Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

There is no compromise with the left.

Just curious, have you ever had to deal with nuisance animals, such as wild hogs? My guess is probably not, or you would see the necessity to have a 30 round clip option.

Also, by caliber, there are much much more powerful weapons available. Have you ever heard of an AR10? Probably not.

---

What if ARs were subject to licensing? So a farmer who needs an AR for pest control could apply for an AR license and get one (similar to Australian laws).

---

Set you up a state where that's acceptable and move there.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

SupermachJM said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

---

You lost me at the first line, because your subsequent comments make it seem like you don't even know what AR stands for - do you?

Hint: It's not "Assault Rifle"

---

Ding, ding, ding! There's no such think as an "assault" rifle. It's a made up name to scare sheep. Do I hear a baahh?

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

There is no compromise with the left.

Just curious, have you ever had to deal with nuisance animals, such as wild hogs? My guess is probably not, or you would see the necessity to have a 30 round clip option.

Also, by caliber, there are much much more powerful weapons available. Have you ever heard of an AR10? Probably not.

---

What if ARs were subject to licensing? So a farmer who needs an AR for pest control could apply for an AR license and get one (similar to Australian laws).

---

No.

RGLAG85 said:

---

SupermachJM said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

---

You lost me at the first line, because your subsequent comments make it seem like you don't even know what AR stands for - do you?

Hint: It's not "Assault Rifle"

---

Ding, ding, ding! There's no such think as an "assault" rifle. It's a made up name to scare sheep. Do I hear a baahh?

---

Assault weapon is a made up term.
Assault rifle is a real term, and includes (among other things) the ability to switch your rifle from single round, to automatic.

It's extremely hard to buy an assault rifle in the US, though you are grandfathered in if you already have one. They are almost never ever used in any crimes or mass shootings.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

There is no compromise with the left.

Just curious, have you ever had to deal with nuisance animals, such as wild hogs? My guess is probably not, or you would see the necessity to have a 30 round clip option.

Also, by caliber, there are much much more powerful weapons available. Have you ever heard of an AR10? Probably not.

---

What if ARs were subject to licensing? So a farmer who needs an AR for pest control could apply for an AR license and get one (similar to Australian laws).

---

Shall not be infringed

RGLAG85 said:

---

SupermachJM said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

---

You lost me at the first line, because your subsequent comments make it seem like you don't even know what AR stands for - do you?

Hint: It's not "Assault Rifle"

---

Ding, ding, ding! There's no such think as an "assault" rifle. It's a made up name to scare sheep. Do I hear a baahh?

---

Incorrect. There's no such thing as an "assault weapon". An assault rifle is a medium power, select fire rifle or carbine (think M16/M4 or AK-47) as opposed to a battle rifle which is a full power (ie, ,30-06 or .308Win/7.62 NATO) (think M1 Garand or M14).

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

I have to state this, incredibly, >>> I know what AR stands for. Have for decades. I began using firearms since 1968. Father was a cop.

The 2nd amendment is partly there to ensure citizens have the ability to defend themselves against people like the mass shooter **** bags. It's really tragic that so few people exercise that right and do not have the means to fight back when it is necessary.


It's also tragic that so many foolish and ignorant people wish to extinguish that right and leave innocent civilians vulnerable to the predations of criminals that do not care about gun laws.

The business owners and insurers that are responsible for the "gun free zones" like the mall where this shooting happened are complicit in the deaths of these innocents and should rot in prison for the rest of their lives while their families and companies are financially destroyed in civil court. Pure evil!

Also, the AR-15 was not designed with the intention of military use. Eugene Stoner designed it as a sporting rifle for civilians.

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

I have to state this, incredibly, >>> I know what AR stands for. Have for decades. I began using firearms since 1968. Father was a cop.

---

Because your thread title, paired with the content of your first post, gave the impression that you are like the other 98% of buffoons out there who think that AR = Assault Rifle = Scary Black Gun

I wish everyone understood what AR stands for but unfortunately it is the minority

The problem is that mass shootings are the de facto tool of choice for the anti-society lunatic currently. You take away that, they just move on to another method. Darrell Brooks already did that and killed 6 on a whim. Nice, France truck tragedy killed 87.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

Is there a compromise that could be CONSIDERED?

These look scary, but in reality they are powerful rifles due to the ammunition and 20 to 30 count ammo magazines - let's not duck this truth. Whether they are or are not weapons of war is ridiculous because a dude with a 30 ammo magazine and two more on his vest or belt is a menacing functional fact even while not fully automatic. Sure, other setups can be deadly but this is at another level if we are being honest.

Obviously the law can be skirted and bad guys will forever break the law; that is why I dislike gun-free zones.

Should magazine size be limited to 5? You could legislate that only one more 5 count magazine could be on your person. L e g i s l a t e. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Some say heck no because it will be the beginning of more restrictions on the second amendment.

"IF" (and you can't) you could guarantee that this was the last compromise would pro-2nd people agree to it?

Should background checks be done even for those who inherit firearms or are loaned firearms?

Are red flag laws really that troublesome? If there was a mechanism to get your rights back would they be okay?

It seems people are locked into one side or the other but there are people in the middle. It seems to me the problem is with the extremes. Some would ban all guns and others are okay with an alcoholic person with schizophrenia inheriting guns from his pappy because Merica.

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

F no on mag limits. What the pea brained liberals fail to understand is how hard it is to hit moving targets in a chaotic dynamic adrenaline filled environment. If you had a home invasion…let's say POS George Floyd and his 2-3 buddies rush into your house with guns…you are going to want a 30rd mag over 10 or 12 every fuggin time. If not, you're a complete idiot. If several men are moving, good luck neutralizing both with just a standard 10 rd mag.

---

And for zombies.

For real though, half of gun ownership for me is if/when SHTF and having the ability to protect my family and myself.

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

The problem is that mass shootings are the de facto tool of choice for the anti-society lunatic currently. You take away that, they just move on to another method. Darrell Brooks already did that and killed 6 on a whim. Nice, France truck tragedy killed 87.

---

Don't forget the Bath Township School Massacre!

There has appeared to be some bipartisan support before on at least budgeting more to add resources to enforce the laws already on the books. And then perhaps 'red flag' laws to allow law enforcement to confiscate if they have deemed someone an 'immense threat'.

If the number of these incidents continues to grow then eventually you might see some sort of real legislative action. But it is such a politically charged topic, even then who knows.

All of you are wrong! Assault Rifle is not a made up term.

The German MP 44, also known as the StG 44, was called the Sturmgewehr by the German military, which translates to "Assault Rifle". Allegedly, Adolf Hitler himself coined the term (not a lot to back that up).

Assault rifles are real. They are military grade small arms that combine the roles of carbine, submachine gun, and automatic rifles. The key part of the definition is that it is a select fire weapon, capable of both full auto and semi automatic fire. An M16/M4 is an assault rifle. An AR15 is not.

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

I have to state this, incredibly, >>> I know what AR stands for. Have for decades. I began using firearms since 1968. Father was a cop.

---

You're trying too hard

Urban Ag said:

---

All of you are wrong! Assault Rifle is not a made up term.

The German MP 44, also known as the StG 44, was called the Sturmgewehr by the German military, which translates to "Assault Rifle". Allegedly, Adolf Hitler himself coined the term (not a lot to back that up).

Assault rifles are real. They are military grade small arms that combine the roles of carbine, submachine gun, and automatic rifles. The key part of the definition is that it is a select fire weapon, capable of both full auto and semi automatic fire. An M16/M4 is an assault rifle. An AR15 is not.

---

Beat you to it.
Even if you are more eloquent.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Why does no one seem to remember that weapons platforms like the AR-15 were previously banned under federal law in the 90s...and it really didn't matter?

You caught me

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

Or maybe I have good critical thinking skills and am not a sheep. Maybe I'm very pro second amendment and want to unite law abiding citizens; or a troll if I don't 100% agree with you. For the record, I'm considered too pro-gun by 90% of my colleagues and don't fit your box so don't assume.

---

Probably for the same reason most people don't remember that the federal government's "solutions" to any problem either don't work or have unforeseen negative consequences.

Trust the gubmint at your own risk.

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

You caught me

---

You clearly didn't know what AR stood for. Then once you were schooled, you pretended like you did. Then you've been insulting pretty much the whole thread.

Seriously, you aren't fooling anyone. We've had plenty of trolls here.

C minus.
At best

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

That's my compromise offer. In return, I'd like the rights back that liberals have already taken. Clearly taking the rights that they already have, has done jack and **** to stop mass shootings.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

You want a negotiation?

I'll open the talks on my side with the following offer
A full and unconditional repeal of the NFA of 1934 including all subsequent legislation.

---

I would trade this for universal background checks if all records were destroyed after 2 years.

Red flag laws might be acceptable if confiscation only occurred after being convicted in a civil court (no arrests or warrants served - only subpoena power) by a jury made up exclusively of proficient gun owners. Defense could require jurors to prove ownership and proficiency at a range, and where the state picks up all legal fees and perjury against the accused is a felony punishable by no less than 5 years. ETA: And it expires after 5 years. To renew it would require a new trial and all evidence presented must be since the previous conviction.

But in return for my version of red flag laws, I would want national reciprocity.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

Is there a compromise that could be CONSIDERED?

These look scary, but in reality they are powerful rifles due to the ammunition and 20 to 30 count ammo magazines - let's not duck this truth. Whether they are or are not weapons of war is ridiculous because a dude with a 30 ammo magazine and two more on his vest or belt is a menacing functional fact even while not fully automatic. Sure, other setups can be deadly but this is at another level if we are being honest.

Obviously the law can be skirted and bad guys will forever break the law; that is why I dislike gun-free zones.

Should magazine size be limited to 5? You could legislate that only one more 5 count magazine could be on your person. L e g i s l a t e. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Some say heck no because it will be the beginning of more restrictions on the second amendment.

"IF" (and you can't) you could guarantee that this was the last compromise would pro-2nd people agree to it?

Should background checks be done even for those who inherit firearms or are loaned firearms?

Are red flag laws really that troublesome? If there was a mechanism to get your rights back would they be okay?

It seems people are locked into one side or the other but there are people in the middle. It seems to me the problem is with the extremes. Some would ban all guns and others are okay with an alcoholic person with schizophrenia inheriting guns from his pappy because Merica.

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

F no on mag limits. What the pea brained liberals fail to understand is how hard it is to hit moving targets in a chaotic dynamic adrenaline filled environment. If you had a home invasion…let's say POS George Floyd and his 2-3 buddies rush into your house with guns…you are going to want a 30rd mag over 10 or 12 every fuggin time. If not, you're a complete idiot. If several men are moving, good luck neutralizing both with just a standard 10 rd mag.

---

When I grew up in West Texas ranch, we had a pump shotgun and that was deemed sufficient to feel secure about handling an intruder. easy to get a hit and nice and noisy too.

Some of ya'll make it sound like you need to be worried about defending your home against a cartel raid like Tony Montana in Scarface.

I've raised the stupid proposal before. We'll trade AR-15s (sacred cow of the Right) for abortion (sacred cow of the Left). No more AR-15s, no more abortions.

Would the Left accept our terms? There's no way in Hell that they would.

My 1911 is more than sufficient for an intruder (or at least it was before it ended up at the bottom of the lake in a horrific boating accident).

Multiple intruders call for more than a 7 round mag. That's why I had an AR15 that's currently lying next to the 1911.

That's why I propose we outlaw abortion and keep our ARs. Screw compromise.

I'll keep my freedom to defend myself how I see fit

Thanks and Gig'em