A question for those who support the outlawing of tactical rifles, such as the AR-15

[jet57]

An "assault weapon" is a rifle. Why are you arguing this?

But not all rifles are assault weapons; that's the point.

 

[jet57]

tell us what offensive firearms use is vs defensive.
that should be obvious

by definition-lawful gun owners are almost only going to be using firearms defensively.
Well I guess that means gun advocates whole militia argument is out the window. If a militia is only going to respond to threats defensively, that is a pretty lame militia.

pure offensive firearms use-snipers targeting unsuspecting victims-military or civilian
Criminals using firearms to threaten or assault victims.
WRONG

Just a note: if you click "reply with quote" the person's post that you are replying to will show and that person will be notified of your reply.

Good posts so far.

 

[Tennyson]

Read Scalia's oratory before he died. The entire reason the gun community wants to call the AR-15 and its cousins "sporting guns" is to shoehorn them in under Heller. So I guess the gun community itself considers Heller a threat to the assault rifle and so did Scalia.

We can simply decide to ban the assault rifle from purchase from citizens. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent it.

In fact, we better do it before 2020-2022 because the military is abandoning the platform that spawned this series for an even more lethal "assault" rifle. While I am at it, do I have to explain the meaning of the word assault to some of you?

That was actually not what Scalia stated in the Heller opinion. Guns were broken down by "in common use by law-abiding citizens," and "not in common use by law-abiding citizens." Assault weapons are select fire weapons. Cosmetically looking semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons or select fire weapons.

 

[TurtleDude]

IOW, it was not a national ban

not relevant

 

[TurtleDude]

But not all rifles are assault weapons; that's the point.

since assault weapon is a fluid term used by dishonest gun banners to demonize commonly owned sporting firearms, who knows? the term assault when applied by military experts to certain rifles is based on a tactic of assaulting a fixed position. Bannerhoid politicians use "assault" in order to convince the low wattage sheeple that these sporting firearms are used to commit criminal assault

 

[TurtleDude]

Even the original .223 is categorized as a varmint round...my rear end it is.

Also no less a gun advocate than Scalia did not consider the AR-15 and its assault rifle cousins "safe" from gun control legislation. Heller DOES not protect every gun in existence and does not even imply that every gun should be available for purchase by the citizenry. More NRA BS.

you are lying. The AR 15 is the most popular centerfire rifle in the USA. hard to claim its not in COMMON USE.

 

[TurtleDude]

Read Scalia's oratory before he died. The entire reason the gun community wants to call the AR-15 and its cousins "sporting guns" is to shoehorn them in under Heller. So I guess the gun community itself considers Heller a threat to the assault rifle and so did Scalia.

We can simply decide to ban the assault rifle from purchase from citizens. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent it.

In fact, we better do it before 2020-2022 because the military is abandoning the platform that spawned this series for an even more lethal "assault" rifle. While I am at it, do I have to explain the meaning of the word assault to some of you?

what type of weapons were supposed to be covered by the second amendment and what does Miller say

and tell me why the commerce clause is appropriate to ban say citizens of Ohio from making AR 15s or use within that state? Any FIREARM CIVILIAN POLICE USE are firearms other civilians should be able to own and said government entities should be estopped from claiming firearms they issue to civilian employees are UNSUITABLE FOR members of the supreme sovereign to merely own

If we cannot own a type of firearm, police have no business carrying them in our neighborhoods or protecting the POS politicians who claim honest Americans cannot be trusted to own such firearms

 

[Tennyson]

since assault weapon is a fluid term used by dishonest gun banners to demonize commonly owned sporting firearms, who knows? the term assault when applied by military experts to certain rifles is based on a tactic of assaulting a fixed position. Bannerhoid politicians use "assault" in order to convince the low wattage sheeple that these sporting firearms are used to commit criminal assault

There is only one official definition of an assualt rifle and it is in the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide, which is issued by the Department of Defense:

…short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.​

 

[TurtleDude]

There is only one official definition of an assualt rifle and it is in the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide, which is issued by the Department of Defense:

…short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.​

yeah the term assault WEAPON is so confusing the Bannerrhoids in California deemed the Walther 22 S rapid fire pistol was an assault WEAPON because

1) its semi auto

2) it uses a detachable magazine AND

3) the magazine is fitted forward of the pistol grip

so this 3000 dollar olympic pistol was BANNED in California which is one of the main reasons USA shooting moved the olympic trials from the 84 Olympic venue in LA/Ontario California to Atlanta

 

[Manc Skipper]

So where does the "tactical" rifle fit? It sounds very military. Who hunts "tactically"?

 

[jnug]

That was actually not what Scalia stated in the Heller opinion. Guns were broken down by "in common use by law-abiding citizens," and "not in common use by law-abiding citizens." Assault weapons are select fire weapons. Cosmetically looking semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons or select fire weapons.

Scalia avoids all of that garbledegook and simply points to a decision based on the danger embodied in the weapon. We can decide as a community of citizens to ban any weapon we want to ban as that ruling would trump any common use language, any technical language you would want to throw at it like select fire....any of it. You can toss arguments like "why let police carry them around" at us till you are blue in the face, the community can decide which weapons represent a threat that supersedes considerations like 2nd amendment rights. You guys keep tossing up all these BS arguments up to our communities because you want people to believe that we must accept these weapons in our communities. But we do not have to accept them. The sense of the community reflected in our vote rules. Its not more complicated than that.

The two sides to that coin are fairly simple to understand. The sense of the community at large will never decide that the danger embodied in a pistol represents an unwarranted threat to the community because it is inherently a defensive weapon. As such pistols will never be banned. A 30-06 with an internal magazine will never be banned because the community at large will never decide that the danger embodied in that weapon represents an unwarranted threat to the community at large. A shotgun will never be banned because the community at large will never decide that the danger embodied in that weapon represents an unwarranted threat to the community at large.

However, you better be prepared to abandon all of these garbledegook arguments about the technical merits of an AR-15 and its cousins because all it takes is the sense of the community at large represented in its votes to toss all that BS on its ear. I strongly suspect that the tide is turning in that regard. The NRA has done a marvelous job of screaming 2nd amendment till its blue in the face. But that argument and all of its little children have been BS arguments simply shouted through a megaphone from the start. Nice job NRA. But just as evangelists can lose track of their moral compass when it comes to serial molesters if they happen to support things that evangelists want, the citizenry can find its moral compass over the AR-15 and its cousins and when it does, proponents of that weapon are done.

And:

If you wanted to keep throwing up the "why should police carry them in our communities" argument up there, keep it up. I would not push that argument too hard if I were you because if push came to shove (and I doubt it would because this is another BS argument) people would just take them out of the hands of law enforcement as well.

 

[Tennyson]

Scalia avoids all of that garbledegook and simply points to a decision based on the danger embodied in the weapon. We can decide as a community of citizens to ban any weapon we want to ban as that ruling would trump any common use language, any technical language you would want to throw at it like select fire....any of it. You can toss arguments like "why let police carry them around" at us till you are blue in the face, the community can decide which weapons represent a threat that supersedes considerations like 2nd amendment rights. You guys keep tossing up all these BS arguments up to our communities because you want people to believe that we must accept these weapons in our communities. But we do not have to accept them. The sense of the community reflected in our vote rules. Its not more complicated than that.

The two sides to that coin are fairly simple to understand. The sense of the community at large will never decide that the danger embodied in a pistol represents an unwarranted threat to the community because it is inherently a defensive weapon. As such pistols will never be banned. A 30-06 with an internal magazine will never be banned because the community at large will never decide that the danger embodied in that weapon represents an unwarranted threat to the community at large. A shotgun will never be banned because the community at large will never decide that the danger embodied in that weapon represents an unwarranted threat to the community at large.

However, you better be prepared to abandon all of these garbledegook arguments about the technical merits of an AR-15 and its cousins because all it takes is the sense of the community at large represented in its votes to toss all that BS on its ear. I strongly suspect that the tide is turning in that regard. The NRA has done a marvelous job of screaming 2nd amendment till its blue in the face. But that argument and all of its little children have been BS arguments simply shouted through a megaphone from the start. Nice job NRA. But just as evangelists can lose track of their moral compass when it comes to serial molesters if they happen to support things that evangelists want, the citizenry can find its moral compass over the AR-15 and its cousins and when it does, proponents of that weapon are done.

And:

If you wanted to keep throwing up the "why should police carry them in our communities" argument up there, keep it up. I would not push that argument too hard if I were you because if push came to shove (and I doubt it would because this is another BS argument) people would just take them out of the hands of law enforcement as well.

You have avoided using Scalia's opinion in Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."​

 

[Rucker61]

We can decide as a community of citizens to ban any weapon we want to ban as that ruling would trump any common use language, any technical language you would want to throw at it like select fire....any of it.

No, you can't. And you certainly couldn't collect them all.

 

[jnug]

No, you can't. And you certainly couldn't collect them all.

I guess you did not read Tennyson's post above so I will include it here below these lines. I paraphrased in my post because it is likely not obvious who decides what constitutes "dangerous and unusual weapons". We decide...not the NRA, not Thomas Jefferson. We decide. As for collecting those that are already out in the community, that is another specious argument designed to make the task seem simply impossible. The number out in our communities already will not stop the sense of the community represented in our votes if the momentum moves us that way. Besides, we can engage in buy back programs if we want to do so,,,very successful in Australia. I do not believe we would engage in confiscation of assault rifles though I do not think arguing that "we would have to confiscate" will get the gun lobby anywhere. Without question, if we voted to ban the sale of them, we would attempt buy back as there is ample evidence that buy back works.

The rest of this post is what Tennyson posted in #62. I am new to this forum and am still working my way around. But I believe it is #62 in the thread.

You have avoided using Scalia's opinion in Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

[Rucker61]

I guess you did not read Tennyson's post above so I will include it here below these lines. I paraphrased in my post because it is likely not obvious who decides what constitutes "dangerous and unusual weapons". We decide...not the NRA, not Thomas Jefferson. We decide. As for collecting those that are already out in the community, that is another specious argument designed to make the task seem simply impossible. The number out in our communities already will not stop the sense of the community represented in our votes if the momentum moves us that way. Besides, we can engage in buy back programs if we want to do so,,,very successful in Australia. I do not believe we would engage in confiscation of assault rifles though I do not think arguing that "we would have to confiscate" will get the gun lobby anywhere. Without question, if we voted to ban the sale of them, we would attempt buy back as there is ample evidence that buy back works.

The rest of this post is what Tennyson posted in #62. I am new to this forum and am still working my way around. But I believe it is #62 in the thread.

You have avoided using Scalia's opinion in Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes" Caetano v Massachusetts.

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess you did not read Tennyson's post above so I will include it here below these lines. I paraphrased in my post because it is likely not obvious who decides what constitutes "dangerous and unusual weapons". We decide...not the NRA, not Thomas Jefferson. We decide. As for collecting those that are already out in the community, that is another specious argument designed to make the task seem simply impossible. The number out in our communities already will not stop the sense of the community represented in our votes if the momentum moves us that way. Besides, we can engage in buy back programs if we want to do so,,,very successful in Australia. I do not believe we would engage in confiscation of assault rifles though I do not think arguing that "we would have to confiscate" will get the gun lobby anywhere. Without question, if we voted to ban the sale of them, we would attempt buy back as there is ample evidence that buy back works.

The rest of this post is what Tennyson posted in #62. I am new to this forum and am still working my way around. But I believe it is #62 in the thread.

You have avoided using Scalia's opinion in Heller:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

should civilian police carry dangerous and Unusual weapons in our civilian society?

 

[Tennyson]

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes" Caetano v Massachusetts.

Statistically, a hammer is more dangerous of a weapon than a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[jnug]

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes" Caetano v Massachusetts.

Which is why the gun lobby tries to push these BS arguments about the "common usages" of an AR-15. Its an effort to shoehorn the thing under Heller. The NRA has not succeeded so fabulously because they don't know PR. But its a specious argument. It takes little effort to prove that there are other arms that are quite able to perform the "common usages" of the AR-15 and its Assault Rifle cousins. But there are not other arms that combine up to the lethality of the AR-15 and its cousins that are available for purchase by the citizenry. Again, you can talk around this issue all you want. When the sense of the community speaks through its vote regarding the issue of "dangerous and unusual weapons", when that day comes, all those arguments will melt away. The community will weigh your common use arguments against the other arms that can perform those common usages quite adequately, will weigh them against the threat to the community at large represented by the AR-15 and cousins and that will be that. It will boil down to a vote.

 

[Rucker61]

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes" Caetano v Massachusetts.

Which is why the gun lobby tries to push these BS arguments about the "common usages" of an AR-15. Its an effort to shoehorn the thing under Heller. The NRA has not succeeded so fabulously because they don't know PR. But its a specious argument. It takes little effort to prove that there are other arms that are quite able to perform the "common usages" of the AR-15 and its Assault Rifle cousins. But there are not other arms that combine up to the lethality of the AR-15 and its cousins that are available for purchase by the citizenry. Again, you can talk around this issue all you want. When the sense of the community speaks through its vote regarding the issue of "dangerous and unusual weapons", when that day comes, all those arguments will melt away. The community will weigh your common use arguments against the other arms that can perform those common usages quite adequately, will weigh them against the threat to the community at large represented by the AR-15 and cousins and that will be that. It will boil down to a vote.

How is an AR-15 not in common use for lawful purposes, or having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia?

 

[jnug]

"should civilian police carry dangerous and Unusual weapons in our civilian society?"

Carry or have available for use?

Carry in the patrol car.....not sure that one makes much sense.

Available for specific teams like SWAT? I would say that a decision can be made to retain "some" arms that have been classified as "dangerous and unusual". Law enforcement services have jurisdictions. Which arms from that category should be used by specialized teams are decisions that should be made by jurisdiction.

That is a quick and dirty answer that should suffice for now.

 

[Rucker61]

"should civilian police carry dangerous and Unusual weapons in our civilian society?"

Carry or have available for use?

Carry in the patrol car.....not sure that one makes much sense.

Available for specific teams like SWAT? I would say that a decision can be made to retain "some" arms that have been classified as "dangerous and unusual". Law enforcement services have jurisdictions. Which arms from that category should be used by specialized teams are decisions that should be made by jurisdiction.

That is a quick and dirty answer that should suffice for now.

How many lives would be saved if all AR-15s disappeared by magic overnight?

 

[Tennyson]

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes" Caetano v Massachusetts.

Which is why the gun lobby tries to push these BS arguments about the "common usages" of an AR-15. Its an effort to shoehorn the thing under Heller. The NRA has not succeeded so fabulously because they don't know PR. But its a specious argument. It takes little effort to prove that there are other arms that are quite able to perform the "common usages" of the AR-15 and its Assault Rifle cousins. But there are not other arms that combine up to the lethality of the AR-15 and its cousins that are available for purchase by the citizenry. Again, you can talk around this issue all you want. When the sense of the community speaks through its vote regarding the issue of "dangerous and unusual weapons", when that day comes, all those arguments will melt away. The community will weigh your common use arguments against the other arms that can perform those common usages quite adequately, will weigh them against the threat to the community at large represented by the AR-15 and cousins and that will be that. It will boil down to a vote.

There are approximately ten million assault-style rifles in circulation and rifle homicides, which include all assault-style rifles, is less than 400 per year. Statistics are not a friend of the anti-gun cabal.

 

[Rucker61]

There are approximately ten million assault-style rifles in circulation and rifle homicides, which include all assault-style rifles, is less than 400 per year. Statistics are not a friend of the anti-gun cabal.

It's a freaking epidemic!

 

[jnug]

"How many lives would be saved if all AR-15s disappeared by magic overnight?"

I don't know. This phenomenon of Americans that feel disenfranchised and angry and scared and otherwise put upon, taking it to the streets and to open air concert venues and the schools and when the schools are more secure, likely the malls is a fairly new phenomenon. I don't think its going away anytime soon since we have politicians and other entities that appear to have a vested interest in growing this sense of disenfranchisement and anger and fear that are doing it quite successfully. I don't know what that number would be today. But at this rate, it will be higher next year than it was this year and higher the year after and the year after that.

I saw a laughable video on Fox News the other day of the Vegas shooter checking in, escorting his luggage up to his room with a bellboy, stuff like that. Interestingly, the only guest in each of these videos was the shooter, probably because of some issues of privacy and legality but still, no other guest in those videos but the shooter. There was audio from some nitwit security "expert" commenting that "he is red flagging all over the place.....look at him fidgeting" I have no idea if this so called expert has ever been in a Vegas hotel/casino full of gamblers...but they are drunk, drugged, they are excited, depressed, anxious, nervous, hungry for the buffet, stuffed from the buffet......it is not exactly the Sunday brunch crowd even given the "taming" of Vegas over time. What would his advise be because based on what he called red flagging, you would be strip searching the entire guest list every day!

 

[Rucker61]

"How many lives would be saved if all AR-15s disappeared by magic overnight?"

I don't know. This phenomenon of Americans that feel disenfranchised and angry and scared and otherwise put upon, taking it to the streets and to open air concert venues and the schools and when the schools are more secure, likely the malls is a fairly new phenomenon. I don't think its going away anytime soon since we have politicians and other entities that appear to have a vested interest in growing this sense of disenfranchisement and anger and fear that are doing it quite successfully. I don't know what that number would be today. But at this rate, it will be higher next year than it was this year and higher the year after and the year after that.

I saw a laughable video on Fox News the other day of the Vegas shooter checking in, escorting his luggage up to his room with a bellboy, stuff like that. Interestingly, the only guest in each of these videos was the shooter, probably because of some issues of privacy and legality but still, no other guest in those videos but the shooter. There was audio from some nitwit security "expert" commenting that "he is red flagging all over the place.....look at him fidgeting" I have no idea if this so called expert has ever been in a Vegas hotel/casino full of gamblers...but they are drunk, drugged, they are excited, depressed, anxious, nervous, hungry for the buffet, stuffed from the buffet......it is not exactly the Sunday brunch crowd even given the "taming" of Vegas over time. What would his advise be because based on what he called red flagging, you would be strip searching the entire guest list every day!

What could the Vegas shooter have done with a couple of Mini-14s, which have never been on the ban list, or some SMLEs with some mad minute practice, or flying one of his light planes into the crowd?