AR 15's : Assault Weapons or Personal Defense?

FISMA

Obama and Biden have made their case against the AR-15 and its clone pretty clear - they are assault weapons with no personal defense use.

Fair enough, but what about the recent request for proposal issued by Homeland Defense (DHS)?

According to the Washington Times article, DHS is 'seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”'

So, DHS wants AR's for personal defense in CQB, like a home, but Obama does not want civilians to defend their home with AR's. Typical.

What's next? Ban legal imports of assault rifles to civilians but allow illegal exports to criminals? :rolleyes:

juice1304

AR-15's are not assault rifles, Assault rifles are select fire firearms which means they can fire fully automatic aswell as semi. They look like assault rifles but do not function in th same way. It is the same as someone putting an M bodykit on their bmw it looks like an M series car but it will not function like one.

Be like Nutella

WIKI

"...In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns.."

I would love to sit down with a bunch of proper American gun enthusiast NRA card holding Republican 2nd amendment quoting guys and run them through their own arguments for having access to any guns they like right to the logical conclusion of their own arguments and see if they really believe what they say they believe or see can their minds be changed with pure logic and sense. I have a feeling there's a massive 'follow the herd' ignorant tendency with this thing and that most gun nuts don't understand what they say they support at all when it comes down to it.

300 million guns in the US right now.
25% of adults own a gun in the US.
The 'average' gun owner owns at least 4 guns.
There is no background check on the buyer in 40% of all gun sales in the US.
Suicides account for more than 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US - 20,000 of 30,000.
Assault rifles have nothing to do with most gun homicides in the US and never have.
The vast majority of gun homicides are by hand gun with the most common gun used being a .38 - $380 at Wall-mart.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets which took much effort to load a single shot and were stored in communal safe storage (i.e. 'well regulated') on average and there is no way the writers could have envisaged a civilian living in total societal peace easily buying an AR-15 with a 30 round clip which had the power of a battalion of musket carrying men and because of that very simple fact the second amendment cannot be used logically to support rights which people 'think' they should have in this time right now.... to think so seems rather fuking stupid. The whole point of the second amendment as 'pro AR-15 unlimited clip' people say is that American should be able to rise up against their government if they curtail their rights too much or become despotic regimes - to which somebody really really needs to ask these people - what the fuk could a bunch of hillbillies with AR-15's and some combat gear do to the US military??????? - and who would that ridiculous hypothetical scenario unfold, even in their mental little brains?? will somebody please tell me that because if that part is complete boll0x then it needs to be spelled out as such - there is no chance of widespread rebellion in the US - we are way past that point... it shouldn't be even part of the conversation.

Nobody is going to come around and take away peoples guns in the US - this is also a total myth - there is no single intelligent analyst who believes there is a 1% chance of that happening under any circumstances - THEREFORE the 300 million fuking guns out there already are going to be still fuking out there for a long goddamned time... so there is no way in hell of reducing the number of guns to a point where some nut can't get a hold of one if they really want. Hell I bet I could fly into NYC tonight and have a gun in my belt within 2 hours for $250 and go kill 5 people in Time Square - I could almost guarantee that.

40% gun owners say they hunt. IF SO then the tool for that activity is very simply 'a rifle' which you load with a bullet each time - a single shot rifle is all you need for that task. Why all the mental destructive weapons - is a fuking high powered rifle not enough for a man to kill a deer with? I would think most intelligent hunters would agree?

Is an AR-15 suitable to defend ones home? better than a hand gun? I would think not, I would think a shorter one handed weapon is way better even though it has less stopping power than blasting 8 quick semi-auto rounds from your army designed AR-15 weapon which is cumbersome when moving around one's home in search of a possible attacker?? Debating whether something is an assault rifle or not just shows how fuking mental this thing has gotten. In general terms the word means nothing really. Don't tell me about technical military jargon - hell even knowing that about your weapon is worrisome and part of the issue to begin with. The main issue is not about arguing whether fully auto machine guns are legal or safe or not - they are not legal. That an AR-15 is a military weapon designed for war is not debatable - it is ...end of story. To want one for self defense of your home is pure mental and indicative not of knowledge of fire power or efficiency in stopping power or tactical awareness or skill or knowledge - it simply shows you are a gun nut - a person who think there is a connection between bravado and guns or that thinks somewhere in the back of their minds they would like to take all that 'shooting range rage' and kill some home intruder some night by emptying their 30 round clip from their customized AR-15 into the chest of some gang member who picked the wrong house to burgle.

Face-it - America has a massive gun cultural problem which
has nothing to do with hunting at all.
Has nothing to do with shooting matches at all.
Has nothing to do with whether a glock is enough to stop a possible home intruder compared to a military killing weapon such as an AR-15.
Has everything to do with
50 years of Hollywood influenced
gang culture influenced
crime TV influenced
free market force influenced
good old fashioned 'money makin America' !!!

You think gun shops and gun companies give a crap about the second amendment?????? and whether this or that is good or bad for American society??? or rights or anything else/??? Hell they just want their fuking money... simple as that. The NRA is their mouthpiece and their money is their influence in the halls of Washington. None of these executives in these gun companies or gun lobbies or NRA are stupid enough to think that a bunch of lads with AR-15's and their stupid 30 round clips could overthrow some imaginary tyrannical US government under any hypothetical crazy unrealistic situation at all... because they are intelligent, not moral, but intelligent - they make millions making people like you angry about having all their stupid unnecessary manly guns.

If guns and pointless machismo and bravado have no connection then why do more men own guns then women and why do less women care about having guns or access to powerful guns than men do? If you think there is no connection between gun-nuts and bravado you're simply choosing to be ignorant. Guns are coooooool - ask a 12 year old boy if a mini gun is cool? Then show him a video of 15 Iraqi's getting mowed so that their limbs explode all over the street by a hovering Apache gun ship who thought they were insurgents - search the wikileaks video... then after they've stoppped sobbing ask them are mini-guns as cool as they thought?

I have nothing against hunters in the US - most are from the countryside on average and own farms and shotguns and rifles and are no risk to anything or anyone and most have a love for nature (some may think it a 'confused love' but that is down to opinion). These hunters do not believe that AR-15's with 30 round clips are anything but military killing weapons which companies have managed to sell to people who think they are cool because they are vulnerable deluded gun nuts or as the gun companies in the US would call them - their market!

In short - you can't rebel against the US government with AR-15's and you sure as hell do not have the right to buy or make a swarm of Apache Gun Ships or tanks so cop the fuk on. You don't hear these guys argue that they should be able to buy a tank do you? because that would be craaaaazy !! : )

In short - the second amendment was written in a different time with different technology and not one of the writers would agree to the general public owning an AR-15 with a 30 round clip if they saw it in action mowing down civilians compared to the finest muskets of their time. The writers would laugh at the stupidity of anyone who believes that applying such a part of this old document to this time with our technology.... it doesn't make sense. How is that not perfectly obvious????????

Aww pure mental stuff altogether - please let some pro-gun lads deal with these points individually here although in reality I instead await a barrage of crappy one liners and glib 'liberal' slags and so forth.

30,000 GUN DEATHS EVERY YEAR - SURE THERE'S CLEARLY NO SOCIETAL OR CULTURAL ISSUES WITH GUNS IN AMERICA... CLEARLY.

WIKI

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles.

Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.[7]

The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the United States. 114 million of these were handguns.

Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it;

2nd Am

In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

WIKI
300 million guns in the US right now.
25% of adults own a gun in the US.
The 'average' gun owner owns at least 4 guns.
There is no background check on the buyer in 40% of all gun sales in the US.
Suicides account for more than 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US - 20,000 of 30,000.
Assault rifles have nothing to do with most gun homicides in the US and never have.
The vast majority of gun homicides are by hand gun with the most common gun used being a .38 - $380 at Wall-mart.

I have no quarrel with these figures, they seem about right.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets which took much effort to load a single shot and were stored in communal safe storage (i.e. 'well regulated') on average and there is no way the writers could have envisaged a civilian living in total societal peace easily buying an AR-15 with a 30 round clip which had the power of a battalion of musket carrying men and because of that very simple fact the second amendment cannot be used logically to support rights which people 'think' they should have in this time right now....

A similar argument has been made for the First Amendment. The Founders had no way of envisioning mass media like the radio, television, or Internet. Suffice to say, that argument has been soundly rejected.

to think so seems rather fuking stupid. The whole point of the second amendment as 'pro AR-15 unlimited clip' people say is that American should be able to rise up against their government if they curtail their rights too much or become despotic regimes - to which somebody really really needs to ask these people - what the fuk could a bunch of hillbillies with AR-15's and some combat gear do to the US military???????

It is worth noting a few recent examples of illiterate or under-educated persons armed mainly with small arms causing the US military some hassle over the past ten years in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is also worth noting that the citizenry in Libya and Syria seem to have done reasonably well against a government with tanks and attack helicopters.

- and who would that ridiculous hypothetical scenario unfold, even in their mental little brains??

I presume you mean 'how'. The most recent example of general citizenry taking arms against the authorities I am aware of is 1946. A corrupt sheriff in Athens, TN, kept rigging the elections. Appeals to higher authorities including the Federal government failed to elict any action. The situation was resolved by way of an armed assault, with several hundred citizens engaging in a firefight with about 55 deputies who were holed up in the county jail. After running the Sheriff out of town, the ballot boxes which he had been keeping were opened, counted, and the correct persons installed. Not an incredibly recent example, certainly, but a textbook case.

Nobody is going to come around and take away peoples guns in the US - this is also a total myth - there is no single intelligent analyst who believes there is a 1% chance of that happening under any circumstances -

One need not go back too far to see the fault in that statement. 2005 will suffice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[79][80]

Gov Cuomo is also on record as supporting confiscation, though in fairness to the argument, he didn't have the votes to get that one passed. However, a number of jurisdictions to include NY and California legislation in force which mandates sale or relinquishment of firearms and magazines over time.

THEREFORE the 300 million fuking guns out there already are going to be still fuking out there for a long goddamned time... so there is no way in hell of reducing the number of guns to a point where some nut can't get a hold of one if they really want. Hell I bet I could fly into NYC tonight and have a gun in my belt within 2 hours for $250 and go kill 5 people in Time Square - I could almost guarantee that.

Agreed.

40% gun owners say they hunt. IF SO then the tool for that activity is very simply 'a rifle' which you load with a bullet each time - a single shot rifle is all you need for that task. Why all the mental destructive weapons - is a fuking high powered rifle not enough for a man to kill a deer with? I would think most intelligent hunters would agree?

What do the other 60% say?

Different targets use different tools. I would not take a rifle used in hunting elk in Montana to go shooting packs of coyotes in California. A 5.56mm isn't enough for the elk, and a .30-06 is somewhat un-necessary for dogs. Semi-auto magazine feed is handy due to (a) less felt recoil from the semi-auto thus easier to maintain target picture, and (b) faster follow-on shots to engage the rest of the pack who probably aren't likely to stick around once the first shot is fired.

Note that the AR15 family is the single most popularly sold rifle in the US. They've got to be using them for something.

Is an AR-15 suitable to defend ones home?

Yes.

better than a hand gun?

Yes.

I would think not, I would think a shorter one handed weapon is way better even though it has less stopping power than blasting 8 quick semi-auto rounds from your army designed AR-15 weapon which is cumbersome when moving around one's home in search of a possible attacker??

Two things.
1) Stopping power isn't exactly a footnote in this situation. It's more the most important single factor. Everything in the home defense discussion relates around the end goal of stopping a threat.
2) Look at what the professionals do, such as police SWAT teams.
Photo http://media.redding.com/media/img/photos/2011/03/24/220110324214724002_t607.JPG
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJX6qzDI1FQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gMjRhTavGE

Note that with the exception of the bloke carrying the shield, everyone is armed with both AR-15 derivative and sidearm as they go into the door. The sidearm is stowed in the holster, the primary weapon is the AR. This matches my personal experience in the subject, the only time I slung the rifle and drew the sidearm was when climbing a ladder to clear a rooftop. All other times the rifle was my ready weapon. And it's not as if the Army doesn't think about these things when they train you. Rifles (and more specifically, carbines) have a number of advantages over the pistol/revolver in such a situation, and the only notable disadvantage is need to remove one hand to manipulate the occasional doorhandle.

To want one for self defense of your home is pure mental and indicative not of knowledge of fire power or efficiency in stopping power or tactical awareness or skill or knowledge - it simply shows you are a gun nut

Are not gun nuts the people most likely to know about the various characteristics of weapons and their best methods of employment? After all, they're the people interested enough in the subject to do the reseatch. I mean, if you want a discussion on the merits of various forced air induction systems for the internal combustion engine, you're probably more likely to get an accurate and useful answer from a car nut than from the average person on the street.

Face-it - America has a massive gun cultural problem which
has nothing to do with hunting at all.
Has nothing to do with shooting matches at all.
Has nothing to do with whether a glock is enough to stop a possible home intruder compared to a military killing weapon such as an AR-15.
Has everything to do with
50 years of Hollywood influenced
gang culture influenced
crime TV influenced
free market force influenced
good old fashioned 'money makin America' !!!

Pretty much agreed.

I have nothing against hunters in the US - most are from the countryside on average and own farms and shotguns and rifles and are no risk to anything or anyone and most have a love for nature (some may think it a 'confused love' but that is down to opinion). These hunters do not believe that AR-15's with 30 round clips are anything but military killing weapons which companies have managed to sell to people who think they are cool because they are vulnerable deluded gun nuts or as the gun companies in the US would call them - their market!

Various hunting magazines in the US have had articles on the merits of the bolt action vs semi-auto in the sport, some are online.For example: http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2010/10/07/hunting_guns-shooting_bolt_action_or_semi-auto_big_game_hunting_rifles_1010/

None have said that ARs are unsuitable for hunting. The discussion is also lively on the various sporting web fora, with similar results.

In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

Prior to the Heller case of 2008, the Supreme Court touched upon the applicability of 2A only once: 1939. Back in the early 1930s, there were far fewer restrictions. Joe Citizen could mail-order a Thompson submachine gun from the Sears catalogue for about $200. This was after the era of prohibition, when gangsters used machineguns in their reign of crime, there could be no doubt in the judges' minds that any application of the 2A could involve firearms far more capable than single-shot muskets. Machineguns became restricted in 1934.

US vs Miller was the case. A private citizen was up on weapons charges, the Supreme Court unanimously decided not to apply 2A to the citizen's case. The reasoning is instructive. (Actually, the entire case is intersting: By the time SCOTUS heard the case, Miller was dead and nobody argued his side)

If the 2A didn't give the right to arms to the private citizen, the court need merely have said so. They didn't. They said instead "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time"

Instead, they moved on and looked at the weapon. Their ruling was that because there was no indication that the sawn-off shotgun in question was a commonly used military weapon the 2A did not apply. The inference is obvious: If he had been posessing a Thompson machinegun or M1 Garand semi-auto, both on issue to the US Army at the time, they would have concluded that 2A did apply and moved on to further analysis.

No case involving a semi-auto rifle has yet reached SCOTUS, the issue remains unresolved in the affirmative. However, it is clear that arguments against rapid-fire weapons not being covered by 2A are in no way conclusive.

BTW, I apologise for the lack of one-liners and glib 'liberal' slags. Not really my style.

NTM

FISMA

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I would love to sit down with a bunch of proper American gun enthusiast NRA card holding Republican 2nd amendment quoting guys

Sorry I cannot sit down, the boards should suffice.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

... 'follow the herd' ignorant tendency
... most gun nuts don't understand what they say they support at all
... to think so seems rather fuking stupid.
... what the fuk could a bunch of hillbillies
... even in their mental little brains??
... that part is complete boll0x
... the 300 million fuking guns out there already
... are going to be still fuking out there for a long goddamned time... ... Hell I bet I could fly into NYC tonight and have a gun in my belt within 2 hours for $250 and go kill 5 people in Time Square - I could almost guarantee that.
... Why all the mental destructive weapons
... is a fuking high powered rifle not enough for a man to kill
... just shows how fuking mental this thing has gotten.
... To want one for self defense of your home is pure mental and
... you are a gun nut - a person who think there is a connection
... Hell they just want their fuking money... simple as that.
... between gun-nuts and bravado you're simply choosing to be ignorant.

Okay, now that you're sober, do you wish to make a coherent statement?

I disagree with just about everything you stated and I appear to be, the "type" against which you wish to argue.

So please ask a question.

If you please, advise whether you have ever taken an American History Course, read the Federalist Papers, or formally studied the Constitution and British Common Law.

If you care to have a civilized discussion I would more than happy to show that historically, point of fact, you're just about wrong on everything that you wrote.

Otherwise, please advise what you were drinking, it must be some fine powerful shtuff!;)

Be like Nutella

rightyo well then let's start with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is there to allow American citizens to arm themselves as they please to rise up against a tyrannical government... which I believe it was but not in today's context... Like I said you guys don't argue that you should be allowed own or build serious weapons such as helicopter gunships or tanks etc

How would a 'rising' play out in a hypothetical situation in the US IF you guys were allowed by law to own any guns you want at all... not even just semi auto rifles? Do you think it has any chance of happening and therefore part of the argument?

Be like Nutella

When you're done with that one - next one

"...The second amendment was written in a time of muskets which took much effort to load a single shot and were stored in communal safe storage (i.e. 'well regulated') on average and there is no way the writers could have envisaged a civilian living in total societal peace easily buying an AR-15 with a 30 round clip which had the power of a battalion of musket carrying men and because of that very simple fact the second amendment cannot be used logically to support rights which people 'think' they should have in this time right now.... ..."

Do you think the 2nd Am as it was written in the time it was written with the weapons and technology available to citizens covers the new weapons available today ? and allows for the governments central duty to protect its citizens from risks to public safety which are clearly increased when you allow anyone to buy AR-15's with large clips? There's no way in my mind that guys writing this 2nd Am at the time could've made allowances for such weapons that exist now and therefore as insulting as it may seem the 2nd Am is outdated and useless in the face of the reality of today. What's your view on that?

FISMA

Take a breath Nutella. You're doing it again.

Quid pro quo. You ask a question, I answer. I ask a question you answer.

Don't throw up something like this

Be like Nutella wrote: »

rightyo well then let's start with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is there to allow American citizens to arm themselves as they please to rise up against a tyrannical government... which I believe it was but not in today's context... Like I said you guys don't argue that you should be allowed own or build serious weapons such as helicopter gunships or tanks etc

Just ask a question. I will be more than happy to answer.

Since this topic is going to inevitably entail the second ammendment.

Again, ask "a" question and I will answer it...

Be like Nutella

How would a 'rising' play out in a hypothetical situation in the US IF you guys were allowed by law to own any guns you want at all... not even just semi auto rifles? Do you think it has any chance of happening and therefore part of the argument?

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

rightyo well then let's start with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is there to allow American citizens to arm themselves as they please to rise up against a tyrannical government... which I believe it was but not in today's context... Like I said you guys don't argue that you should be allowed own or build serious weapons such as helicopter gunships or tanks etc

How would a 'rising' play out in a hypothetical situation in the US IF you guys were allowed by law to own any guns you want at all... not even just semi auto rifles? Do you think it has any chance of happening and therefore part of the argument?

I not an expert on the USA gun control argument but
It annoys me when I see (not you) celebs and talking heads dismiss the idea out of hand and sometimes with scorn from the narrow minded prescriptive of their late 20th century
blissful existence. They forgot the past, don't predict the future nor
see the present in other parts of the world.

The idea that a Armed population is necessary to defend against tyranny is not to be taken lightly and laughed at or dismissed out of hand.
No-one can predict the future there is no guarantee that a Future USA government could turn democidal or tyrannical No-one knows what major events can occur natural or otherwise.

I believe(read somewhere) it was put into the USA because one of the "founding fathers" had been to Ireland and had seen that the protestant ascendancy maintained their tyranny by preventing Catholics arming themselves by the penal laws.

If Human history could be summarized in a sentence its that numerous
tyrannical governments committed wars and democide against people
and the strongest defense against them is democracy.
Just look at Syria. I suggest studying the books/works of RJ Rummel on murder by government(democide )and Democratic peace theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.”

Having said that
Where I would differ with the gun lobby
is that I would say strong armed democracy is the answer to preventing tyranny. Rather than allowing random individuals access to high lethality weaponry I would agree that strong reserve forces and/or local militias
like the Swiss military system is the answer or some other type of system

I think high lethal weaponry like Ar-15 should be Restricted to people with a elevated security risk for example Prosecutors, witness protection program, farmers near the Mexican border and on and on.
and that the USA should expand the strength of its National Guard units and strengthen its democracy in order to prevent tyranny and should export democracy.

Also There are numerous examples in last few decades of lightly armed men defeating much stronger Army from the Syrian civil war to Chechnya 1994-1996 or Slovenia 1992 for example.

Rummel again on the way forward.
What Should Be Done About Democide,
Violence, and War?

Democratic freedom is a method of nonviolence and engine of wealth and prosperity. The most practical and effective way to improve human security, promote nonviolence, and eliminate war, therefore, is to promote freedom and associated human rights.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POLICY.HTM


Also can someone tell how many people are killed by "Assualt"
rifles in the USA every year what %?
Is the whole argument not a red herring are not the vast majority of gun killings done by hand guns in ghettos by criminals and related to the drugs trade?
Are these high profile spree killings as terrible as there not just a drop in the ocean of the overall gun crime and would not most of them be prevented by better background checking and profiling and so on rather than banning all "assault weapons"

If one was serious about gun deaths then either winning the Narco wars by actually fighting them OR ending Narco prohibition would be the way forward
would it not.

Cork boy 55

FISMA wrote: »

Obama and Biden have made their case against the AR-15 and its clone pretty clear - they are assault weapons with no personal defense use.

Fair enough, but what about the recent request for proposal issued by Homeland Defense (DHS)?

According to the Washington Times article, DHS is 'seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”'

So, DHS wants AR's for personal defense in CQB, like a home, but Obama does not want civilians to defend their home with AR's. Typical.

What's next? Ban legal imports of assault rifles to civilians but allow illegal exports to criminals? :rolleyes:

I think its fair to say that for 99.9998%* of home defense and personal defense situations do not require the firepower of a AR-15 for a successful outcome against the threat.
* figures plucked out of the air
Therefore IMO the argument that a random individual requires one for such is
flawed.
However I don't think they should be banned but highly restricted to people
with an elevated risk like judges, Farmers in vulnerable areas like Mexican border and so on and on and even in some of those those cases other weapons might be more suitable than Ar-15 type weapons.

The only argument for allowing random individuals to own such weapons is to prevent tyranny and I would argue that they there are better ways and methods to prevent this rather than allowing random individuals to buy highly lethal weaponry and not just related to gun control
Like local militias/reserves and strengthing and promoting democracy and so on.

spideog7

My take on several aspects of this whole thing:

A) The changes to the gun control laws put forward thus far are not unreasonable so I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms about them. Of course they'll be highly ineffective regardless.

I'm just disappointed when people's justification for owning a firearm is the second amendment, you don't have to do something just because you're allowed to. It's easier to get a gun here than it is a car and nobody seems worried that their car is going to be confiscated or sees the need to make car ownership an unalienable right protected by the constitution, losing your car would likely be far more devastating to most than losing a firearm.

C) Almost all of the folks I've encountered who are vehemently pro gun are either currently in the military, ex-military or staunch supporters of the military. Yet they seem extremely concerned that the military ( themselves, their friends and their colleagues) are going to turn on them, this boggles my mind. For a country that really glorifies the military they seem oddly suspicious of them all the same.

BTW I'll be off to the gun show this weekend, I hear it's going to be mad busy because of all this craic!

Manic Moran

spideog7 wrote: »

A) The changes to the gun control laws put forward thus far are not unreasonable so I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms about them. Of course they'll be highly ineffective regardless.

If they'll be highly ineffective, then what's reasonable about them?

I'm just disappointed when people's justification for owning a firearm is the second amendment, you don't have to do something just because you're allowed to

No, but the point of a right is that you can't deny it to the other person because you don't like it. I don't have to say 'no, officer, you may not search my car', but if I'm in no particular hurry to get anywhere, there's no reason not to. I don't have to explain why I want to read a particular book, why I'm a particular religion, or why I won't let the cop look in the boot of the car. It merely suffices that I have the right to do so, and that the right exists is all the justification that anyone else needs to know.

It's easier to get a gun here than it is a car and nobody seems worried that their car is going to be confiscated or sees the need to make car ownership an unalienable right protected by the constitution, losing your car would likely be far more devastating to most than losing a firearm.

I didn't have to take a background check to get a car.

Now-Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit is the offspring of holocaust surviors, an immigrant from Romania. In a dissent in 2003, he opined:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once

NTM

spideog7

Making drugs illegal is ineffective at curbing drug use and drug trafficking, I still support those laws. I think gun control is important and the proposed changes (in my mind) are reasonable limitations. But you're right I do not think they will address the problem that is causing mass shootings, but they may begin to address the societal problem that is leading to them.

Even the first amendment has limitations to it (Obscenity, which means something different to everyone, Defamation, Incitement of hatred etc.). I believe it is fair to have reasonable limitations to all laws and all rights such that we do not impinge upon the rights of others. After all in a country with 300 million people you cannot please everyone, but even a country as bipartisan (bipolar even) as this needs to attempt to compromise. I read the bullets in the "Now is the Time" release (granted I didn't read the whole thing) and nothing jumped out at me as a particularly unreasonable limitation.

It's not hard for most people to pass a background check, particularly when the database is woefully out of date. Plus one can go to a flea market and buy a gun without a background check anyway, one does not have to register it, buy a tag/licence to show a police officer it's legit or have any proof that they are qualified to own or use it. Closing the background check loop hole is one of the changes I think will be effective, but only if it's implemented correctly.

What confuses me is that a regular GI Joe (I don't mean any offence by that term I just think in this case it's more descriptive than Joe Soap) is in fear that one day his commanding officer will come to him and his company and tell them to turn their guns on the civilian population and he feels that he has no power to prevent this beyond giving guns to those innocents so they can shoot back at him. I also think this points to a much bigger problem than gun control laws.

In the US a military coup and civil war are both more likely than a totalitarian civilian government in my opinion. Of course both are as bad if not worse!

Manic Moran

spideog7 wrote: »

Even the first amendment has limitations to it (Obscenity, which means something different to everyone, Defamation, Incitement of hatred etc.). I believe it is fair to have reasonable limitations to all laws and all rights such that we do not impinge upon the rights of others.

This goes unargued. The problem is the definition of 'reasonable.' It can be argued that, 'reasonable' laws already exist, such as the prohibitions on firearms to certain classes of persons (felons, mentally ill), in certain places (airports, courthouses), or certain weapons (machineguns, missile launchers, grenades), and that further proposals go beyond 'reasonable.' This is before the discussion takes place in the courts as to what is 'reasonable', and though the appropriate standard of scrutiny has not been set, the Supreme Court has ruled out 'rational basis' (the lowest level, such as 'we, the government, think it makes sense') as being insufficient.

After all in a country with 300 million people you cannot please everyone, but even a country as bipartisan (bipolar even) as this needs to attempt to compromise. I read the bullets in the "Now is the Time" release (granted I didn't read the whole thing) and nothing jumped out at me as a particularly unreasonable limitation.

Where does the compromise stop? A century ago, there were very few laws at all. Then there were laws restricting certain types of weapon. Then there laws restricting who could have them. Then you had laws banning importation of firearms or the creation of machineguns. Then there were laws restricting where you could carry them. Then there were laws about having to do background checks. And that's just at the Federal level. States go further, California has some doozies. 'Compromise' is getting viewed as 'salami tactics': You eat the whole sausage one slice at a time, as it's far more digestible: But you get there in the end.

Now, that said, many of the proposals are considered reasonable even by the majority of gun owners.
Mandating that private sellers use the NICS seems a good idea, as long as the Feds actually make it accessible to them. That said, there may be a legal states rights hurdle: A couple of States have passed legislation stating that domestically produced firearms sold within that state are exempt from Federal gun laws as they fall outside of the Interstate Commerce mandate. It hasn't gotten to court that I'm aware of, but there is a legal argument that they're right: The only case on point was the enforcement of Federal drug laws on Marijuana, this was upheld by the courts as there was no way of identifying the State of origin of the drug: A problem not extant on a firearm which is marked.

The other problem with section 1 is the mental health reporting one: If they're too strong, there is an incentive for those who need help to not seek it. See, for example the results of this month's New York law, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57564304/experts-tougher-n.y-gun-control-law-may-discourage-therapy/
This was an issue the last time the topic came up at the Federal level, a specific clause had to be added so that returning veterans were not going to lose their firearms rights because they sought help for a mild and treatable case of PTSD.

#2, the ban on 'military style assault weapons and magazines' is definitely not universally considered as 'reasonable' in any way shape or form. Fortunately, it is unlikely to pass at the Federal level. Even the term 'high capacity' magazine is subjective. The standard magazine for a handgun is about 14-18 rounds, the standard for a 5.56mm is 30 rounds. 30-round handgun magazines or 100-round 5.56mm magazines are considered 'high capacity' in the firearms world. Defining a magazine of over ten rounds (or in New York, 7 rounds) as 'high capacity' is in itself arbitrary. I don't think they even make 7-round-or-less magazines for any of my pistols. There are a couple of other eyebrowraisers in there, of a more minor level. For example, the statement that imported 50-year-old+ weapons can be easily converted into full-auto. During the Assault Weapon Ban hearings in 1989 just prior to the enactment of the ban in California, the head of LAPD's firearms unit testified that no matter how much he had heard panic about the conversion of firearms, he had never actually encountered one which had been converted.

At least one part of it is requesting that people do something which the Supreme Court has ruled they don't need to and cannot be forced to: Use locks, safes, or keep separate the gun and ammunition.

What confuses me is that a regular GI Joe (I don't mean any offence by that term I just think in this case it's more descriptive than Joe Soap) is in fear that one day his commanding officer will come to him and his company and tell them to turn their guns on the civilian population and he feels that he has no power to prevent this beyond giving guns to those innocents so they can shoot back at him. I also think this points to a much bigger problem than gun control laws.

I think the more likely concern is that once they get out, the Army's culture may change. The US military has gone through a couple of generational differences, a troop who went through Basic in the 1980s may not relate well to today's troop: Just because today's soldier doesn't think today's Army is going to accept being used against the citizenry doesn't mean that when he's 40 and out after his 20 years that the Army culture will be the same.

There is precedent: Army forces were used in the afore-mentioned Katrina firearms confiscations, which we now know to have been prima facie unConstitutional: What is 'right and wrong' at the time are not necessarily obvious to a troop who has a very strong pre-disposition (actually, default requirement) to follow whatever order comes down from lawful authority. An excellent example of that was what the Arkansas National Guard went through in 1957. On the morning of the 23rd September they were dutifully following their orders to enforce segregation. By that night, they were dutifully following their orders to enforce integration. 'Right' and 'wrong' didn't change, only the orders they were given. Not every order is going to be as blatantly wrong as 'Machinegun those women and children.'

NTM

clairefontaine

Are we still pretending that we uphold the constitution?

Obama wants to give the finger to the red states. If he wanted to crack down on gun violence he would do something about hand guns, but it's very likely that much of his blue state electorate may carry hand guns so he won't bother them too much.

Then you have Biden talking to the video game people, ahem, lets do something about this pesky 1st ammendment, but he won't go after Hollywood glorifying violence because they fund the democrats.

Mental health checks are tokenstic gestures also contributing to the crock of **** that all of this is because you can't compromise the rights of the mentally ill either and also none of these guys who went into schools had a history of mental illness so none of them would have shown up anyway. Mental health checks aren't going to stop the gun violence, how many of them get off on claims of insanity, not many.

So all of this is a political game that amounts to nothing.

spideog7

Manic Moran wrote: »

This goes unargued. The problem is the definition of 'reasonable.' It can be argued that, 'reasonable' laws already exist.... 'Compromise' is getting viewed as 'salami tactics': You eat the whole sausage one slice at a time, as it's far more digestible: But you get there in the end.

Agreed and I think that's where most people will differ and the debate will never really end, but I don't see it as pro-gun vs anti-gun I think it's much more blurry transition than that and I hate that everything over here is so polarised, if you're not with us you're against us. Similarly with regard to 'salami tactics' most people differ on which slice is one too many but at what point does one begin to reject them? When things start to become unreasonable to us or far earlier than that so we can 'yield' and look to have compromised?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, that said, many of the proposals are considered reasonable even by the majority of gun owners.

Oddly enough when I discussed these with a friend recently I found that the only one on the list that I could conceivably see as beyond reasonable was the 10 round limit, simply because the standard in many side arms is higher than that (heck I can buy a $50 extension and put 10 in a shotgun). But at the same time, 10 should be plenty for anything you could want to do (including self defence IMO).

Manic Moran wrote: »

The other problem with section 1 is the mental health reporting one: If they're too strong, there is an incentive for those who need help to not seek it.

Mental health issues will always be tough, to regulate and even enforce but I don't think it's wise to leave them completely unaddressed. I will leave it to folks more learned than I in these issues to figure out when somebody is or is not a threat to themselves or others.

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least one part of it is requesting that people do something which the Supreme Court has ruled they don't need to and cannot be forced to: Use locks, safes, or keep separate the gun and ammunition.

Now from my reading of the document it did not seek to enforce using locks and safes but merely teach people that it might be a good idea (which to be fair it is, unless it's a self defence weapon and you don't need more than one of those!). There's nothing unconstitutional or malicious or politically motivated about trying to educate people in firearm safety, in fact the NRA have been doing it for decades, surely they should be delighted that the President is supporting their efforts?!

Manic Moran

spideog7 wrote: »

But at the same time, 10 should be plenty for anything you could want to do (including self defence IMO).

Then why not limit police to ten? After all, their sidearms are defensive weapons.

Statistically, less than one out of four shots fired by police handguns will hit their target (22%, apparently). Actually, I'm surprised it's that high. Assuming that the citizen is no worse a shot than the cop, out of your ten rounds, epect no more than two will hit the target somewhere, and hopefully that's enough to stop the threat. It may not be.

And then you hope that there isn't another person next to him, because you now have to reload.

There's nothing unconstitutional or malicious or politically motivated about trying to educate people in firearm safety, in fact the NRA have been doing it for decades, surely they should be delighted that the President is supporting their efforts?!

The NRA does indeed support firearm safety, primarily through the basic rules of firearm safety:

1) Treat all guns as if loaded.
2) Don't point gun at anything you don't want to kill or destroy
3) Don't put finger on trigger until you have pointed the gun in 2)

Locks and safes aren't safety measures, they're security measures, to prevent theft.

CollardGreens

The NRA does indeed support firearm safety, primarily through the basic rules of firearm safety:

1) Treat all guns as if loaded.
2) Don't point gun at anything you don't want to kill or destroy
3) Don't put finger on trigger until you have pointed the gun in 2)

Locks and safes aren't safety measures, they're security measures, to prevent theft.

I agree with the above 100%, and will add never draw your gun unless you have intentions on using it. It is foolish to hold a gun out to try to scare someone when you are asking to get shot by doing so.

AR's are my right as an American to own. YES they are wonderful for personal defense. Being a woman it would be almost impossible for me to over take one or more men trying to hurt me with just a bullet or two.

There are large biting reptiles where I live and I can punch the holes for a belt in a gator before it gets to my feet with an ar .22

Anybody that is mentally sane and is mature should own an ar and/or other kinds of guns and also have the knowledge to use gun(s) properly and safely.

clairefontaine

I love how since Newtown, we haven't heard anymore about Newtown at all, and now it's all about the technicalties of one gun.

Sparks

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets which took much effort to load a single shot and were stored in communal safe storage (i.e. 'well regulated') on average and there is no way the writers could have envisaged a civilian living in total societal peace easily buying an AR-15 with a 30 round clip which had the power of a battalion of musket carrying men

So,
(a) that single shot was between .50 caliber and .80 calibre and was a single ball which acted effectively like a dum-dum bullet (banned from warfare by the Hague convention as too horrible to use on humans, back when damn near nothing horrified anyone); and

(b) there is a way they could have, because the Austrians were using the Girandoni by then, which was basicly a .48 calibre repeating rifle with a 20-round magazine (it's most likely the air rifle Lewis & Clark used 15 years after the 2nd amendment was drafted, and it was originally brought into use in Austria a decade before the amendment was drafted, so it is definitely contemporaneous).

Sparks

Be like Nutella wrote: »

what ... could a bunch of hillbillies with AR-15's and some combat gear do to the US military?

Roughly the same thing a bunch of paddies and micks (well, michaels really) did with less effective weapons against the British military (at the time, the superpower of their day)?

Why does everyone think that the scenario where someone in the US uses the 2nd amendment to actually resist the government or armed forces would be one where they stand out in the open and charge headlong at a tank? It's hardly based on any historical models...

Debating whether something is an assault rifle or not just shows how fuking mental this thing has gotten.

It's not a debate. "Assault rifle" is a defined term. Pick up a dictionary - the OED, Mirriam-Websters, whatever, and look it up. If you can't even agree on the meaning of the words in your vocabulary, you cannot have a debate at all.

That an AR-15 is a military weapon designed for war is not debatable

Correct, it isn't. It's not the rifle the military use, it's a different design. Same way that a Hummer2 is not like a HumVee.

why do more men own guns then women

Citation needed.

why do less women care about having guns or access to powerful guns than men do

Citation needed.

Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.[7]

Look up the research on what happens to suicide rates when you restrict access to one method of suicide.
(hint; the other methods rise to compensate and the overall rate remains unchanged because the method isn't the problem).

Be like Nutella

ya know... I won't argue that one with ya.. I can't it's ridiculous and anyone with half a brain can see that when they read this debate.. so it's merely instructive that 'your side' would attempt to argue that the writers of the 2nd Amendment could have predicted that just about any US citizen over 21 years of age can afford a $1550 incredibly efficient military killing weapon and buy ten 30 round clips for it for 150 bucks... hell ya can pay for it by lay away from these guys - order one online now! The generally peaceful condition of your society in America demands that your government severely regulate access to such incredibly violent weapons to the general public especially when you suffer so many gun deaths each year and have experienced so many mass shootings... this stuff isn't rocket science. Not having access to your precious AR-15's and your 30 round clips won't change anything in your lives - it won't stop a rebellion from being possible because it isn't possible anyway at all and it won't limit your access to proper hunting weapons. It won't stop you buying a hand gun for that incredibly unlikely event of somebody invading your home while you're there allowing you to kill him as he is clearly there to murder your entire family... as all burglars are I suppose.

http://www.iiiarmscompany.com/rifleOrder.html

I don't accept your reasoning that the writers of the 2nd Amendment wrote it with an AR-15 type weapon in mind they didn't under any circumstances I wouldn't have thought you'd even attempt to argue that. It shows how desperate you guys are about holding on to your precious semi automatic pointless, needless guns. Admit it you just love your fukin guns man that's all it is. You love your toys and you don't want them taken away I get it I do.. it ain't about rebellion.. never was. It's simply about having what you want when you want it and **** the implications that has on other people and other wider considerations. The Amendment says nothing about the type of gun that should be allowed... well then why not argue for a mounted mini-gun on the back of your big (and also pointless but lets not go there haha) S.U.V. My point is why do you allow the line to drawn between mounted mini-gun shooting 1000 rounds a minute and your 30 round AR-15?? Do you not want a really cool mini-gun... hell I'd love one!! Like Arnie in Predator...you could take out a whole flock of deer ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz...RELOAD..ZZZZZZZZzzzzzz awesome. You can think you just won that part about what the writers of the 2nd Am envisaged and we can move on. People can make up their own minds.

Next up: Rebellion !

Why would it come about... and most importantly how the fuk could you do it with a gang of lads with their ARs ahem... vs I dunno ..only the greatest military force the world has ever seen ... ya know thousdands of aircraft.....millions of tonnes of bombs.... nuclear feckin weapons... goddamned Lasers... Rail guns... cruise missiles.... bleeding hundreds of Predator and Reaper drones and tens of thousands of tanks and helicopter gun ships etc etc etceteraaaaa...
How the hell does the notion of rebellion come into the debate when it is clearly not a realistic concept in any way shape or form? Not that I think it's even logically bridgeable - the notion of your US government (as much of an a$$hole I think it is sometimes) turning its weapons on its own population (you know - the 50 million family and friends of the 2 million troops which work for it and take its orders... that one. Talk me through the 'Enemies...and domestic' argument and then when you're finished proving that AR-15s with their 30 round clips are needed to rise-up against your own completely democratic representative government - tell me why you wouldn't want more powerful weapons then your measly pea-shootin AR-15's... man if I was a nuts enough to think I needed guns to rise up against the US government in this day n age then I'd at least want to own either the gun from Predator or the electricity shooting gun from the end of Demotion man.

Sparks

Be like Nutella wrote: »

the writers of the 2nd Amendment could have predicted that just about any US citizen over 21 years of age can afford a $1550 incredibly efficient military killing weapon and buy ten 30 round clips for it for 150 bucks

Leaving aside the obvious monetary/inflation bit, the point is that a 20-round repeating rifle existed at the time. Going from that to a 30-round semi-automatic rifle would not have been that big of a leap. The first semi-auto firearm (a revolver) would have come out only a few years after the second amendment was drafted after all. It would have seemed like normal progress to them, not science fiction.

I don't accept your reasoning

What's your argument?
("it's obvious" is not actually an argument)

they didn't under any circumstances

Citation needed.

why not argue for a mounted mini-gun

Legal until 1939, if I remember correctly?

Why would it come about... and most importantly how the fuk could you do it with a gang of lads with their ARs ahem... vs I dunno ..only the greatest military force the world has ever seen

Again, that's pretty much the scenario we saw here in 1919. A group of lads up against what was at the time one of the world's greatest military forces.
I seem to recall that we won that one.

Gatling

Stupid question time - I've been to the states on several occasions including a month's stay in Texas where I I finally got to use proper firearms 1911's, Glocks and various other pistols and Ar's now I've read various statements on here and one issued by members of the us special forces past and present saying the Ar15 can't fire full auto as its a different design to its military brother but I've used both variants at a shooting range and informed any Ar can be modified to shoot full auto with the right tools and knowledge,
My whole issue with whole debate is the NRA seems to only support the stance stop the people with mental illness accessing firearms but if the powers decided to keep your firearm licence and fire arms you need to take a psychological exam now if failed that and masses of people started losing there firearms would the NRA come about face and say ohhh only some mental health issues should prevent you from obtaining firearms

Be like Nutella

Ok ok ok look let's bring it back to the general themes here and not get caught up on who knows their gun laws or their guns better because then we lose the main idea of the thing and you'll just use attrition and pedantics ...

Back in the day when it was written there were cannons and muskets and stuff like that - right? nothin more advanced than that right? now we got crazy sh1t that none of those guys could've possibly imagined in their wildest imaginations - cruise missiles - imagine trying to explain the entire concept of a Cruise missile to one of those guys? Anyway my point is that a normal person couldn't get their hands on a bunch of cannons back in the day when ti was written and muskets were stored generally in guarded communal storage so that was the total equation of securing arms - can't get a cannon, most advanced weapon was a musket... basically. So if they really wanted citizens to be able to rise up if needs be then if they were alive today surely they would either

1) say 'fuk it it's impossible you'd get your ass kicked so quickly if you attempted an armed assault on your government no matter where or how you did it'

or they'd say

2) " Rebellion? against what? jaysus this country is incredibly free by any standards anywhere on earth in history... probably freer than anywhere on earth under any other leadership anywhere"

or they'd say

3) "Right we needs serious feckin weaponry in our garages if we ever need to rise up against this government and its military to have any sort of chance here... give us tanks, mini guns and gun ships to start with"

and no please god you don't actually believe that rising up in the US right now or in the future would look like O'Connell Street and Michael Collins and the lads... coz it wouldn't... no... not at all... only in a movie man...comonnnn ya can't believe that man that's crazy stuff altogether. You're talking guerilla warfare right? with ARs and what not yeah? in the context of what? Your government doing what to incite a rebellion? remember that your government IS YOU IN THIS SCENARIO...NOT A DICTATORSHIP OR A REGIME OF ANY SORT... IT'S ACTUALLY YOU - LIKE DO YOU GET THAT BIT? MILLIONS OF YOU WORK FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT AND EVERY SINGLE CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR AND PRESIDENT IS VOTED BY YOU? IT'S MENTAL STUFF man sorry but it is... you can't use it in the argument it's mad crazy stuff like. You can't say the writers of the 2nd amendment could envisage cruise missiles, no chance they could've. You can't say you could take on the US military with guerrilla tactics and ARs - mental!!

I would LOVE a week inside the brain of a serious republican gun lovin 2nd amendment NRA card carrying illegal immigrant hatin military worshippin guy I really do... just to see what it feels like and how they justify stuff to themselves without questioning how mental it is. It would be such an education.

Sparks

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Ok ok ok look let's bring it back to the general themes here and not get caught up on who knows their gun laws or their guns better because then we lose the main idea of the thing and you'll just use attrition and pedantics ...

You want to debate firearms law, but not bother with details or facts? To quote Dara O'Briain in context, get in the sack.

most advanced weapon was a musket

Eh, no, it wasn't. Read the posts above. Or, you know, a book.

coz it wouldn't

Citation needed.

Be like Nutella

I was never talking gun law apart form the original 2nd amendment... hell I would bother what would be the point? Unless you want to talk about the gradual reduction of gun freedom then yeah there is deffo a gradual reduction of gun freedom but too gradual and not enough reduction..

Tell me about the weapons at the time then - what were the most advanced weapons around at the time the actual 2nd amendment was written? And did the writers in your opinion envisage that people be allowed access to any weapon that existed even the ones any so called hypothetical 'tyrannical government' would conceivably have access to? In fact I think my question is do you personally think that people should be allowed access to more powerful weapons than AR-15s with 30 round clips? why draw a line? why not say you want anything you want and fuk the government for limiting your 2nd amendment rights to particular guns which are not mentioned or delineated in the original second amendment?

Sparks

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Tell me about the weapons at the time then - what were the most advanced weapons around at the time the actual 2nd amendment was written?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83011419&postcount=21
There's a candidate, if not the most advanced...

In fact I think my question is do you personally think that people should be allowed access to more powerful weapons than AR-15s with 30 round clips?

That's not a matter of opinon; it's fact - they are already and have been for many, many decades. Any 30-calibre rifle (one of the more popular families of rifle in the US) or for that matter, any shotgun, would be more powerful.

FrostyJack

The 2nd amendment was not writen by Jesus Christ (though some people believe it was), it was an amendment (hence the name), it could (and should be) amended again and that would stop all the arguements over that and a reasonable debate could be had.

Also to compare an AR-15 to a select fire weapon using the analogy of Hummer H1 and H2 or the BMW M or the M-sport is not like with like. The performance of the 2 rifles are much closer than the examples you gave. Firing fully auto at distance will not only empty your magazine quickly, it will also decrease your accuracy, single shot could be more effective in that range. When standing in a room of crouching kids it is as easy to pick them off with the AR then a fully auto or burst, possibly easier as you will have to reload less.

As for the guerrila warfare of 1916 beating a super power (or Afgans beating the Russians), the death tolls were pretty one sided. Would the local soccer mom have the stomach to put up with fighting or just conceed to the NWO (or whatever fantasy)? If the US infantry is actively fighting against civilians on all fronts, what would stop them using drones, nukes etc in order to get their goals?

The NRA uses fear as their tool to stay in power, fear of the scary black man, fear of the evil government oppressing you or taking your weapon etc. This week Charlie Brooker's show had a small piece on gun control, showing an NRA spokesperson saying video games were the problem, Charlie then pointed out the NRA released several shooting games themselves. Unfortunitly most people fall for this hence gun control will never happen on any meaningful level in America.

CollardGreens

Would the local soccer mom have the stomach to put up with fighting

\@ Frosty, The soccer Mom's I know would put fear in the NRA with their shooting abilities. You mess with the baby, and baby Momma is gonna start shooting. I've always thought if you put the kids Momma's in the same war we would have won by now.

I thank God every day I am in America and get to make the decision what means of protection I decide to carry. I thank God every day that my ancestors made the decision when breaking away to put into a constitution the rights I have that are not to be taken away by anybody.

You eluded to an automatic. From what I have read, we are talking about a SEMI auto. I am a woman and I own an AR .22. It is legal, it gives me safety from more than one reptile or one than more man. I own other guns each for different situations, many of us are into target shooting as a sport (and some of course hunt).

Of course you are free to dislike the laws in the States, and if you do then you are blessed that you don't live here in the States or you would be an unhappy camper, OR, if you lived here then you could be a happy gun owner!

FrostyJack

CollardGreens wrote: »

\@ Frosty, The soccer Mom's I know would put fear in the NRA with their shooting abilities. You mess with the baby, and baby Momma is gonna start shooting. I've always thought if you put the kids Momma's in the same war we would have won by now.

You eluded to an automatic. From what I have read, we are talking about a SEMI auto. I am a woman and I own an AR .22. It is legal, it gives me safety from more than one reptile or one than more man. I own other guns each for different situations, many of us are into target shooting as a sport (and some of course hunt).

Sorry I probably shouldn't have used soccer mom as an example, I was contrasting a middle aged woman from the suburbs to a battle hardened Afghan woman where war has been raging for decades. Would she be so quick to send her son//husband off to die to stop the NWO or UN? Though in saying that it didn't seem to bother the mom's much to send their sons/daughters over to die in 2 pointless wars so maybe I am wrong.

I mentioned Automatic weapons as these are being portraied as a totally different weapon when they are nothing of the sort. Yet in the same breath they are saying people with such automatic weapons can be over come by a militia with AR's.

I lived in the States for a few months and have been to most of the major states, I love the place. That been said I think it is ridiculous to walk around knowing that anybody you meet can be carrying a concealed weapon and every time you turn on the news one or more people have been gunned down, and I am not talking about the massacres that get all the press. The statistics reflect this phenomena. I like guns as much as the next person, I have fired all types, including AR's and even a S.A.W. I would gladly give up my "right" to have such weapons to stop crazy, stupid people getting their hands on them. The solution to the problem is not a simple one but the "I am alright Jack" mentally is the wrong way.

Exile 1798

CollardGreens wrote: »

\@ Frosty, The soccer Mom's I know would put fear in the NRA with their shooting abilities. You mess with the baby, and baby Momma is gonna start shooting. I've always thought if you put the kids Momma's in the same war we would have won by now.

I thank God every day I am in America and get to make the decision what means of protection I decide to carry. I thank God every day that my ancestors made the decision when breaking away to put into a constitution the rights I have that are not to be taken away by anybody.

You eluded to an automatic. From what I have read, we are talking about a SEMI auto. I am a woman and I own an AR .22. It is legal, it gives me safety from more than one reptile or one than more man. I own other guns each for different situations, many of us are into target shooting as a sport (and some of course hunt).

Of course you are free to dislike the laws in the States, and if you do then you are blessed that you don't live here in the States or you would be an unhappy camper, OR, if you lived here then you could be a happy gun owner!

Like Mrs Lanza?

clairefontaine

You know what. The ONLY person to survive Newtown did not have a defense weapon or a gun.

She was a six year old girl who played dead.

Manic Moran

Gatling wrote: »

informed any Ar can be modified to shoot full auto with the right tools and knowledge,

The devil is in the details. "The right tools and knowledge" includes gunsmithing and metal-working tools, and if you have that lot, you can just build your own firearm anway. You can theoretically reduce the difficulty by acquiring full-auto sears to insert into your modified receivers, but they're as restricted as the automatic weapons are anyway. It's far easier to just buy a full-auto to start with (Legally or illegally).

For example, from one gun board:

All semi-automatic versions of the M-16 (AR-15) are manufactured so that an autosear cannot be easily installed. The difference between and M16 and an AR-15 is the bolt carrier, trigger, hammer and selector. In addition, the M-16 has an autosear situated behind the hammer, and retained by a thirs cross pin through the receiver. in order to convert an AR-15, you must have all the requisite parts. You also have to mill out the area for the auto-sear (not file) adn drill the hole for the sear pin. It's not something you can 'accidentally' do, and there is no reason to mill out the receiver of an AR in that manner except to convert it to a select fire or automatic weapon.

Transcript from a court testimony on the conversion by an ATF agent of an M14 from semi-to-full auto, and how it required specialised knowledge and milling of the receiver.
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/USA%20V.%20KWAN%20-%20SAVAGE%20TESTIMONY.pdf

The argument over what sort of weapons were around in the 18th century is irrelevant. It has been addressed by the courts on a number of occasions, both by proxy (no equivalent to mass media in the 18th century) or directly (Miller, Heller). The amendment, just like the first, has been ruled to cover systems in common use at this time, not merely the types that existed in 1780

NTM

Reindeer

I personally believe once the police in The States feel comfortable going about without a firearm that I would be comfortable without owning one whilst there. Until then, I'll keep my guns.

FrostyJack

Reindeer wrote: »

I personally believe once the police in The States feel comfortable going about without a firearm that I would be comfortable without owning one whilst there. Until then, I'll keep my guns.

So you are never giving up your guns then. Do you arrest many criminals on a daily basis, deal with murderers? I don't think anyone is proposing banning all guns. Shotguns, single shot rifles I believe are fine, not just because of hunting, target shooting, you might think twice going on a rampage with them.

Reindeer

FrostyJack wrote: »

So you are never giving up your guns then.

No.

Especially not my AR15.



Or my HK53, which IS an assault rifle and is fully automatic:

FrostyJack

Reindeer wrote: »

No.

Especially not my AR15.

Or my HK53, which IS an assault rifle and is fully automatic:

I can understand why, very tastey.

Manic Moran

Reindeer wrote: »

Or my HK53, which IS an assault rifle and is fully automatic:

I hate you. I don't have the cash to buy full auto.

Gatling

Can I get asylum in America based on the Irish government infringeing on my rights to own and use such excellent firearms

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

Shotguns, single shot rifles I believe are fine, not just because of hunting, target shooting, you might think twice going on a rampage with them.

Shotguns are fine but AR-15s are not?
Look, I might think Hannity is a prick, but... well, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J_K3sUT3d4

Still think shotguns are fine but AR-15s are not?

Sparks

Gatling wrote: »

Can I get asylum in America based on the Irish government infringeing on my rights to own and use such excellent firearms

Eh? You can own and use these firearms in Ireland; several people do.

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

Shotguns are fine but AR-15s are not?
Look, I might think Hannity is a prick, but... well, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J_K3sUT3d4

Still think shotguns are fine but AR-15s are not?

I am familiar with the effects of different weapons and capabilities of said shotgun. This is part of the clips shown in this weeks Charlie Brooker's Weekly Wipe (Youtube it). I could easily hit 30 different targets with an AR and really mess people up with one clip, 6 to 8 at close to mid range with the shotgun (not including high cap mags). One arguement I hear is, what if there is multiple attackers? If 30 people are attacking you, good luck or stop watching Commando.
By the way Jessie talks exactly like Sarah Palin and seems to be as "sharp" as her, never the less I would still like to disarm her, with my charm

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

I am familiar with the effects of different weapons and capabilities of said shotgun. This is part of the clips shown in this weeks Charlie Brooker's Weekly Wipe (Youtube it). I could easily hit 30 different targets with an AR and really mess people up with one clip, 6 to 8 at close to mid range with the shotgun (not including high cap mags).

You're not familiar enough with the shotgun. You wouldn't "mess up" anyone with one, you'd kill them. And the idea that the clip means you can hurt more people is just plain wrong; you can reload a shotgun as you go so you effectively have one magazine with as many shells in it as you can physically carry.
And every shot you fire from the shotgun could have nine or ten pellet that mass more than a 9mm pistol round and travel quite a bit faster.

TL;DR - you're making up social policy without any evidence. That's a bad idea, for the same reason that non-evidence-based medicine isn't something to trust your health to.

Gatling

For complete argument sake saying ohhh look the 223 round makes the smallest hole in the targets be whatever there made of now remake the video using ballistic gel or pigs and show the damage caused by cavatation excuse if the spelling is incorrect with all 3 rounds,and she the shooter has disaplined trigger control ,is the NRA willing to concede any provisions at all , I know they said take the guns away from people with mental health problems but is that with caveat ie all mental health issues or only the extreme mental issues

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

You're not familiar enough with the shotgun. You wouldn't "mess up" anyone with one, you'd kill them. And the idea that the clip means you can hurt more people is just plain wrong; you can reload a shotgun as you go so you effectively have one magazine with as many shells in it as you can physically carry.
And every shot you fire from the shotgun could have nine or ten pellet that mass more than a 9mm pistol round and travel quite a bit faster.

TL;DR - you're making up social policy without any evidence. That's a bad idea, for the same reason that non-evidence-based medicine isn't something to trust your health to.

I do not know what you are talking about, sorry. I never said you couldn't mess someone up with a shotgun nor did I mention firepower (calibre). I have shot concrete, metal plates, muck, rock, wood etc with a number of different firearms, 223 was the most powerfull of the ones I used, and it was devastating (I have fired 7.62 but that was at paper). I was talking about combat. You have a shotgun and myself and a group of cops with "assault rifles" will have a stand off and see who wins?
Is the TL;DR comment at me? If so, how many people are killed around the World, aside from warzones (most of America has created) with firearms and then add them up and compare to America. Does your "evidence" still stand up?

Sparks

Gatling wrote: »

For complete argument sake saying ohhh look the 223 round makes the smallest hole in the targets be whatever there made of now remake the video using ballistic gel or pigs and show the damage caused by cavatation

Buckshot:


Slug:


I'm not making it up when I say that shotguns are more powerful and more lethal than AR-15s; they just are. Doesn't mean AR-15s are nonlethal; just that there are far more powerful firearms owned by far more people and nobody seems to mind.

It's that whole lack of evidence-based social policy again...

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

You have a shotgun and myself and a group of cops with "assault rifles" will have a stand off and see who wins?

"wins"?
Odd concept.
But the idea isn't you-v-cops, surely?
It's "why do you think banning a firearm not used in most shootings in the US will stop gun violence in the US?" and "why accept an ineffectual ban of a firearm used by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the US safely every day?" and most especially, it's "where is your supporting, peer-reviewed and accepted, evidence?". You couldn't release a headache pill onto the market without that, so why should you be allowed change the fundamental legal document in the US without it?

Is the TL;DR comment at me?

No, me.

FrostyJack

Sparks wrote: »

Buckshot:


Slug:


I'm not making it up when I say that shotguns are more powerful and more lethal than AR-15s; they just are. Doesn't mean AR-15s are nonlethal; just that there are far more powerful firearms owned by far more people and nobody seems to mind.

It's that whole lack of evidence-based social policy again...

Normally I hate ad hominem attacks, but seriously, are you ignoring what I am saying? Lethality has nothing got to do with it. If someone has a machete at point blank range it will do more damage than a 50 cal. What is the point you are making? Shotguns are lethal?

Sparks

FrostyJack wrote: »

What is the point you are making? Shotguns are lethal?

The point is that they are more lethal than AR-15s but are not being made the subject of bans; and that that's because this is not evidence-based social policymaking, but the legislative equivalent to homeopathy.