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

[2aguy]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

Not just for the same reason the police and military need them, but for the additional reasons that the police and military already HAVE them, and the police and military are always the most corrupt and dangerous because they are mercenaries working for whomever pays them.

How do you expect a democratic republic to ever survive is you don't have an armed population that can defend itself from the police and military when they turn against the democracy?

I have to think about what you are suggesting, that every adult in the U.S. population be armed against some assault by the police and military. Women's clinics, black institutions, including black Christian churches, synagogues and mosques, establishments where LGBTs gather: should we guard them all with assault weaponry against assaults by the police and military, and/or other people, like "militia" gangsters?

We don't need military weapons, but AR-15s are good for that. Mass public shooters attack gun free zones. So if churches, schools and other places simply allow people to carry their legal guns with them, mass public shooters will run out of places to attack.

 

[Rigby5]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

A Petition for Stronger Gun Laws


Just common freakin' sense!

Stronger gun laws are inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
You can not legally create a 2 tiered society, where bad guys like mercenary police and military have weapons that average people then can not.
You can not have people are not currently imprisoned for a crime, who have less rights than others.
If there are dangerous people, then you have a competency hearing and you institutionalize them.
You do not instead try to make the entire nation into an institution.
Anyone who does not understand this is a clear and present danger to the democratic republic, and is a traitor who would cause the end of the democratic republic and the start of even more of a dictatorship than we already have.

 

[Rigby5]

Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
Those of the wealthy elite always want gun control because they would otherwise have to pay them more and not make as much profit.
As an actual liberal and not a fake Biden supporter, I am totally against gun control because it is against the egalitarian principles of a democratic republic.
Sure there are criminals you can't trust, but you lock them up.
If they are not locked up, then you have to treat them as equals in all ways, including firearms.
Otherwise this is not a democratic republic, but just another dictatorship.

Guy, here's the thing.

We are awash in guns and we lock up more people than any other country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.

Just like in Prohibition, when you try to make something like drugs illegal, all it does is jack up prices and make it more enticing.
The other causes of crime are unfair law, unfair poverty, lack of opportunity, education too expensive, no unions, etc.
The number of guns has nothing to do with the amount of crime, because criminals always get guns if they want them, because they will get them illegally.

 

[Rigby5]

So can a bar, but the difference is that the seller of alcohol was complicit in the criminal actions of their customer. The gun store owner has no idea if he's selling to somebody that's going to shoot at targets or go to a movie theater and try to kill as many Americans as possible. All the gun store does is run your name through the federal background check, and if they give the clearance, the gun store sells him the gun.

You're really going to tell me that the gun seller that sold this guy an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine didn't know he was up to no good?

View attachment 474586

His school knew he was nuts, they were in the process of expelling him.

So then obviously the problem was there was no free program to divert problem individuals like this into some sort of care.
Expecting to turn the whole society into a mental institution with laws reducing rights for some and not others, is insane.
That is totally backwards, upside down, and can only totally destroy what is left of our supposed democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

Not just for the same reason the police and military need them, but for the additional reasons that the police and military already HAVE them, and the police and military are always the most corrupt and dangerous because they are mercenaries working for whomever pays them.

How do you expect a democratic republic to ever survive is you don't have an armed population that can defend itself from the police and military when they turn against the democracy?

I have to think about what you are suggesting, that every adult in the U.S. population be armed against some assault by the police and military. Women's clinics, black institutions, including black Christian churches, synagogues and mosques, establishments where LGBTs gather: should we guard them all with assault weaponry against assaults by the police and military, and/or other people, like "militia" gangsters?

As long as the majority of the population is armed, then the wealthy elite who control the police and military won't attempt a total take over.
That is because they are only concerned with profits, and almost any armed resistance greatly cuts into profits.
Just look at government abuses in the past, and what stopped them.
Like it took the 1967 riots to get actual civil rights laws enforced.
It took riots and bombings to end the illegal war in Vietnam.
It took riots by Black Lives Matter to slow the murders by police.

But imagine what would happen if there were total gun control?
Then the dictators would have nothing at all to fear, and all these protestors could just be rounded up and shot, like they did in Chile.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

Bullshit.

I have semiautomatic rifles chambered for 7.62 and 6.8 mm

They aren't that expensive

You are talking about a hunting rifle for the 308. What are you going to have, 5 in the mag and one in the tube? Now load 30 in the Mag. The Rifle is going to have to be strengthened to handle that mag and the whole gun is going to have to gain considerable weight. You just entered into a whole new world. It no longer functions as a hunting or a sporting rifle. It's become a battle rifle.

Wrong, the M-1A is a civilian version of the M-14 and was designed to handle a 20 round mag just like a M-16 or AR-15 was, you can easily get 30 round M-1A mags cheaply, I just looked and they are thirty bucks each. The civilian version of the AK-47 handles a thirty round mag and the IMI Galil handles a 35 round mag. Unless you are humping the boonies all day the weight difference between 5.56 and 7.62 is inconsequential.

Wrong. The M-1A was made by Springfield for WWII. It was a gas operated Semi Auto that held 20 rounds and was the main firearm for grunts in WWII. It predates the M-14 which is a decendant of the M-1A. The M-1 was a Thompson Model 1920 that lead to the 1934 National Firearms act. The original Typewriter.

The version of the AR-15 or Model 6XX Colt was the Armalite AR-10 chambered for the 7.62 which lost out because of the weight. The same reason the M-14 lost out to the Colt Model 601 chambered for the 556. Lug an M-14 around for 20 hours a day and you are going to be one very tired puppy. And the normal rounds in both the M-14 and the M-16 are both 20 rounds. That 30 round mag won't hold up in the M-16 in the rough and tumble world of Combat. Sooner rather than later, you are going to bend it.

You are completely ignorant about the subject. The M1 was the WWII rifle you are referring to and it held a clip of EIGHT rounds, not a magazine of 20. Post war the Italians modified some M1s to accept 20 round magazines but the US never used them. The M1A was a civilian version of the M14 built by Springfield Armory and is still in production. The M14 is not acceptable for civilian use because it's designed for selective fire (semi or full auto). All it needs is the selector switch to be installed and that can be done by unit armorers. The thirty round mag has been the standard M16/M4 magazine since the late seventies. It holds up to combat usage very well. Finally, you are wrong about the weight of both the M1 and the M1A. The M1 weighed nine and a half pounds and the M1A weighs between seven point eight and eleven pounds depending on configuration the M14 weighed nine point two pounds. Carrying a nine to twelve pound rifle all day is no big deal, During my second tour in the Army I carried a twenty two pound M60 machine all day and never felt it to be a problem. Twelve pounds is not a prohibitive weight for a combat arm, the Brown Bess musket the British Army carried for 110 years weighed nearly eleven pounds. The SMLE the British Army carried during WWII weighed over nine pounds. The L1A1 the British Army carried weighted nine and a half pounds. The WWII Mauser K98 weighed nine pounds. The M1 Thompson submachine gun you referred to weighed eleven pounds Do a little research before you post and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[AZrailwhale]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified. They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime. As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them. Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government. The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government. I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL. Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.

Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14. Both are fully automatics. You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos. But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.

Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle. Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands. Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

Really? You do know with your extensive Military Experience that the 5.56 was chosen because it created “Militarily Significant Wounds” don’t you? The idea for the readers who don’t know is that one wounded soldier takes four people out of the battle. Two to carry the wounded and one to provide security, or carry excess equipment.

A dead guy takes one off the field. A wounded takes several. And the screams of the wounded demoralize the remaining soldiers. Making them less likely to be aggressive.

The other reason the 5.56 was chosen was suppression fire. Most rounds fired are meant to get the other guy to keep his head down. The 5.56 would allow the soldier to carry more ammo with the same weight.

How would the Las Vegas shooting have played out with a .308 hunting rifle? First. The slower fire would have delayed the discovery longer. Second. The numbers killed would probably have been higher. Third, by picking his shots he would have been able to hit one with a high likelihood of hitting two. I could go on.

In nearly all the mass shooting situations a different weapon would have done more damage. A shotgun in the school shootings. Two or more wounded with every trigger pull as one example.

The one thing the mass shootings have in common is the shooters use the technique of spray and pray. Random fire to maybe hit someone. By firing into crowds they increase the likelihood of hitting someone. But as statistics show roughly 10% of those hit actually die. If we are intending to save lives why do anything to increase the probability of someone dying?

A weapon is not a magic wand of death.

No it was chosen because it was a light and small round and soldiers could carry a lot of ammo.

In fact the military has long thought the 5.56 round was under powered and are currently reintroducing the 6.8 mm

Ammo Firm Unveils 6.8mm Cartridge for Army’s Next-Gen Squad Weapon | Military.com

www.military.com

I joined the Army in 1988. The articles I saw in gun magazines then, and since, were that the Military was switching from the 5.56 to some other round. Since that time, the beginnings of the A2 era, every couple years it is another weapon or ammo that will replace the M-16 or the 5.56.

They remain.

Why? NATO is a part of it. Our allies have the same ammo so we can supply each other in case of war. The same 5.56 round we use is able to be used in literally dozens of rifle types by a hundred countries.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms

Many nations (both NATO and non-NATO members) use the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge in their rifles. Examples include: Argentina FARA 83 Australian F88 Austeyr assault rifle and F89 Minimi machine gun. (ADI Thales also supplies ammunition) Austrian Steyr AUG and the Steyr ACR (Flechette) assault rifle...

military.wikia.org

The other part is that the same factors that led to our decisions before remain. Weight of weapon. Weight of ammo. Effectiveness. Reliability. And wound dynamics. The 5.56 checks the blocks.

The reel place the 5.56 comes up short is range. That's why the M-14 was reintroduced in Afghanistan in some units, The AKs were outranging the M-4s.

Oh great. Another one who is an expert with flawed information.

The average rifleman still carries the M-4 or M-16A4 because the factors that made it a good choice remain true today. Those who carry the M-14’s are snipers. The heavier round is more accurate at longer ranges. The semi-automatic weapon is faster to fire than the bolt action rifle of my own era. It is not a common issue rifle for the average soldier. It is used by the long range shooters for obvious reasons.

A Squad and Platoon has a mix of weapons. Because someone carries the light automatic weapon chambered for the 5.56 cartridge does not mean it is going to be given to everyone.

A mix of weapons gives the squad and platoon leadership tools to deal with various situations. Grenade Launchers, Machine Guns, Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, Anti-Armor. The mix gives the unit flexibility.

In my day as a Combat Engineer our squad was armed as follows. A M-60 Machine Gun. 2 M-203 40 MM Grenade Launchers attached to rifles. Everyone else had standard M-16A2 rifles. Each Squad also had a M-67 90MM Recoilless Rifle. The Lieutenant and the Machine Gunners were also issued M-9 Pistols.

We did not have snipers. We were a unit of Combat Engineers. But we were combat troops so we had enough firepower to deal with most situations we were liable to get into. We normally broke off into squads and supported Infantry Companies on attacks or defense.

Each unit has a mix of weapons. Just as each unit brings something to the party. Combined Arms means using these various parts to creat a whole that is much more than the sum of the parts.

You were definitely armed differently than when I was a 12B20 in the seventies. I was in 4th Engineer Battalion (Combat) a mechanized unit, our squads were armed with two 203s, one M60, two M3 Grease Guns, a M2 fifty caliber and the rest carried M16A1s. The squad leader and track driver carried the Grease Guns. We actually had more weapons than people to fire them.

 

[Rigby5]

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

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

Bullshit.

I have semiautomatic rifles chambered for 7.62 and 6.8 mm

They aren't that expensive

You are talking about a hunting rifle for the 308. What are you going to have, 5 in the mag and one in the tube? Now load 30 in the Mag. The Rifle is going to have to be strengthened to handle that mag and the whole gun is going to have to gain considerable weight. You just entered into a whole new world. It no longer functions as a hunting or a sporting rifle. It's become a battle rifle.

Wrong, the M-1A is a civilian version of the M-14 and was designed to handle a 20 round mag just like a M-16 or AR-15 was, you can easily get 30 round M-1A mags cheaply, I just looked and they are thirty bucks each. The civilian version of the AK-47 handles a thirty round mag and the IMI Galil handles a 35 round mag. Unless you are humping the boonies all day the weight difference between 5.56 and 7.62 is inconsequential.

Wrong. The M-1A was made by Springfield for WWII. It was a gas operated Semi Auto that held 20 rounds and was the main firearm for grunts in WWII. It predates the M-14 which is a decendant of the M-1A. The M-1 was a Thompson Model 1920 that lead to the 1934 National Firearms act. The original Typewriter.

The version of the AR-15 or Model 6XX Colt was the Armalite AR-10 chambered for the 7.62 which lost out because of the weight. The same reason the M-14 lost out to the Colt Model 601 chambered for the 556. Lug an M-14 around for 20 hours a day and you are going to be one very tired puppy. And the normal rounds in both the M-14 and the M-16 are both 20 rounds. That 30 round mag won't hold up in the M-16 in the rough and tumble world of Combat. Sooner rather than later, you are going to bend it.

You are completely ignorant about the subject. The M1 was the WWII rifle you are referring to and it held a clip of EIGHT rounds, not a magazine of 20. Post war the Italians modified some M1s to accept 20 round magazines but the US never used them. The M1A was a civilian version of the M14 built by Springfield Armory and is still in production. The M14 is not acceptable for civilian use because it's designed for selective fire (semi or full auto). All it needs is the selector switch to be installed and that can be done by unit armorers. The thirty round mag has been the standard M16/M4 magazine since the late seventies. It holds up to combat usage very well. Finally, you are wrong about the weight of both the M1 and the M1A. The M1 weighed nine and a half pounds and the M1A weighs between seven point eight and eleven pounds depending on configuration the M14 weighed nine point two pounds. Carrying a nine to twelve pound rifle all day is no big deal, During my second tour in the Army I carried a twenty two pound M60 machine all day and never felt it to be a problem. Twelve pounds is not a prohibitive weight for a combat arm, the Brown Bess musket the British Army carried for 110 years weighed nearly eleven pounds. The SMLE the British Army carried during WWII weighed over nine pounds. The L1A1 the British Army carried weighted nine and a half pounds. The WWII Mauser K98 weighed nine pounds. The M1 Thompson submachine gun you referred to weighed eleven pounds Do a little research before you post and stop embarrassing yourself.

You are technically correct about details a the M1A being an 8 round stripper clip, etc., but you still are missing the point.
The .223 was still switched to because it was less than half the weight,
And we are not just talking about one magazine, but in Vietnam, they wanted to carry a weeks worth at a time, that they would burn off rapidly for suppression fire. So you would be talking about 8 or 10 magazines, so it would start to add up.

But the idea of restricting ammunition to reduce loss of life makes no sense.
There is never any practical way that could ever happen.
Things like magazine size or limits on how much ammunition one can own or possess, are impossible to enforce.
Even with things like revolvers, what the cavalry did in the Civil War to create an assault weapon was to just carry 2 percussion cap revolvers, giving them 10 shots before needing to reload.
Again showing how assault weapon is a use, not a actual item.

 

[Vrenn]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified. They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime. As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them. Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government. The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government. I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL. Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.

Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14. Both are fully automatics. You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos. But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.

Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle. Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands. Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.

but not in many states that require 100% background checks. For those, they have to send the gun to a licensed gun dealer.

 

[Vrenn]

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

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

Really? You do know with your extensive Military Experience that the 5.56 was chosen because it created “Militarily Significant Wounds” don’t you? The idea for the readers who don’t know is that one wounded soldier takes four people out of the battle. Two to carry the wounded and one to provide security, or carry excess equipment.

A dead guy takes one off the field. A wounded takes several. And the screams of the wounded demoralize the remaining soldiers. Making them less likely to be aggressive.

The other reason the 5.56 was chosen was suppression fire. Most rounds fired are meant to get the other guy to keep his head down. The 5.56 would allow the soldier to carry more ammo with the same weight.

How would the Las Vegas shooting have played out with a .308 hunting rifle? First. The slower fire would have delayed the discovery longer. Second. The numbers killed would probably have been higher. Third, by picking his shots he would have been able to hit one with a high likelihood of hitting two. I could go on.

In nearly all the mass shooting situations a different weapon would have done more damage. A shotgun in the school shootings. Two or more wounded with every trigger pull as one example.

The one thing the mass shootings have in common is the shooters use the technique of spray and pray. Random fire to maybe hit someone. By firing into crowds they increase the likelihood of hitting someone. But as statistics show roughly 10% of those hit actually die. If we are intending to save lives why do anything to increase the probability of someone dying?

A weapon is not a magic wand of death.

No it was chosen because it was a light and small round and soldiers could carry a lot of ammo.

In fact the military has long thought the 5.56 round was under powered and are currently reintroducing the 6.8 mm

Ammo Firm Unveils 6.8mm Cartridge for Army’s Next-Gen Squad Weapon | Military.com

www.military.com

I joined the Army in 1988. The articles I saw in gun magazines then, and since, were that the Military was switching from the 5.56 to some other round. Since that time, the beginnings of the A2 era, every couple years it is another weapon or ammo that will replace the M-16 or the 5.56.

They remain.

Why? NATO is a part of it. Our allies have the same ammo so we can supply each other in case of war. The same 5.56 round we use is able to be used in literally dozens of rifle types by a hundred countries.

List of 5.56×45mm NATO firearms

Many nations (both NATO and non-NATO members) use the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge in their rifles. Examples include: Argentina FARA 83 Australian F88 Austeyr assault rifle and F89 Minimi machine gun. (ADI Thales also supplies ammunition) Austrian Steyr AUG and the Steyr ACR (Flechette) assault rifle...

military.wikia.org

The other part is that the same factors that led to our decisions before remain. Weight of weapon. Weight of ammo. Effectiveness. Reliability. And wound dynamics. The 5.56 checks the blocks.

The reel place the 5.56 comes up short is range. That's why the M-14 was reintroduced in Afghanistan in some units, The AKs were outranging the M-4s.

Oh great. Another one who is an expert with flawed information.

The average rifleman still carries the M-4 or M-16A4 because the factors that made it a good choice remain true today. Those who carry the M-14’s are snipers. The heavier round is more accurate at longer ranges. The semi-automatic weapon is faster to fire than the bolt action rifle of my own era. It is not a common issue rifle for the average soldier. It is used by the long range shooters for obvious reasons.

A Squad and Platoon has a mix of weapons. Because someone carries the light automatic weapon chambered for the 5.56 cartridge does not mean it is going to be given to everyone.

A mix of weapons gives the squad and platoon leadership tools to deal with various situations. Grenade Launchers, Machine Guns, Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, Anti-Armor. The mix gives the unit flexibility.

In my day as a Combat Engineer our squad was armed as follows. A M-60 Machine Gun. 2 M-203 40 MM Grenade Launchers attached to rifles. Everyone else had standard M-16A2 rifles. Each Squad also had a M-67 90MM Recoilless Rifle. The Lieutenant and the Machine Gunners were also issued M-9 Pistols.

We did not have snipers. We were a unit of Combat Engineers. But we were combat troops so we had enough firepower to deal with most situations we were liable to get into. We normally broke off into squads and supported Infantry Companies on attacks or defense.

Each unit has a mix of weapons. Just as each unit brings something to the party. Combined Arms means using these various parts to creat a whole that is much more than the sum of the parts.

You were definitely armed differently than when I was a 12B20 in the seventies. I was in 4th Engineer Battalion (Combat) a mechanized unit, our squads were armed with two 203s, one M60, two M3 Grease Guns, a M2 fifty caliber and the rest carried M16A1s. The squad leader and track driver carried the Grease Guns. We actually had more weapons than people to fire them.

I wasn't in the army although I was involved in the early 70s for parameter defense. We each had 6 M-16s (actually converted AR-15 Model 601s) with boxes and boxes of ammo. The SPs in the bunker wielded the M-60. The attacks were always done at night and they brought their lunch. Afterwards, I couldn't do my regular job because I was spent and completely deaf for days. You couldn't see the enemy. But you knew they were there. We strafed the fence over and over again for hours until the sun broke the sky. I was only involved in one of those but that was just one too many.

 

[Rigby5]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified. They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime. As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them. Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government. The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government. I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL. Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.

Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14. Both are fully automatics. You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos. But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.

Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle. Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands. Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.

but not in many states that require 100% background checks. For those, they have to send the gun to a licensed gun dealer.

Not exactly correct. CMP is a licensed dealer, and licensed dealers can ship direct to you. CMP does a 100% background check, so supersedes any state laws. But CMP has been shipping to an FFL of your choice, not for the background check, but for the finger print identity check.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It's an easy fix.

Just require all gun sales be subject to a BG check.

No one should have an issue with that.

I would agree, if you ACTUALLY did background checks.

The guy in Boulder- Had a long history of mental illness and was convicted of assault in 2018. Was still able to get a gun.

The guy in Atlanta- had a history of mental illness.

That's because of HIPPA laws that prevent reporting, not bad background checks.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are really an idiot, aren't you?

What the hell do you want the filthy ass government to do before someone is given permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US? A right that says very clearly that it shall not be infringed? A full FBI background investigation? Like I got when I was granted a Top Secret security clearance? When is enough ever going to be enough for you asshole Libtards?

The stupid oppressive Democrats are the ones that pushed this idiotic NICS check through Congress so are you saying this is just another example of their incompetency?

Actually, if the FBI ever read the crazy shit you post here, they'd realize you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.

That's the first time I EVER heard anyone in public admit to a "Top Secret" security clearance. And the FBI wouldn't be the agency to render that anyway. As the story goes, if you have to ask your security clearance, you don't need one.

I don't know about now but during Vietnam when I got my TS the FBI did the investigating. I know because family and friend, some I hadn't had contact with for years contacted me and asked my why the FBI was investigating me.

 

[freyasman]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

Not just for the same reason the police and military need them, but for the additional reasons that the police and military already HAVE them, and the police and military are always the most corrupt and dangerous because they are mercenaries working for whomever pays them.

How do you expect a democratic republic to ever survive is you don't have an armed population that can defend itself from the police and military when they turn against the democracy?

I have to think about what you are suggesting, that every adult in the U.S. population be armed against some assault by the police and military. Women's clinics, black institutions, including black Christian churches, synagogues and mosques, establishments where LGBTs gather: should we guard them all with assault weaponry against assaults by the police and military, and/or other people, like "militia" gangsters?

Yes.

Everyone should be willing and able (and "able" means having the tools necessary) to defend themselves and their people.

Gun up, gear up, post guards, hell, set up machine gun positions on the roof if you want...... then wait and see exactly who it is that actually comes after you.
(Hint; it won't be a bunch of regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump, because we don't give a shit what you do, we just want to be left alone.)

 

[freyasman]

Reagan signed FOPA. Bush 43 said he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it came to his desk. Reports are that as high as 72 per cent of Americans, some reports even as high as 90+ per cent, support enhanced background checks for all gun transfers. That's a lot of gun owners supporting it.

There are a lot of conservative gun owners that support gun control measures past and future. There's a huge difference between a "conservative" and a "constitutionalist". I can't count how many times I've read or heard from conservatives that felons should not be allowed to own guns or support the current background check system. That's OK that conservatives have different views but they're gun controllers as much as is Joe Biden.

What you are reading are phony polls because who can define what additional gun restrictions are? If you asked them that, you'd get all kinds of different answers.

The truth of the matter is any state can create any gun restriction they desire as long as it's constitutional. Just look at what they're doing in Virginia. So why don't they? Because in many places around the country, it would be political suicide. Even after our reps passed our CCW program, it was signed by a Democrat governor. He had little choice. Sign the CCW law or be a one-term Governor, and the next Governor will sign it.

Facts are that as time goes on, more and more Americans are getting behind the idea of self-defense and usage of firearms. When I bought my first gun back in the early 80's after my apartment was broken into, a friend of mine and I went to the range so I could get used to it. Back then you had your choice of booths, only a few people there, and only the men would be shooting as their wives and girlfriends sat behind the glass reading a magazine or having some girl talk.

Go to the range today, you're lucky to get a booth within an hour, and two additional ranges opened up in our area. Now the woman are on the range enjoying their guns right along with their male companions. In fact two years ago, I read a local newspaper column that stated there were more female CCW applicants than male.

Guns for defense is going in society like weed smoking; everyone who isn't a petty little tyrant is fine with it, and more and more places are simply going to nullify the federal laws against it.

In the meantime, the 3d printers go "BRRRR....." just like the pot farmers keep growing.





I really don't worry much about guns being banned; logistically, it's just not something that can ever be done. I just don't want to see a bunch of families massacred while the fedbois try and enforce that bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guns for defense is going in society like weed smoking; everyone who isn't a petty little tyrant is fine with it, and more and more places are simply going to nullify the federal laws against it.

In the meantime, the 3d printers go "BRRRR....." just like the pot farmers keep growing.

The comment made to me is a good percentage of Americans want to see stricter gun laws. I find that hard to believe given the growing interest in guns and self-defense in this country. I think no matter what law they pass, if they can pass it, will be challenged in the courts, perhaps right up to the Supreme Court. I mean really, making people pay $800.00 to see a shrink before they can posses a gun? Nobody should be able to force you into paying for a right, nor forcing you to reveal your personal life to a complete stranger.

 

[Rigby5]

It does not matter how many people WANT background checks.
Everyone not legally institutionalized has the right to defend themselves with any weapons they want.
No one has the authority to turn our democratic republic into an institution where some people do not have equal rights.
That is what background checks do, as well as allowing government to collect a list of who has what arms.
That is illegal.
If someone is dangerous, then institutionalize them, not try to turn our whole country into a fascist institution.
There is no means by which background checks can be made legal.
They are inherently illegal.

 

[Vrenn]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified. They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime. As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them. Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government. The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government. I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL. Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.

Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14. Both are fully automatics. You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos. But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.

Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle. Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands. Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.

but not in many states that require 100% background checks. For those, they have to send the gun to a licensed gun dealer.

Not exactly correct. CMP is a licensed dealer, and licensed dealers can ship direct to you. CMP does a 100% background check, so supersedes any state laws. But CMP has been shipping to an FFL of your choice, not for the background check, but for the finger print identity check.

Not in many states. Maybe where you live but not here. You have to purchase the gun in person and have the background check ran right then. I don't think I want to live in a state that would sell to anyone without that. So you stay where you are at and be happy.

 

[Vrenn]

You are really an idiot, aren't you?

What the hell do you want the filthy ass government to do before someone is given permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US? A right that says very clearly that it shall not be infringed? A full FBI background investigation? Like I got when I was granted a Top Secret security clearance? When is enough ever going to be enough for you asshole Libtards?

The stupid oppressive Democrats are the ones that pushed this idiotic NICS check through Congress so are you saying this is just another example of their incompetency?

Actually, if the FBI ever read the crazy shit you post here, they'd realize you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.

That's the first time I EVER heard anyone in public admit to a "Top Secret" security clearance. And the FBI wouldn't be the agency to render that anyway. As the story goes, if you have to ask your security clearance, you don't need one.

I don't know about now but during Vietnam when I got my TS the FBI did the investigating. I know because family and friend, some I hadn't had contact with for years contacted me and asked my why the FBI was investigating me.

When I got mine, it was a rubber stamp. I was already in the Service with a Secret and I had already been investigated in order for my Sister to get her TS for the FBI.