself agreed to these things and more.

Bills are not an up and down vote. They haggle and may take one or two things out. But one way or another they are going to pass some form of this gun bill. Will it get stopped in court? That remains to be seen.

So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I. And I don't see any change coming soon. Just like the 5 and 10 round limits didn't survive the courts but the 15 did. Have you ever seen an AR with a 10 round mag? It's like something is missing. I do find that the 15 round was a bit much and would have rather it limited to 20 like the original mag.

How many rounds should you have in the case of a riot and rioters are coming towards your front door?

None. As a community, we would never allow riots and rioters to exist. When the community has had enough, the rioting stops.

You don't live in America do you? or were you asleep in 2020? it was accepted by democrats t allow riots in 2020

I do live in America. And in MY America, we don't tolerate looting and rioting. The Looting and Rioting can only exist if the community allows it. If it's allowed where you are at, then it's YOU that are not part of America.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

Cars get misused what's your point?
Laws, when they infringe on rights, are not acceptable
FYI you do realize more people are killed with handguns and blunt objects kill more people than rifles.

You are using the same tired info that just gets you ignored by the majority.

Of course Cars kill. But Cars don't kill per killing nearly the number that a fully equipped soldier armed with an AR and 4 mags of 30 rounds each can.

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

And when many areas and states moved to the 15 round limit per mag, it broke the CultAR and the really horrendous mass murders stopped. Now it was just as efficient to use a handgun and the body count is much lower. While you can't stop the shootings, you can minimize the body count.

I'm using facts
You have nothing
FYI soldiers don't use AR15'S LOL
RIGHTS CANNOT BE INFRINGED UPON REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY

 

[Vrenn]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

Your logic is very flawed. Cutting magazine capacity in half does not equate to cutting body count in half. That's a ludicrous statement. It simply means that the shooter must change mags more often - a task that takes less than 2 seconds.

The beauty of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy is that the majority doesn't get to vote to take the rights away from the minority. Polls don't mean crap. What it takes to change the rules is two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then greater than 50% of the legislators in three-quarters of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution.

So you bring 4 Mags makes it more difficult. That means you have 60 rounds instead of 120. And I can change a mag on an AR in about 1 second so there is no point there. The shooters are not usually that profient. I've seen combat troops drop a fully loaded mag in the confusion. So you have half the rounds. Do the math here. But mostly, it takes the advantage the AR has over the 15 round handgun. Put your mind in the mind of the potential mass shooter. It's not a fun place to be. When the ban was lifted on the AR, the real killing started and almost became a nearly every day ocurrance for those going for the record. We broke the cycle with that simple regulation.

the ban did not stop any mass shootings
It's already a criminal act to commit murder

So? It just reduced the body count.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any fruitcake in Congress can present a bill. That doesn't mean it's going to be passed. And anyone that votes to pass a bill with that in there loses my vote fast.

Normally I would agree with you. But they have total control over the federal government now, and the party is being run by radicals. On his website, Biden himself agreed to these things and more.

Bills are not an up and down vote. They haggle and may take one or two things out. But one way or another they are going to pass some form of this gun bill. Will it get stopped in court? That remains to be seen.

So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I. And I don't see any change coming soon. Just like the 5 and 10 round limits didn't survive the courts but the 15 did. Have you ever seen an AR with a 10 round mag? It's like something is missing. I do find that the 15 round was a bit much and would have rather it limited to 20 like the original mag.

How many rounds should you have in the case of a riot and rioters are coming towards your front door?

None. As a community, we would never allow riots and rioters to exist. When the community has had enough, the rioting stops.

You don't live in America do you? or were you asleep in 2020? it was accepted by democrats t allow riots in 2020

I do live in America. And in MY America, we don't tolerate looting and rioting. The Looting and Rioting can only exist if the community allows it. If it's allowed where you are at, then it's YOU that are not part of America.

well champ riots were tolerated in 2020

 

[Vrenn]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

Cars get misused what's your point?
Laws, when they infringe on rights, are not acceptable
FYI you do realize more people are killed with handguns and blunt objects kill more people than rifles.

You are using the same tired info that just gets you ignored by the majority.

Of course Cars kill. But Cars don't kill per killing nearly the number that a fully equipped soldier armed with an AR and 4 mags of 30 rounds each can.

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

And when many areas and states moved to the 15 round limit per mag, it broke the CultAR and the really horrendous mass murders stopped. Now it was just as efficient to use a handgun and the body count is much lower. While you can't stop the shootings, you can minimize the body count.

I'm using facts
You have nothing

I don't have time to argue with you. So bye Bye.

 

[westwall]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

People misuse things all of the time. It's idiotic to think that punishing 100 million gun owners for the criminal activities of 10,000.

Laws don't prevent misuse. If laws worked that way there would be no DUI's, or murders, or rapes.

All laws do is provide a framework to punish evildoers. It does not, and never has, prevented the evildoers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not placing you on ignore because you do make some sense. Okay, not a lot of it, but some. I am not wanting to ban the AR. But I am in favor of regulating it to make it not be the weapon of choice for the New Body Count Record Holder in the Schools, Movies and such. That got old fast, real fast. To date, the record was set in Nevada. And something as simple as requiring the use of 15 round mags would have slowed things down a bit. I am not after stopping the shootings (not going to happen)_ but I am after reducing the body count and putting a big dent in the Cult Status. If reducing the number of rounds per mag does it (and it obviously has) then that's a good thing.

I also don't ding States, Counties and Cities that pass their own regulations to make their citizens feel safer. I do condemn the state next to them that won't and export all the nasties to the ones that have when it's found that this is a huge problem (i.e. Illinois v Indiana). And this one isn't about just the AR, it's about ALL firearms.

Of course, Kansas has a lot of nerve complaining that people are going right across the border and legally buying MJ when they same thing is happening with the 30 round mags purchased in Kansas. But Stoners rarely are mass shooters because they just don't care.....what was I saying again?

Okay, so let's go through this:

What you are saying is that we implement some sort of firearm ban, in this case, a limited magazine. Upon this law being passed, and millions of Americans who don't comply now being criminals upon the discovery, arrest, and conviction for having a 15 round magazine, it's worth it because it's better if a maniac kills only 49 students in a school shooting instead of 50? Because after all, I posted a video (if you bothered to watch it) how effortlessly a magazine can be changed. In other words, it wouldn't make any difference in the world.

Even if you are satisfied with only 49 students getting killed instead of 50, do you think your party would share your same satisfaction, and stop pushing for more restrictions?

You keep talking about banning. I haven't said a thing about it. This is just one more "Routine" that you gunnutters have that you try and instill fear and awe into other gun owners. Talk to me about regulation.

As for the dead body count, it started out with pistols and 9mm semi auto rifles. Got a pretty good body count. But it switched to 30+ round mags (lots of them) and the AR and the new body count was established. There is no way that one person can get over 50 dead and over 400 wounded with hand guns. But, obviously, it can (and has been) done using ARs. The common fruitcake with mass shooting on his mind might get 9 or 10 (20 on a good day) and wound not many more than that before he's brought down using a handgun or standard semi auto rifle. But that same shooter can use an AR with a 30+ mag (4 or them) and easily bag 40. and wound over 100. Common sense says, limit the mag size to 15 and you halve the dead body count in half.

Actually, the majority of the Population agrees with me at 57% for stricter firearms regulations. It's even supported by 31% of the Republicans. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017Poll: 90% of Registered Voters Want Firearms Background Checks

Americans underestimate public support for key gun policies

There is a lot more out there. Either you work with us or you might lose a hell of a lot more than you think. If for one second the politicos believe you are unhinged, they may swing way to far to the fringe. And it would take decades to swing it back. Work to get common sense gun regulations where you don't have to turn your gun in or even register it nor have a license to own it in most states. Or you can keep going like you are and ALA California.

Your logic is very flawed. Cutting magazine capacity in half does not equate to cutting body count in half. That's a ludicrous statement. It simply means that the shooter must change mags more often - a task that takes less than 2 seconds.

The beauty of being a constitutional republic instead of a democracy is that the majority doesn't get to vote to take the rights away from the minority. Polls don't mean crap. What it takes to change the rules is two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then greater than 50% of the legislators in three-quarters of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution.

So you bring 4 Mags makes it more difficult. That means you have 60 rounds instead of 120. And I can change a mag on an AR in about 1 second so there is no point there. The shooters are not usually that profient. I've seen combat troops drop a fully loaded mag in the confusion. So you have half the rounds. Do the math here. But mostly, it takes the advantage the AR has over the 15 round handgun. Put your mind in the mind of the potential mass shooter. It's not a fun place to be. When the ban was lifted on the AR, the real killing started and almost became a nearly every day ocurrance for those going for the record. We broke the cycle with that simple regulation.

the ban did not stop any mass shootings
It's already a criminal act to commit murder

So? It just reduced the body count.

no it didn't
columbine remember that school?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

The use of expanding bullets is classed as a war crime by international treaty.

What has that got to do with my post? Neither the 5.56mm or the .45 ACP in military configuration are expanding bullets. Both are perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions and will be until it becomes illegal to injure an opposing combatant.

The discussion triggered a memory of Law Of Armed Conflict training from my military career. It also counters Vrenn's hysterical claims that the AR-15 is a scary deadly weapon designed to do nothing but kill.

And packing a M-16 for days on end tells me exactly what the AR was intended for. Not oncew have any of you countered the fact that the design and construction of the AR is for wholesale killing people. You gunnutters are going in my ignore file where you belong. Just like you are for most of America.

Guns are intended for legal use

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

Cars get misused what's your point?
Laws, when they infringe on rights, are not acceptable
FYI you do realize more people are killed with handguns and blunt objects kill more people than rifles.

You are using the same tired info that just gets you ignored by the majority.

Of course Cars kill. But Cars don't kill per killing nearly the number that a fully equipped soldier armed with an AR and 4 mags of 30 rounds each can.

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

And when many areas and states moved to the 15 round limit per mag, it broke the CultAR and the really horrendous mass murders stopped. Now it was just as efficient to use a handgun and the body count is much lower. While you can't stop the shootings, you can minimize the body count.

I'm using facts
You have nothing

I don't have time to argue with you. So bye Bye.

facts makes clueless people run away.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

No, our rights for this country are written down in the US Constitution, and none of them become a privilege for any reason. They may be governed, but not changed.

 

[Vrenn]

Rights are when it doesn't interfere with the public safety of others. At that point it changes from a right to a privilege.

No, our rights for this country are written down in the US Constitution, and none of them become a privilege for any reason. They may be governed, but not changed.

Governed equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.