An honest question on assault rifles.

[rjhenn]

1. No matter who much you thump your chest, your paragraph HAS THE SAME CONCLUSION....the weapon of choice to ASSAULT a group(s) is the AR15 (style) rifle. YOU LIKE IT BECAUSE YOU CAN DO MORE DAMAGE WITH IT (aka kill more people in a crowd situation)...JUST LIKE THE JOKERS WHO DID MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS...your alleged marine training non-withstanding. Jeez, I guess the IQ requirement for the USMC has lowered some.

The usual ignorant dreck. You can do more damage "in a crowd situation" with a pump shotgun. That's why the Army used them as trench sweepers and that's why they're nicknamed "street sweepers". But, as others have noted, they don't get the same publicity as the ARs get. Yhey also recoil more, which the pussies who commit mass school shootings probably can't handle.

 

[rjhenn]

Your ignorance coupled with your denial of history is pathetic. For your education: http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

You, of course, are reading things into that that aren't there. You should try and get more familiar with the actual history behind the 2nd amendment.
"the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

 

[rjhenn]

Random, anonymous rightwing posters with no legal training or expertise claim a constitutional right to the AR15.

Judges in U.S. Federal Courts have ruled multiple times that there is no constitutional right for owning an assault rifle, AR15 or otherwise.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle", which is a technical term with a very specific meaning. OTOH, "assault weapon" is a meaningless marketing term, picked up by the gun control crowd because it sounds scary to the ignorant. Then again, you're ignoring the Miller decision, which gun control nuts used to love, which held that weapons with a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" were all that were protected by the 2nd. You keep claiming that the AR is a military grade weapon, so it clearly is protected.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You queried " 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?"

I answered; Because they DO, genius! That is a matter of fact and history. Your problem is that you think the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche to have any type/caliber weapon you want for private citizen ownership/use. It never fully did, as the evolution of militias in America and gun regulation shows.
Now, why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".

Obviously, you need further clarification: the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety gives you the right to own a firearm.....it does NOT give you the right to own anything you please in that regard. Just look at the evolutionary history of what constituted a well regulated militia in relation to weaponry, and the history of weapon regulation for the militia, the military and the civilian. If you're still in the dark (willfully or congenitally), I can provide the links to valid documented history to prove what I'm saying.

As to your second sentence: regurgitated NRA mantras that are all bluster and no substance that has been disproven and disregarded numerous times over the decades. And I notice that you STILL have not answered the question. When and if you have the guts to do so, here it is: why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".

Because people like you exist.

So you "need" an assault weapon because people disagree with you? How fascist of you. But seriously, I have no criminal record, do not advocate mindless anarchy. And since there is a plethora of weapons available that are just as good (if not better, according to numerous gun enthusiasts) for home protection, Why do you need that particular weapon?

 

[rjhenn]

Which 7.62 are you referring to? 51?

That is the 7.62 NATO.

 

[rjhenn]

True but there are variables. I used to hate shooting my m-14 because of the recoil.

The M-14 is chambered in 7.62. not 5.56.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Random, anonymous rightwing posters with no legal training or expertise claim a constitutional right to the AR15.

Judges in U.S. Federal Courts have ruled multiple times that there is no constitutional right for owning an assault rifle, AR15 or otherwise.

A demonstrated numerous times, a LOT of right wing or just intense gun enthusiasts of any political persuasion feel their particular myopic or revisionist interpretation supersede all else.

 

[rjhenn]

"A long gun is a category of firearms with longer barrels than other classes. In small arms, a long gun is generally designed to be held by both hands and braced against the shoulder, in contrast to a handgun, which can be fired being held with a single hand.
Long gun - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_gun

I believe the AR-15 meets this definition.

However, it is designed to be more maneuverable than your typical long gun. It is also designed so you don't have to brace it against the shoulder, but can fire it, usually two-handed, from the waist.

 

[Taichiliberal]

you do this alot, it's pretty funny. when shown the actual facts or told things that don't jive at all with your rationale, you simply ignore them and pretend people said exactly what you wanted....and you laugh and laugh like you won some major argument. its funny, but sad. oh well.

Every time I nail your sorry ass, you babble this same BS....and as always all one needs to do is click the arrows and back track the chronology of the posts to see your folly.

I'll give you credit where credit is do, bunky....you at least told the truth as to why you have such a fetish for the AR-15 (style) rifle. What's pathetic is that you don't have the intellectual courage to face the consequences of your convictions in an open debate. Not surprising.

you can now sputter forth with the usual self aggrandizing statements, repetitions of revisionism, distortions and lies of what has previously transpired. You've answered the question. End of story.

 

[rjhenn]

Nothing rational about made up scenarios.

Nothing "made up" about it either, as you'd know if you knew anything about the subject.

 

[rjhenn]

Name a “could have” that has actually occurred.

Look at the articles that one of your buddies posted about the history of mass shootings. Rifles, of all sorts, were used only about 25% of the time.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Which, as usual, only restricts law-abiding citizens, not anyone contemplating a crime.

As to this oft repeated mantra by NRA flunkies and extreme gun enthusiasts.....when you take a particular weapon off the general retail market, that also greatly reduces the availability of said weapon to the criminal element on the "black market". They have to scrounge around to find those who have the weapon pre-ban and either steal it or buy it (no questions asked). The black market value for that weapon increases greatly, making it a rare sale and thus making it unprofitable for the criminal seller to obtain.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes, it is sad that rational thought on the subject is beyond your ideological ability to comprehend.

Let me dumb it down for you:

1. She gave no answer to the op as to why SHE NEEDS that particular weapon.

2. Her childish description of "liberals'" does not answer the OP.

3. Her referral to the recent case here in NYC is moronic...video of that case show a mentally disturbed man running up to people and pointing a metal tube their head quickly, making a threat and then running away. Not enough time to determine if it was a gun or pipe or garden hose handle. Out of all the 911 calls made, 9/10 said they weren't sure if it was a gun or not....the dispatch just issues a "man with a gun" scenario to the cops. A tragedy, but the cops were justified (IMHO) in their reaction. (fatal shooting).

 

[rjhenn]

^^^
Not interested in the opinion of an anonymous rightwing poster who believes he has a God given right to assault rifles in preparation for the overthrow of the duly elected U.S. government.

The opinions of courts of law carry greater weight with me than internet Rambos.
The opinions of legal experts, Federal judges no less, have repeatedly found that there is no constitutional right to AR15 or any assault rifle. None. Nada. Zilch.

Once you give up your fantasies of playing Rambo, and having fire fights with the National Guard in an attempt to overthrow our government, you will realize that you can still own all the pistols, hunting rifles, vintage surplus rifles, shotguns, and traditional semi-automatics you want. As for me, I might have my eye out for a vintage British Lee-Enfield!

Still with your ignorance and delusion about "assault rifles". Of course, the 2nd Amendment has been nibbled away at for over a century. No court, before the Civil War, would have agreed with any of those decisions. Even the NFA restrictions on automatic weapons were only upheld as a tax, not as restrictions. All veterans took an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". If the government attampts to subvert the Constitution....

 

[Taichiliberal]

What do you mean, "Not quite"? You just provided documentation for my argument.

You need to read carefully and comprehensively....36 years of such shootings in situations that do not jibe with your generalizations. Also, your blanket statement of "gun free zones" is misleading at best, as you cannot prove such for the various shootings described over the years.

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's hardly a supposition. That you think it is only cements your ignorance on the subject. The two articles you posted in support of my arguments clearly document that semi-auto handguns have been used in mass shootings in the past, and have killed many people in such an event. And it's quite clear how much damage a pump action shotgun could do. There was a reason the U.S. Army used them as "trench sweepers".

All you're doing is just putting out variations of the same supposition....no one is arguing what damage can be done by what weapon or what weapons have been used in the past....the FACT is that in the last 30 years assault weapons like the AR-15 (style) has been the increasing weapon of choice for these perpetrators...they choose it because it is most effective for the task.

Now, care to answer the question put forth in the OP?

 

[rjhenn]

Nope, you have no absolute right to an AR 15. None

That is not my opinion....it is the opinion of U.S. federal courts.

Red Dawn is a preposterous Hollywood movie. Not a real thing. You are not going to be battling it out with invading Russians and Cubans, and I wouldn't even trust you to roam the country side taking pot shots at people you perceive to be the enemy. That is just fucking dangerous for the rest of us.

Not interested in indulging rightwing "what ifs?", "maybe", "perhaps" hypothetical-fantasy scenarios, but if we ever live under a totalitarian system, it is going to be overthrown the same way is was overthrown in East Germany, in Romania, in Tunisia, In Ukraine, in Serbia, in India, in Russia, in Poland, et. al..... by civil disobedience, mass protest, and largely non-violent popular uprising. Your pea shooter will not be needed, will not make any substantive difference, and would probably make things worse for everyone.

You mean like the "non-violent" Russian Revolution? How succesful has that "non-violent popular uprising" been at overthrowing Russia's current totalitarian system? You know, the one they were immediately saddled with after that last "non-violent popular uprising".

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahh, but I am not dealing with your personal supposition and conjecture, I'm dealing with matter of facts and history regarding mass school shootings. Like it or not the AR15 (style) was the weapon of choice because the shooter found it most effective...given that's what it was designed for.

You clearly didn't bother to read the two articles that you posted that only supported my position. Big surprise there.

So your evaluation of my honesty is worthless. As to your question; it's an assault weapon, as described by earlier retailers, the original designer....it was part of the AWB of 1994, which I found sufficient. You can't ban all weapons, but you can put a dent in what is the closest thing to a military full auto, and thus keep it out of the hands of the potential terrorists and nut jobs.

Which, of course, it won't do. Again, your ignorance is showing, and your wishful thinking. Isn't that what background checks were supposed to accomplish? How did the Parkland shooter manage to get, and keep, a weapon? There were copious signs that he was a real threat, yet no one did anything.

1. Stop lying....all one has to do is read the info from both sites, then ask the question....what weapon type was used in the last 30 years that had the most victims for MASS shootings.

2. You're missing the point or are just being stubborn. If the AR-15 (style) weapon was NOT on the market, then the Parkland shooter would not have that weapon. He could have chosen ANY weapon, but he CHOSE THAT ONE BECAUSE HE FOUND IT MOST EFFICIENT FOR HIS PURPOSE.

Now, why do YOU need such a weapon?

 

[Taichiliberal]

The usual ideological nonsense. You'd think gun grabbers were righties, they lie and twist reality so much.

You're babbling because I linked ADVERTISEMENTS by the retailers and gun enthusiasts. You don't like the implications, contact them.

 

[rjhenn]

Yeah, there were. Many Old West towns made you check your guns at the town limits.

Those restrictions only came about after the Civil War, along with restrictions on blacks being allowed any arms at all.