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

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

overned 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.

That may be, but it doesn't turn a right into a privilege.

Then you are saying that the last part of the 2nd Amendment is not a Right?

The last part of thr 2nd Amendment literally says gun ownership is a right...lol

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them. You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There's no grey area there; no ambiguity. The Supreme Court says it protects the right to keep and bear arms that are "in common use". Semi automatic rifles are absolutely in common use.

A 2/3 vote in Congress isn't enough to change The Constitution. It also takes a vote by 3/4 of the states.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

There you go again, lumping ALL Democrats in with the fringes. And you would be wrong.

Anyone who votes Democrat votes for the fringe bullshit. They either do so intentionally, or out of ignorance.

 

[Flash]

You didn't answer my question Moon Bat.

How are my firearms a threat to your ***** ass?

you mean other than you might have a "Really bad day" and shoot up some place that I am at.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

So lets break it down by the numbers.

in 2019 10189 people were murdered by a person using a firearm. (Notice I didn't say murdered by a gun. That's because guns can't murder anyone)

That's .003% of the population.

So for the entire year of 2019 you had a .003% chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.

Actually the percentage is far lower than that since something like eighty percent of gun deaths are criminal on criminal violence. If you are a law-abiding citizen living in a normal area your chance of dying by any kind of violence drops to nearly zero.

I don't have the stats bookmarked but I saw a report where if you exclude the six biggest cities ghetto crime areas then the rest of the country has a rate lower than Europe or Scandinavia.

I was born when Harry Truman was President. In my life I have never been the victim of a crime. None of my friends or family members either. The clincher is that we all own firearms. Some of us a lot of firearms.

 

[Flash]

In-ground swimming pools are death traps that disproportionately kill young children. No one needs an in-ground swimming pool, aside from Olympic swimmers and divers. The average person can swim in the ocean or an above-ground pool. I'm pro-pool, but banning in-ground death holes is just common sense regulation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS EXACTLY THAT.
It doesn't mean if the government says you can have them

 

[2aguy]

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.

Wrong, and wrong.....none of the mass public shootings would have been affected by limiting to 15 round magazines....and, of course, they aren't calling for a 15 round limit but a 10 round limit because they know that bans million upon millions of pistols without having to vote to ban those pistols...they are just banning magazines....

Lifting the ban didn't change anything......

You are just pulling this crap out of your butt and you think people will think you sound correct....and you are not......

Actual research on magazine capacity and mass public shootings.....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

 

[2aguy]

Um, yeah, frankly, they aren't the ones talking about all the people they want to shoot...that would be you guys.

You guys? When did I ever say I want to shoot anybody? On all the gun topics where I speak of myself, I have been consistent with having no desire to hurt or kill anybody., When I strap my shoulder holster on, or clip my back holster to my pants belt, I pray I don't get into any conflict that will cause me to need deadly force.

Fact of the matter is all licensed carriers have been checked out by multiple government agencies, and that's one reason you have nothing to fear from us. Secondly, you don't get a license if in your past you've displayed your inability to control your anger and act out instead. Those are the people you worry about; two guys get into a verbal argument, and one of them kills the other over a heated debate about something stupid, or loses a fist fight. I knew a guy I hung around with as a kid who lost his life that way.

That's one thing we can agree on. CCW license holders are NOT a problem. They may be the solution if enough of them are on the street at any one time. I doubt if the corner liquor store is being robbed by a CCW license holder. Or the shooting at the local school is done by a CCW License holder. I think in the modern history, there has only been 3 recorded times that a CCW License Holder has discharged his firearm in a criminal way. I can only find one but others pointed out two others.

Tell me this, do you support requiring a Citizen to obtain a CCW to carry a concealed weapon?

No......any licensing of a Right is a way to keep people from being able to exercise that Right.....

The democrat party required literacy tests for Blacks to vote,......that is unConstitutional....so any test on the Right to own and carry a gun is also unConstitutional...and then, if you throw in a fee to get that permit...that is also a direct violation of the Right.....Per Murdock v Pennsylvania

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[2aguy]

The first, second and third step has already been taken. Either work with us "Sane" people or lose to the "Insane" ones.

No, it has not been taken yet. What they have in their gun bill now is forcing all gun purchasers to submit to a psychological exam at the cost of $800.00, get a federal license, and anybody you may have had a disagreement with can voice their opposition to you getting that license in which to buy that gun. It may be an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, a neighbor or family member. The shrink will be the one questioning these people, and I'm sure a lot of good people won't be able to get one, because the Democrats will likely choose who those shrinks are, which will be anti-gun leftists like themselves.

Dittos any mandatory license to carry a gun.....the democrats will increase the requirements for that license to the point no one other than the very rich or politically connected will be able to get the license....sorry, no way I support that.

 

[2aguy]

You are trying to talk down to me. You already know I am a strong supporter of the CCW program and vehemently condemn the untrained open carry. The CCW carriers AREN'T part of the problem and never were. That argument is nothing more than a Strawman.

Well if you implement new regulations, who do you thing that effects, the criminal? And no, I am not talking down to you or anybody. I'm just stating facts.

A guy who plans on killing a bunch of people doesn't care if 30 round mags are illegal. He will find a way to get one, or just use 15 round mags and change them as needed. They can't make gun laws specifically for criminals, they have to make them for all of us, so that tens of millions are disadvantaged for the actions of a very rare few.

Let me fill you in on a secret here: The reason Democrats want to take our guns is because of politics. Take away guns from law abiding citizens, and that gives the criminals a huge advantage over us. When they finally have a society where only the police and criminals have the guns and nobody else, they create a new group of victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

So how do we fight big crime? The same way we fought big tobacco, fight big business, big pharma, and that is with a bigger government.

Only a very small group of Democrats wish this. The Majority doesn't. Your battle cry is pretty empty.

Wrong....that minority controls the house and the senate as well as the White House.....so a dedicated minority can kick the crap out of an uninformed and unmotivated majority......only 1/3 of the American colonists wanted to break from Britain...so again, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

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.

So far, the Courts have been pro Heller as am I.


Wrong...the 2nd, 4th, Ninth and several other Federal Circuit courts have either completely ignored Heller, or lied about what Heller stated......the left wing judges relied on the fact that the Supreme Court was split 4-4 on gun rights and neither side trusted where Roberts might rule on the issue so they didn't vote to rule on the lower court bogus rulings on gun laws....

And again...there is a specific reason the anti-gunners are not pushing a 15 round magazine limit....and why they are pushing a 10 round magazine limit.....many pistols come with 15 round magazines as standard......or between 12-15......by banning anything over 10, they make sure those guns can't be used....essentially banning them without having to vote on banning them.....it is a scam.

 

[2aguy]

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.

And those Western Towns achieved nothing with those laws......that myth is easily busted if you look at Tombstone, the town the anti-gun extremists always cite when they try to use the old West to support gun bans....

One Earp was murdered, and another was maimed by criminals with guns inside the town limits of Tombstone, and Doc Holiday just ignored those laws.......

The myth of western town gun control is just that, a myth...

 

[2aguy]

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.

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 are wrong......magazine limits don't do anything you say they do...not even in mass public shootings...you are just making that up because you think it sounds good......it is not true, factual or based in reality.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

You just make things up, and then think people will accept it as truth. Nothing you just posted is true, factual or based in reality......

The AR-15 was made popular with mass public shooters because anti-gunners promoted them as being different from other guns....they aren't. There is only one mass public shooting where the AR-15 did anything different from semi-automatic pistols and shotguns...Las Vegas...where the shooter was firing form several hundred yards out into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....

All the other mass public shooters occurred at under 50 yards, in hallways and rooms, where the AR-15 has no advantage or features that make it better than pistols or shotguns....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

While I agree with your message, I'd like to just remind us all that what is written are not all of our rights and writing them in the Constitution did not create or grant those rights. All of the rights we have, mentioned in the Constitution or mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, or not mentioned anywhere at all, exist whether or not there was, or is, or will be, a constitution.

They can't be governed outside of the explicit authority in the Constitution. And there's nothing in there to suggest that rights can be limited for the safety of others.

I know you know this; I'm just getting it into the context of the discussion.

 

[2aguy]

How about the lack of proof as in, the mass shootings going for the "NEW" record stopped.

I have no idea what that even means. How many rounds a magazine carries is irrelevant in a mass murders given how quickly they can be changed, as the video I posted demonstrated. Maybe if somebody killed 100 people but only got 99 instead, but that's not any kind of improvement.

If I'm shooting into a crowd of people, unlike a rifle, I can keep shooting with one hand while my other is reaching for a new magazine.

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped.

You know this is a lie.....you have been shown Virginia Tech and Luby's cafe ......32 killed in Virginia Tech and 24 at Luby's....in each case more could have been killed with different planning........an AR-15 would not have changed the number killed....and these two shootings killed more people than several other shootings where the shooter had an AR-15....

The Aurora theater shooter started with an AR-15 and it immediately jammed on him and he had to switch to a shotgun and pistol............

You are just making things up because you think they sound reasonable and no one will challenge what you say.....you are wrong.

And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt.

Mass public shooters plan their attacks, on average, 6 months to 2 years in advance...the Sandy Hook shooter had plenty of 10 round magazines which he changed out multiple times when he did his attack.....

They will simply carry spare magazines in pouches on their belt, you dimwit.......you have no idea what you are talking about.....

 

[2aguy]

overned 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.

That may be, but it doesn't turn a right into a privilege.

Then you are saying that the last part of the 2nd Amendment is not a Right?

The last part of thr 2nd Amendment literally says gun ownership is a right...lol

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them. You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.

Yeah...it does....as the Supreme Court stated in Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

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.

This is an unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable, lie. There are several states where high-capacity magazines are illegal. Name a single shooting in one of those states that ended because the shooter ran out of magazines or ammunition.

Aurora, Colorado.

His rifle jammed, you idiot....he switched to a shotgun and pistol......

You need to watch "Active Shooter," where they talk to survivors of the shooting......you have no idea what you are talking about......had he used 15 round magazines his weapon wouldn't have jammed...he could have used 10 round magazines and killed a lot more people....you idiot...you don't know what you are talking about......no one charged him, no one stopped him...he was trying to leave in his car when a cop asked him who he was, and he surrendered.....without firing a shot.

He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[17] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.[17][18][19]

2012 Aurora theater shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[woodwork201]

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.

Nothing at all in the Constitution about the good of the general Public Safety.. I checked and it's just not there. If you don't take the Constitution verbatim then just how do you take it? As a suggestion or general guideline when it fits the agenda of the political party in charge of the Whitehouse?

By Hell V, I assume you mean Heller. Heller is certainly NOT the gold standard for gun laws in the United States. It's an important case in that it did affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms but there are things that Scalia got wrong - Scalia actually was a gun controller; just not as extreme as, say, Chuck Schumer. Heller also didn't address many key points of gun control.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gun control falls into the other ban/control categories throughout history: book burning, speech control(PC), tobacco control, pornography bans, clothing bans, knife bans, slingshot bans, alcohol control, nuclear weapon bans, homosexuality bans, obesity control, rec drug bans, prostitution bans, hate bans, internal combustion engine bans, junk food control & thousands of other items, activities & ideas through the years. Victimless so called crimes are the product of the busy body power & control narcissists that continue to plague every society upon our planet earth.

The difference of course is that none of those other things are actually protected by the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.

And it doesn't say what arms you can't.

Our founders realized that the primitive gun would not likely be the same weapon in 200 years from the writing of the Constitution, or even 50 years. They knew arms would change but didn't restrict that right to only those arms. Arms are arms. It's like saying we could have a law that women can't vote in the primaries because the Constitution was not explicit in the right to vote. Voting is voting and a right of all people.

You have it backwards really. If you want to have the Constitution to have exclusions for certain weapons, then you actually need an amendment, not an amendment to include them. A right to bear arms means all arms regardless of the arms of the day.