What is the end game for the Democrats who want to ban some firearms?

[Manc Skipper]

Maybe the "end game" is to make the world a little safer by banning some firearms. You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.

 

[Rucker61]

They really are not designed for any lawful use. That is the problem.

I'll repeat myself:


The Gun Control Act of 1968 found that legitimate uses of firearms included “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”.

Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:
1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/
2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news
3. Practice – for long distance or competition
4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame.
5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting
7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/

The fact that we owned them for 48 years before the first civilian used one in a mass shooting should tell you that they have lawful uses.
The fact that we own over 20 million AR-15s and they've been used in about 20 mass shootings according to Mother Jones in 57 years. What are the owners doing with those 20 million rifles that don't involve mass shootings.

They also seem to inspire the crazies in a way that no other weapon can.

That's not inherent to the rifle - that's the fault of the media.

Since 1985 there has been a known total 49 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

In 2008 the two worst mass shootings in the US had been committed with handguns, yet SCOTUS affirmed in 2008 and again in 2010 that handguns were protected. If handguns were protected when they were used in the worst two massacres, why do you think there's any Constitutional support to ban rifles in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[CLAX1911]

So we need a police State to protect ourselves from nut cases that want to take as many people with them as possible before they kill themselves?

no you want a police state. Just because that's what you want doesn't mean that's what we need.

If people are armed it's not so much that they can shoot back it's that they're not a soft target anymore. Mass shooting is a phenomenon created by your police state where nobody's allowed to defend themselves.

Wouldn't be easier to get rid of the weapons that are designed for that purpose?

that would require a police state.

They have no use in self defense or hunting.

Gun ownership isn't about hunting or self-defense.

I will not take your bait try something else.

 

[Rucker61]

Maybe the "end game" is to make the world a little safer by banning some firearms. You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.

If all AR-15s and the like magically disappeared overnight, there'd be no measurable impact to the homicide rate or mass shootings.

What would they want to ban then?

 

[CLAX1911]

Maybe the "end game" is to make the world a little safer by banning some firearms.

that doesn't work. Places where the band such as movie theaters and schools become targets.

If banning them made anything safer we wouldn't be talking about mass shootings in these places Banning them creates a problem that doesn't exist where they're not banned.

You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.

I'm sure that means something to communists. In a free country you don't have to justify something you want with need. Just wanting it it's justification enough to go buy it.

 

[Hafnium1979]

no you are.

Do you want to unfairly discipline children that don't need it so that it's the same. That just breeds apathy.

SIMILARLY SITUATED. That's the key. Justice ONLY has value if meted out FAIRLY.

I didn't argue with the statistics nothing I said was to reject anything in the statistics you presented I'm sorry you wasted your time finding superfluous information

"superfluous information"...I sense you decree anything you can't understand or can't read to be "superfluous information"

By what you mean indoctrination that doesn't work on me I have the capacity to think for myself.

Yes, I am sure you can think for yourself. Just not particularly organized or using actual information.

 

[Manc Skipper]

that doesn't work. Places where the band such as movie theaters and schools become targets.

If banning them made anything safer we wouldn't be talking about mass shootings in these places Banning them creates a problem that doesn't exist where they're not banned.

I'm sure that means something to communists. In a free country you don't have to justify something you want with need. Just wanting it it's justification enough to go buy it.

Banning them reduces deaths from them.

 

[Manc Skipper]

that doesn't work. Places where the band such as movie theaters and schools become targets.

If banning them made anything safer we wouldn't be talking about mass shootings in these places Banning them creates a problem that doesn't exist where they're not banned.

I'm sure that means something to communists. In a free country you don't have to justify something you want with need. Just wanting it it's justification enough to go buy it.

Why can't you buy a nuke in your free country, or buy liquor on a Sunday in your free country/

 

[calamity]

Are you telling women that they shouldn't worry about rape?

Statistically, they should worry about an acquaintance, spouse or old boyfriend, especially one who owns a gun.

 

[CLAX1911]

SIMILARLY SITUATED. That's the key. Justice ONLY has value if meted out FAIRLY.

situation doesn't matter. Behavior deserves discipline. Not situation not race not anything other than Behavior.

"superfluous information"...I sense you decree anything you can't understand or can't read to be "superfluous information"

abandoning the point to talk about me means you have no point.

You should think before you post.

Yes, I am sure you can think for yourself. Just not particularly organized or using actual information.

By actual information you mean indoctrination. You can drink the Kool-Aid to your heart's delight I simply know better. No amount to fit throwing will ever get me to drink the Kool-Aid if anything it's more convincing not to.

 

[CLAX1911]

Banning them reduces deaths from them.

They are banned on school campus and in theaters.

Those seem to be the major places mass shootings occur so the opposite is true Banning them increases deaths from them.

When someone who doesn't respect the law can outgun you then you are just a victim.

 

[calamity]

... You can drink the Kool-Aid to your heart's delight I simply know better. ...

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Hafnium1979]

abandoning the point to talk about me means you have no point.

And you weren't insulting me gratuitously calling the information "superfluous"?

You should think before you post.

I do.

By actual information you mean indoctrination. You can drink the Kool-Aid to your heart's delight I simply know better. No amount to fit throwing will ever get me to drink the Kool-Aid if anything it's more convincing not to.

OOooh! Kool-aid! Very witty of you! Did you think that up YOURSELF?

Wow! You really are a lot sharper than I originally thought! "Kool aid". "Indoctrination". So much....UNIQUE AND CLEVER PHRASEOLOGY!

 

[CLAX1911]

Why can't you buy a nuke in your free country, or buy liquor on a Sunday in your free country/

You can't own a nuke because it would interfere with other people's freedoms.

If you were capable of thinking you would understand this.

You can buy liquor on Sunday in this country.

 

[Hafnium1979]

You can't own a nuke because it would interfere with other people's freedoms.

How is it different from a gun?


You will note the second amendment refers to ARMS. A nuke is an arm.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[CLAX1911]

And you weren't insulting me gratuitously calling the information "superfluous"?

if I have the power to insult you by pointing out things that you say and they're bearing on the discussion then I'm sorry you're so insulted by reality. That isn't me doing anything that's you.

I do.

that's sad.

OOooh! Kool-aid! Very witty of you! Did you think that up YOURSELF?

Wow! You really are a lot sharper than I originally thought! "Kool aid". "Indoctrination". So much....UNIQUE AND CLEVER PHRASEOLOGY!

the types of things that impress you indicate your intellectual level.

This was merely a dismissal of your appeal to purity.

 

[CLAX1911]

How is it different from a gun?

it's radioactive.

You will note the second amendment refers to ARMS. A nuke is an arm.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

So do you think an AR-15 is equally destructive as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima?

If so you better tell the military you would save them a lot of money.

 

[Manc Skipper]

They are banned on school campus and in theaters.

Those seem to be the major places mass shootings occur so the opposite is true Banning them increases deaths from them.

When someone who doesn't respect the law can outgun you then you are just a victim.

You are fixated on mass shootings. Most people are shot in ones or twos. Your response regarding nukes indicates that you agree with your free country having restrictions on what you can buy to "defend" yourself, the question now becomes where the line is. Tanks, Fighter jets? DU rounds for sporting use?

 

[CLAX1911]

You are fixated on mass shootings.

they seem often to occur in places where guns are banned. You're avoiding the point I'm making so I'm going to drive at it, and the more you cry the harder I'm going to hit.

Most people are shot in ones or twos.

most people killed with guns are suicides. Taking away one means doesn't reduce suicide.

Your response regarding nukes indicates that you agree with your free country having restrictions on what you can buy to "defend" yourself, the question now becomes where the line is.

right it's a reasonable restriction.

If you're making the argument that restricting ownership of a rifle because it's a black and scary to ignoramuses is the same thing as Banning a nuclear weapon then your position is the most absurd position a person can possibly hold.

Tanks, Fighter jets? DU rounds for sporting use?

you can own tanks and fighter jets.

 

[Rucker61]

You are fixated on mass shootings. Most people are shot in ones or twos. Your response regarding nukes indicates that you agree with your free country having restrictions on what you can buy to "defend" yourself, the question now becomes where the line is. Tanks, Fighter jets? DU rounds for sporting use?

In the US, it's here:


“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).

 

[Rucker61]

How is it different from a gun?


You will note the second amendment refers to ARMS. A nuke is an arm.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

In Madison v Marbury, SCOTUS assumed powers to interpret the Constitution. Currently, with regards to the Second Amendment, we're here;


“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).


Are nukes in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[Hafnium1979]

if I have the power to insult you by pointing out things that you say and they're bearing on the discussion then I'm sorry you're so insulted by reality. That isn't me doing anything that's you.

When someone goes to the effort to find citations to support their position it is generally considered rude to dismiss them out of hand. Especially since you clearly didn't even bother to read them.

 

[CLAX1911]

In Madison v Marbury, SCOTUS assumed powers to interpret the Constitution. Currently, with regards to the Second Amendment, we're here;


“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).


Are nukes in common use for lawful purposes?

He asked how an atom bomb is different from a rifle. There is no rationale there at all.

 

[CLAX1911]

When someone goes to the effort to find citations

They should be citations that help your point not mine. But thanks.

 

[Hafnium1979]

it's radioactive.

And that makes a difference exactly how?

So do you think an AR-15 is equally destructive as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima?

They are both examples of arms. The Second Amendment is quite clear on this.

If so you better tell the military you would save them a lot of money.

You DO realize that there are GUNS you are not legally allowed to own, right? You DO realize that, right?


The reason I bring up atomic bombs is to show that your adherence to the rightness of the Second Amendment is flawed. The second amendment already has EXTENSIVE limitations placed on it.