For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....

[Soonersincefitty]

I'm just going to leave this here. It amazes me that the political party of "we should ban it even if it only saves one life" trucks on full steam ahead with protecting criminal illegal immigrants from federal authorities. What about "even if it only saves one life" doesn't apply to criminal illegal aliens?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-sheriff-illegal-immigrant-shoots-deputy

That is so eloquent, its power is like no one dare challenge it.

It's plum bulletproof.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I haven't said where we would draw the line. I haven't said which weapons would be affected and which would not. Maybe it is determined by rate of fire. Maybe by magazine capacity. Maybe something else. That would need to be discussed and agreed upon by lawmakers, proposed, then voted upon.

I haven't said what hurdles would be put in place. Also TBD.

I am also not precluding young men, not in the military, from acquiring said weapons. I am simply suggesting that they would have to do X, Y, or Z before being granted ownership.

My son is turning 18 later this year. If he joins the Army, they are not going to hand him a personal weapon on the first day. They are going to require him to do X, Y, and Z before they are comfortable giving him a gun.

The requirements might be different for an 18 year old in the military vs an 18 year old private citizen, but no one is being unduly discriminated against, IMO.

With all due respect let’s review:

1). You agree the public should remain armed in order to prevent government tyranny, however there are caveats, but the caveats are things to be worked out later.
2). You haven’t said where you would draw the line as to which weapons would be banned or made hard to obtain, only that there ought to be a line somewhere, you just don’t know where.
3). You haven’t specified what hurdles should be put in place to hinder easy access to weapons that have crossed the unknown imaginary line.
4). You suggest young men (but not young women?) should have extra hurdles to clear before having access to the weapons that have crossed the imaginary line.
5). And you suggest 18-25 year old young men should be the target of the hurdles, but that age is negotiable.
6). Returning to Number 1, you believe the government army is and should always be “stronger” (better armed) than the citizenry but you believe a poorly armed citizenry would still make the commanders of the army hesitate before assaulting its own people.
7). You have used the term “assault weapon,” but have not defined what that is.

If I have come close to describing what you regard as a workable “solution to the problem” I would suggest you have not thought all the way through your solution. IMO you are being devious when you decry solutions presented by others as “not real solutions” or “not wanting to make realistic changes” when your proposal is so flimsy.

If this is coming across as disrespectful I apologize. I hold you in the highest regard.

 

[Been Jammin]

With all due respect let’s review:

1). You agree the public should remain armed in order to prevent government tyranny, however there are caveats, but the caveats are things to be worked out later.
2). You haven’t said where you would draw the line as to which weapons would be banned or made hard to obtain, only that there ought to be a line somewhere, you just don’t know where.
3). You haven’t specified what hurdles should be put in place to hinder easy access to weapons that have crossed the unknown imaginary line.
4). You suggest young men (but not young women?) should have extra hurdles to clear before having access to the weapons that have crossed the imaginary line.
5). And you suggest 18-25 year old young men should be the target of the hurdles, but that age is negotiable.
6). Returning to Number 1, you believe the government army is and should always be “stronger” (better armed) than the citizenry but you believe a poorly armed citizenry would still make the commanders of the army hesitate before assaulting its own people.
7). You have used the term “assault weapon,” but have not defined what that is.

If I have come close to describing what you regard as a workable “solution to the problem” I would suggest you have not thought all the way through your solution. IMO you are being devious when you decry solutions presented by others as “not real solutions” or “not wanting to make realistic changes” when your proposal is so flimsy.

If this is coming across as disrespectful I apologize. I hold you in the highest regard.

I’m just opening up discussion. Honestly, my views have changed as I have become more educated through these conversations. Most of your post is on target, but I think there are some small changes I would make where I was not clear. I’m not in the mood to go through it line by line.

Where I am now:

Something needs to change or it will only get worse.

A multi-modal approach is needed.

Changes to current gun laws are possible without violating the 2A.

I strongly believe that we should focus on disaffected individuals age 16-25 (or maybe 23). Add in both males and females.

I think more hurdles to purchasing a new gun (maybe not all guns) would help.

I know that there is no way to fully remedy the situation, but we have to try, and we have to start somewhere.

 

[Syskatine]

I think the spew was regarding the clearly 'narrative driven' component of his statement: "the round is specifically designed to hurt PEOPLE".

That is the truth. Specifically engineered for PEOPLE. It's not a good round for anything bigger than a white tail or human.

Hate to burst your bubble but I paid less than $500 for my AR back when Obama was crying about them. I bought the parts and built it myself. I built several for friends of mine as well with some being as low as $400.

Obama was elected in 2008, not the 1990's. That was the clinton era. And i didnt mention buying parts. Hard to shoot at a bubble and miss, maybe use a shotgun instead of a .223?

Do you really want me to pull your pants down and expose your micropenis to everyone? Fvck it, you asked for it...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_calibers

https://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table2.htm

https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm
(Sorry, not all of us are pussies when it comes to recoil. You should probably multiply everything in that chart by 10 to get to your level of pussy.)


How many brands of ARs do you think existed in the 80's and 90's? A hint, there were only a couple. Here's some guys reminiscing about how much they paid for ARs in the 70s, 80s and 90s, chuckle...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/pre-90s-ar-owners.728968/

Check it out and tell us about the insane prices people said they paid. Don't make me do it for you.


Lol. The fact that you overspent because you're clueless about firearms doesn't mean the rest of us have been that stupid. You could have bought a Bushmaster or Olympic Arms for cheaper than that Colt.

Anything else you want to try to bullshit us on, shyster?

Thank you for the running narration of inadvertent self-owning trolling.
I should've known in addition to not being at all bothered by recoil, you have the ballistics knowledge of the Marine Sniper School Commandant. How did I not see this coming?

And I did it. Yup. Clicked the message board link to see the scat-own.
Nope. On me. Every time, I never learn. You'll self-own every time.