Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[LeafByNiggle]

you don’t think the killer won’t use another method? you ban the ar-15 and then it stops? the Virginia college killing was done with a glock 19.

It is a fallacy to think that any good solution has to work against all scenarios at once. In no other area of law enforcement do we say “Measure X won’t stop all crime, so there is no use implementing measure X.”

The same people without the AR-15s would not be able to be quite so destructive,

this is not true in the least. any number of rifles or pistols would have achieved the same results.

Can they fire as many rounds as fast without reloading and with the same precision and with the same power? If so then we should consider restricting them too.

 

[upant]

They’d be similarly beaten. The Troubles are over and the North remains British.

the ira leaders are part of the government. is that really a loss? how did they define success is the question

That’s exactly the point. They’d sell out the identities of the rebels in order to get McDonald’s and Wal-Mart “turned back on”.

you really think the 3% would advertise who they are?

Would they be alright with transatlantic and transpacific transports being sunk or shot down?

they would fund the smugglers, no direct involvement

There is no reality in which you can speed load 2 revolvers as fast as I can drop-n-swap the mag on any of my ARs.

speed was your claim. my claim was a trained person could do as much damage.

It is a fallacy to think that any good solution has to work against all scenarios at once.

the problem is, what you suggest isn’t a solution. it kicks the can down the road. the gun isn’t the root cause.

Can they fire as many rounds as fast without reloading and with the same precision and with the same power? If so then we should consider restricting them too.

yes, they can fire as many rounds.

you don’t even know what they are but you would restrict them.

the ultimate goal of gun control is people control through the banning of all arms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Can they fire as many rounds as fast without reloading and with the same precision and with the same power? If so then we should consider restricting them too.

If “close” counts, then you’re talking about restricting a lot of guns. A lot. And I don’t know that clear distinctions can even be made. “as fast” and 'same precision" depend on the skill of the shooter and the amount of experience he has had with a particular gun. I grew up in the country and was given my first .22 at age 10. I can shoot an AR-15 and any number of other guns accurately, but I could more reliably kill a person at a distance under 100 yards with an iron-sight .22 to this very day. Seriously.

 

[Vonsalza]

Then no government official should be allowed to either. Individuals are individuals.

By this obviously broken reasoning, private individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons since the government has them.

An AR-15 is not a military weapon. They are semiautomatic.

An AR-15 is an M16/M4 with full-auto capability removed. Designed by Eugene Stoner for war. Period.

You may think so, but that’s not what the SCOTUS has said.

That’s vapid hand-waving, Jon.

I’m all for easy civilian ownership of firearms that are neither semi nor fully automatic. The latter should be rather difficult to obtain.

And as to personal defense, you have no defense against the stranger in the night because he has the element of surprise. They generally don’t kick in your door when you’re laying prone behind the oven with your loaded weapon pointed toward the entry. You’re usually asleep or sitting in the easy chair watching Fox News.

For conceal and carry against an angry ex? Get a featherlight 38. It’ll do the job without giving you the ability to readily commit a mass-shooting - even in single action.

You cannot rely of law enforcement for your defense

It’s also nonsensical to demand high-output weaponry to prepare yourself for a home invasion that has about the same statistical odds of occurring as being attacked by a shark at the beach.

Revolvers and bolt actions are sufficient for the imagined task as well…

And yet progressives want us to not have the tools to defend ourselves.

Only the tools that are demonstrably shown to be used more in the slaughter of children than the demise of criminals and “bad guys” in the US. Yes. Progressives want to remove those tools because they’re doing more harm than good.

 

[Vonsalza]

the ira leaders are part of the government. is that really a loss? how did they define success is the question

By the standard of a United Ireland they failed.

you really think the 3% would advertise who they are?

No. The 97% who suspect who they are and want their Wal-Mart and Mickey-D’s switched back on would sing their names to the nearest government authority.

No one lives in an anonymous bubble.

they would fund the smugglers, no direct involvement

With even little Cessnas getting flagged down in the 80s drug boom, it’s interesting you think it’s possible to fly a plane into the US anonymously…

speed was your claim. my claim was a trained person could do as much damage.

With 10-14 rounds per slow reload vs 30 rounds per fast reload?

Nossir.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There’s no good reason to own these things. If they’re ever made illegal, I’ll be the first to turn mine in.

Why wait? You could turn it over to the local sheriff or PD today. Or you could just take it apart and throw the pieces off the nearest bridge over a river. No reason to keep it since it’s useless, right?

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy my guns. But I’m a responsible gun owner. And I don’t kid myself that my owning these things provides me anything more than simple enjoyment.
My assault rifles (and particularly my .308 battle rifles) are too much power to give to a psychopath.

If we ever wise-up and ban or heavily restrict them on that basis, I’ll be more than happy to conform to the law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Can they fire as many rounds as fast without reloading and with the same precision and with the same power? If so then we should consider restricting them too.

If “close” counts, then you’re talking about restricting a lot of guns. A lot. And I don’t know that clear distinctions can even be made. “as fast” and 'same precision" depend on the skill of the shooter and the amount of experience he has had with a particular gun. I grew up in the country and was given my first .22 at age 10. I can shoot an AR-15 and any number of other guns accurately, but I could more reliably kill a person at a distance under 100 yards with an iron-sight .22 to this very day. Seriously.

Could you reliably kill 17 before someone got to you and stopped you?

 

[Vonsalza]

Ridgerunner:

LeafByNiggle:

Can they fire as many rounds as fast without reloading and with the same precision and with the same power? If so then we should consider restricting them too.

If “close” counts, then you’re talking about restricting a lot of guns. A lot. And I don’t know that clear distinctions can even be made. “as fast” and 'same precision" depend on the skill of the shooter and the amount of experience he has had with a particular gun. I grew up in the country and was given my first .22 at age 10. I can shoot an AR-15 and any number of other guns accurately, but I could more reliably kill a person at a distance under 100 yards with an iron-sight .22 to this very day. Seriously.

Could you reliably kill 17 before someone got to you and stopped you?

With a .22lr?

Hell no. He couldn’t reliably kill them if he was head-shotting them at 50 yards, as the White Russians learned in the revolution.

The bullet is so light that anything but a dead-center hit would graze off their skulls…

 

[Vonsalza]

Silliest thing I’ve read all year…

If you want to threaten a man’s life with a .22, you’ve got to be close enough that you could just about throw the weapon at him.

Israelis used them for riot control for awhile until they decided it was just a liiiiiiiiittle bit too lethal.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Why? It’s closer to the truth than you think…

 

[SuperLuigi]

If we ever wise-up and ban or heavily restrict them on that basis,

So than criminals get them when the big ol’ caring government doesn’t work and we bring a knife to a gun fight?

No thanks.

I’ll be more than happy to conform to the law.

Liberals are anything but “more than happy” to conform to the laws they make.

And if you’re soooooo righteous, why wait for a law to be passed?

 

[Vonsalza]

Small game for a small caliber? Sounds like suited use.

Which is not the same as game as large as people, as I hope you’d agree, deacon.

RFK was killed with a 22, although admittedly at close range.

Which was partially my point, if you’d actually read the immediate post.

A 22 can easily be lethal to human life and accurate in the right hands at up to 75 yards and CCI Stinger and Aguilla hyper-velocity 22 LR ammo to extend that range.

Sure. And a 15 year old Jewish shepherd killed a 9-foot-tall giant with a rock. The point is “results not typical”.

 

[MidwestGuy]

Further, there are too many Americans who want to own guns and you have the NRA supporting them.

I think you have that reversed. The NRA is a group that would not exist without the support of members. So it is basically many Americans that support the NRA.

 

[Theo520]

It is a fallacy to think that any good solution has to work against all scenarios at once. In no other area of law enforcement do we say “Measure X won’t stop all crime, so there is no use implementing measure X.”

These measures won’t impact crime in the slightest.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Could you reliably kill 17 before someone got to you and stopped you?

Depends.

But I’ll say this. If I had one 9mm round and a couple of pounds of tannerite placed strategically, I could kill a lot more than 17 with one shot.

 

[Vonsalza]

If we ever wise-up and ban or heavily restrict them on that basis,

If the NRA stayed on point in its original purpose, you’d only need one, maybe two shots to dispatch that assault-rifle-toting-baddie with your bolt or lever gun.

But I’m not in favor of a total ban. Semi-autos should just be prohibitively hard to obtain like their fully automatic twins.

And again, Lou, almost all attacks occur when the victim is unsuspecting. Ergo any recourse the victim may have that isn’t immediately available (like all their high-powered weaponry in the gun-safe) fails to solve your problem anyway.

And if you’re soooooo righteous, why wait for a law to be passed?

Answered in an earlier post:

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy my guns. But I’m a responsible gun owner. And I don’t kid myself that my owning these things provides me anything more than simple enjoyment.

My assault rifles (and particularly my .308 battle rifles) are too much power to give to a psychopath.

 

[upant]

Progressives want to remove those tools because they’re doing more harm than good.

will handguns be next? they do the real damage.

By the standard of a United Ireland they failed.

can’t argue that

With even little Cessnas getting flagged down in the 80s drug boom, it’s interesting you think it’s possible to fly a plane into the US anonymously…

because we have been so good at stopping the flow of drugs into the country.

With 10-14 rounds per slow reload vs 30 rounds per fast reload?

i am not comparing one gun to the other. he supposedly went through 3 buildings. he had ample time to reload. he could have caused the same damage with a six-shooter.

But I’m a responsible gun owner.

not to the gun control people. there are no responsible gun owners. all gun owners are complicit with the killers. that is the problem.

 

[Vonsalza]

will handguns be next? they do the real damage.

To be frank, I think all semi autos should be very hard to buy. That includes double action and semiauto handguns.

To the preppers who think they still need to be able to kill the mailman when the revolution breaks out, a bolt gun or single action pistol will do just fine.

because we have been so good at stopping the flow of drugs into the country.

By all these ridiculous all-or-none standards that conservatives typically use - yeah. It’s been a total failure.

But as a percentage of drugs estimated to have been imported versus what gets captured, it’s been a raging success.

he could have caused the same damage with a six-shooter.

As he would have needed to reload several times in order to achieve the same casualty count, there would have been much more opportunity for student to flee or engage the shooter.

Thus I think you’re less than correct here.

not to the gun control people. there are no responsible gun owners. all gun owners are complicit with the killers. that is the problem.

No, the problem is that we don’t presently have a way to divide access to these firearms between these groups.

There’s lots of ways to do it, but they all mean making these firearms less available - something the NRA will foolishly oppose on misguided principle.

 

[Rau]

We simply disagree on where our individual rights and responsibilities conflict with societies gains.

That’s broadly true.

leftists fear the individual and look to the state for protection,

I don’t think it is the “individual” who is feared, but “well-armed human beings”. The gun culture, whereby most people can acquire an array of weapons on short notice, elevates the risks associated with would-be wrong doers.

conservatives fear an overly powerful state

I hear this, and don’t question their sincerity, but cannot see it as credible. No doubt it’s claimed that the mere presence of all these guns has prevented great atrocities that the state would have perpetrated or allowed? Or perhaps another civil war is envisaged? One can’t deny the huge numbers of guns has impeded changes to gun laws.

 

[Rau]

the ultimate goal of gun control is people control through the banning of all arms.

Why do you believe this?