#BoycottNRA

#3,501
#3,501
So that paragraph singling out Tennessee. That reads like the majority of the states in the nation? Everything in that paragraph applies to Texas also.
 
#3,507
#3,507
OuterBanksVol said:
You have no "rights" to an assault weapon. Not sure why you don't understand this. This very issue has already been decided upon by the Supreme Court. Please educate yourself on the subject.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So why are you attacking AR15s? Perfectly legal for me to own and operate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,509
#3,509
Grand Vol said:
Now, the Heller decision was a landmark decision because it solidified the individual right to bear arms. Not connected with militia duty or anything else, but the right of the people as a whole. Additionally, it stated individual classes of arms could not be banned, namely pistols as that's the central topic to the case. Basically, Scalia wrote that pistols were "in common usage" and government could not ban them outright as D.C. tried to do. Well, heavily regulate them as they tried to do.

The biggest takeaway from the case was the "common usage" language. He didn't specifically mention AR15s and the like, but did say "reasonable restrictions" could be placed and that the Second Amendment wasn't an "anything goes" Amendment. Hence why States like NY and CT can restrict ownership to a limited extent with their laws. However, they cannot outright ban the items.

Here's the problem though...at current, AR15s, AKs, M1As, etc are listed as "rifles" when purchased at a gun store on the 4473. Some are pistols, obviously, but the majority are sold as "rifles" due to the simple fact there is no federal definition of an "assault weapon."

And never will be because it's a made up term as it is.

Now, here comes the tricky part you won't be able to wrap your brain around. Scalia said "common usage" in his opinion on the matter. It's extremely hard to argue that the AR15 isn't in common usage right now and the vast majority are being used for lawful purposes. Which are the two key elements identified by Scalia in the decision. And what kills your argument about "assault weapons" definition is the fact that the identifying features used in the 1994 AWB were mainly aesthetic in nature rather than affecting the weapon's operating actions. They were ignorant, still are ignorant and even the ATF said it did nothing to curb gun crime in the 10 years it was implemented.

So, you can stand on that "individual restriction" all day long, but the simple facts remain that AR15s, the majority of at least, are considered rifles by the ATF, the vast majority are used for lawful purposes and they are in common use by citizens exercising their Constitutionally outlined rights. And if the NY SAFE Act ever went to court, Heller kicks in. Same with the CT registration and restriction. The precedent has been set for that in McDonald vs Chicago (yet another case you know **** all about). The Second Amendment can be reasonably restricted, but you cannot ban an entire class of weapons, notably rifles as that's what AR15s are, with Heller being the settled case on the matter.

Feel free to ignore this post like you do everything else that pokes holes in your arguments.
Click to expand...
Out.freaking.standing post.
 
#3,511
#3,511
The reason that gun rights people are so skeptical of the motives of gun control people boils down to the gun control people's fixation with the AR-15. Yes, the AR-15 and its variants are used in a lot of these mass shootings. That has everything to do with the fact that it simply is a very popular rifle. It looks like something the military uses, but is military-like only in appearance. It's customizable in various ways.

It is no functionally different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Gun people know this, which is why many of them think that, eventually, they want to come after all rifles, and then after that, handguns. After all, the majority of murders are committed with handguns, and on top of that handguns much more easily concealed than rifles. If you want more gun control, and you start with AR-15-style rifles, doesn't it make sense that you'll probably end up advocating for a handgun ban too? You start with the low-hanging fruit and go from there. When you combine that with other disingenuous arguments, like the "gun show loophole," that is what this boils down to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,512
#3,512
05_never_again said:
The reason that gun rights people are so skeptical of the motives of gun control people boils down to the gun control people's fixation with the AR-15. Yes, the AR-15 and its variants are used in a lot of these mass shootings. That has everything to do with the fact that it simply is a very popular rifle. It looks like something the military uses, but is military-like only in appearance. It's customizable in various ways.
Click to expand...

It is one of the anti's most disingenuous arguments to present the AR platform as some almost alien device with no possible usage outside military style mass mayhem. As you point out they are (and have been for some time now) wildly popular and used for pretty much every purpose a rifle could be used. In fact I would argue if you only had one rifle to best cover all possible uses you'd be hard pressed to do better than the AR platform. (I'm specifically including it's modularity in making this observation)
 
#3,513
#3,513
05_never_again said:
The reason that gun rights people are so skeptical of the motives of gun control people boils down to the gun control people's fixation with the AR-15. Yes, the AR-15 and its variants are used in a lot of these mass shootings. That has everything to do with the fact that it simply is a very popular rifle. It looks like something the military uses, but is military-like only in appearance. It's customizable in various ways.

It is no functionally different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Gun people know this, which is why many of them think that, eventually, they want to come after all rifles, and then after that, handguns. After all, the majority of murders are committed with handguns, and on top of that handguns much more easily concealed than rifles. If you want more gun control, and you start with AR-15-style rifles, doesn't it make sense that you'll probably end up advocating for a handgun ban too? You start with the low-hanging fruit and go from there. When you combine that with other disingenuous arguments, like the "gun show loophole," that is what this boils down to.
Click to expand...

Actually this isn’t totally correct. ARs are in the minority for weapon of choice in mass shootings. And the worst occurrence to date was by two handguns.
 
#3,514
#3,514
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually this isn’t totally correct. ARs are in the minority for weapon of choice in mass shootings. And the worst occurrence to date was by two handguns.
Click to expand...

I think the nightclub shooting and certainly the Vegas shooting top the list. (I'm assuming you were thinking of the VT shooting)
 
#3,515
#3,515
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually this isn’t totally correct. ARs are in the minority for weapon of choice in mass shootings. And the worst occurrence to date was by two handguns.
Click to expand...

Define "mass shooting." In these high profile, all-out media blitz mass shootings, by far the most common weapon(s) used are the AR-15, their variants, or some other rifle that looks like military. Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernadino, Sutherland Springs, Vegas, Orlando, Stoneman Douglas.

It's why they are the low hanging fruit. It is relatively much easier to gin up public support for a ban of military-looking rifle used in the latest mass shooting than it is a stereotypical-looking hunting rifle or handgun.
 
Last edited:
#3,516
#3,516
05_never_again said:
Define "mass shooting." In these high profile, all-out media blitz mass shootings, by far the most common weapon(s) used are the AR-15, their variants, or some other rifle that looks like military. Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernadino, Sutherland Springs, Vegas, Orlando, Stoneman Douglas.

It's why they are the low hanging fruit. It is relatively much easier to gin up public support for a ban of military-looking rifle used in the latest mass shooting than it is a stereotypical-looking hunting rifle or handgun.
Click to expand...

Mass shootings are defined by 4+ victims.
 
#3,517
#3,517
hndog609 said:
I think the nightclub shooting and certainly the Vegas shooting top the list. (I'm assuming you were thinking of the VT shooting)
Click to expand...

I am and I thought that was highest on fatalities. And yeah while it was the biggest when it occurred yeah you have to be right I agree.
 
#3,518
#3,518
05_never_again said:
Define "mass shooting." In these high profile, all-out media blitz mass shootings, by far the most common weapon(s) used are the AR-15, their variants, or some other rifle that looks like military. Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernadino, Sutherland Springs, Vegas, Orlando, Stoneman Douglas.

It's why they are the low hanging fruit. It is relatively much easier to gin up public support for a ban of military-looking rifle used in the latest mass shooting than it is a stereotypical-looking hunting rifle or handgun.
Click to expand...

Don’t take my word for it go do some research. They are not used the majority of the time.
 
#3,523
#3,523
SLICKYINC said:
Mass shootings are defined by 4+ victims.
Click to expand...

Then this is a mass killing by SUV. Or is it a pickup truck? Law Enforcement is being very slow to call this what it obviously is. It wasn't an accident.

Hart family crash: Police say SUV may have been intentionally driven off cliff - The Washington Post

Lesbian mothers found at bottom of cliff with children starved kids | Daily Mail Online

But no one will touch it because they are two married women (to each other), the kids are all adopted minorities and they all dressed up in Bernie shirts.

If they were all wearing MAGA hats it would be all over the MSM for days with obvious innuendo.

Without all the politics, all of this is very sad. We attack each other, deny rights to people not involved at all because some nut job can't can't function in a free society; so we fight among ourselves, thinking that will lead to a solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,524
#3,524
I see a problem with defining it that way though. The term "mass shooting" conjures up images of seemingly random, indiscriminate killing in a public place. That seems to be the generally accepted, practical definition of the term. That is the reason they are so scary and get so much airtime. The average person feels like they could fall victim to one; they occur in public places seemingly at random and are done by a crazy person targeting everyone in sight.

An incident where a person kills 4 of his family members at a party at his house, as horrible as that is, is only really considered a "mass shooting" by people who want to juice the "mass shooting" stats. That isn't exactly random, and it didn't occur in a public place. The average person doesn't feel as though that could happen to them, and the fear factor isn't there. Therefore those types of incidents don't get around-the-clock news coverage either.

I feel icky after typing all of that. I'm no gun control advocate, but that fact that we even have had this discussion is sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,525
#3,525
37L1 said:
Then this is a mass killing by SUV. Or is it a pickup truck? Law Enforcement is being very slow to call this what it obviously is. It wasn't an accident.

Hart family crash: Police say SUV may have been intentionally driven off cliff - The Washington Post

Lesbian mothers found at bottom of cliff with children starved kids | Daily Mail Online

But no one will touch it because they are two married women (to each other), the kids are all adopted minorities and they all dressed up in Bernie shirts.

If they were all wearing MAGA hats it would be all over the MSM for days with obvious innuendo.

Without all the politics, all of this is very sad. We attack each other, deny rights to people not involved at all because some nut job can't can't function in a free society; so we fight among ourselves, thinking that will lead to a solution.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest - my first thought when I read that story wasn't "that is so sad." It was "what if the family had been politically involved on the other side of the aisle - this would be covered differently."

I think my thought is still correct, but the fact that it was my first thought isn't the best look.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top