An honest question on assault rifles.

[Taichiliberal]

Thanks for proving you have no clue about guns. Showing a video of an idiot modifying the AR15 with this ignorant 'crank' is fucking hilarious. First, he calls it a gat crank... fucking hilarious. Second, you can fire far faster with your finger than you can with a fucking crank like that.

Again... thanks for once again proving your ignorance.

Seems you think that if one doesn't use EXACTLY the same term as you negates the bottom line. That's not the case here, chuckles.....what you have is a conversion from semi-auto to full auto....whether it's a crank or a flip of a switch and trigger pull or a bump stock. The victims don't really care. The magazine, the high capacity ammo capability...yeah, it's an assault rifle, as many victims of mass shootings discovered.

[Taichiliberal]

If you're looking to kill something, sure. Unless you're looking to kill something very large or very far away.

Which is why the AR-15 is such an effective assault rifle, as recent mass shootings have shown. My grandpa's people did effective food hunting with single shot, bolt action or limited load rifles for decades....the AR15 doesn't fit that bill.
'

[SmarterthanYou]

The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.

It is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers would craft the 2nd Amendment as either a right to the government to have military arms OR to believe that the founders were thinking of a national guard when EVERY SINGLE COMMENTARY talked about the people having arms as well as the constitution specifically forbidding the states to keep troops.

[Taichiliberal]

and you don't have the sense to see a bigger picture, but you're a government cock sucking little bitch anyway

Right, because YOU are so off the grid...no social security, no veterans benefits.....you drive without a license or registration and rarely get ticketed, you don't pay taxes....and yet you manage to afford an enormous amount of time on the internet (without paying fees?).

You're so full of it.

[Taichiliberal]

It is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers would craft the 2nd Amendment as either a right to the government to have military arms OR to believe that the founders were thinking of a national guard when EVERY SINGLE COMMENTARY talked about the people having arms as well as the constitution specifically forbidding the states to keep troops.

The national guard evolved out of the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, you braying jackass. and then there's this https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...s-the-u-s-army

Stop ignoring what you don't like, bunky. Join the real world.

[SmarterthanYou]

So if a guy has a registered machine gun pre-1968, he can sell it.....depending on what hoops they have to jump through in each State. That is NOT the same as availability at your local gun shop, but technically you're right.....very narrowly too, given how many of those actually exists.

probably a typo on your part, but its 1986, not 1968.

You can "prefer" anything....give me a reason why, as you have an adequate number of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that'll get the job done just as (if not more) efficiently. THAT is the question.

I'm not a hunter. I don't like sport hunting, therefore I have no need of hunting weapons. My choice of weapons is predicated upon two things......what am I good with and what does the job I need it for. The job I need it for is killing and that means good rounds, fast action, and decent usability. The AR15 fits that purpose for me.

[Minister of Truth]

No, it's about the almighty dollar and the gun manufacturers making money off of a model that they initially couldn't sell very well to the military. It's about feeding off the paranoia of the average citizen. When you talk about "parity" you should remember that the NRA propaganda just 20 years ago was swearing that ANY gun control was a slippery slope to total gun confiscation and ban to the civilian population. By that take, you state that weapons of ANY caliber are a threat of resistance to the potential totalitarian/fascist/communist state. Any soldier worth his weight will tell you that they would rather NOT face a population armed with hunting rifles, rifles, handguns and shotguns of various caliber.

The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.

Well we know that the NRA blather NEVER had a chance of happening and was NEVER part of any proposal. The AWB of 1994 was an attempt to keep para-military weapons out of the general population and thus subsequently off the black market and out of the hands of potential nut jobs and terrorists.

Why would a citizen have a right to any weapon at all, if they can't have one for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment?

[SmarterthanYou]

Right, because YOU are so off the grid...no social security, no veterans benefits.....you drive without a license or registration and rarely get ticketed, you don't pay taxes....and yet you manage to afford an enormous amount of time on the internet (without paying fees?).

You're so full of it.

when you have no argument, resort to hyperbole. I have seen it many times. i'd explain to you how i'm able to do what I do, but you'd not believe me because intellectually inferior people can't seem to comprehend that there are people out there with job skills that are so needed, that companies will pay them to work from home.....which is what I do. and paying fees? i'm paying a corporation to provide me internet access. Now personally I have issues with how the regulations keep it limited to a few corporations, but I do have to work within the system at times. I just keep it to a minimum.

[SmarterthanYou]

The national guard evolved out of the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, you braying jackass. and then there's this https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...s-the-u-s-army

Stop ignoring what you don't like, bunky. Join the real world.

the national guard evolved out of the dick act and has nothing to do with the 'well regulated' militia because it isn't the militia. the militia is 'we the people, except a few public officials'. so maybe you need to stop ignoring what you don't like about the constitutional debates and commentaries.

[Celticguy]

Which is why the AR-15 is such an effective assault rifle, as recent mass shootings have shown. My grandpa's people did effective food hunting with single shot, bolt action or limited load rifles for decades....the AR15 doesn't fit that bill.
'

So ? The 2nd amendment is not about game hunting.

[domer76]

So ? The 2nd amendment is not about game hunting.

Nope, it sure isn’t.

[Superfreak]

Spare me the hair splitting, because the nuts that have been choosing this weapon did so because it fit exactly what they wanted to do....assault a crowd of people. Deal with it.

It isn't splitting hairs you moron. They are very different weapons. The reason the AR style is chosen could just as much be blamed on the media coverage of said weapon.

[Superfreak]

Seems you think that if one doesn't use EXACTLY the same term as you negates the bottom line. That's not the case here, chuckles.....what you have is a conversion from semi-auto to full auto....whether it's a crank or a flip of a switch and trigger pull or a bump stock. The victims don't really care. The magazine, the high capacity ammo capability...yeah, it's an assault rifle, as many victims of mass shootings discovered.

When it comes to fully automatic vs. semi, yeah, ya probably should know the difference. Again, that crank doesn't make it full auto. It is still one squeeze of the trigger for one round as it is the crank that pulls the trigger. AGAIN... that crank is FAR SLOWER than using a finger to pull the trigger.

Nope... still not an assault rifle. No matter how many times you want to pretend it is. Still one trigger pull, one round.

[sear]

" the constitution specifically forbidding the states to keep troops." SY #168

Really?
Please post the article & section numbers. Thanks.

[SmarterthanYou]

Really?
Please post the article & section numbers. Thanks.

Art. 1, Sec 10. Clause 3....to wit...

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.