Outdoors
Sponsored by

School shooting in Florida

50,288 Views | 551 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by BenderRodriguez
BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ttha_aggie_09 said:


Yes - tons of people use an AR for home defense and it is their primary choice for many reasons (I'll let bender or eyeguy go into detail as to why)


I'm on a phone so...

Capacity, ability to mount lights/optics, ease of use, less risk of over penetration.

The AR-15 is bar none the single best choice for home defense.

If you want clarification of any of those points I've flogged that dead horse more times than i can count on this board, do a search, pick a thread, embrace enlightenment.
ttha_aggie_09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He has spoken!
BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Two observations: the "I grew up around guns" is basically the "I have a black friend" lead in on a different topic.

Secondly: people keep saying we need to ban the AR-15 because of how many casualties there were.

The VT shooter killed 33 with two handguns.

The DC Naval yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun.

The UT tower shooter killed 14, primarily with a bolt action hunting rifle.

There are plenty more examples.


Duckhook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BenderRodriguez said:

Duckhook said:

The Second Amendment only became a big deal when the NRA decided to make it a big deal.


Wow. That's...a lot of incorrect assumptions packed into one sentence. (Most of the rest of your comments have them too but this one hurt my history loving heart).

I'm on a phone away from a keyboard until Wednesday so I can't even begin to spend the time required to help you out here.

But a few suggestions: look up what folks all the way from the Greek stoics and Cicero, to the more modern thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, Thomas Aquinas, Jefferson, etc thought about a concept known as natural rights.

The federalist papers (Hamilton in #29, Madison in #46, Hamilton again in #28 aludes back to natural rights) are also good reading on why the 2nd amendment exists and provides a background for the politics of the 2A almost a century before the NRA was founded.

Speaking of the NRA, look up the origin of the NRA, the early national anti gun laws like the National Firearms Act of 1934, and when the NRA started actually getting political.

That should give you a good base to start discussing the 2nd amendment, politics around it, and the NRA.

I have read about some of those things. Some make sense and some seem like a big overreach when it comes to guns. Thanks for your thoughtful response and suggestions though. And, again, my original question was just asking about AR type weapons in particular. It wasn't a sweeping condemnation of guns.
mpl35
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duckhook said:

mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15? I don't have an issue with pistols/shotguns/deer rifles, but why is there a need in society for a gun like an AR? Do that many people really hunt with them?
Did you read this thread or any gun control thread. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It isn't even about home defense.

Yeah, I read plenty. I read where Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller case, said "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." He goes on to list circumstances in which firearm ownership should be prohibited, as well as not prohibiting laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The Second Amendment only became a big deal when the NRA decided to make it a big deal.
If you read plenty, then you would have realized it isn't about hunting or self defense. Yet when you "waded in" you showed your ignorance by asking if there was a need for them. Don't google and read a few liberal talking points and pretend you actually "read" up on the subject....

I do read a lot, on a wide variety of subjects and usually from both sides. I knew about Heller and did Google the language to be sure that what I thought I remembered was actually what was written. I was interested in some reasonable responses on this thread, which a number of guys have provided. Yours, not so much.
Sure you did. Yet you asked about hunting and home defense when that was never the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

It is ok to admit you had no clue.

You know nothing about me except that we have a different viewpoint on one issue. Feel free to extrapolate though. And my original question never said anything about the Second Amendment. You're the one who brought that up. I wanted to hear some responses about the practical use of a semi auto, and why the concern over some type of control. Again, I did get some reasonable responses. Not from you though.
keep digging. You asked why anybody needed an AR. Then talked about hunting and Home defense.

The "reason" is the reason we have the 2A. They are inseparable. But keep on posting. You aren't fooling anybody.
BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duckhook said:

And, again, my original question was just asking about AR type weapons in particular. It wasn't a sweeping condemnation of guns.


Which is why I suggested some of the reading I did, since you're operating under the mistaken assumption that you can separate the two.

I could fill two more pages of this thread without trying with quotes from politicians and anti gunners about how ARs are far from the only gun on their radar.

We could also talk about exactly how things are going to go even if you could magically make all ARs disappear because "they make it easy to rack up a high body count" and then damaged people managed to continue to kill large numbers of innocent people in soft targets areas with pistols, pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles like they've already done in the examples I provided...and what the precedent you've then set by banning a gun used by a damaged loser to kill too many people will do to the very limited remainder of everyones gun owning rights.

Speaking of history, folks okay with eliminating one of the most common rifles in American possession today should read up on a guy named Chamberlain and how appeasement worked out for him. Or for something more topical, how continued compromise has worked out for gun owners of any stripe in almost every European country, or how many times we've ever managed to roll back anti gun laws once they've been enacted at a federal level in this country.
Duckhook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

mpl35 said:

Duckhook said:

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15? I don't have an issue with pistols/shotguns/deer rifles, but why is there a need in society for a gun like an AR? Do that many people really hunt with them?
Did you read this thread or any gun control thread. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It isn't even about home defense.

Yeah, I read plenty. I read where Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller case, said "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." He goes on to list circumstances in which firearm ownership should be prohibited, as well as not prohibiting laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The Second Amendment only became a big deal when the NRA decided to make it a big deal.
If you read plenty, then you would have realized it isn't about hunting or self defense. Yet when you "waded in" you showed your ignorance by asking if there was a need for them. Don't google and read a few liberal talking points and pretend you actually "read" up on the subject....

I do read a lot, on a wide variety of subjects and usually from both sides. I knew about Heller and did Google the language to be sure that what I thought I remembered was actually what was written. I was interested in some reasonable responses on this thread, which a number of guys have provided. Yours, not so much.
Sure you did. Yet you asked about hunting and home defense when that was never the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

It is ok to admit you had no clue.

You know nothing about me except that we have a different viewpoint on one issue. Feel free to extrapolate though. And my original question never said anything about the Second Amendment. You're the one who brought that up. I wanted to hear some responses about the practical use of a semi auto, and why the concern over some type of control. Again, I did get some reasonable responses. Not from you though.
keep digging. You asked why anybody needed an AR. Then talked about hunting and Home defense.

The "reason" is the reason we have the 2A. They are inseparable. But keep on posting. You aren't fooling anybody.

What exactly am I trying to fool anybody about?
mpl35
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't deflect. You acted like you had a clue. All you had was the typical liberal talking points.
Duckhook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mpl35 said:

Don't deflect. You acted like you had a clue. All you had was the typical liberal talking points.


Hahahaha. You're funny.

I waded in, now I'm wading out. I learned something from a lot of you. Even you mpl.
bam02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bam02 said:

One-Eyed Fat Man... please answer this: what will banning assault weapons do?

Like I said earlier, in a gun free zone (especially one full of mostly kids) anyone with a demented will to kill lots of people can do so with a .22 pistol and a few 10 round magazines.

Please convince me that giving up my right to own an A0R will prevent mass school shootings.


I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
'03ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good luck. No one can answer that because it won't prevent these shooting or make them less deadly. That's how you know the goal is just to make some adults feel better by taking away the scary looking guns.
BCStalk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A crazy person with a bolt gun scares me more than a crazy person with an AR. I crazy person with a box cutter scares me more than any firearm.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BenderRodriguez said:

Two observations: the "I grew up around guns" is basically the "I have a black friend" lead in on a different topic.

Secondly: people keep saying we need to ban the AR-15 because of how many casualties there were.

The VT shooter killed 33 with two handguns.

The DC Naval yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun.

The UT tower shooter killed 14, primarily with a bolt action hunting rifle.

There are plenty more examples.



So what you're saying is the AR15 is actually NOT the best tool for killing lots of people and the left wingers can stop scrutinizing it now. I mean..that's what I'm seeing from the stats. And we all know how the left loves a cherry picked stat.

Quote:

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15?

Genuinely interested in reasonable responses.

Since we are going to go down the 'legitimate use' avenue, I'm going to need to know what kind of car you drive, the house you own, how much insurance you carry on various items, and how much money you make. Never mind the fact that none of these are protected rights, but let's talk about over consumption and legitimate need a bit.
Todd 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here's the Wikipedia list of the 20 deadliest shootings in America since ~1950 (actually 23 total shootings). From the data, it looks like these are all shootings since ~1950 where ten or more people, including the perpetrator, were killed.



Of those listed above, the AR-15 rifle was only used in nine of them. Handguns were used in 14 of the shootings. Semi-auto rifles other than the AR-15 were used in five of them. Bolt action rifles were used in two. Shotguns were used in seven.

The deadliest school shooting in the US featured a Glock 19 and a Walther P22.

Of the 23, seven occurred at schools - two at a university, one at a community college, one at an elementary school, and three at a high school.

Of the 23, 14 occurred this century and 16 in the last 27 years (since the Luby's massacre in 1991). Of those 16, only 3 5 were committed by perpetrators born before 1980. In other words, if you take 1980 as the starting birth year for the Millennial generation, 13 11 of the deadliest shootings in America were committed by "Millennials".

Looks like the perpetrators mostly suffer from mental health issues or were terrorists, or both.

Edit: I miscounted. 11 of the shootings were committed by "Millennials". However, of those 11 shootings, there were 13 perpetrators.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not familiar with the details of all of those shootings, but I count at minimum 16 of them also have another item in common: They were in either gun free zones or areas that were highly restricted to firearms.
Todd 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Those 23 shootings account for the loss of 433 innocent lives (not including the perpetrator(s)).

Those that occurred since, but not including Luby's, make up 75% of the fatalities (323).

Additionally, 218 of the fatalities were at the hands of "Millennials". That's just over 50%.

We have a modern culture problem. Not a gun problem.
Duckhook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BrazosDog02 said:



Quote:

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15?

Genuinely interested in reasonable responses.

Since we are going to go down the 'legitimate use' avenue, I'm going to need to know what kind of car you drive, the house you own, how much insurance you carry on various items, and how much money you make. Never mind the fact that none of these are protected rights, but let's talk about over consumption and legitimate need a bit.

You conveniently left out the 3 questions I asked, to which I have already received intelligent responses. Thanks anyway.

But, I have a lot of stuff, that I can all afford. A lot of it is recreational. If you were to tell me that you own an AR for recreational purposes, then that's as legitimate to me as anything I own. Hell, if you told me that you own one just so you can prop it up in the corner and whack off to it, that's legitimate enough for me too. No need to be defensive about it like you seem to be.
Aggietaco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just to be clear, we're looking at a list with 23 shootings, not 20.
Todd 02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggietaco said:

Just to be clear, we're looking at a list with 23 shootings, not 20.
Fixed that in my posts.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Todd 02 said:

Those 20 shootings account for the loss of 433 innocent lives (not including the perpetrator(s)).

Those that occurred since, but not including Luby's, make up 75% of the fatalities (323).

Additionally, 218 of the fatalities were at the hands of "Millennials". That's just over 50%.

We have a modern culture problem. Not a gun problem.
While this is certainly a bigger number than we had hoped, let's put it in perspective when it comes to things that actually take children's lives:

On average between 2005 and 2014, 3,536 children lost their lives to accidental drownings (exclusive of boating accidents) every year. 20% of those were age 14 or younger. 5x that number are injured in water related activities every year, many of them to the point where they are no longer functioning kids and live a life far less than we all hope our kids to live.

In that same time frame, an average of 322 kids per year died in boating accidents.

About 800,000 kids are taken to the hospital every single year due to poisoning of one form or another. About 30 per year die from poisoning, many others are permanently injured. About 100,000 of these cases are a result of kids getting a hole of medication at home and overdosing. 90% of all poisoning cases are a result of something happening at home. Poisoning death is the #2 leading cause of death among children.

Roughly 2000 children die every year from vehicle accidents, many of them are simply because parents either don't buckle them up or buckle them up improperly. About 250,000 kids are injured every single year in vehicle or automobile accidents.

About the same number of kids 0-14 years old commit suicide every year as have lost their lives in school shootings over the last 60 some odd years.

I know this is a hot button topic at the moment, but like most other things - the effort is not spent in the right areas.

BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duckhook said:

BrazosDog02 said:



Quote:

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15?

Genuinely interested in reasonable responses.

Since we are going to go down the 'legitimate use' avenue, I'm going to need to know what kind of car you drive, the house you own, how much insurance you carry on various items, and how much money you make. Never mind the fact that none of these are protected rights, but let's talk about over consumption and legitimate need a bit.

You conveniently left out the 3 questions I asked, to which I have already received intelligent responses. Thanks anyway.

But, I have a lot of stuff, that I can all afford. A lot of it is recreational. If you were to tell me that you own an AR for recreational purposes, then that's as legitimate to me as anything I own. Hell, if you told me that you own one just so you can prop it up in the corner and whack off to it, that's legitimate enough for me too. No need to be defensive about it like you seem to be.
Easy now....

Ok...everyone that owns an AR15 is for recreational purposes. Now we can move on.

And yes, I'm quite defensive...crazy defensive. That's not your fault, its that I've had to wade through a week of uninformed bull **** on facebook and it just eats at a person like me until it strips away my desire to pad or make my comments palatable to the general public. I'm pretty much at a point now where I just tell people I am donating to the NRA on their behalf every time I read a stupid post about anything remotely related to additional gun control measures. Not one single ****ing inch will be given on my end. I'm dug in completely and will budge no more.

So..yes..you are right..I'm defensive as all f-ing get out.

And I meant to actually note on my post, even though I quoted you, that argument is very common and wasn't meant to call you out. I know I pretty much did, and I apologize for that. I read your first post and I have seen a few even on facebook that actually seem to seek understanding from the other side's perspective and I appreciate that.
ttha_aggie_09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Excellent breakdown!

You're 100% correct. If this was really about the children, effort would be allocated to several other areas first.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm now seeing an influx of GVRO talk. A 'good' gun control measure called Gun Violence Restraining Order....

Can anyone tell me about this? My initial reaction is "**** you"...not OK. I don't like the idea of someone determining another persons capability and then deferring to a legal authority on validation, which if approved, requires a person to surrender weapons or have them confiscated. Plus, they do it in California, and the only damn things that come from there that's good are avocados and tits. I also don't see how in the hell we expect any more responsibility, like required for GVRO, will be afforded for that considering not single one of those people put this ******* in the nut house...because...if they had...you know...he wouldnt have been able to buy a damn weapon to begin with.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duckhook said:

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

(1) What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15? I don't have an issue with pistols/shotguns/deer rifles, but why is there a need in society for a gun like an AR?

(2) Do that many people really hunt with them?

(3) Do that many people really reach for them as a first choice in home defense or other self defense situations?

(4) Or is the argument that prohibiting AR's is just the first step in more restrictive gun control?

Genuinely interested in reasonable responses.
1. The 2nd Amendment, along with the entire history of this country from the time settlers first landed on the eastern shores and New York was named New Amsterdam, pretty much covers the legitimate reason. Asking why somebody "legitimately" needs X or Y is a really good way to essentially find a reason why we simply don't need freedom and could end up like some ****hole named North Korea.

2. Yes. They are a great platform that is easily customized from caliber to personal preference on how it is set up and from ranges in CQB distances to 1000 yard ranges.

3. Yes. Take me for example - I live far enough out of town to be considered "country". Unless I get really, really, really lucky and a local sheriff or state trooper happens to be getting gas or coffee at the corner store a few miles away, it is well over a 20 minute response time to my house. Depending on what is going on, could be closer to 30 minutes. I want something that puts as much advantage in my favor as humanly possible, because it's me, myself and I against who knows what. Not to mention that I have a wife and kids I'm going to be worried about.

Now, call me crazy - but the idea of a muzzle loader or a single shot rifle or a double barreled or pump action shotgun or even a pistol that holds 10 or so rounds, while better than nothing, isn't my preference. I want something that I can use easily, effectively, has good accuracy, low recoil and a bright ass flashlight on it and comes with 30 rounds that I can also reload fast. Because, and again I'm just spitballing here - the idea of waiting 20+ minutes for a police officer to arrive is not exactly something that gives me the warm and fuzzies. I want something that puts as much unfairness on my side of things as possible. I make no bones about that, i make no apologies for that. An AR is one tool that fits the bill for me on that front.

4. Yes, that is also part of the argument. The second we start deciding that you don't need this or that or I don't need this or that, we all collectively lose. Because pretty soon the question won't be why you need an AR, it will be why you need a semi-automatic shotgun that holds 5 rounds or why you need a Sig or Glock that holds some made up number of rounds or hell...why do you need that .30-06 bolt action rifle when a much less powerful round will do the same thing? That is not a road we want to go down, for any reason.
mpl35
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmellba99 said:

Todd 02 said:

Those 20 shootings account for the loss of 433 innocent lives (not including the perpetrator(s)).

Those that occurred since, but not including Luby's, make up 75% of the fatalities (323).

Additionally, 218 of the fatalities were at the hands of "Millennials". That's just over 50%.

We have a modern culture problem. Not a gun problem.
While this is certainly a bigger number than we had hoped, let's put it in perspective when it comes to things that actually take children's lives:

On average between 2005 and 2014, 3,536 children lost their lives to accidental drownings (exclusive of boating accidents) every year. 20% of those were age 14 or younger. 5x that number are injured in water related activities every year, many of them to the point where they are no longer functioning kids and live a life far less than we all hope our kids to live.

In that same time frame, an average of 322 kids per year died in boating accidents.

About 800,000 kids are taken to the hospital every single year due to poisoning of one form or another. About 30 per year die from poisoning, many others are permanently injured. About 100,000 of these cases are a result of kids getting a hole of medication at home and overdosing. 90% of all poisoning cases are a result of something happening at home. Poisoning death is the #2 leading cause of death among children.

Roughly 2000 children die every year from vehicle accidents, many of them are simply because parents either don't buckle them up or buckle them up improperly. About 250,000 kids are injured every single year in vehicle or automobile accidents.

About the same number of kids 0-14 years old commit suicide every year as have lost their lives in school shootings over the last 60 some odd years.

I know this is a hot button topic at the moment, but like most other things - the effort is not spent in the right areas.


And let's not forget that even without guns, we had truck bomb in OKC, 9/11, truck bomb at WT, bomb at La Guardia, etc....
AgEng08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What are your thoughts on this?
Gun-violence restraining order

From the article:
Quote:

A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements ("petitioners" are those who seek the order, "the respondent" is its subject):
[ol]
  • It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
  • It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
  • It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
  • In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly preferably within 72 hours; and
  • The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
  • [/ol]
    Quote:

    Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them. For those keeping score, that's four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives.

    In other words, proper application of existing policies and procedures could have saved lives, but the people in the federal government failed. And they keep failing. So let's empower different people. Let's empower the people who have the most to lose, and let's place accountability on the lowest possible level of government: the local judges who consistently and regularly adjudicate similar claims in the context of family and criminal law.
    Quote:

    Advocates for GVROs have been mostly clustered on the left, but there is nothing inherently leftist about the concept. After all, the GVRO is consistent with and recognizes both the inherent right of self-defense and the inherent right of due process. It is not collective punishment. It is precisely targeted.
    Quote:

    a vigilant citizenry is a far better defense against a mass shooting than the sweeping, allegedly "common sense" gun-control measures debated after every massacre. But when individual citizens are vigilant and individual government officials are not, then it's time to consider different measures. It's time to consider rearranging the balance of power.
    Obviously, it would need to be extremely carefully crafted. I'm not trying to advocate for it... just wanted to hear your thoughts on it (for/against).

    ETA: Maybe I was reading the same things as BrazosDog,haha
    AgEng08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    from that article linked above:
    Quote:

    According the FBI, that person provided "information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."

    In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.
    BrazosDog02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    schmellba99 said:

    Duckhook said:

    I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but I am.

    (1) What is a legitimate reason for selling/owning a semi-auto like an AR-15? I don't have an issue with pistols/shotguns/deer rifles, but why is there a need in society for a gun like an AR?

    (2) Do that many people really hunt with them?

    (3) Do that many people really reach for them as a first choice in home defense or other self defense situations?

    (4) Or is the argument that prohibiting AR's is just the first step in more restrictive gun control?

    Genuinely interested in reasonable responses.
    1. The 2nd Amendment, along with the entire history of this country from the time settlers first landed on the eastern shores and New York was named New Amsterdam, pretty much covers the legitimate reason. Asking why somebody "legitimately" needs X or Y is a really good way to essentially find a reason why we simply don't need freedom and could end up like some ****hole named North Korea.

    2. Yes. They are a great platform that is easily customized from caliber to personal preference on how it is set up and from ranges in CQB distances to 1000 yard ranges.

    3. Yes. Take me for example - I live far enough out of town to be considered "country". Unless I get really, really, really lucky and a local sheriff or state trooper happens to be getting gas or coffee at the corner store a few miles away, it is well over a 20 minute response time to my house. Depending on what is going on, could be closer to 30 minutes. I want something that puts as much advantage in my favor as humanly possible, because it's me, myself and I against who knows what. Not to mention that I have a wife and kids I'm going to be worried about.

    Now, call me crazy - but the idea of a muzzle loader or a single shot rifle or a double barreled or pump action shotgun or even a pistol that holds 10 or so rounds, while better than nothing, isn't my preference. I want something that I can use easily, effectively, has good accuracy, low recoil and a bright ass flashlight on it and comes with 30 rounds that I can also reload fast. Because, and again I'm just spitballing here - the idea of waiting 20+ minutes for a police officer to arrive is not exactly something that gives me the warm and fuzzies. I want something that puts as much unfairness on my side of things as possible. I make no bones about that, i make no apologies for that. An AR is one tool that fits the bill for me on that front.

    4. Yes, that is also part of the argument. The second we start deciding that you don't need this or that or I don't need this or that, we all collectively lose. Because pretty soon the question won't be why you need an AR, it will be why you need a semi-automatic shotgun that holds 5 rounds or why you need a Sig or Glock that holds some made up number of rounds or hell...why do you need that .30-06 bolt action rifle when a much less powerful round will do the same thing? That is not a road we want to go down, for any reason.
    Ill go ahead and say that my belief is that every weapon on this planet is a 'military grade weapon'...or at least was at some time. And like everything else, I want the most up to date technologically advanced systems I can afford at my disposal. I do not want ANYONE, especially my government and military, to be able to possess BETTER weapons than I can possess. (I know, there are some assumptions and limitations here, but you get my point I think).

    You want to ban AR15....fine....but they better disappear from the rest of the earth too.
    AggieGunslinger
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    GRVOs seem to be a good idea but then you realize that they would be still require some form of govt to operate correctly and efficiently, which seems to be impossible.
    California Ag 90
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Quote:

    Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them. For those keeping score, that's four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives.

    In other words, proper application of existing policies and procedures could have saved lives, but the people in the federal government failed. And they keep failing. So let's empower different people. Let's empower the people who have the most to lose, and let's place accountability on the lowest possible level of government: the local judges who consistently and regularly adjudicate similar claims in the context of family and criminal law.
    not ready to opine on the overall idea of GVRO, but i agree 100% with this paragraph. devolving enforcement from feds to local level would be a step in the right direction.

    edit: to add that it would enable urban GVRO standards by local judges to vary from rural areas, remote areas - enabling federated structure to how it is enforced based on local judges who are accountable to local political systems where local values are reflected, instead of national level anti 2A campaigns seeking to issue blanket bans that won't work. not sure i like this idea but am warming to it as a possible solution given federal government ineptitude.

    We're from North California, and South Alabam
    and little towns all around this land...
    BrazosDog02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    AggieGunslinger said:

    GRVOs seem to be a good idea but then you realize that they would be still require some form of govt to operate correctly and efficiently, which seems to be impossible.
    I dunno...and it seems like a really easy avenue to abuse and overstep. Plus, if we are being purists here...the 2nd ammendment has no clause for *******s, trolls, or mentally deficient....so we are essentially allowing someone else to violate a third party's rights....arent we?
    jabberwalkie09
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    BrazosDog02 said:

    AggieGunslinger said:

    GRVOs seem to be a good idea but then you realize that they would be still require some form of govt to operate correctly and efficiently, which seems to be impossible.
    I dunno...and it seems like a really easy avenue to abuse and overstep. Plus, if we are being purists here...the 2nd ammendment has no clause for *******s, trolls, or mentally deficient....so we are essentially allowing someone else to violate a third party's rights....arent we?

    This is my exact problem. It seems like this would be pretty easily abused by family members of different political persuasions.
    redass1876
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    BrazosDog02 said:

    AggieGunslinger said:

    GRVOs seem to be a good idea but then you realize that they would be still require some form of govt to operate correctly and efficiently, which seems to be impossible.
    I dunno...and it seems like a really easy avenue to abuse and overstep. Plus, if we are being purists here...the 2nd ammendment has no clause for *******s, trolls, or mentally deficient....so we are essentially allowing someone else to violate a third party's rights....arent we?
    Until they at least convince the Failure Bureau of Incompetency to followup on leads that come out 5 weeks before the school shooting occurs, why do we even discuss gun control?
    AgEng08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I don't think so...

    Quote:

    the GVRO is consistent with and recognizes both the inherent right of self-defense and the inherent right of due process.
    California Ag 90
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    BrazosDog02 said:

    AggieGunslinger said:

    GRVOs seem to be a good idea but then you realize that they would be still require some form of govt to operate correctly and efficiently, which seems to be impossible.
    I dunno...and it seems like a really easy avenue to abuse and overstep. Plus, if we are being purists here...the 2nd ammendment has no clause for *******s, trolls, or mentally deficient....so we are essentially allowing someone else to violate a third party's rights....arent we?
    well, we used to institutionalize people who were mentally ill, sometimes for life. that would violate many clauses of the constitution.

    at some point we have to acknowledge that our institutions are failing and that without some ability to keep bat**** crazy people from shooting up buildings, the public outcry over 2A will eventually hit critical mass and this fundamental right will be at risk.

    plus, in general, i don't give a **** if somebody who is clearly mentally or emotionally unhinged is denied a right to a deadly weapon. if its enforced locally then yes, it can be abused, but that subjects the abusing authority to local reaction politically instead of this being a federal issue.

    eventually the 'knee jerk' reaction crowd will carry the day. I'm still not sure GVRO is a good idea but it has merits that are worth debating, IMO.
    We're from North California, and South Alabam
    and little towns all around this land...
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.