The future of the AR-15

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Post Reply
User avatar
DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by DrDonkeyLove » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:42 pm

Sua Sponte wrote:.

I wonder what will happen when background checks and weapons bans fail to have the desired effect of markedly reducing gun violence, given most gun violence, as it's described in the media, doesn't address the largest categories such as suicide, drug and gang related homicides, and legitimate use of force. An informal, completely unscientific poll of friends, peers, colleagues and acquaintances suggests most believe Orlando-type shootings are responsible for nearly all gun deaths. Suicide by firearm is the topmost category by a wide margin of deaths, up 26%, with suicides by all measures up double that. This is a mental health crisis, but somehow the left, the "good people, the people who care deeply" have turned it into gun politics, perhaps because it's mostly men who off themselves, men not being on the leftist approved list of victims. Likewise, inner city deaths due to firearms won't be budged by these proposals. How about those in the self-righteous "we're the only ones who care" category make it clear to everybody none of these measures would stop most forms of gun deaths nor would any of the proposed measures have stopped Mateen.
Unfortunately, the end game for Progressive leaders is to shrink the 2nd amendment until it's meaningless so no single "common sense" regulation will ever be enough. They're sometimes completely open about it but most of the time they're more nuanced as they scheme and lie their way incrementally towards European or Australian type of control.

If they had a more reasonable end game, people would be more flexible on controls.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party

Sua Sponte
Gunny
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Sua Sponte » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:44 pm

nafod wrote:
Sua Sponte wrote:While much can be made of the fact that McCain changed his vote there may to his mind be good reasons. Background checks mean the gov't knows what you're buying and therefore has record. For those who fear gov't confiscation, this is a big deal.
*sigh*
Background checks are the least of it, if folks are worried about getting tracked. I am constantly amazed by the crickets from the Gun Rights folks regarding NSA monitoring and that ilk. What it tells me is that it is not really about the tracking and confiscation, it is about the emotional attachment. I spent three years on the Find/Fix/Finish. The gun rights folks seem to be focused on being ready to fight off the "finish", but I am here to tell you that's the easy part.
*heavier sigh* *eye roll* *contemptuous "you know better" look*

People are worried about being tracked. This is inarguable. The statement in essence of "we can track you anyway, dumb ass" really isn't a very compelling argument as why you shouldn't be worried if you worry about such things. The historical comaprison is to how the Australian gov't implemented their laws. Comparisons to evolved military targeting over the last 15 years don't help that point of view, either, they just really fuel the paranoia. Again, I think it's a bit paranoid, but given Hillary's predilections, it's not a point entirely without merit, either.
nafod wrote:
it's seemingly becoming less fictional that there is some conspiracy, by whatever subterfuge is available, to deny people their 2nd amendment rights.
The Heller case confirmed for the first time that us merkins have an individual right to be armed. It also clearly stated that the right has bounds. Now multiple different circuit courts have consistently upheld restrictions by the states on assault rifles, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly and very visibly chosen not to hear those cases. Pretty clear that they are allowing the people themselves to determine where the operational bounds are, and assault rifles are in the optional category.
A good counter to a point that wasn't made. Straw man? The point made is most don't realize there's a different between the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list. While the rhetoric has been around "if you can't fly, why should you be able to buy a gun" the proposed legislation is about "if we arbitrarily put you on something called a terrorist watch list, which sounds scary, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun." It's broadening the stated intent of the law through misdirection and subterfuge. If the proposed amendment had kept true to "no-fly = no guns", you'd have a point. Maybe we should ask ourselves the question "If you're under investigation by the FBI for felony mishandling of national secrets, should you be allowed to run for president?"
nafod wrote:
And it can't be emphasized enough, that Mateen not only passed state and federal background checks, he was the individual target of multiple, multi-month FBI investigations and he was on no list of any sort, not denied gun purchases.
Two comments on that. First, Mateen shined the light on the fact that someone on a no-fly list can buy an assault weapon. Saying the fact that he wasn't on the list matters, is to kind of say that even if we think it is a bad idea for someone to be able to buy a gun like that, we need to wait until we have another mass shooting to pass a law on it.

Second, you are making an argument for why assault rifles should be banned.
Not at all. My point as stated is that many believe that background checks would have stopped this or many other recent mass shootings not that background checks aren't a good idea. I've stated I think background checks are a good idea.

Before the Mateen case brought to life that people on no-fly lists can buy guns, he brought to light the fact there is a no-fly list and there's no well known criteria to be on it. The fact that Mateen's actions brought the list and its consequences or lack hereof into the open doesn't mean that's how it had to be. Where was Feinstein, why didn't she propose such a ban for such persons long ago? Or any legislator? Or the administration, this one or the previous?

My argument would only imply assault rifles should be banned if I were making an argument that I think any problem would, should or could be solved simply and uniquely by banning something.
nafod wrote:
A closer comparison is to traffic deaths, which show more lost lives, and much higher injury rates, along with a reported 50% lat year over the previous two. Yet, there's no background check to buy a car, no screams of "people don't need that much horsepower" or "why do we have cars and trucks that can go 2 to 3 times the post speed limited on most highways." There's no designation of cars with seat side bolsters, turbos, extra wide low profile tires, or other features as "assault vehicles." No outcry that all cars should be equipped with mandatory breathalyzers in order to be able to start the car, or identification technology so only the licensed owner may drive it.
This is a really bad analogy to go down. You can only operate a car in public (not own it) if you have demonstrated ability and some minimal medical suitability. There are absolutely graduating scales of training and medical readiness for moving from non-commercial to commercial, with multiple classes of commercial vehicles and multiple approvals for things like transporting hazmat, double trailers, etc. The Class A vehicles are more closely regulated for inspection and operation because of their potential for havoc. Identification technology so only the licensed driver can operate it? It is called a key. It is a readily available technology that makes your product not as useful to someone else. Kind of like a password for a smartphone, that prevents the information on there from being used against you when stolen.
It's only a bad analogy to go down if the point was that training was at issue which it isn't. The point is that traffic deaths are at least an equivalent social ill but there are no proposed solutions akin to those for guns. Most vehicle deaths are personal car/truck related so large commercial vehicle are irrelevant to the conversation. I hasten to add here that RV's, pretty far removed from handling a car, require no special licensing.

By way of the analogy actually intended concerning passenger vehicles, there are no restrictions whatsoever on me buying a car, on whether my car has 100hp or 500hp, no restriction on enhancements that make the car easier to drive at law shattering speeds, no restrictions on size or weight other those limiting category, both of which make considerable contribution to the damage they may do. So, first then, while people seek to limit availability of guns with greater potential to kill, no such restrictions exist on acquisition of cars that have the greater potential. The analogy stands even if I initially failed to make it clear.

Further, no technology is required to prevent drunks from, say, getting in and killing 30+ kids who largely burned to death in a bus, even 40 yrs after the fact (origins of MADD), no effort to stop texting and driving, the technology for which exists and would save many more than at the Orlando shooting, largely because "why are we penalizing people who did nothing wrong because others chose to break the law." Certainly every time there's a misuse of alcohol or a vehicle there's no concern on the part of people who drink or people who drive that their *privileges* (not rights) will be infringed upon. Tet there are moves afoot to have "smart guns" that prevent misuse. The point isn't that "smart guns" are smart or dumb, only that there are parallels in automotive technology to such an idea that aren't seriously pursued despite the potential for saving many more lives than would they on guns.

A key doesn't keep anybody but the owner from starting the car, it just requires that you have the key. Nothing personally about the owner is required such as fingerprints or even a password which is much harder to steal than a key (mostly). While this is a poor analogy because people park cars in public areas where fear of having a high value items stolen not the death they can wreak if stolen, the truth is many if not most guns today come with methods of locking them. And, again, the point being raised is the parallel to suggested use-limiting technology on guns vs. autos.

Gun advocates say that the person is the problem, not the gun. Most of your argument is the same. Let's not limit availability to these "assault vehicles", let's place laws on the operators, that'll stop 'em.
nafod wrote:
Ubiquitous cell phone usage, especially texting while driving, receives largely lip service and public service announcements despite tens of studies equating such actions with impairment many times over the legal alcohol content limit.
I missed the lip service and public service announcements regarding safe use of weapons advocated for by the republicans.
Again here, the issue with mass shooters isn't that they failed to use safe handling procedures. Again here, it's not the case that people don't understand that guns are very dangerous. It's that they don't seem to get that texting and driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving which is more dangerous than a mishandled gun.

But do you know who does advocate for safe gun handling, offering free or at very low cost classes in the same? Why the NRA, of course. Where's that Dem ad that goes"while we wish you wouldn't buy guns, if you do, please take an NRA class on how to use and store it, they're the best out there."
nafod wrote:
I wonder what will happen when background checks and weapons bans fail to have the desired effect of markedly reducing gun violence
I wonder what will happen when they do. People keep saying there are so many guns out there, that prohibiting access won't change a thing, and yet people keep buying them, including criminals. Any friction in the process will result in lower usage.
Totally miss the point about friction resulting in lower usage. Mass shooters, in particular, get their guns legally, aren't on watch lists, and, primarily, are meticulous planners, weeks to months ahead of time putting the pieces in place. Hard to conclude they're impeded by friction.

While some say there are so many guns out there restrictions won't change a thing, and perhaps that's even true, I didn't make that point. My point was that the proposed restrictions won't impact the categories where most gun deaths occur and that most people seem to think they will.
nafod wrote:
Suicide by firearm is the topmost category by a wide margin of deaths, up 26%, with suicides by all measures up double that.
You know what one of my first tasks was when I learned one of my sailors was potentially suicidal? Ensure he didn't have access to a firearm.
Good on ya. You should also remove any source of personal harm, to include belts, sharp objects, even medications. Posting a suicide watch is also protocol. This assumes that you have some warning and that's statistically not typically the case.
nafod wrote:I'm with General McChrystal on this:
"Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and that therefore taking these steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership," he wrote.
Normally I'd say no fair taking an Army General's quote there, sailor boy, but nothing I wrote runs against what the distinguished general said and in most ways supports it. So there.
Last edited by Sua Sponte on Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11838
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by nafod » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Sua Sponte wrote:Normally I'd say no fair taking an Army General's quote there, sailor boy, but nothing I wrote runs against what the distinguished general said and in most ways supports it. So there.
Well, heck. We agree on everything then.

Admiral Olsen is there too along with a zoomie, jarhead, and brown water coastie.
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions ... /veterans/
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7843
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by johno » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:06 pm

I'd be more impressed if these Big Brains identified the cause of the vast amount of homicides, and tackled that problem.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:22 am

nafod wrote: I'm with General McChrystal on this:
"Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and that therefore taking these steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership," he wrote.
Doing "something anything" is also piss poor leadership, illogical and generates radicalism and resistance to more nuanced and reasonable policies.

McChrystal is an Elitist. He also cannot tell an M4 from an AR-15. Unfortunately for him the BATF&E knows the difference. Once again - ten years in a Federal Prison and a $250,000 fine if you don't gots the tax stamp.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:24 am

johno wrote:I'd be more impressed if these Big Brains identified the cause of the vast amount of homicides, and tackled that problem.
The cause of the violence is not important to them.

The cause of disarming the peons is vital to them. Violence, putting it into people's faces, making it personal and heartfelt so that reason goes out the window, is the method.

Chicago vs Houston. Roughly the same population, Chicago has about twice the murders and much more "gun control".

Failure is its own best demonstration.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:36 am

Wilson’s latest radically libertarian project is a PC-connected milling machine he calls the Ghost Gunner. Like any computer-numerically-controlled (or CNC) mill, the one-foot-cubed black box uses a drill bit mounted on a head that moves in three dimensions to automatically carve digitally-modeled shapes into polymer, wood or aluminum. But this CNC mill, sold by Wilson’s organization known as Defense Distributed for $1,200, is designed to create one object in particular: the component of an AR-15 rifle known as its lower receiver.
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cody-wilson-ghost-gunner/

McChrystal can go piss up a rope.
This space for let

Boris
Top
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:22 am

Gene wrote: Chicago vs Houston. Roughly the same population, Chicago has about twice the murders and much more "gun control".
Every anti-gun-control person brings up Chicago... Obviously gun control there hasn't done the job, BUT do we believe that more guns there would make it better? I'm not buying it.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:They're sometimes completely open about it but most of the time they're more nuanced as they scheme and lie their way incrementally towards European or Australian type of control.

If they had a more reasonable end game, people would be more flexible on controls.
I don't know if their end game is really an Australian type of control - I think some politicians just want to do SOMETHING (or at least give that appearance).

I don't have answers, but I lean towards at least trying something - it's easier to see the effect of something you do vs. what you don't do. I'd settle for some errors of commission rather than omission for a while as long as they are not dumbass moves like magazine bans.

People on FB jump all over me when I suggest stiffer penalties for gun crimes, gun negligence, and illegal gun sales but those would be my first thoughts. Of course, if they aren't enforced...

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:29 am

Boris wrote:
Gene wrote: Chicago vs Houston. Roughly the same population, Chicago has about twice the murders and much more "gun control".
Every anti-gun-control person brings up Chicago... Obviously gun control there hasn't done the job, BUT do we believe that more guns there would make it better? I'm not buying it.
If you believe "Less guns, less crime" then I can see your point. That idea is a narrative, not a fact. Only in gross cases does this make sense - comparing Japan's almost total prohibition of firearms versus the US. The Japanese needed decades to get to this point.

This isn't helping the Japanese - their suicide rate for women is higher than the rate for men in the US. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, fwiw.


If less guns means less gun crime why does Chicago have more deaths from firearms than Houston?

Both cities have drug gangs. Both cities have drug addiction. Both cities have poverty.

Chicago has an "assault weapon" ban. Houston does not.

Chicago uses Illinois FOID, Firearms Owner ID. Houston has Texas/Federal minimums, which means Brady checks for new purchases.

Chicago has very tough CCW requirements. Houston's are in line with Texas requirements. Average.

Chicago has Illinois stand your ground, similar to Florida. Texas has a much more liberal stand your ground, and a "Needs Killing" defense, rarely used but always there.


Houston is projected to make 281 murders for 2016.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/houst ... 5214501203

Chicago already has 316 homicides for 2016 and it's the middle of the year.

http://heyjackass.com/


Gun control opponents mention Chicago because Chicago proves that the Brady Campaign Wish List isn't working. Chicago's awful experience is an counter example to these claims.


We need to focus on the War on Drugs, ending it for good. We can save a lot more lives that way than by doing the same stupid shit we do with drugs on guns.

No serious gun control player is talking Prohibition, except for "assault weapons". They cannot avoid it, because they cannot justify their "half measures" if they fail to work.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:40 am

Boris wrote:People on FB jump all over me when I suggest stiffer penalties for gun crimes, gun negligence, and illegal gun sales but those would be my first thoughts. Of course, if they aren't enforced...
What is "gun negligence"? Not storing it in a locker at all times? Letting your kid shoot at a range? Leaving it out for a kid to find it?

ATF enforces gun trafficking laws. People go to jail for it.

Don't know about sentence enhancements. Ain't a lawyer.
This space for let

Boris
Top
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:49 am

Gene,
Just to make it crystal clear - I am NOT pro-banning of anything. Period.

Nothing you've said gives credence to the claim that more guns in Chicago would equal less crime or less gun deaths.

I'll try to respond to the main points:
*suicide - yes, I know most gun deaths are suicides. Again, I have no dog in this fight as far as guns go, but the argument that "people who want to go will, gun or not" is not a strong one.

*I don't think any logical person would lay the claim that "less guns = less gun crime" if guns are readily accessible to criminals, which is clearly the case in Chicago

*I don't know the stats, but I'm guessing most gun killings (homicide, self-defense, self-inflicted) are by handgun.

*Are you making the case that Houston has less gun killings because Houston does not ban assault weapons?
*Are you making the case that Houston has less gun killings because it has more CCW and more liberal stand your ground laws?

*gun negligence = I'm not sure what current laws are (education is important...), but yes, leaving a gun out for a kid to find it would be an example. guns stolen, then used in crime, etc.

*How many people go to jail for gun trafficking? How long do they go? I'm guessing this is a bigger problem than we hear in the media - in fact, I almost NEVER hear about it and maybe that's a problem. Straw purchases, illegal sales without required checks, etc. are probably under prosecuted.

User avatar
DrDonkeyLove
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Deep in a well

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by DrDonkeyLove » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:03 pm

Boris wrote:*How many people go to jail for gun trafficking? How long do they go? I'm guessing this is a bigger problem than we hear in the media - in fact, I almost NEVER hear about it and maybe that's a problem. Straw purchases, illegal sales without required checks, etc. are probably under prosecuted.
Speaking of under prosecuted gun trafficking, it would be nice if Eric Holder and President Obama experienced consequences for the cockup that was Fast & Furious. I'm not suggesting jail or impeachment but something.

I wonder how the death count of young Hispanic men at Pulse nightclub compares to that of F&F.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Herv100 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:36 pm

nafod wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...
This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that doesn't have all that long of a life in our republic. Because it cares about absolutely nothing else in the entire universe other than it's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much over-matches any opposition that has more than one thing to ponder in this life.
Translation: hopefully we can get an activist judge to change definitions of words and interpret it HOW I WANT BECAUSE I DIDNT GET MY WAY LAST TIME.

Despite being an old-ass broke dick, you sound like a typical millennial whiner. I bet you don't keep score at your kids ball games.
Image

Boris
Top
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:46 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote: Speaking of under prosecuted gun trafficking, it would be nice if Eric Holder and President Obama experienced consequences for the cockup that was Fast & Furious. I'm not suggesting jail or impeachment but something.

I wonder how the death count of young Hispanic men at Pulse nightclub compares to that of F&F.
Yeah, no shit.

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:55 pm

Herv100 wrote:
nafod wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...
This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that doesn't have all that long of a life in our republic. Because it cares about absolutely nothing else in the entire universe other than it's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much over-matches any opposition that has more than one thing to ponder in this life.
Translation: hopefully we can get an activist judge to change definitions of words and interpret it HOW I WANT BECAUSE I DIDNT GET MY WAY LAST TIME.

Despite being an old-ass broke dick, you sound like a typical millennial whiner. I bet you don't keep score at your kids ball games.
Why so triggered? Nafod's statement was factual.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Herv100 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:57 pm

Why are you so triggered by my post? My translation was factual too.
Image

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Gene » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:09 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Why so triggered? Nafod's statement was factual.
His statement is one of opinion. You like his opinion. There is a lot of controversy about what the "Second Amendment" means, even among scholars.
This space for let

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:14 pm

Gene wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:Why so triggered? Nafod's statement was factual.
His statement is one of opinion. You like his opinion. There is a lot of controversy about what the "Second Amendment" means, even among scholars.
That the NRA protects one interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, and that this interpretation is relatively new, isn't opinion. The changing history of the NRA's opinion on gun control is there to read.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Herv100 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:57 pm

Nafod and Spells wish they could sign this. Like with the 2nd Amendment, they want infinite do-overs until they get their way because they're special

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... ndum-reru/
Image

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11838
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by nafod » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:37 pm

Herv100 wrote:Nafod and Spells wish they could sign this. Like with the 2nd Amendment, they want infinite do-overs until they get their way because they're special

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... ndum-reru/
I don't have to sign anything. Since Heller, the various circuits have repeatedly ruled assault weapon bans are OK, and SCOTUS (with Scalia on the bench) has repeatedly and visibly decided not to listen to the pathetic mewings of the NRA-sponsored attempts to challenge.

Now who is looking for an activist judge?
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Herv100 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:43 pm

You are. You want more, more, more(like a typical spoiled millennial), otherwise you wouldn't be whining about the NRA and the "current interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment.
Image

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7957
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by powerlifter54 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:21 pm

Until the background check database includes all felony convictions from every state and all those on psychotropic drugs, and current State and Federal gun laws are fully enforced, the answer to bleating for more "gun control" is a resounding no.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

Boris
Top
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Boris » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:54 pm

powerlifter54 wrote:Until the background check database includes all felony convictions from every state and all those on psychotropic drugs, and current State and Federal gun laws are fully enforced, the answer to bleating for more "gun control" is a resounding no.
So, never?

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11068
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:54 pm

Boris wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:Until the background check database includes all felony convictions from every state and all those on psychotropic drugs, and current State and Federal gun laws are fully enforced, the answer to bleating for more "gun control" is a resounding no.
So, never?
Apparently. Death penalty can occasionally kill innocent men and that's OK. Background checks must be perfect.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7957
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: The future of the AR-15

Post by powerlifter54 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:53 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Boris wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:Until the background check database includes all felony convictions from every state and all those on psychotropic drugs, and current State and Federal gun laws are fully enforced, the answer to bleating for more "gun control" is a resounding no.
So, never?
Apparently. Death penalty can occasionally kill innocent men and that's OK. Background checks must be perfect.
Nope, just better. Might even want to include those with Domestic Abuse driven restraining orders. Again, this is all assuming the goal is to reduce gun related homicides. Then we can move to discussing due process for American Citizens placed on the list.

But until then, again. No.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

Post Reply