Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[Vrenn]

The bad guys' guns had been illegally converted to full auto.

The main problem the police had, however, was the inability to punch through the bad guys' Kevlar.

In the Roaring 20s and early 30s, the bad guys didn't have boy armor. Pay attention.

So in other words, ARs have a purpose other than mass murder.

The only thing it is designed to do better than any other weapon is war other than mass murder. I can uswe a large crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer.

It won't. You need a centerfire rifle to punch through Kevlar.

Wrong. Kevlar comes in many grades from Level 1 to Level 111A. About the best you can afford will be a 11B which protects against almost every handgun except the 44 Mag. Since the 41 mag has a better penetration than the 44 then you can include that as well. Now unless you have at lest 3000 bucks for a bullet resistant vest, you probably won't stop any of the Magnum pistols. Vest are not bullet proof, they are bullet resistant.

That is incorrect. An accurate interpretation of the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

The 2nd is so ambiguous that it's easy to read many different ways.

Which weapons do you contend provide better protection against foxes and coyotes?

Almost anything. Foxes and Coyotes rarely attack humans. Although I would suggest a decent 243 or 6mm.

Not at all. You noted above that cops use ARs for self defense.

They keep them in the trunk while keeping the shotgun inside the vehicle for ease of use.

Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police do.

Then you should put the weapons in the same category that the cops do; the Pistol first, Shotgun second and AR last.

That sounds unconstitutional. A semi-auto-only AR or AK is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto-only rifle that accepts large magazines.

I can accurate discharge more than 120 rounds for an AR while you can't do half that out of a mini-14. The fact that the Mag replacement is much faster.

 

[Open Bolt]

The only thing it is designed to do better than any other weapon is war other than mass murder. I can use a large crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer.

The police don't seem to agree with you. Presumably they are choosing what they feel are the best weapons for their self defense needs. They keep choosing ARs for self defense.

Wrong. Kevlar comes in many grades from Level 1 to Level 111A. About the best you can afford will be a 11B which protects against almost every handgun except the 44 Mag. Since the 41 mag has a better penetration than the 44 then you can include that as well. Now unless you have at lest 3000 bucks for a bullet resistant vest, you probably won't stop any of the Magnum pistols. Vest are not bullet proof, they are bullet resistant.

Bad guys aren't going to use thin Kevlar. They are going to be wearing 3A.

The 2nd is so ambiguous that it's easy to read many different ways.

It is not ambiguous to me.

Almost anything.

That's not really an answer.

Foxes and Coyotes rarely attack humans.

They quite often attack chickens. People who shoot foxes and coyotes are not protecting themselves. They are protecting their livestock.

Although I would suggest a decent 243 or 6mm.

The AR 10 platform provides a decent 243.

They keep them in the trunk while keeping the shotgun inside the vehicle for ease of use.
Then you should put the weapons in the same category that the cops do; the Pistol first, Shotgun second and AR last.

I am skeptical. Do you have a cite of the police doing this?

I can accurate discharge more than 120 rounds for an AR while you can't do half that out of a mini-14. The fact that the Mag replacement is much faster.

I'm having trouble envisioning the slower magazine changes making such a massive difference.

But, that could be why the police choose the AR for their self defense needs.

 

[Open Bolt]

You apparently refuse to understand 'assault weapon' is a legal term with a legal definition, and assault rifle is not.

I never accept falsehoods.

An AR15 is an 'assault weapon' under various laws,

Those laws are using a fraudulent definition.

An M16 is an assault rifle, and -never- falls under the definition of 'assault weapon'.

It falls under the true definition of assault weapon.

No, it is correct. Under any number of the laws that define an 'assault weapons', the SPAS-12 is specifically mentioned.
Thus, an 'assault weapon'.

Again, those laws are using a fraudulent definition.

The law defines legal terms. 'Assault weapon' is a legal term
You may disagree with the particulars, but that does not change the fact the law defines those terms as such.

The fact that a fraudulent definition is written into law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.

And so, the law that defines 'assault weapons' defines them correctly.

That is incorrect. Fraudulent definitions are not correct definitions.

Unless you live in a state that prohibits NFA weapons, if you can legally own a gun, you are "permitted" to own an assault rifle.
The vast majority of people do not live in states that prohibit NFA weapons - and so, the vast majority of people are indeed "permitted" to own assault rifles.

That is incorrect. There are some 20,000 transferable M-16s, some 4,000 transferable FN FNC sears, and some 7,200 transferable HK sears.

Thrown in the handful of other transferable assault rifles out there and we end up with around 32,000 transferable assault rifles.

A maximum of 32,000 guns is not enough guns for the majority of Americans to own one.

The majority of people in this country are also not going to be able to start their own machine gun manufacturing business so they can build their own post-86 guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never accept falsehoods.

That you chose to disbelieve the facts does change the facts,

 

[Open Bolt]

That you chose to disbelieve the facts does change the facts,

I never choose to disbelieve facts. Notice my continued challenges against your untrue claims.

 

[Vrenn]

The police don't seem to agree with you. Presumably they are choosing what they feel are the best weapons for their self defense needs. They keep choosing ARs for self defense.

Then why do they keep the AR in the locked trunk and have the pistol and shotgun for ease of access? If what you are saying is the truth, all cops would be constantly armed with the AR. I've been pulled over by the Polizia armed with an Uzi. We don't need that crap in America.

Bad guys aren't going to use thin Kevlar. They are going to be wearing 3A.

Bad Guys won't bother with the 3000 buck kelvar or the 6000 dollar kevlar. That is how much a 3A kevlar armor costs. The Armor that would mostly stop a 357 or a 38 Spl +P would be a 2A or a 2B and cost nearly 3000 bucks. I don't know what movie you keep watching over and over but it does apply in the United States.

It is not ambiguous to me.



That's not really an answer.



They quite often attack chickens. People who shoot foxes and coyotes are not protecting themselves. They are protecting their livestock.

Shotguns do a better job.

The AR 10 platform provides a decent 243.

AR-10 from Armelite? Hard to find. And it fits many of the states definition of either banned or restricted weapons since it's what brought us all the AR-15 Model 601 in 1958 and the AR-15 Model 750 in 1962.

I am skeptical. Do you have a cite of the police doing this?

Don't need one. Get out of your Mother's Basement and watch the cops in your town.

I'm having trouble envisioning the slower magazine changes making such a massive difference.

But, that could be why the police choose the AR for their self defense needs.

They didn't choose it for defense reasons. They chose it because some of the bad guys were outgunning them. Haven't you learned a thing from your forebearers? Instead of arming everyone with an M1921 (typewriter) you get them out of the criminals hands.

 

[Open Bolt]

Then why do they keep the AR in the locked trunk and have the pistol and shotgun for ease of access?

I don't think they do. I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.

If what you are saying is the truth, all cops would be constantly armed with the AR.

I think they are, at least to the degree that they used to be with shotguns.

They don't always carry AR-15s, just like they don't always carry shotguns, but I think the AR-15 is up front with them in the patrol car.

I've been pulled over by the Polizia armed with an Uzi. We don't need that crap in America.

Michigan State Police have full-auto MP5s in their trunk.

Bad Guys won't bother with the 3000 buck kelvar or the 6000 dollar kevlar. That is how much a 3A kevlar armor costs.

I think they will. And I assert a Constitutional right to have enough firepower to penetrate 3A Kevlar.

Shotguns do a better job.

I disagree. Light rifles are perfect.

AR-10 from Armelite? Hard to find.

Many manufacturers make AR-10 platforms.

And it fits many of the states definition of either banned or restricted weapons since it's what brought us all the AR-15 Model 601 in 1958 and the AR-15 Model 750 in 1962.

Those sound like unconstitutional laws that will soon be struck down.

Don't need one. Get out of your Mother's Basement and watch the cops in your town.

If you want me to believe that cops keep their AR-15s in their trunk, I'll need to see a credible cite.

They didn't choose it for defense reasons. They chose it because some of the bad guys were outgunning them.

I think the cops choose the AR-15 because they want to be able to penetrate 3A Kevlar.

Haven't you learned a thing from your forebearers? Instead of arming everyone with an M1921 (typewriter) you get them out of the criminals hands.

People can justify laws restricting full-auto as fulfilling a compelling government interest. Someone can do a lot of damage with a full-auto weapon.

I've yet to see anyone justify laws restricting AR-15s as fulfilling a compelling government interest when there are plenty of other semi-auto rifles that accept large magazines (and at least one pump rifle that accepts large magazines).

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never choose to disbelieve facts. Notice my continued challenges against your untrue claims.

And thus, an example of you dispebliving facts,

 

[Open Bolt]

And thus, an example of you dispebliving facts,

No. Your untrue claims are not facts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And who gets to decide who the enemy is?

democrats are the greatest threat to America.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never accept falsehoods.



Those laws are using a fraudulent definition.



It falls under the true definition of assault weapon.



Again, those laws are using a fraudulent definition.



The fact that a fraudulent definition is written into law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.



That is incorrect. Fraudulent definitions are not correct definitions.



That is incorrect. There are some 20,000 transferable M-16s, some 4,000 transferable FN FNC sears, and some 7,200 transferable HK sears.

Thrown in the handful of other transferable assault rifles out there and we end up with around 32,000 transferable assault rifles.

A maximum of 32,000 guns is not enough guns for the majority of Americans to own one.

The majority of people in this country are also not going to be able to start their own machine gun manufacturing business so they can build their own post-86 guns.

Dude a AR 15 IS NOT AN ASSUT RIFLE It doesn't have a selective fire and cannot be switched to fire automatic
A baseball bat is an assault weapon Assualt is an act
Now shut the fuck up
I will say this the 94 ban did not have any effect on reducing crime or mass shootings
Though I disagree with their opinion what weapons were banned is in the link and they were called assault weapons because of how they looked not the function

Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective​

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.
Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. Your untrue claims are not facts.

just because you made false claims doesn't mean Shooter has.

 

[Vrenn]

I don't think they do. I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.

I am unable to give you a cite you can accept as long as you stay in your mother basement. Then again, if you go outside and look you won't need the cite.

I think they are, at least to the degree that they used to be with shotguns.

They don't always carry AR-15s, just like they don't always carry shotguns, but I think the AR-15 is up front with them in the patrol car.

Get out of that basement and stop watching that fictional movie.

Michigan State Police have full-auto MP5s in their trunk.

You are going to have to give me a cite on that one. I did a fast search and came up blank.

I think they will. And I assert a Constitutional right to have enough firepower to penetrate 3A Kevlar.

Almost any center fire rifle and the 41 Mag Pistol and bigger has that capability. So you already have that.

I disagree. Light rifles are perfect.



Many manufacturers make AR-10 platforms.



Those sound like unconstitutional laws that will soon be struck down.

Do you mean like the ones in Colorado and Boston? The ruling is, if you don't like the laws, move.

If you want me to believe that cops keep their AR-15s in their trunk, I'll need to see a credible cite.

I tried to find a cite to the preferred location of a Police AR-15 and came up blank. Again, get out of your mothers basement and talk to the nearest cop and ask him where his is located at. I will tell you this much, none of your cops here have their AR-15 within easy access inside the car.

I think the cops choose the AR-15 because they want to be able to penetrate 3A Kevlar.

No, they choose the AR-15 because they got tired of having services for their brothers and sisters because you fruitcakes outgunned them and you were killing them.

People can justify laws restricting full-auto as fulfilling a compelling government interest. Someone can do a lot of damage with a full-auto weapon.

I've yet to see anyone justify laws restricting AR-15s as fulfilling a compelling government interest when there are plenty of other semi-auto rifles that accept large magazines (and at least one pump rifle that accepts large magazines).

I think I have heard enough from you. Say goodnight, gracie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. Your untrue claims are not facts.

My claims are true. You simply disbelieve.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective​

The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce anything, because did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons'.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

Post hoc fallacy

 

[Open Bolt]

My claims are true.

No they aren't.

Your claim that "placing a fraudulent definition in a statute somehow makes it not fraudulent" is wrong.

Your claim that "a finite supply of 32,000 guns can somehow arm the vast majority of the American people" is also wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

I am unable to give you a cite you can accept as long as you stay in your mother basement.

Your childish name-calling signifies the end of the debate anyway.

You are going to have to give me a cite on that one. I did a fast search and came up blank.

I'll give you a link if I can find one. I don't know if it's online though.

Almost any center fire rifle and the 41 Mag Pistol and bigger has that capability.

Only centerfire rifles can punch through 3A.

Do you mean like the ones in Colorado and Boston?

I am not super familiar with those particular laws, but it is very likely that they are unconstitutional and soon to be struck down.

The ruling is, if you don't like the laws, move.

No. If a law is unconstitutional, have the courts strike it down.

No, they choose the AR-15 because they got tired of having services for their brothers and sisters because you fruitcakes outgunned them and you were killing them.

More childish name-calling signifying the end of the debate.

The police move to AR-15s came as a result of those two criminals wearing Kevlar in the North Hollywood bank robbery.

I think I have heard enough from you. Say goodnight, gracie.

Constitutional law is too much for you?

 

[Open Bolt]

Dude a AR 15 IS NOT AN ASSUT RIFLE It doesn't have a selective fire and cannot be switched to fire automatic

Correct.

A baseball bat is an assault weapon Assualt is an act

That is incorrect. Assault weapon is a term for a type of gun.

Now shut the fuck up

No. I will continue to challenge untrue claims when I see them.

I will say this the 94 ban did not have any effect on reducing crime or mass shootings

Correct.

what weapons were banned is in the link and they were called assault weapons because of how they looked not the function

That was a fraudulent definition.

just because you made false claims doesn't mean Shooter has.

I have not made any false claims. Shooter has made multiple false claims. You have made at least one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No they aren't.

Demonstrate this to be true.

 

[Open Bolt]

Demonstrate this to be true.

Your claim that "placing a fraudulent definition in a statute somehow makes it not fraudulent" is wrong. Reality remains true even if a law or statute says otherwise.

Your claim that "a finite supply of 32,000 guns can somehow arm the vast majority of the American people" is also wrong. There are more than 300 million Americans.