Massachusetts: AR-15s are "not within the Constitutional right to bear arms".

[Cubo de Sangre]

So banning one gun equals all guns?
So that argument is out. Then what?

No.

I'd suggest re-reading.

 

[Teppodama]

So banning one gun equals all guns?
So that argument is out. Then what?

If AR-15's aren't the gun of choice in the majority of gun violence cases, what exactly does banning it meaningfully do to address the escalating issue? I mean I understand the argument that it takes a potential firearm choice out of circulation but if it's the handgun that is the firearm most easily acquired and most often used it's mostly a meaningless gesture to be able to say "we did something". More understandable is the idea of a high capacity magazine ban but then what is an agreeable definition of exactly what constitutes high capacity? Is it more than 5? more than 10? 25? 30+?

Even if you limit it to 5 rds for all firearms, I'd just carry more magazines. Changing out magazines is still pretty quick. Hell, even if you limited handguns to wheel guns we'd just carry speed loaders. With some time spent training, you can load those pretty damn fast as well. Shotguns? Ever seen anyone speed loading a shotgun, either pump or semi-auto? Not very difficult with some basic practice. Get a bandolier/sling holder for the shotgun and you can usually carry 50+rds right there. Throw in some ammo bags and or a vest carry system and it's nothing to carry a couple hundred rounds of shotgun ammo. Throw on a side saddle to the receiver and you've got another 6 or 8 rds right there.

This: Mossberg 930 12g semi-auto

+

This:

+

This:

+

This:

And you start to get the idea.

 

[Deleted member 391673]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller



Semi-auto rifles are commonly held and highly useful for self-defense and militia work. The AR15 is the most common and adaptable rifle with that type of action. It is the overwhelming choice of the law-abiding public.

The only argument against is crime and that clearly falls short. Handguns are the vast majority of firearms used in violent crime and they've been ruled to be protected. Statistically the AR15 and semi-auto rifles in general are used in a tiny fraction of violent crime. So that argument is out. Then what?

have you noticed that when the shooting couple months ago happened, a lot of people went out and protested hard against AR15's and demanding making them illegal, but in the recent one at Santa Fe - where a revolver and shotgun was used - we don't see these massive protests demanding banning shotguns and revolvers....

 

[Deleted member 391673]

If AR-15's aren't the gun of choice in the majority of gun violence cases, what exactly does banning it meaningfully do to address the escalating issue? I mean I understand the argument that it takes a potential firearm choice out of circulation but if it's the handgun that is the firearm most easily acquired and most often used it's mostly a meaningless gesture to be able to say "we did something". More understandable is the idea of a high capacity magazine ban but then what is an agreeable definition of exactly what constitutes high capacity? Is it more than 5? more than 10? 25? 30+?

Even if you limit it to 5 rds for all firearms, I'd just carry more magazines. Changing out magazines is still pretty quick. Hell, even if you limited handguns to wheel guns we'd just carry speed loaders. With some time spent training, you can load those pretty damn fast as well. Shotguns? Ever seen anyone speed loading a shotgun, either pump or semi-auto? Not very difficult with some basic practice. Get a bandolier/sling holder for the shotgun and you can usually carry 50+rds right there. Throw in some ammo bags and or a vest carry system and it's nothing to carry a couple hundred rounds of shotgun ammo. Throw on a side saddle to the receiver and you've got another 6 or 8 rds right there.

This: Mossberg 930 12g semi-auto

+

This:

+

This:

+

This:

And you start to get the idea.

if the statistics are accurate then i think your point is valid and demonstrates that gun-control activists have poorly formulated/emotional/ignorant arguments.

let's say high capacity gets defined as 5, does that mean all empty clips that can hold more than 5 are illegal? or, that legally a responsible gun owner can only have 5 rounds in the clip? because then the law just applies to the people following the law, and any bad actors would just ignore it in their acts of violence.


it also seems that they are trying to push gun control/gun bans in relation to school shootings which is flawed reasoning.

rather than ban guns, they should create very strict laws of consequence for any parent/friend/stranger that fails to properly lock up their weapon and it ending up in the wrong hands. maybe?

i suppose more in-depth background checks can't hurt either, or can they?

 

[helltoupee]

Yea US full force military had great success vs Vietnam, Iraq , Afghan ...

Do you know what the kill ratio was in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan?

We didn't lose those wars because the US military was "unsuccessful" militarily - they were very successful. More than a million Vietnamese people were killed compared to our 50,000.

Further, the forces we fought were armed with a lot more than just assault rifles.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

have you noticed that when the shooting couple months ago happened, a lot of people went out and protested hard against AR15's and demanding making them illegal, but in the recent one at Santa Fe - where a revolver and shotgun was used - we don't see these massive protests demanding banning shotguns and revolvers....

For sure. They know prohibiting those items is a non-starter. Squawking about pump-action and revolver would reveal the truth too early. That truth being that the slippery slop is no fallacy here. Just this one more law. Common sense. Just one more.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

So banning one gun equals all guns?
So that argument is out. Then what?

1 gun? How about every single semi automatic rifle made. A design that goes back 130+ years.

Ban and confiscate all those. Then people use semi auto pistols, shotguns, revolvers. Then what?

Statistically speaking all rifles are used in a insignificant amount of crime. Knives kill about 4-6x more people in the US per year.

 

[Bargey]

I get the feeling that MS13 and other vicious gangs are perusing this judgment, and evaluating the process of surrendering their firearms in order to respect the court’s decision and uphold the law.

 

[Roaming East]

1 gun? How about every single semi automatic rifle made. A design that goes back 130+ years.

Ban and confiscate all those. Then people use semi auto pistols, shotguns, revolvers. Then what?

Statistically speaking all rifles are used in a insignificant amount of crime. Knives kill about 4-6x more people in the US per year.

The current controversy is over random mass murder. AR-15's and similar style rifles have been the weapon of choice for some random asshole with a bug up his ass to kill 50+ people in 5 minutes. knives kill plenty of people, but cowards and murders know that it aint a good choice if your options are:

Go into school with knife, kill 5 people and get shot the fuck up
v
go into school with AR-15 and 5 mags and delete the entire graduating class.

Its ALWAYS been a matter of scale and attempts to deflect or ignore that doesnt strengthen your position. Nobody gave a shit about AR-15's til some whacker killed half the preschoolers in a goddamn community with one. Followed by a large number of similar incidents featuring a particular weapon.

gangbangers wasting one another with handguns = inner city problem. 0 news coverage. 0 controversy
drunk redneck shooting his cheating wifes' lover = redneck issues. 0 news coverage. 0 controversy
pissed of asshole murders 20+ people in 5 minutes = serious fucking problem.

 

[Roaming East]

I get the feeling that MS13 and other vicious gangs are perusing this judgment, and evaluating the process of surrendering their firearms in order to respect the court’s decision and uphold the law.

because MS-13 members roaming the streets with AR-15's is what the problem has been about? see above.

 

[floivanus]

Unfortunately they made note that it's necessary to have this right in case the need arises to defend it, I.E. "militia" . Leftists are made to believe that only soldiers should have that right. Even though they think they're smart, leftists suck at reading comprehension when it comes to reading that amendment.

Somehow people want to interpret the 2nd as some way the fed government cannot disarm its own army or some crap; why would they have to enumerate their own rights?

 

[floivanus]

if the statistics are accurate then i think your point is valid and demonstrates that gun-control activists have poorly formulated/emotional/ignorant arguments.

let's say high capacity gets defined as 5, does that mean all empty clips that can hold more than 5 are illegal? or, that legally a responsible gun owner can only have 5 rounds in the clip? because then the law just applies to the people following the law, and any bad actors would just ignore it in their acts of violence.


it also seems that they are trying to push gun control/gun bans in relation to school shootings which is flawed reasoning.

rather than ban guns, they should create very strict laws of consequence for any parent/friend/stranger that fails to properly lock up their weapon and it ending up in the wrong hands. maybe?

i suppose more in-depth background checks can't hurt either, or can they?

Look At Canada's magazine laws; they are allowed five in total BUT they load them into 5 round magazines that have a sinple pop rivet in them to prevent loading of six. Even californians get to buy what we call 10/30 magazines; a bone stock 30 rounder that has a rivet in the magazine body to prevent loading more than 10.

And even if you only had 10 round magazines it isn’t like you couldn’t weld magazine bodies together, john dillinger did this in the 30s and there were companies in the 80s and 90s welding AK magazines together to make 90 and 100 round versions

 

[Deleted member 391673]

Look At Canada's magazine laws; they are allowed five in total BUT they load them into 5 round magazines that have a sinple pop rivet in them to prevent loading of six. Even californians get to buy what we call 10/30 magazines; a bone stock 30 rounder that has a rivet in the magazine body to prevent loading more than 10.

And even if you only had 10 round magazines it isn’t like you couldn’t weld magazine bodies together, john dillinger did this in the 30s and there were companies in the 80s and 90s welding AK magazines together to make 90 and 100 round versions

can't you just remove the rivet?

 

[IloveTHIS]

Fucking emotional idiots that haven't done a single bit of research on anything related to guns are never going to give up on taking them away

 

[floivanus]

can't you just remove the rivet?

Yes, drilling the rivet in either a CA or Canada compliant magazine would restore capacity ANd make you an instant criminal.

There’s a video of a canadian shooting a vz58 on youtibe where he shows the rivet

 

[RerouteToRemain]

The current controversy is over random mass murder. AR-15's and similar style rifles have been the weapon of choice for some random asshole with a bug up his ass to kill 50+ people in 5 minutes. knives kill plenty of people, but cowards and murders know that it aint a good choice if your options are:

Go into school with knife, kill 5 people and get shot the fuck up
v
go into school with AR-15 and 5 mags and delete the entire graduating class.

Its ALWAYS been a matter of scale and attempts to deflect or ignore that doesnt strengthen your position. Nobody gave a shit about AR-15's til some whacker killed half the preschoolers in a goddamn community with one. Followed by a large number of similar incidents featuring a particular weapon.

gangbangers wasting one another with handguns = inner city problem. 0 news coverage. 0 controversy
drunk redneck shooting his cheating wifes' lover = redneck issues. 0 news coverage. 0 controversy
pissed of asshole murders 20+ people in 5 minutes = serious fucking problem.

I wasn't comparing a knife's killing potential vs an AR. I was stating a fact that knives on average kill at least 4x more people per year.

Glocks can do the same thing (Vegas being the exception). VT is still the deadliest school shooting. That is exactly what people and Fudds would go after next.

 

[second sight]

Does the first amendment cover the internet and tv or just pen and paper

 

[Roaming East]

I wasn't comparing a knife's killing potential vs an AR. I was stating a fact that knives on average kill at least 4x more people per year.

Glocks can do the same thing (Vegas being the exception). VT is still the deadliest school shooting. That is exactly what people and Fudds would go after next.

i understand, and its also irrelevent mostly to public at large.

thousands of people drown every year from boating incidents. But a passenger liner goes down with thousands of people, and now all of a sudden laws are being passed about the number of lifeboats a ship should have. Its not about that people might, or can die. or how many people over x many incidents die. its about the public not tolerating 'preventable' mass casualty events. In the eyes of your average non gun owner? They dont have a problem with some schmoes who like hunting and shooting and what not. they DO have a problem with what they perceive is the vast proliferation of, and ease of access to, a firearm that apparently only good at killing large numbers of people in short periods of time by angry assholes.

The AR-15 hasnt grown up with a sporting image like dads hunting rifle, or the shotgun over the mantle. its grown up in a hyper militarized environment where the D-bags most likely to have pictures of it, or walk around with it, have it kitted out like they are about to storm Mogadishu, while wearing enough tactical gear to qualify as reserve army unit. You are NEVER going to convince non-gun owners of the 'sporting' use of a rifle, that 99% of the time is pictured as, and used by an extensively militarily offensive mindset. Hell, you and I both hang out in the Weapons and Tactics forums. How many pictures of Gucci'd out AR's with ACOGs, PEQ's, vert grips, and tactical lights are there versus a one with a hunting scope popping coyotes? We the AR-15 market are our own worse enemy in the current perception of that rifle.

I'd recommend that everyone who has one, buy a wooden furniture set for it just for social media imagery. but its too late for that. Everyone wants to have this uber tactical ass kicker rifle, and then complain that its NOT an 'assault rifle' despite the extreme cost we put in dressing it up JUST LIKE ONE.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

i understand, and its also irrelevent mostly to public at large.

thousands of people drown every year from boating incidents. But a passenger liner goes down with thousands of people, and now all of a sudden laws are being passed about the number of lifeboats a ship should have. Its not about that people might, or can die. or how many people over x many incidents die. its about the public not tolerating 'preventable' mass casualty events. In the eyes of your average non gun owner? They dont have a problem with some schmoes who like hunting and shooting and what not. they DO have a problem with what they perceive is the vast proliferation of, and ease of access to, a firearm that apparently only good at killing large numbers of people in short periods of time by angry assholes.

The AR-15 hasnt grown up with a sporting image like dads hunting rifle, or the shotgun over the mantle. its grown up in a hyper militarized environment where the D-bags most likely to have pictures of it, or walk around with it, have it kitted out like they are about to storm Mogadishu, while wearing enough tactical gear to qualify as reserve army unit. You are NEVER going to convince non-gun owners of the 'sporting' use of a rifle, that 99% of the time is pictured as, and used by an extensively militarily offensive mindset. Hell, you and I both hang out in the Weapons and Tactics forums. How many pictures of Gucci'd out AR's with ACOGs, PEQ's, vert grips, and tactical lights are there versus a one with a hunting scope popping coyotes? We the AR-15 market are our own worse enemy in the current perception of that rifle.

I'd recommend that everyone who has one, buy a wooden furniture set for it just for social media imagery. but its too late for that. Everyone wants to have this uber tactical ass kicker rifle, and then complain that its NOT an 'assault rifle' despite the extreme cost we put in dressing it up JUST LIKE ONE.

The 2nd amendment isn't for hunting. The AR's perception shouldn't need to be for solely hunting. Although they did market it that way to start.

Even for hunting, why would I want inferior non adjustable wood when you can have lighter, stronger and more ergonomic composite materials.

Wood guns even in hunting rifles/shotguns are becoming a thing of the past. AR's are also being used for all types of hunting more and more each year.

It isn't an assault rifle. Ergo features have nothing to do with select fire. As if a guy with a wood mini 14 and irons and 5 mags couldn't just as easily "delete the entire graduating class". It's not the perception that matters. If people used wood M1X platform with the same numbers killed do you think they would care that it was wood and irons?

Maybe those guys in Texas that do heavy hog and predator hunting should replace their Armasights, supressors and 20-30+ round mags for some good ole fashion sfp 3-9x with wood A2 furniture and 5 round mags. Wouldn't want to be too assaulty.

Next, "OMG people can buy a Glock 19x . That was made for military. Those aren't for protection, those are weapons of war. You don't need that, go buy a .357 with wood grips."

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Does the first amendment cover the internet and tv or just pen and paper

Pen and paper, gtfo of here. Quill and parchment, sent by horseback or carrier pigeon.