I don't agree with the NRA

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by billybek

Ok. Good to know.
It sure doesn't look like a sporting rifle.
I had fired an AR-15 at the range that belonged to a co-worker of mine.
It was surprisingly accurate and easy to operate.
The owner of the gun had mentioned that one of his friends had converted the same type of rifle to full auto. Not sure of the truth in that.

It's a great shooting gun. It might not look like a sporting rifle but it's a straight shooter with good range. You should see the .338 Lapua my nephew used for bear hunting. Doesn't look like a sporting rifle but it is!

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by billybek

Are you defining "assault rifle" as one that can go to full auto?

That is the definition. Everything else is a semi-auto rifle. The only real advantage that an AR type weapon has is the stock in-line with the barrel, which prevents muzzle rise. This is far more important in full-auto than semi-auto.

As we have stated numerous times here, the 5.56 NATO/.223 REM cartridge is a lower power cartridge (for rifles) and is not more deadly. The 7.62 NATO cartridge is FAR more deadly. In the USA, you cannot hunt most game animals with a 5.56, as you cannot hunt with most regular pistol rounds.

As Jeff has pointed out, the Mini-14 functionally is the same as an AR-15. But it has a wood stock and doesn't "look" Military. Which is funny since it, like the AR15, is also derived from a military design, the M-14, which was derived from the M1. Primary change was the smaller cartridge.

ANY round when fired from a rifle is more deadly than a pistol. So almost any rifle is more deadly than any pistol. But rifles are not easy to conceal. And carrying a lot of ammo can be an issue.

These attacks have been done with simple semi-auto pistols. See Virginia Tech. The primary thing all of these non-terrorist attacks have in common is a person who is mentally ill. A case could be made that terrorists are mentally ill, but I will exclude them since they could also be seen as a non-uniformed, military attack.

On the "Red Flag" laws: If some one is so mentally disturbed that we do not think they should have firearms, from either a danger to themselves or others, why are we allowing them to be left in Public? This is a "nose under the tent", not a serious way to stop mass shootings.

[GH85Carrera]

To the OP, you never mention where you live, or anything much about you. Are you even American?

We citizens of the USA live in a country based on the constitution. It is more about the restrictions that congress and the government CAN NOT take away from the citizens rather that what they can do. We have the right to speak freely, and they extends to the press. I can express my opinion, and not worry about any arrest. I can have a gun or thousands of guns. It is only restricted by my checkbook.

The government simply does not have the authority to restrict my gun purchases. I can indeed buy a fully automatic machine gun. I do have to get a special and expensive license, but I can go buy grenades, machine guns, even mortars.



This guy has a collection that is 100% legal. Wrap your brain around that.

I have to guess (since you don't let us know) you are not from the USA. You don't understand what freedom really is, just what you have been told to accept.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by cabmando

You injected "shall not be infringed" in the discussion about magazine capacity, not me. It's most certainly not me veering off on a tangent to ask how much you truly believe "shall not be infringed"

This entire conversation has been about infringement upon our right to "keep and bear arms" - I in no way introduced that into this discussion - that's how it got started, I merely joined in at that point. You introduced limits on magazine capacity, presenting them as no infringement at all, and I addressed that. Then you introduced your convicted felon angle into that discussion on magazine capacity when I explained how you were off base, in that restrictions on magazine capacity do in fact represent and infringement upon our rights.

Originally Posted by cabmando

The loss of rights in a conversation regarding "shall not be infringed" is not a tangent to the discussion. We started discussing magazine capacity, enter "shall not be infringed" and he we are discussing shall not be infringed and to what extent it applies. Not a "tangent" but rather a continuation into the same conversation.

Agreed - our discussion on magazine capacity as an infringement (or not - your position) is not a tangent. I already acknowledged that a couple of replies back.

Originally Posted by cabmando

In no way does limiting the number of rounds a gun can carry infringe or your ability to buy, own, carry or use a gun. You can buy the ammunition, you can shoot that ammunition... you have not been infringed upon.

Repeating the same debunked argument over and over again does not make it true. We covered this, explaining in detail why this position is wrong. You have offered nothing substantive by way of a reply. Instead you attempted to establish a link between convicted felons forfeiting their civil rights and law abiding citizens having their rights infringed. There is no link, and I have already explained why.

Originally Posted by cabmando

I used to be one of the people that said "shall not be infringed" but that's just not reality. I don't support a felon owning a gun so I clearly don't fully support "shall not be infringed" (see it's not that hard to be honest and just state exactly where you stand on something).

So now you resort to implying that I am dishonest? Why would you resort to this? I have been completely honest and absolutely clear on my position. I have supported my position with logically presented arguments.

Originally Posted by cabmando

I too believed shall not be infringed doesn't allow for even the slightest infringement but I realized that's just not reality. I brought up felons losing their right to own a gun because I wanted to see how much you or anyone else arguing based on those four words really believe in "shall not be infringed". Rather than come right out and say where you stand, you accuse me of going off on a tangent.... by discussing something you injected into the conversation.

Do you understand the difference between the forfeiture of rights as punishment for having committed a crime (or crimes) and the infringement of the rights of law abiding citizens? They are two entirely different topics. Let me re-state my position. "Shall not be infringed", with regards to law abiding citizens, means exactly that - not the slightest infringement. Once convicted of a felony, however, one forfeits all rights as a part of the punishment. I have now made the distinction between the two situations quite clear in several replies. They are completely unrelated situations.

Your introduction of magazine capacity into the discussion was absolutely in the context of the ongoing discussion - that of the infringement of the rights of law abiding citizens. I have acknowledged that several times. Your attempt to interject the forfeiture of civil rights as punishment for being convicted of a felony (or felonies) is completely unrelated to the issue of the government infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

And no, you still have not backed up your position on magazine capacity with any related, supporting, logical arguments. Again - simply repeating the same position, without any supporting arguments, is not convincing. Your's is an unsupportable position, and I have very clearly, very logically explained why. You have offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal, but have instead resorted to calling me dishonest - a personal attack in the place of a reasoned argument - an all too common tact on this forum when one cannot support their position.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by billybek

Ok. Good to know.
It sure doesn't look like a sporting rifle.
I had fired an AR-15 at the range that belonged to a co-worker of mine.
It was surprisingly accurate and easy to operate.
The owner of the gun had mentioned that one of his friends had converted the same type of rifle to full auto. Not sure of the truth in that.

If your friend did convert it into full automatic and doesn't have the proper tax stamp, then he committed a felony.
An AR15 is an assault rifles like a turbo look is a turbo, in look only. Just because liberals and the media perverted the definition on many words, and uneducated people call a Porsche a porch, just because some idiots says so doesn't change the true definition.
To get the proper stamp for full auto is very $$$ and invasive, and since the 1934 Firearms Act was put into law, there has been like only 1 time, that an legally owned actual "assault" rifle has been used in a crime. So assault rifles aren't the problem.
Why do I need a weapon that can hold more than 10 rounds, the same reason that I own a 300hp 914-6, because I can.
https://youtu.be/nBgMEyqOW-4

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I think that's the generally accepted definition.. Me I say any weapon used to assault someone is by definition an "assault weapon"

Full auto or burst fire and generally not as powerful as a battle rifle.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by cabmando

How would a magazine capacity limit prevent you from owning a gun? Or from shooting that gun? Or from carrying that gun? You aren't limited in your ability to buy the ammunition, or to use the ammunition. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the court overstepped on this one.

Limiting capacity limits the ability to use the firearm to its fullest potential. No different than limiting the amount of gas in your race car or telling you you can own any knife you like as long as it is no sharper than a butter knife. If you head out to the track for a 50 lap race at Road Atlanta with only 10 gallons and your opponent has 30 who comes out on top?

The woman in the brief shot the intruder multiple times. She had an empty weapon at that point but he was still alive. Fortunately he left rather than continue the attack, but he could have killed all three at that point had he known she was empty. I know a police detective that emptied his 15 round 9mm into a drug addled man and the man continued to advance with 15 rounds in him and died at the detective's feet. What if he was limited to 5 rounds like the Washington law was suggesting? He would have had to reload and there is the "fatal pause" talked about in the brief.

100 round drum mags, I personally don't see the use of, but a 15 round mag certainly has a purpose for self defense and if we take this back to the "militia" part, how do we defend ourselves against tyrrany with limited ammo? How many mags can your pouch carry? 4? So you get 40 rounds and your neighbor can carry 4 but since he is across the border can have 30 round mags so he can carry 120. Who has the advantage when the SHTF?

So that is how it limits or infringes on your ability to use a firearm to its fullest potential. Heck, in your view, why not all go back to muskets?

[red-beard]

Limiting magazine capacity will have no effect on suicide.

[KFC911]

I couldn't purchase a pistol as a law abiding adult, and have no problem with restrictions....we all have them...it just is.

I have NEVER ever worried about some reasonable restrictions taking away my rights to own guns...I find the "shall not be infringed" mantra... not one iota...to be utter bs too.

Have at it Jeff....you've been infringed as long as I have...no worries here though

I want a few MORE "reasonable" reasonable restrictions placed upon our 2A rights and have absolutely NO WORRIES about my rights being taken away....'cause I have wrongs too

Both extremes of the spectrum are "wacky" in my world...on most topics.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Limiting magazine capacity will have no effect on suicide.

Never said it would.

[Alan A]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Never said it would.

It might for those guys who shot themselves twice in the back of the head and still committed suicide.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

A magazine capacity limit "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Once any government entity starts to define or restrict just what a law abiding citizen can "keep and bear" they have begun to "infringe" upon that right.

The Second Amendment does not allow for "just a wee little infringement", or "just a little bit of infringement" - it expressly forbids any infringement whatsoever. It enumerates a right held by all men, in which the government may not interfere, in which they morally have no say. It is a right that falls outside of their charter, outside of the authority we have granted to them under which they may govern us. It is beyond their purview, outside of their jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Being convicted of a felony will result in the revocation of many of one's rights. Not just firearms rights - the right to vote, the right to hold many professional licenses, etc. One can petition the courts for restoration of those rights. So, yes, it is entirely possible for a convicted felon to own firearms. It does in fact depend upon the nature of the conviction and the sympathy of the court.

There was a young man who worked in one of our support shops who wound up convicted of a felony - vehicular homicide. He went to prison. He lost his firearms rights. Upon release, while he was unable to get his job back (my employer has a policy against hiring, or rehiring, convicted felons), he was able to successfully petition the court for restoration of his firearms rights.

You have veered off into an unrelated tangent. This has nothing to do with the capacity or type of firearm we, as law abiding citizens, have the right to carry. Being a "right", those details are rightfully, morally, left to us, not our government.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

This entire conversation has been about infringement upon our right to "keep and bear arms" - I in no way introduced that into this discussion - that's how it got started, I merely joined in at that point. You introduced limits on magazine capacity, presenting them as no infringement at all, and I addressed that. Then you introduced your convicted felon angle into that discussion on magazine capacity when I explained how you were off base, in that restrictions on magazine capacity do in fact represent and infringement upon our rights.



Agreed - our discussion on magazine capacity as an infringement (or not - your position) is not a tangent. I already acknowledged that a couple of replies back.



Repeating the same debunked argument over and over again does not make it true. We covered this, explaining in detail why this position is wrong. You have offered nothing substantive by way of a reply. Instead you attempted to establish a link between convicted felons forfeiting their civil rights and law abiding citizens having their rights infringed. There is no link, and I have already explained why.



So now you resort to implying that I am dishonest? Why would you resort to this? I have been completely honest and absolutely clear on my position. I have supported my position with logically presented arguments.



Do you understand the difference between the forfeiture of rights as punishment for having committed a crime (or crimes) and the infringement of the rights of law abiding citizens? They are two entirely different topics. Let me re-state my position. "Shall not be infringed", with regards to law abiding citizens, means exactly that - not the slightest infringement. Once convicted of a felony, however, one forfeits all rights as a part of the punishment. I have now made the distinction between the two situations quite clear in several replies. They are completely unrelated situations.

Your introduction of magazine capacity into the discussion was absolutely in the context of the ongoing discussion - that of the infringement of the rights of law abiding citizens. I have acknowledged that several times. Your attempt to interject the forfeiture of civil rights as punishment for being convicted of a felony (or felonies) is completely unrelated to the issue of the government infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

And no, you still have not backed up your position on magazine capacity with any related, supporting, logical arguments. Again - simply repeating the same position, without any supporting arguments, is not convincing. Your's is an unsupportable position, and I have very clearly, very logically explained why. You have offered nothing in the way of a rebuttal, but have instead resorted to calling me dishonest - a personal attack in the place of a reasoned argument - an all too common tact on this forum when one cannot support their position.

What you have done was give your opinion... much like I have. We differ in our opinion. I'm just asking you to reconcile what appears to be a contradiction in your own belief that the right "shall not be infringed" even a little. If you truly believe what you're saying that the right can't be infringed upon even in the slightest by the government then you must believe that revoking the right of someone to own a firearm because of felony conviction is wrong. I've asked you several times to expand but rather than do so you use the 1A as an example. The 1A has limits as well much like most "rights" under the constitution.

I have no problem supporting my opinion that magazine capacity in no way, shape or form prohibits one from buying, carrying or shooting a gun. It just doesn't. Your gun is fully functional, you can still buy the gun, you can still buy the ammo, you can still shoot the gun. You just can't cycle as many rounds through the gun without reloading the mag or switching magazines which means your right to keep and bear arms is fully intact. You claim I can't support my position... funny that's your opinion, and in no way makes my opinion invalid. The fact is, there are limitations on the 2A down to specifically what type of weapon you can buy without needing a license (privilege) to buy certain weapons.

If you think I was attacking you personally, get thicker skin, because I wasn't. I stated that I was being honest in my assertions. In my opinion, you can't truly believe that the 2A can't be infringed upon even a little if you're willing to accept other limitations as being constitutional or just. Again it reads "shall not be infringed" there is no such wording that allows for limiting the right if you violate some other law.

BTW Jeff, you once suggested that when reading a comment that I picture the person that wrote the comment smiling like they were ribbing me bit.. You might give that a try before you say someone is personally attacking you.

[Seahawk]

Banning ANYTHING associated with firearms makes fools of us all - prevents serious discussion of the real problem.

What has changed?

Here is an interesting link from the notoriously right leaning Mother Jones, mass shooting from 1982 to 2019. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/edit#gid=0

Anyone see a trend?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_ye ar

What happened, what changed? Click on each link. It isn't the availability of weapons, folks, high capacity mags, or calling semi automatic rifles "assault weapons".

[1990C4S]

What trend are you implying?

[KFC911]

^^^^ Back when we were legal adults, we could vote, drink, drive, but could not purchase a pistol nor pistol ammo. I bought my Marln at 18....couldn't purchase the ammo.

Our society changed, kids are fed psych drugs like candy, and the glamourization of the "bad guns"... just like a few Pelicans do ...has brought us to this point imo.

Where's my single shot bazooka when ya need one?

I have NO problem with the recent restrictions on "bump stocks" for example. Not saying ya can't own one, but if it "acts like" a full auto (to my untrained ears)...then "pay da man" for extra scrutiny.

How many here get "permits" to buy or carry... aren't those restrictions too?

[Racerbvd]

I want a few MORE "reasonable" reasonable restrictions placed upon our 2A rights and have absolutely NO WORRIES about my rights being taken

Do you know how many laws are already on the books??
More than few.
Shooting random people is already illegal, just like sawing off the barrel of a shot gun.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Do you know how many laws are already on the books??
More than few.
Shooting random people is already illegal, just like sawing off the barrel of a shot gun.

So? Have all those laws and restrictions taken away your 2A "rights".... nope. It's just the mantra of the NRA and others....

What we have now is unacceptable....

I have ZERO worries about the USA being disarmed however....as we ARE a polite society...always will be

We ain't nobody else...

[flipper35]

I think the mantra is maybe to enforce the laws already on the books. Maybe some of the LEOs (many do a wonderful job by the way, we need more of those) should do there jobs properly. Chicago and Parkland come to mind here.

If the NICS gets messed up because the FBI is too lazy to keep it up to date, then no law can work properly with background checks. "Oh hey, we know we had three days to send back the automated check but it just doesn't work for us, you pay the repercussions".

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by KC911

So? Have all those laws and restrictions taken away your 2A "rights".... nope. It's just the mantra of the NRA and others....

What we have now is unacceptable....

I have ZERO worries about the USA being disarmed however....as we ARE a polite society...always will be

We ain't nobody else...

We've never met have we?
Oh... and I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in DC or NY.

_______________________

Brent,
I agree with everything you stated above ^^^

[cabmandone]

Jeff,
If you took what I wrote as a personal attack on you or your integrity I'm truly sorry. It was not my intention to do so. You should know that while we've never met in person I respect the hell out of you and your opinion when it comes to guns. I've sought your opinion in other threads and I don't do that very often unless I have an immense amount of respect for someone.