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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery was a world wide practice at the time. The proof is in the history books. But what is interesting if you read the history is Americans. The slave rapists you denounce. They were liberal for the era. They were the progressive thinkers of the time they lived in.

The key words being "for the time they lived in". The problem with conservatives is they don't want to advance beyond that. Back at those times, only the well-off could afford guns and be in a militia. Therefore, for the time, the Second Amendment made sense. It doesn't make sense now, when guns are cheap enough where anyone can get them, and militias have been replaced by professional armies.

Franklin saw the military application of this simple drawing. He asked how much chaos could a battalion of soldiers cause if they were able to be dropped behind enemy lines.

We saw how much. It was World War II before the theory was proven. But the theory was proven conclusively.

There is no way that you could take on the most powerful military in history with any hope of victory unless you were part dreamer, part visionary, and part madman.

Actually, not as great as you think. The Germans did a air drop on Crete, and it was such a fiasco they never did it again. For the Allies, Operation Market Garden was a complete failure. Paratroops "look cool", but their effectiveness is questionable. But that's another discussion.

There is no way that you could take on the most powerful military in history with any hope of victory unless you were part dreamer, part visionary, and part madman.

America has an inflated opinion of it's own military prowess. We don't have the stomach for high levels of causalities. We've never "won" a war which didn't involved either beating up a smaller weaker country or having other countries doing most of the heavy lifting.

The only thing that made our military powerful was our ability to flood the battlefield with material goods. So the most awesome guy in the military wasn't the paratrooper, it was the Supply Sergeant!

(Inside joke, my MOS in the army was 76Y)

Look how the rights have evolved. Freedom of Speech has become Freedom of Expression. Cruel and Unusual is nothing like it was at the time it was written.

If you told the people who passed the 14th Amendment that one day a century hence interracial marriage would be legal they would have never passed it. If you told them that a Black Man would be President. Or a Black Woman would be Vice President the Civil War wouldn’t have been fought.

The Union might have disapproved of Slavery. But they were still racist. The proof of that is the history of the next 150 years.

But the Union was Liberal for the Era. They were the progressives of their time. And the truth is what it is.

Actually, the conduct of the union during the civil war wasn't much to be proud of. We'd have let the South keep raping their slaves for decades if they hadn't had a bowl of dumbass with their grits and tried to secede.

Yes, there's been a lot of interpretation beyond the words... in the case of the 1st and 14th, for the good, but in the case of the 2nd, for the bad. The problem with Constitutional fetishists on both side is they think the constitution is a suicide pact. We have to ignore child molestation in that cult because first Amendment. We have to let that Ax Murderer go because you didn't have probable cause when you found his bloody ax and bits of his girlfriend in various plastic bags. We have to let Adam Lanza have a machine gun because you couldn't write a militia amendment clearly. This is... you know, just kind of nuts.

Merely to denounce the foundation of our freedoms as the rambling nonsense of slave rapists is to put the entire foundation of our country up for grabs. What is freedom of speech? Why should we allow it? It is merely the ramblings of slave rapists. Why not force someone to testify against himself? What is stopping us? A slave rapist?

History has shown that when we weaken one part of those rights we weaken all rights. I do not want to see any rights weakened further. Much less all of them.

The foundation of this country should be questioned. This country was built on slavery and genocide.

The point is, everyone assumes someone who pleads the fifth is guilty, anyway.

I don't think having to share our streets with gun weilding maniacs makes us more "Free". In fact, less, as we have to live with metal detectors, militarized police departments, active shooter drills, security guards, magnetic key locks in our workplaces, bullet proof backpacks for the kiddies, etc. We've reworked our entire society around that 3% of the population with a gun fetish, because they are the gun industry's best customers.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes, there's been a lot of interpretation beyond the words... in the case of the 1st and 14th, for the good, but in the case of the 2nd, for the bad. The problem with Constitutional fetishists on both side is they think the constitution is a suicide pact. We have to ignore child molestation in that cult because first Amendment. We have to let that Ax Murderer go because you didn't have probable cause when you found his bloody ax and bits of his girlfriend in various plastic bags. We have to let Adam Lanza have a machine gun because you couldn't write a militia amendment clearly. This is... you know, just kind of nuts.
The foundation of this country should be questioned. This country was built on slavery and genocide.
The foundation of this country should be questioned. This country was built on slavery and genocide.

The point is, everyone assumes someone who pleads the fifth is guilty, anyway.

I don't think having to share our streets with gun weilding maniacs makes us more "Free". In fact, less, as we have to live with metal detectors, militarized police departments, active shooter drills, security guards, magnetic key locks in our workplaces, bullet proof backpacks for the kiddies, etc. We've reworked our entire society around that 3% of the population with a gun fetish, because they are the gun industry's best customers.

If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.

then it would be objections to slave owners. Then objections to Indian killers. And on and on.

Ever couple generations we would decide that the previous nation was horrible and start over.

Either that or become a third world dictatorship with a series of President for Life leaders.

When I was a boy in High School we were discussing the advantages to America. What made us different. One of those things was our Constitution. The rights we have enumerated in there. The discussion was started because of a Criminal Court Case. The defense attorney had stood up and started quoting the Rights of Citizens. After a minute the Judge interrupted the defense attorney. The question was of the evidence seized was admissible. The Judge said everyone knew the Bill of Rights.

The Defense Attorney said he wasn’t reading from the Bill of Rights. But the Soviet Rights of a Citizen. The words were meaningless because nobody in authority had to follow them. The only difference between those meaningless words and our own rights was the Judge.

The evidence was not allowed. The defendant went free. As a Boy I thought this was horrible. A guilty man went free because of some silly technicality. As I matured. I realized how good it was that the defendant went free.

Those rights that I disdained as a juvenile. Those rights, all of them are the only thing worth fighting for. Freedom.

Freedom from dictators who write their laws in pencil. Freedom from abusive authority figures. Freedom from all those things the Slave Rapists you detest fought against.

And among those freedoms is the Second Amendment.

When you joined the military. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The same oath I swore. But you are very modern. And very conservative. Just like the Conservatives you want to decide what applies. And instead of taking the broadest possible meaning, you want more limits on those rights. Including the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

My position on those is very simple. These are not new rules. These are not new restrictions. They have been around for centuries. So knowing the rules is the key to getting the baddie. If you can’t follow the rules find a new line of work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The key words being "for the time they lived in". The problem with conservatives is they don't want to advance beyond that. Back at those times, only the well-off could afford guns and be in a militia. Therefore, for the time, the Second Amendment made sense. It doesn't make sense now, when guns are cheap enough where anyone can get them, and militias have been replaced by professional armies.

We don't need militias.....yet, but then again the Democrats have total power now, so you never know.

The right was not exclusive to militias as the courts have ruled. The right is for your average everyday citizen to enjoy. A lot of people had guns at the time. They had to hunt for their food.

Our brilliant founders knew times would change, and that's why they included an amendment process for those changes. However a simple majority of leaders cannot make those changes. It takes 2/3 of them with the support of the people.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

 

[freyasman]

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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

Wasn't a mini 14 variant used in that Miami shootout back in the 80's where the FBI got their asses handed to them?

 

[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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

The AR-15 is a civilian rifle......it is nothing more than a basic semi-automatic rifle...you know this, you are lying about it, you are part of the effort to smear the rifle to get it banned....and then you will come back and say that all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns need to be banned as well since they are the same as the AR-15.


The cops don't face AR-15s you twit....only on the t.v. Show Chicago P.D. do cops face fully automatic miltiary weapons on a weekly basis....

Each post and you reveal more and more how much a useful idiot you are for anti-gun extremists...

 

[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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

Ahhhh...but you see.....then Vrenn comes back and goes after all those other guns.....one after the other, or he and his anti-gun extremists go for all semi-automatic guns.......since they all operate the same way as an AR-15.......that is the point....

 

[JoeB131]

If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.

then it would be objections to slave owners. Then objections to Indian killers. And on and on.

Ever couple generations we would decide that the previous nation was horrible and start over.

Works for me. Frankly, I don't know why we don't have a constitutional convention every 20 years or so to check if stuff is still working.

When I was a boy in High School we were discussing the advantages to America. What made us different. One of those things was our Constitution. The rights we have enumerated in there. The discussion was started because of a Criminal Court Case. The defense attorney had stood up and started quoting the Rights of Citizens. After a minute the Judge interrupted the defense attorney. The question was of the evidence seized was admissible. The Judge said everyone knew the Bill of Rights.

The Defense Attorney said he wasn’t reading from the Bill of Rights. But the Soviet Rights of a Citizen. The words were meaningless because nobody in authority had to follow them. The only difference between those meaningless words and our own rights was the Judge.

The evidence was not allowed. The defendant went free. As a Boy I thought this was horrible. A guilty man went free because of some silly technicality. As I matured. I realized how good it was that the defendant went free.

Okay... If someone you cared about was the next person that obviously guilty person killed, maybe you wouldn't feel that way.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

And among those freedoms is the Second Amendment.

When you joined the military. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The same oath I swore. But you are very modern. And very conservative. Just like the Conservatives you want to decide what applies. And instead of taking the broadest possible meaning, you want more limits on those rights. Including the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

My position on those is very simple. These are not new rules. These are not new restrictions. They have been around for centuries. So knowing the rules is the key to getting the baddie. If you can’t follow the rules find a new line of work.

Actually, what I want is common sense interpretation...

Which means you don't let ax murderers go because a cop didn't have probable cause.
You don't let Johnny McCrazy get an assault rifle because they didn't define "militia" properly.
You don't let someone molest kids because that's their religion (Branch Davidians, Mormons, Catholics).

 

[2aguy]

If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.

then it would be objections to slave owners. Then objections to Indian killers. And on and on.

Ever couple generations we would decide that the previous nation was horrible and start over.

Works for me. Frankly, I don't know why we don't have a constitutional convention every 20 years or so to check if stuff is still working.

When I was a boy in High School we were discussing the advantages to America. What made us different. One of those things was our Constitution. The rights we have enumerated in there. The discussion was started because of a Criminal Court Case. The defense attorney had stood up and started quoting the Rights of Citizens. After a minute the Judge interrupted the defense attorney. The question was of the evidence seized was admissible. The Judge said everyone knew the Bill of Rights.

The Defense Attorney said he wasn’t reading from the Bill of Rights. But the Soviet Rights of a Citizen. The words were meaningless because nobody in authority had to follow them. The only difference between those meaningless words and our own rights was the Judge.

The evidence was not allowed. The defendant went free. As a Boy I thought this was horrible. A guilty man went free because of some silly technicality. As I matured. I realized how good it was that the defendant went free.

Okay... If someone you cared about was the next person that obviously guilty person killed, maybe you wouldn't feel that way.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

And among those freedoms is the Second Amendment.

When you joined the military. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The same oath I swore. But you are very modern. And very conservative. Just like the Conservatives you want to decide what applies. And instead of taking the broadest possible meaning, you want more limits on those rights. Including the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

My position on those is very simple. These are not new rules. These are not new restrictions. They have been around for centuries. So knowing the rules is the key to getting the baddie. If you can’t follow the rules find a new line of work.

Actually, what I want is common sense interpretation...

Which means you don't let ax murderers go because a cop didn't have probable cause.
You don't let Johnny McCrazy get an assault rifle because they didn't define "militia" properly.
You don't let someone molest kids because that's their religion (Branch Davidians, Mormons, Catholics).

Shit for brains, you moron.....

The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....

The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.


Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.

 

[SavannahMann]

If we went with your theories. We would find ourselves in a new country every fifty years or so. Oh Slave Rapists started this. We can’t do that.

then it would be objections to slave owners. Then objections to Indian killers. And on and on.

Ever couple generations we would decide that the previous nation was horrible and start over.

Works for me. Frankly, I don't know why we don't have a constitutional convention every 20 years or so to check if stuff is still working.

When I was a boy in High School we were discussing the advantages to America. What made us different. One of those things was our Constitution. The rights we have enumerated in there. The discussion was started because of a Criminal Court Case. The defense attorney had stood up and started quoting the Rights of Citizens. After a minute the Judge interrupted the defense attorney. The question was of the evidence seized was admissible. The Judge said everyone knew the Bill of Rights.

The Defense Attorney said he wasn’t reading from the Bill of Rights. But the Soviet Rights of a Citizen. The words were meaningless because nobody in authority had to follow them. The only difference between those meaningless words and our own rights was the Judge.

The evidence was not allowed. The defendant went free. As a Boy I thought this was horrible. A guilty man went free because of some silly technicality. As I matured. I realized how good it was that the defendant went free.

Okay... If someone you cared about was the next person that obviously guilty person killed, maybe you wouldn't feel that way.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

And among those freedoms is the Second Amendment.

When you joined the military. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The same oath I swore. But you are very modern. And very conservative. Just like the Conservatives you want to decide what applies. And instead of taking the broadest possible meaning, you want more limits on those rights. Including the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

My position on those is very simple. These are not new rules. These are not new restrictions. They have been around for centuries. So knowing the rules is the key to getting the baddie. If you can’t follow the rules find a new line of work.

Actually, what I want is common sense interpretation...

Which means you don't let ax murderers go because a cop didn't have probable cause.
You don't let Johnny McCrazy get an assault rifle because they didn't define "militia" properly.
You don't let someone molest kids because that's their religion (Branch Davidians, Mormons, Catholics).

They defined Militia properly. In the era, in context, it was every able bodied white male. So today the Militia would be everyone.

If the Ax Murderer gets away because the cop didn’t have Probable Cause. Blame the cop. Not the Constitution. The cop knew what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway. That isn’t the fault of the Constitution. That is the fault of the cop who couldn’t be bothered to do the job right.

Imagine how dumb someone would look arguing with the ref at a football game. What do you mean we can’t throw a forward pass once we pass the line of scrimmage? That’s bullshit. You just want us to lose.

You and the others who hate the Constitution sound just like that. There are plenty of countries where Civil Rights are nonexistent.

 

[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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

And it reloads much slower. It takes two hands and one must come outside the trigger guard. Plus the rifle must rotate to it's side and the mag needs a slight forward rotation to disengage it. On the other hand, the AR has a release where the trigger finger never leaves the trigger guard, the rifle stays in it's ready position, the mag drops out with no force needed and the other hand just slams the new one in.

The AR put an end to the use of the Garand style weapons from mass shootings and the AR style said, with a smirk on it's bottom receiver, "Here, hold my beer".

 

[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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

And it reloads much slower. It takes two hands and one must come outside the trigger guard. Plus the rifle must rotate to it's side and the mag needs a slight forward rotation to disengage it. On the other hand, the AR has a release where the trigger finger never leaves the trigger guard, the rifle stays in it's ready position, the mag drops out with no force needed and the other hand just slams the new one in.

The AR put an end to the use of the Garand style weapons from mass shootings and the AR style said, with a smirk on it's bottom receiver, "Here, hold my beer".

You are a doofus........a useful idiot for gun control....

Magazines don't matter in a mass public shooting...

He used a rifle and killed 10 people....with magazines...

He could have used a sawn off shotgun, a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle........zero magazines here.....and killed 13 people...like the Cumbria, Shooter in Britain used....

He could have walked into any Boulder gun store and purchased......

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 12, not 10 people, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....





He could have purchased 9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...



He could have purchased 2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....



That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

Magazines have no bearing on how many are killed in a mass public shooting.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

And it reloads much slower. It takes two hands and one must come outside the trigger guard. Plus the rifle must rotate to it's side and the mag needs a slight forward rotation to disengage it. On the other hand, the AR has a release where the trigger finger never leaves the trigger guard, the rifle stays in it's ready position, the mag drops out with no force needed and the other hand just slams the new one in.

The AR put an end to the use of the Garand style weapons from mass shootings and the AR style said, with a smirk on it's bottom receiver, "Here, hold my beer".

When you hit the release on a Mini 14 mag it falls away. I know. I have one. Rocking a loaded mag is easy and quick. It is basically the same set up as the AK. That is to say the detent and Rock the magazine up until it locks. It does not take long at all.

Thirty round mags are easy to find. I got mine from Brownells when I was ordering other things from there.

The only thing I don’t like about the Mini is the rear sight. It’s terrible. Thankfully there are lots of options and I picked one that worked with what my intentions were for the weapon.

The Mini-14 is cheap. Reliable. Rugged. Most Ruger products can have those labels attached however.

 

[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.

What is an assault weapon? Legal definition, not liberal definition.

Already been answered. Or are you fishing for a definition that you want to hear. Okay, here is one.

It's any firearm, edged weapon or bludgeoning tool that YOU personally own. Not the rest of us. Insane Fruitcakes like you shouldn't be able to smuggle in things that can harm others or yourself into the mental hospital.

No its never been answered. No legally recognized definition of an "assault rifle" has ever been posted.

Because it's a military term and not a Sillyvillain term as per a few Federal Court Rulings. And any legislature that uses that term is just begging to get their brand new spanking law to be bounced by those same courts. Now, the ones that place the phrase "AR-15/AK47 and their various clones" seem to cut the legal mustard.

That's right. Which means they're trying to put a scary sounding military term on to civilian semi auto rifles in order to enact illegal gun legislation against them.

Or could it be that the AR IS a scary military weapon in the first place. It fits all the squares of the M-16A4 when it's used in normal combat. The A4 is not really a true full automatic or machine gun. It has the 3 shot burst that no one in their right mind uses once you leave basic or post. It's a huge waste of ammo. Take that feature away and there is absolutely nothing different about the AR to the M-16A4 or the M-4. It was made for one thing and one thing only. To kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible and it hit the mark. Not one feature is there for anything else.

I am sick and tired of cops responding to a shooting only to face an AR and die. Those are the good ones. He goes into the situation with nothing but his handgun and is severely outgunned and dies. Pretty much, the first one or two that are on station have died. Yes, he may or may not have had a Colt Model 6920 in the trunk but he won't have it going in at first. And he dies.

We will skip past the Military Specific Alloys used in the M-16. Let’s focus on your definition of an Assault Rifle. An AR or AK.

So that means the Mini-14 is not an Assault Weapon. Not is the IMI Galil or Travor Rifles. Nor the L1A2. The SCAR or other FN rifles.

Here is a list of rifles that fire the exact same ammo that are not Assault Weapons by your definition. Well the vast majority aren’t because they aren’t AR’s.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That leaves a lot of weapons available. So your definition means that all those other rifles would be available for purchase. Like banning the Dodge Hellcat to stop street racing. A lot of other cars are still available. And a lot of them are faster than the hellcat.

Companies that make the AR clones would retool and start making clones of SCAR’s or other similar weapons. Or they would make the 416 which is an operating rod version of an AR but is not an AR because the AR has a long gas tube.

Six months after you ban the AR’s you would have all the rifles available. IMI would be making the Galil by the ton as well as the Trevor.

Nothing would change. The Gang Bangers kept killing each other even after they banned the Tec 9, the Ingram, and the Uzi’s. People would just get different weapons. Just as the Gang Bangers moved on from the Tec 9’s.

But the SCAR isn't part of the Cult. And it costs a damn site more to make than the AR or the M-16/M-4. At about 3,000 bucks a copy, it is out of reach of the common AR clone buyer. The cost of a full blown Colt Model 604 (M-16A4) is right around $1500 to the Government. The cost of a SCAR is to any Government is right around 3400. That means the AR can be cloned for right around 400 bucks for a piece of crap and a piece of crap SCARs would still cost at least 900 bucks. For 900 bucks, that buys a pretty good AR-15 with either equal to mil specs or better than mil specs.

And guess what, it's birth is exactly like that of the AR, every ounce of the SCAR was designed to kill a lot of people as quickly and as efficiently as possible with little training. In fact, the biggest difference visually is the stock. So there is a good chance it could be considered a variant of the AR already legally.

Nice try on the end around.

You skipped the Mini-14. Cheap. Easy to use. And it’s been used in multiple mass shootings in the past. And since it is based on the Garand design can not be considered a variant of the AR. No more than many of the rifles on the list could.

And it reloads much slower. It takes two hands and one must come outside the trigger guard. Plus the rifle must rotate to it's side and the mag needs a slight forward rotation to disengage it. On the other hand, the AR has a release where the trigger finger never leaves the trigger guard, the rifle stays in it's ready position, the mag drops out with no force needed and the other hand just slams the new one in.

The AR put an end to the use of the Garand style weapons from mass shootings and the AR style said, with a smirk on it's bottom receiver, "Here, hold my beer".

When you hit the release on a Mini 14 mag it falls away. I know. I have one. Rocking a loaded mag is easy and quick. It is basically the same set up as the AK. That is to say the detent and Rock the magazine up until it locks. It does not take long at all.

Thirty round mags are easy to find. I got mine from Brownells when I was ordering other things from there.

The only thing I don’t like about the Mini is the rear sight. It’s terrible. Thankfully there are lots of options and I picked one that worked with what my intentions were for the weapon.

The Mini-14 is cheap. Reliable. Rugged. Most Ruger products can have those labels attached however.

For everyday shooting, I prefer the Mini as well. But you have to admit, it reloads much slower. And the AR is designed to reload in less than a second without much of a delay in firing. There is a reason the AR type of weapons have completely replaced the ones based on the M-1A like the M-14.

 

[woodwork201]

You think a maniac is concerned about clinking when he walks?

I wonder if this guy clinked when he walked:

Man arrested at Atlanta grocery with six guns, body armor, police say

No one was injured, and the man's motives are unknown. But the incident at a Publix comes days after two mass shootings.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[JoeB131]

The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....

We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't the answer.

The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from.

The thing is, when the Founding Slave Rapists wrote the constitution, only the wealthy could really afford guns. They expected the militia to be the landed gentry, not the rabble.

Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.

Actually, they really don't. There are just a lot more public school employees than religious groups. Of course, the thing about pedos is they go where they can get at kids. Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people. Religious groups hide them because they BE RIGHT WITH JAY-A-ZUS!

"Well, at least they didn't take our guns!!!"

 

[2aguy]

The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....

We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't the answer.

The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from.

The thing is, when the Founding Slave Rapists wrote the constitution, only the wealthy could really afford guns. They expected the militia to be the landed gentry, not the rabble.

Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.

Actually, they really don't. There are just a lot more public school employees than religious groups. Of course, the thing about pedos is they go where they can get at kids. Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people. Religious groups hide them because they BE RIGHT WITH JAY-A-ZUS!

View attachment 473416
"Well, at least they didn't take our guns!!!"

We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't the answer.


What part of the democrats releasing, over and over again, the violent gun criminals do you not understand. It isn't normal Americans who own guns who are doing the shooting....it is the same criminals the democrats keep releasing over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for gun crimes as convicted felons...

So it doesn't matter if we temporarily lock up violent gun criminals if the democrats let them back out to shoot people........what part of that is so hard for you to understand?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from.

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the "43 times more likely" myth, was forced to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

The democrat party is releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders from jail and prison over and over again....these are the guys doing almost all of the gun murder and gun crime....and you vote for the democrat party, the party created by actual slave rapists long after the Founding of this country.....

We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't the answer.

The Founders defined militia just fine....you are a shithead who just doesn't want people to own and carry guns for self defense.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Guns are more a danger to the people that own them than the people they want to defend themselves from.

The thing is, when the Founding Slave Rapists wrote the constitution, only the wealthy could really afford guns. They expected the militia to be the landed gentry, not the rabble.

Public school teachers molest children at a far higher rate than any religious group....yet children have to attend public schools....you moron.

Actually, they really don't. There are just a lot more public school employees than religious groups. Of course, the thing about pedos is they go where they can get at kids. Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people. Religious groups hide them because they BE RIGHT WITH JAY-A-ZUS!

View attachment 473416
"Well, at least they didn't take our guns!!!"

Public schools have methods to find and weed out these people.


You don't know what you are talking about........the teachers unions protect the child molestors in the public schools, you doofus...

there is a paywall for this link....so I have the story in a link below...

‘Extraordinary and appalling’ handling of sexual violence cases in Chicago Public Schools leads to federal oversight

In what federal officials called a historic enforcement action to protect students from sexual violence, Chicago Public Schools has entered into a legally binding agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil…

www.chicagotribune.com

In order to dig deeper into this scandal, the Tribune cross-referenced CPS data with Chicago police data. From 2008 to 2017, police investigated approximately 523 reports of sexual abuse at school or on school grounds in Chicago. In terms of context, that is one reported incident per week over a 10-year span.

After cross-referencing the data, the Tribune isolated 108 reported incidents for an in-depth examination. Of those incidents, 72 involved CPS employees committing sexual misconduct against students.

Despite the in-depth nature of the Tribune report, it remains difficult to nail down an exact number of sexual abuse incidents in CPS schools. Part of the problem relates to the CPS approach to these events.

CPS administrators admit that there was not a formal process for investigating and handling reports of alleged sexual misconduct.


Further compounding the problem, the CPS background check process failed to identify employees with criminal backgrounds and histories of sexual misconduct. Furthermore, the CPS system failed to share information with other districts about reported sexual abuse incidents in the recent past.

Even when students reported sexual abuse, the CPS system failed to notify law enforcement or a welfare department. That is a violation of the Illinois state requirement for reporting such incidents to appropriate authorities.

https://johnprior.attorney/widespread-sexual-abuse-scandal-rocks-chicago-public-schools/

 

[JoeB131]

What part of the democrats releasing, over and over again, the violent gun criminals do you not understand. It

We lock up 2 million people. If locking people up solved the problem, we would be there by now

In order to dig deeper into this scandal, the Tribune cross-referenced CPS data with Chicago police data. From 2008 to 2017, police investigated approximately 523 reports of sexual abuse at school or on school grounds in Chicago. In terms of context, that is one reported incident per week over a 10-year span.

After cross-referencing the data, the Tribune isolated 108 reported incidents for an in-depth examination. Of those incidents, 72 involved CPS employees committing sexual misconduct against students.

Okay. So that's 523 reports of sexual abuse, not only by staff but by other students... (in fact, most of those reports were about students.) So that comes out to 53 reports a year out of a system that has 355,000 students and 41,000 staff.

Nowhere near the level of malfeasance by the Roman Catholic Church, which for years engaged in a conspiracy to hide pedophile priests and move them from parish to parish.