Gun Control and Logic

[Blues Man]

I have guns, they are my least used tools. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms responsibly but i'll be damned if I can even comprehend living in an all-consuming pit of fear that the democrats are going to take all your shit.

Because they tell us they are going to ban guns....all the time......

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

 

[RealDave]

Because they tell us they are going to ban guns....all the time......

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

So, how many children need to die from these ar type weapons before it becomes worth while to ban them?

What is the positive value of them that makes you think it outweighs the bad?

 

[Blues Man]

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

So, how many children need to die from these ar type weapons before it becomes worth while to ban them?

What is the positive value of them that makes you think it outweighs the bad?

It's not the weapon it's the person wielding the weapon.

So a wannabe mass murderer can't get an AR 15 but he is hell bent on being a mass murderer. Do you think he will just give up because one rifle is banned?

And why should a person who will never kill anyone with any firearm be denied ownership of a particular firearm?

Why not make sure people with guns can't just walk into a school and start shooting instead?

 

[2aguy]

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

So, how many children need to die from these ar type weapons before it becomes worth while to ban them?

What is the positive value of them that makes you think it outweighs the bad?

How many children......? Well....considering less than 20 died in Parkland.......that whole year? And there are 74 million children in the U.S.....? You mean that many?


Versus how many children die from other causes that for some reason don't concern you?

Accidental deaths......kids and guns....kids and cars...

Since cars kill far more children than guns do...where is your demand for banning cars?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017.... Kids (<1 - 14)

Guns....62

Cars...1,208

2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261

Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

 

[2aguy]

It sure doesn't hurt in the ole courage department to be strapped with a means of defense, right?



I would much rather have a gun when somebody is shooting up a theater than be a sitting duck meat target.

.

I have guns, they are my least used tools. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms responsibly but i'll be damned if I can even comprehend living in an all-consuming pit of fear that the democrats are going to take all your shit.

Once again, you don't get that right from the 2nd amendment. That just means that the Federal Government can't deny you that right. It does leave it up to the States though who can regulate the firearms as the voters see fit.

…consistent with Second Amendment case law – neither the Federal government nor state governments may violate that case law.

Judges in the 4th, 9th and 2nd Circuit courts of appeal are already violating the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and ignoring Scalia and what he wrote in the Friedman v Highland park decision....so you are wrong....again.

You made a blanket empty statement. Just how and what are the rulings are they making that are in violation of those SCOTUS rulings? You've done this many times and each time, you got handed your butt. Now is you chance (once again) to justify your statement. Go for it cupcake.

Any ban on semi-automatic rifles violate the 2nd Amendment....the Supreme Court rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller, and Friedman v Highland Park......

Specifically, the 4th circuit violated these rulings...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And Caetano, by Justice Alito....reaffirming Heller and it's protections...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

 

[Hale]

5 round wheels (mostly) a third of most 9mm, stupid to reload, stupid to carry ammo, basically triple the trigger weight pull of a semi auto throwing off aim, usually made with lightweight metals so they have more kick, and J-frames aren’t at all comfortable to shoot. They are over a century old technology. I’ll go back to my car analogy. If your buying your kid or whoever a car, would you want to buy them a classic car without power steering, power breaks, and antilock breaks? No. Yes they can be fun to shoot, and there are some badass looking ones, but they are not as practical.

Also I don’t know how or why your setting up shooting scenarios in your head, following your own rules. You’re not gonna know how a shooting is gonna go down, how far they are, what kind of drop they have on you, how many of them there are, what they’re using, if they’re behind cover, etc. I also don’t know how you know your combat accuracy? Training is way different from actual combat with adrenaline coursing through your veins, causing hands to tremble, heavy breathing, etc. Its a very common them you hear from cops who been involved in shootings that they miss because it’s not at all like it is in the range. Cops and soldiers use A LOT of ammo in a fire fight, because fire superiority usually wins out. You could empty your revolver in a matter of a few seconds, you might be trying to keeping someone’s head behind cover so they can’t pop some shots off at you. I get guys love their revolvers just like some guys are die hard about keeping everything original in their classic car with no power steering or breaks. It’s antiquated tech and there’s no getting around it.

Revolvers are still made in wide varieties by S&W, Colt, Ruger, Taurus, and several other manufacturers, and are widely sold in the USA. Here's why your objections aren't true:

Trigger pull: While the trigger pull of a revolver is higher, it is longer and gets progressively higher. A good quality revolver has a very smooth trigger pull, and is easily handled by an amateur with much less chance of an unintentional discharge. Also consider that many semi-auto pistols have the same double-action pull for the first shot, then a very light pull after. Not very safe for after-the-scenario; the semi-auto stays live where the revolver is by nature back in safe mode.

Capacity: A moot point, since civilian and police encounters average less than three shots. You're right, cops DO tend to use a lot of ammo in some circumstances - but they don't hit anything. Another score for the revolver, at least when the shooter goes berserk the capacity is limited. It's not the first shot or the number of shots that count, it's the first shot that hits. In the case of an extended firefight, a handgun is just a way to fight back to your rifle.

Safety: To ensure a semi-auto pistol cannot fire, one must remove the magazine, rack the slide, and check the chamber. The controls for these operations vary widely. On a revolver you need only open the cylinder, using a clearly obvious latch.

Reliability: While you'd like to think that anyone who carries a weapon routinely services it, that's just not true, and you really don't have to be a "gun nut" to carry a firearm. Simply put, semi-auto pistols don't store well. Springs get weak, lubricants thicken, and the chance of a semi-auto firing more than one shot after even limited storage are very poor. Conversely, a loaded revolver can be put away untouched for decades and still reliably function. Malfunctions also occur even with routine service; when a round fails to fire or feed on a semi-auto, you must stop, pull back the slide (often twice), and hope you can sort it before you are dead. With a revolver you simply maintain position and pull the trigger again.

Revolvers aren't for everyone, but they are the right choice for many, and they are still very useful and popular.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Once again, you are ignoring the 14th amendment.

but youre ignoring the 2nd amendment,,,

I am using the WHOLE Constitution of the United States. Not just the part that I agree with. You either accept the whole thing or reject the whole thing and become a traitor.

but you still ignore the 2nd so whats that make you???

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

 

[Hale]

I'd like to hear this one as well. I LIKE revolvers. If I can't get the job done with 5 or 6 then maybe I shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. Okay, I am probably not the normal shooter but if you aren't at least capable then you should be carrying in the first place. In a combat shoot, I will only hit 61% of the time but that is under extreme pressure. That means that 6 rounds is good for 3 bad guys. If there are 4 armed bad guys, chances are I won't bag all 4 even if I had 30 rounds, one would bag me anyway. This ain't the movies.

Though I do own semi-autos, I totally agree. In addition, revolvers can fire repeatedly from inside a coat pocket without jamming, they don't spit hot brass all over, and they can cycle any ammunition of the proper caliber, from FMJ to hollow point, mild target to hot magnum, with no chance of misfeeding. The sights are intrinsically more accurate since they don't move with the action, and you can see instantly if a revolver is loaded. And since their grip design isn't dependent on fitting a magazine inside it, they can accommodate a much wider range of user-friendly grips.

Revolvers aren't even remotely obsolete, and they never will be unless we get phasers.

 

[Blues Man]

but youre ignoring the 2nd amendment,,,

I am using the WHOLE Constitution of the United States. Not just the part that I agree with. You either accept the whole thing or reject the whole thing and become a traitor.

but you still ignore the 2nd so whats that make you???

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal governemnt.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have guns, they are my least used tools. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms responsibly but i'll be damned if I can even comprehend living in an all-consuming pit of fear that the democrats are going to take all your shit.

Once again, you don't get that right from the 2nd amendment. That just means that the Federal Government can't deny you that right. It does leave it up to the States though who can regulate the firearms as the voters see fit.

…consistent with Second Amendment case law – neither the Federal government nor state governments may violate that case law.

Judges in the 4th, 9th and 2nd Circuit courts of appeal are already violating the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and ignoring Scalia and what he wrote in the Friedman v Highland park decision....so you are wrong....again.

You made a blanket empty statement. Just how and what are the rulings are they making that are in violation of those SCOTUS rulings? You've done this many times and each time, you got handed your butt. Now is you chance (once again) to justify your statement. Go for it cupcake.

Any ban on semi-automatic rifles violate the 2nd Amendment....the Supreme Court rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller, and Friedman v Highland Park......

Specifically, the 4th circuit violated these rulings...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And Caetano, by Justice Alito....reaffirming Heller and it's protections...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

The only thing you got right was the Stun guns. The rest is hogwash. You read in what you wanted to read into Heller and missed the whole point of McD. Heller ruling had nothing to do with rifles at all. It ruled on what was considered normal handguns and the right to protect your home. Nothing else. McD rules against the use of the term "Assault Weapons". McD has since been satisified with the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" and that has withstood the higher level courts. A State and lower Governments CAN and have outright banned the AR-15 and it's various clones. Some have elected to regulate them. Some have elected not to regulate them. But it's a states and a lower governments choice and it can only be changed by the voters, not the courts. The last defeat on the "Assault Weapon" was just that. They needed it to read "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead. Guess they didn't learn from the other states and city rulings. And, obviously, neither have you.

Since you keep bringing this up exactly the same way, I guess you believe that enough time has passed that the rest of us have had time to forget the recent rulings and you can get a fast one by. You need to stop this nonsense. And you win another oak leaf cluster.

You are the leading fruitcake in here with two Silver Oak Leaf Clusters.

 

[Blues Man]

but youre ignoring the 2nd amendment,,,

I am using the WHOLE Constitution of the United States. Not just the part that I agree with. You either accept the whole thing or reject the whole thing and become a traitor.

but you still ignore the 2nd so whats that make you???

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

As long as those regulations do not violate any protected rights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am using the WHOLE Constitution of the United States. Not just the part that I agree with. You either accept the whole thing or reject the whole thing and become a traitor.

but you still ignore the 2nd so whats that make you???

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal governemnt.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

Your first one is wrong, dead wrong. It's the Feds that are not allowed to do the first three things on your list. You just twisted it around. Since the Feds aren't allowed to force the States, therefore, you think the states aren't allow to allow the Feds to do it? That's nutcase logic.

The last two are straight from the 14th amendment. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the 10th amendment. That opens up the powers of the state by a very large margin. Again, you are trying to misinterpret one Amendment while throwing all the rest of the Constitution out the window. You need to either follow all of it or none of it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Because they tell us they are going to ban guns....all the time......

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

 

[2aguy]

5 round wheels (mostly) a third of most 9mm, stupid to reload, stupid to carry ammo, basically triple the trigger weight pull of a semi auto throwing off aim, usually made with lightweight metals so they have more kick, and J-frames aren’t at all comfortable to shoot. They are over a century old technology. I’ll go back to my car analogy. If your buying your kid or whoever a car, would you want to buy them a classic car without power steering, power breaks, and antilock breaks? No. Yes they can be fun to shoot, and there are some badass looking ones, but they are not as practical.

Also I don’t know how or why your setting up shooting scenarios in your head, following your own rules. You’re not gonna know how a shooting is gonna go down, how far they are, what kind of drop they have on you, how many of them there are, what they’re using, if they’re behind cover, etc. I also don’t know how you know your combat accuracy? Training is way different from actual combat with adrenaline coursing through your veins, causing hands to tremble, heavy breathing, etc. Its a very common them you hear from cops who been involved in shootings that they miss because it’s not at all like it is in the range. Cops and soldiers use A LOT of ammo in a fire fight, because fire superiority usually wins out. You could empty your revolver in a matter of a few seconds, you might be trying to keeping someone’s head behind cover so they can’t pop some shots off at you. I get guys love their revolvers just like some guys are die hard about keeping everything original in their classic car with no power steering or breaks. It’s antiquated tech and there’s no getting around it.

Revolvers are still made in wide varieties by S&W, Colt, Ruger, Taurus, and several other manufacturers, and are widely sold in the USA. Here's why your objections aren't true:

Trigger pull: While the trigger pull of a revolver is higher, it is longer and gets progressively higher. A good quality revolver has a very smooth trigger pull, and is easily handled by an amateur with much less chance of an unintentional discharge. Also consider that many semi-auto pistols have the same double-action pull for the first shot, then a very light pull after. Not very safe for after-the-scenario; the semi-auto stays live where the revolver is by nature back in safe mode.

Capacity: A moot point, since civilian and police encounters average less than three shots. You're right, cops DO tend to use a lot of ammo in some circumstances - but they don't hit anything. Another score for the revolver, at least when the shooter goes berserk the capacity is limited. It's not the first shot or the number of shots that count, it's the first shot that hits. In the case of an extended firefight, a handgun is just a way to fight back to your rifle.

Safety: To ensure a semi-auto pistol cannot fire, one must remove the magazine, rack the slide, and check the chamber. The controls for these operations vary widely. On a revolver you need only open the cylinder, using a clearly obvious latch.

Reliability: While you'd like to think that anyone who carries a weapon routinely services it, that's just not true, and you really don't have to be a "gun nut" to carry a firearm. Simply put, semi-auto pistols don't store well. Springs get weak, lubricants thicken, and the chance of a semi-auto firing more than one shot after even limited storage are very poor. Conversely, a loaded revolver can be put away untouched for decades and still reliably function. Malfunctions also occur even with routine service; when a round fails to fire or feed on a semi-auto, you must stop, pull back the slide (often twice), and hope you can sort it before you are dead. With a revolver you simply maintain position and pull the trigger again.

Revolvers aren't for everyone, but they are the right choice for many, and they are still very useful and popular.

The can be difficult to concealed carry....the smaller ones that are easier to carry are harder to shoot well....there is that. For the home...a revolver can be good because you don't have to worry about a magazine, it is good to go. Capacity can be a problem for some situations, but revolvers have their place.

 

[2aguy]

but youre ignoring the 2nd amendment,,,

I am using the WHOLE Constitution of the United States. Not just the part that I agree with. You either accept the whole thing or reject the whole thing and become a traitor.

but you still ignore the 2nd so whats that make you???

I am using the whole constitution, not just the part that I interpret to read whatever I want it to read. Remember, the original interpretation of "Thou Shalt not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt not commit Murder".

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

I am not sure how many times you have to be told this....Heller and McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment for states as well as the Fed.....you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Hale]

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

I'm not following you here, please clarify: Are you saying the AR15 should be banned on the basis of its "design intent"?

 

[2aguy]

Once again, you don't get that right from the 2nd amendment. That just means that the Federal Government can't deny you that right. It does leave it up to the States though who can regulate the firearms as the voters see fit.

…consistent with Second Amendment case law – neither the Federal government nor state governments may violate that case law.

Judges in the 4th, 9th and 2nd Circuit courts of appeal are already violating the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and ignoring Scalia and what he wrote in the Friedman v Highland park decision....so you are wrong....again.

You made a blanket empty statement. Just how and what are the rulings are they making that are in violation of those SCOTUS rulings? You've done this many times and each time, you got handed your butt. Now is you chance (once again) to justify your statement. Go for it cupcake.

Any ban on semi-automatic rifles violate the 2nd Amendment....the Supreme Court rulings in D.C. v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts, Miller, and Friedman v Highland Park......

Specifically, the 4th circuit violated these rulings...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And Caetano, by Justice Alito....reaffirming Heller and it's protections...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

The only thing you got right was the Stun guns. The rest is hogwash. You read in what you wanted to read into Heller and missed the whole point of McD. Heller ruling had nothing to do with rifles at all. It ruled on what was considered normal handguns and the right to protect your home. Nothing else. McD rules against the use of the term "Assault Weapons". McD has since been satisified with the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" and that has withstood the higher level courts. A State and lower Governments CAN and have outright banned the AR-15 and it's various clones. Some have elected to regulate them. Some have elected not to regulate them. But it's a states and a lower governments choice and it can only be changed by the voters, not the courts. The last defeat on the "Assault Weapon" was just that. They needed it to read "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead. Guess they didn't learn from the other states and city rulings. And, obviously, neither have you.

Since you keep bringing this up exactly the same way, I guess you believe that enough time has passed that the rest of us have had time to forget the recent rulings and you can get a fast one by. You need to stop this nonsense. And you win another oak leaf cluster.
View attachment 254377
View attachment 254378View attachment 254384
You are the leading fruitcake in here with two Silver Oak Leaf Clusters.

You just make things up and think you are spouting wisdom and truth.....nothing you stated is true or accurate.

 

[2aguy]

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

I'm not following you here, please clarify: Are you saying the AR15 should be banned on the basis of its "design intent"?

Yes...he is. Considering the AR-15 has never been used in war, while the bolt action rifle is a current weapon of war, used over seas...right now for combat, as is the pump action shotgun...another current weapon of war...both firearms are firearms that anti-gunners ay they would allow us to keep when they ban all the other guns.......of course, they are lying and will quickly move to ban those guns as well.....as we see in New Zealand where they are using bait and switch to also ban pump action shotguns along with semi-auto rifles...

 

[sakinago]

5 round wheels (mostly) a third of most 9mm, stupid to reload, stupid to carry ammo, basically triple the trigger weight pull of a semi auto throwing off aim, usually made with lightweight metals so they have more kick, and J-frames aren’t at all comfortable to shoot. They are over a century old technology. I’ll go back to my car analogy. If your buying your kid or whoever a car, would you want to buy them a classic car without power steering, power breaks, and antilock breaks? No. Yes they can be fun to shoot, and there are some badass looking ones, but they are not as practical.

Also I don’t know how or why your setting up shooting scenarios in your head, following your own rules. You’re not gonna know how a shooting is gonna go down, how far they are, what kind of drop they have on you, how many of them there are, what they’re using, if they’re behind cover, etc. I also don’t know how you know your combat accuracy? Training is way different from actual combat with adrenaline coursing through your veins, causing hands to tremble, heavy breathing, etc. Its a very common them you hear from cops who been involved in shootings that they miss because it’s not at all like it is in the range. Cops and soldiers use A LOT of ammo in a fire fight, because fire superiority usually wins out. You could empty your revolver in a matter of a few seconds, you might be trying to keeping someone’s head behind cover so they can’t pop some shots off at you. I get guys love their revolvers just like some guys are die hard about keeping everything original in their classic car with no power steering or breaks. It’s antiquated tech and there’s no getting around it.

Revolvers are still made in wide varieties by S&W, Colt, Ruger, Taurus, and several other manufacturers, and are widely sold in the USA. Here's why your objections aren't true:

Trigger pull: While the trigger pull of a revolver is higher, it is longer and gets progressively higher. A good quality revolver has a very smooth trigger pull, and is easily handled by an amateur with much less chance of an unintentional discharge. Also consider that many semi-auto pistols have the same double-action pull for the first shot, then a very light pull after. Not very safe for after-the-scenario; the semi-auto stays live where the revolver is by nature back in safe mode.

Capacity: A moot point, since civilian and police encounters average less than three shots. You're right, cops DO tend to use a lot of ammo in some circumstances - but they don't hit anything. Another score for the revolver, at least when the shooter goes berserk the capacity is limited. It's not the first shot or the number of shots that count, it's the first shot that hits. In the case of an extended firefight, a handgun is just a way to fight back to your rifle.

Safety: To ensure a semi-auto pistol cannot fire, one must remove the magazine, rack the slide, and check the chamber. The controls for these operations vary widely. On a revolver you need only open the cylinder, using a clearly obvious latch.

Reliability: While you'd like to think that anyone who carries a weapon routinely services it, that's just not true, and you really don't have to be a "gun nut" to carry a firearm. Simply put, semi-auto pistols don't store well. Springs get weak, lubricants thicken, and the chance of a semi-auto firing more than one shot after even limited storage are very poor. Conversely, a loaded revolver can be put away untouched for decades and still reliably function. Malfunctions also occur even with routine service; when a round fails to fire or feed on a semi-auto, you must stop, pull back the slide (often twice), and hope you can sort it before you are dead. With a revolver you simply maintain position and pull the trigger again.

Revolvers aren't for everyone, but they are the right choice for many, and they are still very useful and popular.

Reliability does win with a revolver...but that’s it. So if cops, who are trained and train regularly with firearms, miss all the time...how on earth is it a good thing to have limited capacity for a civilian who usually don’t train as much??? Makes no sense. If revolvers were better then the police and military would still be using them.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,