"Democrats will take away everyone's guns"

[Dash119]

That was a badly worded response on my part. First I meant that it was another good reason that hand guns shouldn't be in the hands of citizens. Second, although they may not be the first choice of mass shooters, the use by said shooters has resulted in some pretty high body counts. They work very well when used for the purpose for which they were designed. and you can't use it for any other purpose, are you really choosing an assault rifle?

Red is the false premise.

Underlined was a question.

The round from the AR-15 family as originally designed by Eugene Stoner was intended to tumble upon entering the body. This was how the weapon maintained lethality with a smaller round. The smaller round also meant that a soldier could carry more rounds, making it a force multiplier. So if your intent when hunting is to harvest food, then blowing a big chunk of meat out the other side of the animal seems somewhat counterproductive. While the round from an AK series may be on par with a .30-30, how is the accuracy when compared to a good bolt-action rifle? Since you prefer one shot, one kill I would assume you would put a premium on accuracy. If you can only have one long gun to go hunting with, and you can't use it for any other purpose, are you really choosing an assault rifle?

The above was my exact response.

Now my untrue things are false premises... Those two things are not the same. The reason for the "false premise" in my questions was to limit the question to hunting, not hunting and plinking or target shooting.

 

[Fledermaus]

We as far as I know, Eugene Stoner designed the gun and a new round. It is the rotational speed of the round, along with the bullet design that causes the tumble.
So why does any military organization use a .223, with such low penetration it seems like a poor choice for an infantry weapon?

I didn't say an AK wasn't accurate, I suggested there are other weapons that are more accurate. Maybe sufficient for most things, but since you want one shot, one kill I would suggest there are better choices. Just out of curiosity why don't snipers use the AK? I mean they could use one, I just doubt that would be their first choice.

The gun and ammo was designed over half a century ago.

Both the rifle and the ammo have changed in over half a century.

And why does any military organization use a 5.56MM, "with such low penetration it seems like a poor choice for an infantry weapon"?

Because they have weapons that do penetrate. A rifle is primarily a antipersonnel weapon. It is not an anti material weapon.

You questioned the accuracy of an AK. I gave you an answer. You keep suggesting "better choices".

Funny given your apparent ignorance in firearms in general.

Why don't snipers use AKs? Bullet capabilities. Sufficient for normal battle ranges. Not so for long range. Did you know the Dragunov sniper rifle is simply an AK action that can handle Russian rimmed rifle rounds? Bigger bang, longer range.

 

[Fledermaus]

The above was my exact response.

Now my untrue things are false premises... Those two things are not the same. The reason for the "false premise" in my questions was to limit the question to hunting, not hunting and plinking or target shooting.

Goalpost, Moving, Unit of Issue 1 each

 

[Nickyjo]

Hmmm Lower crime rates.

Since everyone illegal alien who is illegally employed is breaking the law. And every illegal alien illegally driving is breaking the law as well. And every illegal alien who uses stolen/forged/borrowed identity to be illegally employed is breaking the law.

But feel free to ignore those facts.

Of course they are. Solve the problem by national ID and punishing employers who knowingly hire them. But they still commit crimes at a lower rate.

 

[Fledermaus]

Of course they are. Solve the problem by national ID and punishing employers who knowingly hire them. But they still commit crimes at a lower rate.

Correction. Crimes other than those I noted. The average illegal alien worker has 3 crimes to his credit.

I do agree to the bolded though. We have had more than one farm and multiple restaurants/bakeries closed due to ICE raids (pre-COVID) in California.

 

[Dash119]

You don't have to accept the birdshot photo. What is the length of your longest hallway? I will bet it isn't 50 feet. Now is it? And if you go with 00 buck you once again risk hitting something other than your target because of near zero spread and far more penetration with multiple projectiles.

So, which is more likely under stress to do the job? A pistol or a rifle.

The longer rifle sight radius allows better accuracy than a handgun. A stock allows better control. Capacity is greater.

Hmmmmmm

And, have you served?

You might understand the term "suppressive fire". How about Vietnam era fire a magazine over your head without aiming? Or empty a belt in the general direction of the bad guys.

Actually the problem I have with the birdshot photo is the spread at 50 feet, it seems to great. I have seen shotgun patterning at 40 yards that showed less spread.

If you really want I can get out a tape measure and measure the longest line of sight shot I might take in my house. But I fail to see how that defeats my points. So if I go with birdshot I still get more penetration through a wall than a .223?

Under stress I don't think the choice of weapon makes a bit of difference.

A shotgun offers the longer sight radius and a stock. So it must just be a question of capacity.

No I haven't served. But does that invalidate my argument? I understand suppressive fire, and some of the other reasons why it might require 45,000 round to kill the enemy. And since you mention Vietnam, the rate was closer to 50,000 rounds. But tell me, do you think it is possible that some of those rounds were poorly aimed because the shooter was under some stress? I wonder if you could get a 4 inch group at 100 yards with an AK, if the target was firing back at you...

 

[Fledermaus]

Actually the problem I have with the birdshot photo is the spread at 50 feet, it seems to great. I have seen shotgun patterning at 40 yards that showed less spread.

Don't care.

If you really want I can get out a tape measure and measure the longest line of sight shot I might take in my house. But I fail to see how that defeats my points. So if I go with birdshot I still get more penetration through a wall than a .223?

Possibly. Rearead my last answer to the same question.

Under stress I don't think the choice of weapon makes a bit of difference.

That is ignorance speaking. Pure ignorance. Reloading a pump shotgun is clumsy and time consuming compared to dropping a magazine and inserting a new one. And with a standard "ssault rifle" magazine you reload after 20-30... Not 5 or 6.

A shotgun offers the longer sight radius and a stock. So it must just be a question of capacity.

And penetration... And recoil. (I forgot that one. An AR15 has minimal recoil. The 12 gauge or any decent pistol much more)

No I haven't served. But does that invalidate my argument? I understand suppressive fire, and some of the other reasons why it might require 45,000 round to kill the enemy. And since you mention Vietnam, the rate was closer to 50,000 rounds. But tell me, do you think it is possible that some of those rounds were poorly aimed because the shooter was under some stress? I wonder if you could get a 4 inch group at 100 yards with an AK, if the target was firing back at you...

I know the answer based on your statements.

Much of the ammo was spent shooting at the jungle because that is where the bullets were coming from. It wasn't aimed fire. Nor were tens of thousands of GAU minigun rounds fired by Puff the Magic Dragon. Nor were most artillery strikes. Or air strikes. Just lay down fire in the general direction of the enemy. That is where the lion's share of rounds went.

I wouldn't be shooting for group if someone was shooting back.

Derp.

 

[Dash119]

The gun and ammo was designed over half a century ago.

Both the rifle and the ammo have changed in over half a century.

And why does any military organization use a 5.56MM, "with such low penetration it seems like a poor choice for an infantry weapon"?

Because they have weapons that do penetrate. A rifle is primarily a antipersonnel weapon. It is not an anti material weapon.

You questioned the accuracy of an AK. I gave you an answer. You keep suggesting "better choices".

Funny given your apparent ignorance in firearms in general.

Why don't snipers use AKs? Bullet capabilities. Sufficient for normal battle ranges. Not so for long range. Did you know the Dragunov sniper rifle is simply an AK action that can handle Russian rimmed rifle rounds? Bigger bang, longer range.

The Browning M2 was designed over a century ago and not that much has changed in the design.

The rifle and the ammo may have changed, but the concept remains the same. A small bullet that tumbles upon entry to the body will do comparable damage to a larger non-tumbling round.

The ability to penetrate the human body has very little to do with the lethality of the round. My point was that you keep saying that almost every other weapon has better penetration than the .223 or the 5.56, so I was curious why the military used such weapons. Seems like they would be more effective with the old M1 Garand, it has much better penetration.

For accuracy over any distance, a quality bolt action hunting rifle would be a better choice.

Again, I was trying to make a point. A sniper wouldn't use an AK because there are better choices with which to do the work.

 

[Fledermaus]

The Browning M2 was designed over a century ago and not that much has changed in the design.

The rifle and the ammo may have changed, but the concept remains the same. A small bullet that tumbles upon entry to the body will do comparable damage to a larger non-tumbling round.

The ability to penetrate the human body has very little to do with the lethality of the round. My point was that you keep saying that almost every other weapon has better penetration than the .223 or the 5.56, so I was curious why the military used such weapons. Seems like they would be more effective with the old M1 Garand, it has much better penetration.

For accuracy over any distance, a quality bolt action hunting rifle would be a better choice.

Again, I was trying to make a point. A sniper wouldn't use an AK because there are better choices with which to do the work.

Just so much wrong with this I'll have to adress this in the morning....

Penetration has little to do with lethality...

 

[Wayne Jr]

Part of a Republican Congresswoman's argument against impeachment.

Democrats and Republicans both want to ban guns.

 

[lwf]

Yes, but your car serves other practical purposes. Other than my enjoyment, what practical purpose does my howitzer serve?

According to the CDC, in 2018 nearly 40,000 people in the U.S. died as the result of wounds inflicted by a firearm. So I guess we are going to have to disagree about significant risk.

But I don't think we do disagree about significant risk. Drinkable alcohol kills more than 95,000 people in the U.S. every year. What other practical purpose does alcohol serve other than your enjoyment? By your own argument, you should be more concerned with outlawing alcohol than you are with outlawing firearms.

 

[lwf]

You can't and should try to stop people voting for whoever they wish.

So, might makes right? If I can get enough people to agree with me, then we can and should take away your freedom? Would you assume this is a moral thing to do because it was a decision arrived at democratically? Would you shrug your shoulders and live happily in a detention center knowing that it is the will of the people?

 

[Fledermaus]

The Browning M2 was designed over a century ago and not that much has changed in the design.

The rifle and the ammo may have changed, but the concept remains the same. A small bullet that tumbles upon entry to the body will do comparable damage to a larger non-tumbling round.

The ability to penetrate the human body has very little to do with the lethality of the round. My point was that you keep saying that almost every other weapon has better penetration than the .223 or the 5.56, so I was curious why the military used such weapons. Seems like they would be more effective with the old M1 Garand, it has much better penetration.

For accuracy over any distance, a quality bolt action hunting rifle would be a better choice.

Again, I was trying to make a point. A sniper wouldn't use an AK because there are better choices with which to do the work.

Ok

Browning M2 - Heavy machine gun. An example of a weapon that does penetrate.

So?

We were speaking of Stoner and what would become the M16.

As to the fact that tumbling. Yep, the only round tumbled. Right. As designed. OK. It tumbled.

So what?

Newer service rounds and modern barrels have led to less tumbling.

Something you ignore.

Then you ask why a military would use such a weapon. Completely ignoring what I stated about the rifle and round being anti personnel.

The old M1 Garand fired a .30-06 round that could shoot though trees. It made a nice entry and exit wound. It was heavy and the ammo for it was heavy. The recoil was an issue. There was not auto or burst capability.

You remember when I asked if you served?

This entire post is why I knew you didn't.

A bolt action is fine for hunting. Yep. As to accuracy there it is dependent on the manufacturer and the condition of the rifle. Being a bolt action does not guarantee accuracy.

A sniper wouldnt use an AK specifically for the round it fired. A very real sniper rifle uses the same action with a different round and was the issued sniper rifle for anyone using former Soviet bloc weapons... It ain't the action. It was the round.

 

[Glitch]

Part of a Republican Congresswoman's argument against impeachment.

So? She isn't wrong. It has been a public part of the Democratic Party's agenda to abolish the Second Amendment and confiscate all privately owned firearms when Sen. Feinstein announced the agenda in 1993. It was secretly part of the Democratic Party's agenda prior to 1993.

 

[Glitch]

Because fear is what Republicans sell to get votes.

Republicans have good reason to fear the Democratic Party. Since it formation in 1828 the Democratic Party has killed more Americans than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined. Every atrocity in the US, from the Trail of Tears to the illegal imprisonment of Americans in concentration camps during WW II, has been at the hands of the Democratic Party. Every terrorist organization created in the US from the KKK to BLM and ANTIFA have been at the hands of the Democratic Party.

There is no greater threat to the US than the Democratic Party.

 

[weaver2]

so its the GOP peddling fear and wrote Joe Biden's campaign platform that calls for
1) bans on all semi auto rifles that can accept a magazine
2) 95% of the normal capacity magazines
3) banning on line sales of ammo and gun parts
4) requiring anyone who currently owns a semi auto rifle OR 10+ round magazine to
a) register said items
b) pay TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ITEM for the registration
c) allowing the ATF unannounced inspections of the items
d) requiring written permission from the ATF to cross state lines with those items

In the interests of fairness and truth here is the actual plank from the 2020 Democratic Party platform on guns

Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence
Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence.

Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years.

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal
background check system.

We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.

Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.

And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

 

[Antiwar]

Republicans have good reason to fear the Democratic Party. Since it formation in 1828 the Democratic Party has killed more Americans than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined. Every atrocity in the US, from the Trail of Tears to the illegal imprisonment of Americans in concentration camps during WW II, has been at the hands of the Democratic Party. Every terrorist organization created in the US from the KKK to BLM and ANTIFA have been at the hands of the Democratic Party.

There is no greater threat to the US than the Democratic Party.

^^^ Thinks the Klan were liberals.

 

[TurtleDude]

In the interests of fairness and truth here is the actual plank from the 2020 Democratic Party platform on guns

Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence
Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence.

Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years.

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal
background check system.

We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.

Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.

And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Here is Biden's platform (the one you cited admits wanting to ban normal modern sporting rifles and normal capacity magazines)

PolitiFact - Does Joe Biden’s plan tax semi-automatic firearms?

If Joe Biden is elected president, Americans who own certain kinds of guns may owe the federal government some money. On

www.politifact.com

Under Biden’s gun policy, Americans who own assault weapons or high-capacity magazines would have two options: sell them to the federal government through a voluntary buyback program or register them under the National Firearms Act.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) passed in 1934. The law imposed a tax on those who manufactured or traded firearms defined in the act, specifically short-barreled rifles and machine guns. It required owners of certain kinds of guns to register them with the Treasury secretary.

the cost currently is 200 dollars per item

 

[Glitch]

In the interests of fairness and truth here is the actual plank from the 2020 Democratic Party platform on guns

Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence
Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence.

Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years.

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal
background check system.

We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.

Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.

And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

You have to know that the Democratic Party's anti-Second Amendment agenda has already failed in the courts. This is not the first time Democrat filth have tried to impose universal background checks. In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) the Supreme Court held "[t]he federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns."

Just this past August the Ninth Circuit Court held that limiting the capacity of magazines infringes on the Second Amendment. Making all the laws limiting the magazine capacity in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Hawaii unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

 

[VySky]

Part of a Republican Congresswoman's argument against impeachment.

It's what we have seen in Minn, Portland, Seattle et al that argues firearms are needed for personal protection

 

[Glitch]

Here is Biden's platform (the one you cited admits wanting to ban normal modern sporting rifles and normal capacity magazines)

PolitiFact - Does Joe Biden’s plan tax semi-automatic firearms?

If Joe Biden is elected president, Americans who own certain kinds of guns may owe the federal government some money. On

www.politifact.com

Under Biden’s gun policy, Americans who own assault weapons or high-capacity magazines would have two options: sell them to the federal government through a voluntary buyback program or register them under the National Firearms Act.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) passed in 1934. The law imposed a tax on those who manufactured or traded firearms defined in the act, specifically short-barreled rifles and machine guns. It required owners of certain kinds of guns to register them with the Treasury secretary.

the cost currently is 200 dollars per item

The good news is that Biden's promise holds the exact same weight as Trump's promise to repeal ObamaCare. They both require an act of Congress, and even with Democrats in control of Congress that is not going to be easy. Schumer and Pelosi have their own legislative agenda, and it is not necessarily in line with Biden's agenda.

 

[Lutherf]

Part of a Republican Congresswoman's argument against impeachment.

They will.

As soon as they pass "single payer" or "universal health care" or whatever they decide to call it they will declare that firearms are a public health hazard and must be regulated in the same way that controlled drugs are.

 

[Glitch]

They will.

As soon as they pass "single payer" or "universal health care" or whatever they decide to call it they will declare that firearms are a public health hazard and must be regulated in the same way that controlled drugs are.

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already held that both single-payer and universal healthcare violated the Tenth Amendment in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

Only those States who voluntarily agree, without coercion, to the federal government's communist scam, can be included. It cannot be forced upon any State. It is why 28 States still have refused to accept ObamaCare.

 

[Rich2018]

So, might makes right? If I can get enough people to agree with me, then we can and should take away your freedom? Would you assume this is a moral thing to do because it was a decision arrived at democratically? Would you shrug your shoulders and live happily in a detention center knowing that it is the will of the people?

"Might" ?

I said you can't and shouldn't stop people voting

So you equate a mandate with "might" ?


There are many who disagree with the 1st Amendment and feel it should be repealed and re-written (and they're right)

The basic principal is that the minority get their say but the majority get their way
But majority rule doesn't trump the integrity of the minority, so a majority of the electorate can't vote, for example, to expel all Jews or exclude them from public life

But if an electorate voted to, say ban all abortions, the minority would have to accept it
Same if the majority voted for a total ban on guns
Or, to placate your bug bear, to ban all alcoholic drink.

 

[Lutherf]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already held that both single-payer and universal healthcare violated the Tenth Amendment in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

Only those States who voluntarily agree, without coercion, to the federal government's communist scam, can be included. It cannot be forced upon any State. It is why 28 States still have refused to accept ObamaCare.

So here's the way this works....

Congress passes a law without any regard to its Constitutionality.
The law gets implemented.
Someone complains and sues.
The courts refuse to hear the case or, at best, refuse to hear any appeals.
There is no injunction and the process of registration, confiscation and other regulation goes on unimpeded.
Three years later there is finally a challenge that gets through the courts.
During that three years the majority of the registration, confiscation and regulation has already thinned out the supply of privately owned firearms and the supply of ammunition.
The infrastructure for all the aforementioned has already been built and the people, having been subjected to three years of propaganda on the matter, get polled and show that 65% like the idea of a gun ban.
The Supreme Court, headed by a guy that believes popular opinion is more important than the Constitution, signs off on the original plan.