Gun Control and Logic

[22lcidw]

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is about weapons for self-defense, and the individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘war.’

so if it ever came to it. A million people show up with weapons at the Capitol building to eliminate those traders, tear the building down. Do you hav an issue with it? It probably may not happen.

 

[sakinago]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

It’s basically a semi auto machine pistol. So if caliber, distance, and stopping power are the issue, then smgs are fine?

You brought up ONE weapon. You need to stick with that instead of trolling for generalizations. I gave a pretty accurate description of your one weapon after viewing one world class shooter operate it on a mixed range. Yes, he had a ball but he also missed a bunch due to a lot of factors. It might be extremely lethal if it were a full auto but as a semi auto with limited ammo, it's a plinker. It is too large to replace a handgun so it even fails there. You have to fill ALL of the features of the AR to be considered the equal of the AR because the AR fills ALL of the criteria that Stoner required it to fill. And nothing on the market today does a better job.

I didn’t bring it up. So a semi-auto SMG should be perfectly legal, like these...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When we hear about "gun control" from the Left, there is seldom any logic involved. Mr. Nugent presents nine points here with which I agree, and I challenge you to counter any of them. Please format your posts with his quote followed by your rebuttal.

Ted Nugent on Guns and Logic:

1 - Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it's time to raise the age of Smart phone ownership to 21.
2 - If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.
3 - The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement.
4 - Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you'd know it.
5 - When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle
6 - The NRA murders 0 people and receives $0 in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually.
7 - I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we're at it, let's do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D and Candidates running for office. Also for welfare recipients.
8 - You don't need a smoke detector; that's what the fire department is for. Now...if you think that sounds stupid, you know how I feel when you say I don't need a gun.
9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?

Nugent is a fucking moron. Obviously.

And let that moron keep comparing cars to guns. Laws regulate where cars can and can't go, and how they can be operated. Laws regulate who can and can't drive them. Every time you renew your drivers license, you are subject to a backrground search to see if you have any relevant history or violations that should keep you from getting your license. Every sale of every vehicle must be registered with the state. Every vehicle has an identifying license plate, registered to its owner. Cars themselves are heavily regulated in terms of what is street legal and what is not. Certain medical conditions will keep you from getting a driver's license.

Gee, sounds like the good ideas for gun control. So go ahead people, keep comparing guns to cars. All day.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

It’s basically a semi auto machine pistol. So if caliber, distance, and stopping power are the issue, then smgs are fine?

You brought up ONE weapon. You need to stick with that instead of trolling for generalizations. I gave a pretty accurate description of your one weapon after viewing one world class shooter operate it on a mixed range. Yes, he had a ball but he also missed a bunch due to a lot of factors. It might be extremely lethal if it were a full auto but as a semi auto with limited ammo, it's a plinker. It is too large to replace a handgun so it even fails there. You have to fill ALL of the features of the AR to be considered the equal of the AR because the AR fills ALL of the criteria that Stoner required it to fill. And nothing on the market today does a better job.

I didn’t bring it up. So a semi-auto SMG should be perfectly legal, like these...
View attachment 254470
View attachment 254471

I can just use Colorado Firearms Regs on this one.

9mms. The problem here is, these aren't any more powerful and more cumbersome than a Handgun. And they are actually less accurate if you are rushed. I can site shoot faster and I can spot shoot faster with a handgun than I can with any of the following. They may be legal but they really aren't good choices. I put them into the plinker category.

MP-5 legal with the proper mag

UMP-45 legal with the legal mag

PM-9 Legal if you remove the capability to use the forward pistol grip and use the proper mag and remove the ability to use a silencer. The problem is, removing the forward pistol grip throws the balance completely off.

28 or more Grains of Powder per Round. These two are designed to go out and reach out. They are both designed for crew weapons where you sometimes have to dismount and fire on targets further than 40 yds away. You may have to go to 50 or more yds.

MP-7 This is class as a pistol. It's round is a 4.6 X 30 which has enough power to penetrate many types of body armor. The rounds are fast, real fast and small. While not quite in the same class as the 556 nato, it's pretty danged close for such a small package. But due to the available equipment and mags, it's considered illegal in many States, not all. What keeps this out of the mass shooters hands is the cost. It's expensive, really expensive.

P-90 Not Legal as the P-90 since the P-90 is a full auto. But the PS-90 is the same gun in a Semi Auto. But you can't remove most of the features on it because they are built into the frame. It uses a 5.7X28mm which is just below the 556 Nato Round. It's slightly larger, slight slower but still has enough punch to do the job. The problem this one has is, it contains a huge amount of ammo. It's mag is a 50 round mag. Luckily, this puppy (see the pun?) is so expensive that the mass shooters will overlook it.

PPM90M1 Not legal. Exceeds Max Ammo with it's 64 round mag, Designed for close quarters only. The smallest mag is 32 rounds and it still exceeds the 15 round max by a large margin. This thing is designed for house to house fighting, not for home defense. And it's only found in Russia in their Military and, of course, Video Games. Good luck in getting one. Oh, it's like anything else, if you really, really want one and have enough money you can get one. But remember, it's a full auto, limited export item from Russia.

So I found only two of your guns that could do the job of the AR if there are no local laws against having them. But you had better have really deep pockets. So, what is your point on this one again?

 

[Hale]

Funny you should mention this. It worked here. We don't need any more gun regs. Ours works and work well across the entire state. We went from one of the Bloodiest to the safest in a matter of about a year without an confiscations. We didn't even slow down the sales. In fact, once people got over the petty bickering you keep trying to keep going, no one noticed anything was different. Only that we weren't dying as much and our school children were safer and we could go see a movie without fear. Damn it all, we removed fear and that is about the worst thing that could ever happen to you fear mongers.

It must suck real bad to be you.

Telling outright lies doesn't seem to bother you at all, does it? Denver and Boulder are the only places with "assault weapon" bans, and they haven't accomplished a single thing. Here's an account of the failure in Boulder, very few complied, and the law is being challenged:
'Gun-toting hippies' greet Boulder 'assault weapons' ban with mass noncompliance

And here's the actual text of the Denver law:
Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) § 38-130
As you can see (if you actually read it) it places a magazine limit of twenty one rounds, and makes no mention of rails or pistol grips. It includes a list of "banned" rifles and pistols by brand and model, but omits MANY manufacturers of AR type rifles. The overall wording is vague and unenforceable - and it's also under legal challenge.

I won't bother dredging up crime statistics, I'll leave you to prove your claims (which I know you cannot).

Also bear in mind I'm posting purely for the benefit of others, as you are clearly a feckless troll.

And btw, if you'd like to stand 100 yards downrange I'd be happy to take two shots at you with any 9mm you choose. If you're still standing, we'll discuss power and accuracy.

 

[2aguy]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous

And actual Supreme Court rulings support that contention.....Miller in particular.....as well as Caetano v Masschusetts...in fact, a weapons utility as a military weapon makes it a protected rifle under Supreme Court precedent...

McDonald removes that prerequisite. As does Heller. This is because the weapons of war differs tremendously from the guns of hunting and sport. That is, unless your sport is hunting mass students in enclosed spaces. There are weapons of war that cannot be allowed in the normal civilian hands. The only question remains is, where do we draw the line. You have your line while others have theirs. And who ends up defining that line? The Legislators, Governors, Presidents, Voters and the Courts. We are in a process of the lines being redrawn once again. It appears that your Greats and Grands were a hell of a lot smarter and more stable than you are and didn't need those lines drawn because they not only knew those lines but operated inside those lines as a society. Not so today so we have to legally draw those lines because of stupid people like you.

You talk out of your ass on these cases and think you are making sense.....

 

[2aguy]

When we hear about "gun control" from the Left, there is seldom any logic involved. Mr. Nugent presents nine points here with which I agree, and I challenge you to counter any of them. Please format your posts with his quote followed by your rebuttal.

Ted Nugent on Guns and Logic:

1 - Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it's time to raise the age of Smart phone ownership to 21.
2 - If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.
3 - The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement.
4 - Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you'd know it.
5 - When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle
6 - The NRA murders 0 people and receives $0 in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually.
7 - I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we're at it, let's do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D and Candidates running for office. Also for welfare recipients.
8 - You don't need a smoke detector; that's what the fire department is for. Now...if you think that sounds stupid, you know how I feel when you say I don't need a gun.
9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?

Nugent is a fucking moron. Obviously.

And let that moron keep comparing cars to guns. Laws regulate where cars can and can't go, and how they can be operated. Laws regulate who can and can't drive them. Every time you renew your drivers license, you are subject to a backrground search to see if you have any relevant history or violations that should keep you from getting your license. Every sale of every vehicle must be registered with the state. Every vehicle has an identifying license plate, registered to its owner. Cars themselves are heavily regulated in terms of what is street legal and what is not. Certain medical conditions will keep you from getting a driver's license.

Gee, sounds like the good ideas for gun control. So go ahead people, keep comparing guns to cars. All day.

Cars are not a protected Right......that is the difference you fascists never understand. And considering that nothing you point out about cars, if applied to guns, would do anything to stop criminals, you are doubly stupid....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cars are not a protected Right

I do not care. We already have some gun control, so your stupid argument that we can't have ANY more because of the 2nd amendment is retarded. Save it for your fellow gun nut idiots... those morons will lap up ANYTHING.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Funny you should mention this. It worked here. We don't need any more gun regs. Ours works and work well across the entire state. We went from one of the Bloodiest to the safest in a matter of about a year without an confiscations. We didn't even slow down the sales. In fact, once people got over the petty bickering you keep trying to keep going, no one noticed anything was different. Only that we weren't dying as much and our school children were safer and we could go see a movie without fear. Damn it all, we removed fear and that is about the worst thing that could ever happen to you fear mongers.

It must suck real bad to be you.

Telling outright lies doesn't seem to bother you at all, does it? Denver and Boulder are the only places with "assault weapon" bans, and they haven't accomplished a single thing. Here's an account of the failure in Boulder, very few complied, and the law is being challenged:
'Gun-toting hippies' greet Boulder 'assault weapons' ban with mass noncompliance

And here's the actual text of the Denver law:
Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) § 38-130
As you can see (if you actually read it) it places a magazine limit of twenty one rounds, and makes no mention of rails or pistol grips. It includes a list of "banned" rifles and pistols by brand and model, but omits MANY manufacturers of AR type rifles. The overall wording is vague and unenforceable - and it's also under legal challenge.

I won't bother dredging up crime statistics, I'll leave you to prove your claims (which I know you cannot).

Also bear in mind I'm posting purely for the benefit of others, as you are clearly a feckless troll.

And btw, if you'd like to stand 100 yards downrange I'd be happy to take two shots at you with any 9mm you choose. If you're still standing, we'll discuss power and accuracy.

Rather than openly fighting it, the voters of Boulder just has to take it to court. They should have done that before it became in affect. It appears people like you enjoy a good fight. The fact of the matter is, they can get a court order to nullify the order since they used the term "Assault Rifle" instead of being specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones". The law that was passed by the Legislature in Oregon was handled like that. But the people in Oregon put it in front of a Judge before it was enacted. All Oregon needs to do is do what California has done and a few others and just replace the phrase "Assualt Rifles" with AR-15 and it's various Clones" and it will stand in court.

As for that 100 yd shot, sure. As long as I get one shot with the old trusty 700 308 and we fire the first round at the same time. You will get the first round off but there is almost a 100% chance you won't be getting the second one off. Never bring a plinker to a rifle fight.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous

And actual Supreme Court rulings support that contention.....Miller in particular.....as well as Caetano v Masschusetts...in fact, a weapons utility as a military weapon makes it a protected rifle under Supreme Court precedent...

McDonald removes that prerequisite. As does Heller. This is because the weapons of war differs tremendously from the guns of hunting and sport. That is, unless your sport is hunting mass students in enclosed spaces. There are weapons of war that cannot be allowed in the normal civilian hands. The only question remains is, where do we draw the line. You have your line while others have theirs. And who ends up defining that line? The Legislators, Governors, Presidents, Voters and the Courts. We are in a process of the lines being redrawn once again. It appears that your Greats and Grands were a hell of a lot smarter and more stable than you are and didn't need those lines drawn because they not only knew those lines but operated inside those lines as a society. Not so today so we have to legally draw those lines because of stupid people like you.

You talk out of your ass on these cases and think you are making sense.....

Once more you show that we can cure a lot of things but there still is no cure for stupid.

 

[2aguy]

Funny you should mention this. It worked here. We don't need any more gun regs. Ours works and work well across the entire state. We went from one of the Bloodiest to the safest in a matter of about a year without an confiscations. We didn't even slow down the sales. In fact, once people got over the petty bickering you keep trying to keep going, no one noticed anything was different. Only that we weren't dying as much and our school children were safer and we could go see a movie without fear. Damn it all, we removed fear and that is about the worst thing that could ever happen to you fear mongers.

It must suck real bad to be you.

Telling outright lies doesn't seem to bother you at all, does it? Denver and Boulder are the only places with "assault weapon" bans, and they haven't accomplished a single thing. Here's an account of the failure in Boulder, very few complied, and the law is being challenged:
'Gun-toting hippies' greet Boulder 'assault weapons' ban with mass noncompliance

And here's the actual text of the Denver law:
Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) § 38-130
As you can see (if you actually read it) it places a magazine limit of twenty one rounds, and makes no mention of rails or pistol grips. It includes a list of "banned" rifles and pistols by brand and model, but omits MANY manufacturers of AR type rifles. The overall wording is vague and unenforceable - and it's also under legal challenge.

I won't bother dredging up crime statistics, I'll leave you to prove your claims (which I know you cannot).

Also bear in mind I'm posting purely for the benefit of others, as you are clearly a feckless troll.

And btw, if you'd like to stand 100 yards downrange I'd be happy to take two shots at you with any 9mm you choose. If you're still standing, we'll discuss power and accuracy.

Rather than openly fighting it, the voters of Boulder just has to take it to court. They should have done that before it became in affect. It appears people like you enjoy a good fight. The fact of the matter is, they can get a court order to nullify the order since they used the term "Assault Rifle" instead of being specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones". The law that was passed by the Legislature in Oregon was handled like that. But the people in Oregon put it in front of a Judge before it was enacted. All Oregon needs to do is do what California has done and a few others and just replace the phrase "Assualt Rifles" with AR-15 and it's various Clones" and it will stand in court.

As for that 100 yd shot, sure. As long as I get one shot with the old trusty 700 308 and we fire the first round at the same time. You will get the first round off but there is almost a 100% chance you won't be getting the second one off. Never bring a plinker to a rifle fight.

You are a moron..........they have broken the law and violated Supreme Court rulings..... Heller and Friedman are specific about these things, and those left wing judges have ignored them....you are essentially saying that the guy who knocks over a liqour store can make it legal by simply calling it unpaid purchasing.....

 

[Blues Man]

BUT YOU IGNORE THE 2ND OPENLY,,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal government.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

Your first one is wrong, dead wrong. It's the Feds that are not allowed to do the first three things on your list. You just twisted it around. Since the Feds aren't allowed to force the States, therefore, you think the states aren't allow to allow the Feds to do it? That's nutcase logic.

The last two are straight from the 14th amendment. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the 10th amendment. That opens up the powers of the state by a very large margin. Again, you are trying to misinterpret one Amendment while throwing all the rest of the Constitution out the window. You need to either follow all of it or none of it.

So if you're right, and you're not, give me an example where a state was allowed to pass a law prohibiting freedom of religion
And actually the last two are referring to the Fourth and .Fifth amendments

So why don't you stop pretending to be some sort of Constitutional scholar

Wow, a spinning top that keeps wobbling and twisting and turning. You just went all over the place and said nothing.

You can't answer a simple question to support your claim that states can pass laws deemed unconstitutional

 

[Blues Man]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

View attachment 254411

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

And once again we see that an assault weapon ban is only concerned with how a rifle looks.

Buy an AR 15 without a folding stock, without a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or any of a couple other doodads and it's 100% legal even in CO

Not quite. Some of those "Do Dads" will get it bounced. It's not the "Do Dads" that will get it bounced, it's the rails to mount them that will get it bounced.

It isn't the looks that makes it a weapon of war, it's the function. And the looks of the AR is because of it's functions. What Colorado did was to remove some of those functions. The end result? The Cult of the AR was ended. Today, the Gun Shops have many, many Bargain ARs to be had just sitting gathering dust on the shelves. Before the 2013 law, they were selling like hotcakes. In order for the Gun Shops to sell the ARs they had in stock, they had to remove the rails and mounts and fill in the mounting screws so they could not be used. Plus, they had to remove the other items on the ban list. Those same ARs on the shelves used to have all the goodies you seem to want. Sorry, they just ain't there. And the Gunnutter Cult pretty well went away. Along with it, the Mass Shootings went with it. After 3 something had to be done and that was just part of it. And we stopped being the Mass Shooting Capital of the World. We handed that off to Florida and Texas who can't seem to learn their lesson very well.

And not one of those things that define a so called "assault weapon" have anything to do with how it operates.

So the fuck what if there is a picatinny rail or a pistol grip as they have absolutely ZERO effect on how the rifle operates

 

[Blues Man]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous

And actual Supreme Court rulings support that contention.....Miller in particular.....as well as Caetano v Masschusetts...in fact, a weapons utility as a military weapon makes it a protected rifle under Supreme Court precedent...

McDonald removes that prerequisite. As does Heller. This is because the weapons of war differs tremendously from the guns of hunting and sport. That is, unless your sport is hunting mass students in enclosed spaces. There are weapons of war that cannot be allowed in the normal civilian hands. The only question remains is, where do we draw the line. You have your line while others have theirs. And who ends up defining that line? The Legislators, Governors, Presidents, Voters and the Courts. We are in a process of the lines being redrawn once again. It appears that your Greats and Grands were a hell of a lot smarter and more stable than you are and didn't need those lines drawn because they not only knew those lines but operated inside those lines as a society. Not so today so we have to legally draw those lines because of stupid people like you.

You talk out of your ass on these cases and think you are making sense.....

Once more you show that we can cure a lot of things but there still is no cure for stupid.

you must have been looking in the mirror when you typed that

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Funny you should mention this. It worked here. We don't need any more gun regs. Ours works and work well across the entire state. We went from one of the Bloodiest to the safest in a matter of about a year without an confiscations. We didn't even slow down the sales. In fact, once people got over the petty bickering you keep trying to keep going, no one noticed anything was different. Only that we weren't dying as much and our school children were safer and we could go see a movie without fear. Damn it all, we removed fear and that is about the worst thing that could ever happen to you fear mongers.

It must suck real bad to be you.

Telling outright lies doesn't seem to bother you at all, does it? Denver and Boulder are the only places with "assault weapon" bans, and they haven't accomplished a single thing. Here's an account of the failure in Boulder, very few complied, and the law is being challenged:
'Gun-toting hippies' greet Boulder 'assault weapons' ban with mass noncompliance

And here's the actual text of the Denver law:
Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) § 38-130
As you can see (if you actually read it) it places a magazine limit of twenty one rounds, and makes no mention of rails or pistol grips. It includes a list of "banned" rifles and pistols by brand and model, but omits MANY manufacturers of AR type rifles. The overall wording is vague and unenforceable - and it's also under legal challenge.

I won't bother dredging up crime statistics, I'll leave you to prove your claims (which I know you cannot).

Also bear in mind I'm posting purely for the benefit of others, as you are clearly a feckless troll.

And btw, if you'd like to stand 100 yards downrange I'd be happy to take two shots at you with any 9mm you choose. If you're still standing, we'll discuss power and accuracy.

Rather than openly fighting it, the voters of Boulder just has to take it to court. They should have done that before it became in affect. It appears people like you enjoy a good fight. The fact of the matter is, they can get a court order to nullify the order since they used the term "Assault Rifle" instead of being specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones". The law that was passed by the Legislature in Oregon was handled like that. But the people in Oregon put it in front of a Judge before it was enacted. All Oregon needs to do is do what California has done and a few others and just replace the phrase "Assualt Rifles" with AR-15 and it's various Clones" and it will stand in court.

As for that 100 yd shot, sure. As long as I get one shot with the old trusty 700 308 and we fire the first round at the same time. You will get the first round off but there is almost a 100% chance you won't be getting the second one off. Never bring a plinker to a rifle fight.

You are a moron..........they have broken the law and violated Supreme Court rulings..... Heller and Friedman are specific about these things, and those left wing judges have ignored them....you are essentially saying that the guy who knocks over a liqour store can make it legal by simply calling it unpaid purchasing.....

Once again, you prove that there is no cure for stupid.

 

[Blues Man]

Funny you should mention this. It worked here. We don't need any more gun regs. Ours works and work well across the entire state. We went from one of the Bloodiest to the safest in a matter of about a year without an confiscations. We didn't even slow down the sales. In fact, once people got over the petty bickering you keep trying to keep going, no one noticed anything was different. Only that we weren't dying as much and our school children were safer and we could go see a movie without fear. Damn it all, we removed fear and that is about the worst thing that could ever happen to you fear mongers.

It must suck real bad to be you.

Telling outright lies doesn't seem to bother you at all, does it? Denver and Boulder are the only places with "assault weapon" bans, and they haven't accomplished a single thing. Here's an account of the failure in Boulder, very few complied, and the law is being challenged:
'Gun-toting hippies' greet Boulder 'assault weapons' ban with mass noncompliance

And here's the actual text of the Denver law:
Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) § 38-130
As you can see (if you actually read it) it places a magazine limit of twenty one rounds, and makes no mention of rails or pistol grips. It includes a list of "banned" rifles and pistols by brand and model, but omits MANY manufacturers of AR type rifles. The overall wording is vague and unenforceable - and it's also under legal challenge.

I won't bother dredging up crime statistics, I'll leave you to prove your claims (which I know you cannot).

Also bear in mind I'm posting purely for the benefit of others, as you are clearly a feckless troll.

And btw, if you'd like to stand 100 yards downrange I'd be happy to take two shots at you with any 9mm you choose. If you're still standing, we'll discuss power and accuracy.

Rather than openly fighting it, the voters of Boulder just has to take it to court. They should have done that before it became in affect. It appears people like you enjoy a good fight. The fact of the matter is, they can get a court order to nullify the order since they used the term "Assault Rifle" instead of being specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones". The law that was passed by the Legislature in Oregon was handled like that. But the people in Oregon put it in front of a Judge before it was enacted. All Oregon needs to do is do what California has done and a few others and just replace the phrase "Assualt Rifles" with AR-15 and it's various Clones" and it will stand in court.

As for that 100 yd shot, sure. As long as I get one shot with the old trusty 700 308 and we fire the first round at the same time. You will get the first round off but there is almost a 100% chance you won't be getting the second one off. Never bring a plinker to a rifle fight.

You are a moron..........they have broken the law and violated Supreme Court rulings..... Heller and Friedman are specific about these things, and those left wing judges have ignored them....you are essentially saying that the guy who knocks over a liqour store can make it legal by simply calling it unpaid purchasing.....

Once again, you prove that there is no cure for stupid.

Still looking in the mirror I see

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, shall not be infringed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But under the 14th amendment, the state and lower governments have the right to regulate almost anything. The only thing that they can't ban completely (among other things) is the right for you to protect your home with a reasonable amount of force. You interpret the 2nd amendment for your own ends and ignore the 14th completely.

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal government.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

Your first one is wrong, dead wrong. It's the Feds that are not allowed to do the first three things on your list. You just twisted it around. Since the Feds aren't allowed to force the States, therefore, you think the states aren't allow to allow the Feds to do it? That's nutcase logic.

The last two are straight from the 14th amendment. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the 10th amendment. That opens up the powers of the state by a very large margin. Again, you are trying to misinterpret one Amendment while throwing all the rest of the Constitution out the window. You need to either follow all of it or none of it.

So if you're right, and you're not, give me an example where a state was allowed to pass a law prohibiting freedom of religion
And actually the last two are referring to the Fourth and .Fifth amendments

So why don't you stop pretending to be some sort of Constitutional scholar

Wow, a spinning top that keeps wobbling and twisting and turning. You just went all over the place and said nothing.

You can't answer a simple question to support your claim that states can pass laws deemed unconstitutional

It's unconstitutional only if the courts find it unconstitutional. Simple as that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

View attachment 254411

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

And once again we see that an assault weapon ban is only concerned with how a rifle looks.

Buy an AR 15 without a folding stock, without a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or any of a couple other doodads and it's 100% legal even in CO

Not quite. Some of those "Do Dads" will get it bounced. It's not the "Do Dads" that will get it bounced, it's the rails to mount them that will get it bounced.

It isn't the looks that makes it a weapon of war, it's the function. And the looks of the AR is because of it's functions. What Colorado did was to remove some of those functions. The end result? The Cult of the AR was ended. Today, the Gun Shops have many, many Bargain ARs to be had just sitting gathering dust on the shelves. Before the 2013 law, they were selling like hotcakes. In order for the Gun Shops to sell the ARs they had in stock, they had to remove the rails and mounts and fill in the mounting screws so they could not be used. Plus, they had to remove the other items on the ban list. Those same ARs on the shelves used to have all the goodies you seem to want. Sorry, they just ain't there. And the Gunnutter Cult pretty well went away. Along with it, the Mass Shootings went with it. After 3 something had to be done and that was just part of it. And we stopped being the Mass Shooting Capital of the World. We handed that off to Florida and Texas who can't seem to learn their lesson very well.

And not one of those things that define a so called "assault weapon" have anything to do with how it operates.

So the fuck what if there is a picatinny rail or a pistol grip as they have absolutely ZERO effect on how the rifle operates

Did I call even one of them an Assault Rifle? If so, which one? Be specific.

 

[Blues Man]

States are not allowed to pass laws that are unconstitutional as the states have agreed that the Constitution, which includes all the amendments ever passed supersedes the states laws and that the states only have the power to make laws where the Constitution has not specifically granted that power to the federal government.

Which means that no state government can pass laws that prohibit freedom of speech and religion
No state can pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms
No state can pass a law that forces people to house soldiers
No state can pass a law that allows search and seizures without probable cause
No state can pass a law that can abolish the Grand Jury for capital crimes

need I go on or do you get the drift yet?

Your first one is wrong, dead wrong. It's the Feds that are not allowed to do the first three things on your list. You just twisted it around. Since the Feds aren't allowed to force the States, therefore, you think the states aren't allow to allow the Feds to do it? That's nutcase logic.

The last two are straight from the 14th amendment. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the 10th amendment. That opens up the powers of the state by a very large margin. Again, you are trying to misinterpret one Amendment while throwing all the rest of the Constitution out the window. You need to either follow all of it or none of it.

So if you're right, and you're not, give me an example where a state was allowed to pass a law prohibiting freedom of religion
And actually the last two are referring to the Fourth and .Fifth amendments

So why don't you stop pretending to be some sort of Constitutional scholar

Wow, a spinning top that keeps wobbling and twisting and turning. You just went all over the place and said nothing.

You can't answer a simple question to support your claim that states can pass laws deemed unconstitutional

It's unconstitutional only if the courts find it unconstitutional. Simple as that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Well we all know you are no rocket scientist now don't we?

So now you say it's not just the federal government who can violate a person's rights.

Make up your mind

 

[Blues Man]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

View attachment 254411

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

And once again we see that an assault weapon ban is only concerned with how a rifle looks.

Buy an AR 15 without a folding stock, without a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or any of a couple other doodads and it's 100% legal even in CO

Not quite. Some of those "Do Dads" will get it bounced. It's not the "Do Dads" that will get it bounced, it's the rails to mount them that will get it bounced.

It isn't the looks that makes it a weapon of war, it's the function. And the looks of the AR is because of it's functions. What Colorado did was to remove some of those functions. The end result? The Cult of the AR was ended. Today, the Gun Shops have many, many Bargain ARs to be had just sitting gathering dust on the shelves. Before the 2013 law, they were selling like hotcakes. In order for the Gun Shops to sell the ARs they had in stock, they had to remove the rails and mounts and fill in the mounting screws so they could not be used. Plus, they had to remove the other items on the ban list. Those same ARs on the shelves used to have all the goodies you seem to want. Sorry, they just ain't there. And the Gunnutter Cult pretty well went away. Along with it, the Mass Shootings went with it. After 3 something had to be done and that was just part of it. And we stopped being the Mass Shooting Capital of the World. We handed that off to Florida and Texas who can't seem to learn their lesson very well.

And not one of those things that define a so called "assault weapon" have anything to do with how it operates.

So the fuck what if there is a picatinny rail or a pistol grip as they have absolutely ZERO effect on how the rifle operates

Did I call even one of them an Assault Rifle? If so, which one? Be specific.

The state of CO does and you were talking about the CO assault weapon regulations which do nothing but ban some cosmetic accessories