Big win for the second amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    Automatic rifles are already outlawed and you need a special federal license to have one.  That's a machine gun.  No one needs those but very few people have them. Other rifles fell under the 'Assault Weapon" label that are no more dangerous than any hunting rifle.  AR15's are one.  They are Semi-Automatic.  Yeah, they look military but shoot one bullet for one pull of the trigger.  The round itself is slightly bigger than a .22.  It's longer and higher powered but still comes out once for every trigger pull.  The reason AR's are so popular is the simple design and reliability.  They are used for hunting by a lot of hunters. I have several guns and a License to Carry,  which I never do for practical reasons.  I know plenty of people who do carry every day with no issues.  Most people who carry are praying they never have to take it out of the holster.  Once you do, whether or not you fired it, your life has changed forever.



    Assault weapons are much more dangerous for a few reasons.

    High-powered ammunition that is capable of penetrating body armor and lightly armored vehicles leaving law enforcement at a distinct disadvantage.

    High capacity clips which increase the number of rounds available without reloading. The brief pause necessary to change clips provides a few crucial seconds with which to manuever towards or away from a shooter.

    The ability to be easily modified to full auto by changing only a few parts of the weapon.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    not because they don't know how to differentiate good guy from bad guy.



     

    Actually, there are accidental shootings because of things like that. If a primary purpose of ownership is self-defense, then I see no reason why people shouldn't have to demonstrate a minimum degree of proficiency/safety in using the weapon for self-defense.

     

     

    "What does being able to have perfect aim have to do with leaving a loaded gun around the house where a child picks it up and ends up shooting themselves?"

    Nothing directly. As I said, you can't fix stupid, but sometimes you can catch it. If a person demonstrates a requisite degree of competence in all areas of ownership/use, then I suspect they are more likely not to leave a loaded gun lying around.

     

     

    In addition to all this, it would be nice if applying for a license or buying a gun required the person to allow the dealer to check mental health history. This might require a revamping of some health privacy laws, but, I think something further needs to be done to make sure that people with relevant mental illnesses cannot own weapons (ie, schizophrenia. Anti-personality disorder. Not irrelevant things like eating disorders).

    The Supreme Court explicitly gave an approving nod to that concept in Heller.



    Mental health background check is done when person applies for gun license (Brady Bill)

    BTW, Boston requires a shooting test for those who apply for handgun license. I took the test. You'd have to be a really bad shot to fail. Not because it's super easy but because hitting a target in a non-stressful environment is not all that hard if one practiced a bit. Problem is one can pass the test and still be a moron who leaves a loaded gun around.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Outlawing guns for citizens is NOT going to keep them out of criminals hands




     



    I asked you to give me an example of when he said Obama was looking to ban guns. You can't. Nuff said.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Why is an AR-15 overkill for self defense?

     

    Have you looked at autopsy photographs of what happens to a body that has been hit with an AR-15 round?



    I venture to say  that it shows that the attempt at self defence with the AR-15 was successful.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    Automatic rifles are already outlawed and you need a special federal license to have one.  That's a machine gun.  No one needs those but very few people have them. Other rifles fell under the 'Assault Weapon" label that are no more dangerous than any hunting rifle.  AR15's are one.  They are Semi-Automatic.  Yeah, they look military but shoot one bullet for one pull of the trigger.  The round itself is slightly bigger than a .22.  It's longer and higher powered but still comes out once for every trigger pull.  The reason AR's are so popular is the simple design and reliability.  They are used for hunting by a lot of hunters. I have several guns and a License to Carry,  which I never do for practical reasons.  I know plenty of people who do carry every day with no issues.  Most people who carry are praying they never have to take it out of the holster.  Once you do, whether or not you fired it, your life has changed forever.




    Assault weapons are much more dangerous for a few reasons.

     

    High-powered ammunition that is capable of penetrating body armor and lightly armored vehicles leaving law enforcement at a distinct disadvantage.

    High capacity clips which increase the number of rounds available without reloading. The brief pause necessary to change clips provides a few crucial seconds with which to manuever towards or away from a shooter.

    The ability to be easily modified to full auto by changing only a few parts of the weapon.



    AR's shoot .223/5.56 and can't penetrate body armor or armored vehicles.  I wouldn't disagree that any weapon that could should be more controlled but an AR isn't one of them.

    Anyone that modifies a weapon to go full auto is a criminal and no different than the guy who buys a gun without a license.

    The latest FBI statistics show homicides by all rifles to be less than half of those of beating by fists.  Rifles in general aren't a big problem.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Outlawing guns for citizensis NOT going to keep them out of criminals hands




     



    I asked you to give me an example of when he said Obama was looking to ban guns. You can't. Nuff said.

     




     

    I know you love putting on displays of obstinate ret@rdation in the hope of getting a reaction....    

    However, if you do not know who the one individual is who could sign legislation that would "outlaw guns for citizens," I truly pity you.



    Sigh...it was a hypothetical. He wasn't saying it was going to actually happen. Talk about retardation

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    AR's shoot .223/5.56 and can't penetrate body armor or armored vehicles.  I wouldn't disagree that any weapon that could should be more controlled but an AR isn't one of them. Anyone that modifies a weapon to go full auto is a criminal and no different than the guy who buys a gun without a license. The latest FBI statistics show homicides by all rifles to be less than half of those of beating by fists.  Rifles in general aren't a big problem.


    The 5.56 most certainly does penetrate soft body armor and light-armor vehicles. The performance of the 5.56 round is comparable to the 7.62 which it replaced. That was one of it's design purposes and the reason the round is small relative to velocity. It will easily defeat any soft body armor on the market and in general use by law enforcement.

    In testing, the M855A1 exceeded the performance of the M855 and even the performance of 7.62mm ball ammunition against targets.

    Complete penetration of SAE 1010/1020 steel plate, 3.5 mm thickness (light armor equivalent) placed at a distance of 625 yards (570 meters) from the muzzle.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    lol.....     slow day or something? 

    I'm sure you'd be just as quick to find a 'hypothetical' instead of an idiotic statement if it was 12AM who made it.

     



    Right because I never call out tvoter, skeeter, nomo, etc.....sigh.....

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    Right because I never call out tvoter, skeeter, nomo, etc.....sigh.....



    Oh I didn't say that. You do on certain key issues you feel strongly about.

     

    What you don't do is give these forgiving reinterpretations to both sides of the aisle.

    Either way, as I was saying, I'll just leave it there because I'm not really interested in debating with you what tvoter meant. I'll take his actual words over a forgiving re-write of them that doesn't make any sense in context of the actual post:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    ""I think you'll see a reduction in violence because right now, the criminals know there's no one legally who can defend themselves. If I'm a gang member and I now know there's concealed carry, if I try to steal that person's bag, I'll be careful what I do because that person might have a gun."" 

    Or maybe you'll just shoot them and take it. To be safe, of course.

    Or maybe instead of doing a snip & run, you'll approach them with your gun pointed at them, thereby increasing the chances of a public shootout.

    This mantra that everyone having guns makes everyone safer is dangerously stupid. There are too many idiots, hotheads, and freaks for universal ownership to make things safer. 

    Nevermind that we already have the most guns and the most gun violence. Go figure. More will help. 




    Yea outlaw guns because criminals are so law abiding it will stop them from getting them!!

    Can anyone really be that stupid?




     

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    This is a state sovereignty issue, so it's not clear the 2nd Amt. is involved.

    Chicago certainly needs help; whether this is the answer remains to be seen.

    But if the police didn't want to patrol certain neighborhoods before, it's hard to see how this makes them more willing to do so.

    And yes, I own guns.   



    Outlawing guns for citizens is NOT going to keep them out of criminals hands!!




     

     

     



    Still nothing about Obama wanting to ban guns eh? 

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    Still nothing about Obama wanting to ban guns eh?



    Still unable to name someone other than Obama who could sign a piece of legislation that would outlaw guns in the U.S.?

     

     

    PS: You're trying too hard.



    Not as hard as you.  Every utterance from Obama's lips are like pure gold to you, aren't they?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    Still nothing about Obama wanting to ban guns eh?



    Still unable to name someone other than Obama who could sign a piece of legislation that would outlaw guns in the U.S.?

     

     

    PS: You're trying too hard.



    Hahahaha...tvoter was assuming the people he was replying to were advocating for banning. THAT is what he was responding to. Big difference between that and stating that he thinks Obama is going to ban guns.

    WHOOSH!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    I venture to say  that it shows that the attempt at self defence with the AR-15 was successful.



    They tend to show overkill.

     

    You don't need to splatter the entirety of someone's shoulder all over a wall causing them to quickly bleed to death in order to defend yourself.

    There's stopping power. And then there's areosolizing body parts.



    Just curious, at what distance was that shooting? 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    AR's shoot .223/5.56 and can't penetrate body armor or armored vehicles.  I wouldn't disagree that any weapon that could should be more controlled but an AR isn't one of them. Anyone that modifies a weapon to go full auto is a criminal and no different than the guy who buys a gun without a license. The latest FBI statistics show homicides by all rifles to be less than half of those of beating by fists.  Rifles in general aren't a big problem.



    The 5.56 most certainly does penetrate soft body armor and light-armor vehicles. The performance of the 5.56 round is comparable to the 7.62 which it replaced. That was one of it's design purposes and the reason the round is small relative to velocity. It will easily defeat any soft body armor on the market and in general use by law enforcement.

     

    In testing, the M855A1 exceeded the performance of the M855 and even the performance of 7.62mm ball ammunition against targets.

    Complete penetration of SAE 1010/1020 steel plate, 3.5 mm thickness (light armor equivalent) placed at a distance of 625 yards (570 meters) from the muzzle.

     



    Then there's this:

    FBI Ballistic Tests
    As a result of renewed law enforcement interest in the .223 round and in the newer weapons systems developed around it, the FBI recently subjected several various .223 caliber projectiles to 13 different ballistic tests and compared their performance to that of SMG-fired hollow point pistol bullets in 9mm, 10mm, and .40 S&W calibers.

    Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    Then there's this: FBI Ballistic Tests As a result of renewed law enforcement interest in the .223 round and in the newer weapons systems developed around it, the FBI recently subjected several various .223 caliber projectiles to 13 different ballistic tests and compared their performance to that of SMG-fired hollow point pistol bullets in 9mm, 10mm, and .40 S&W calibers. Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets. 



    From the study you cite:

    From a law enforcement standpoint, the ability of the .223 caliber round to defeat soft body armor, military ballistic helmets and many ballistic shields is a "double-edged sword." The criminal use of body armor is rare, but increasing. Possessing the ability to penetrate and adversary’s protective vest is obviously desirable. However, this round will also defeat law enforcement vests, so great care must be exercised in laying out and observing fields of fire in training and during operations. With this concern over potential fratricide in mind, voices have been raised in some quarters regarding this bilateral tactical attribute.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    Just curious, at what distance was that shooting? 



    Pretty close. I think around 10-15 feet.

     

    I think that's relevant, though, because that's the sort of distance we're often talking about when we think of "self-defense".

    A burglar in an average sized home....

    A mugger.......

    A guy several teller lanes down that starts waving a gun around....

    Etc. To me, you've done enough for "self-defense" when you've stopped the threat and incapacitated the person to the extent that they aren't going to hurt anyone. An AR-15 at the typical "self-defense" range seems to me to do a hell of a lot more damage than necessary.

     

     

    I'm sure they do less damage at 1000 ft to a deer, but that's not self-defense, that's hunting. And my view is that if the core of the right to own is self-defense, guns that go well beyond the necessary on that front shouldn't be sold, even if they're more handy at dropping deer from long distances.

     



    Yeah 10-15 feet would be pretty devastating.  However, I think at that distance, so would my .45.  Slower round but much larger.  Add hollow point to that equation and it would be nasty.  Then again, if some (insert label here) was coming after me or a member of my family with homicidal or otherwise vicious intent, I'm not sure I'd worry about how badly I killed him.  I hope to God I never have to face that situation. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:

    Automatic rifles are already outlawed and you need a special federal license to have one.  That's a machine gun.  No one needs those but very few people have them.




    Excellent point In that ONLY outlaws have fully automatic assault rifles and there are plenty out there among them; just ask law enforcement after raids!!

    So, how does banning them help anything??

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    how does banning them help anything?

    How many people would have gotten out of the theatre if he had an M-16 and 1000 rounds on him?

    Even the Supreme Court agreed that there is no genuine self-defense purpose for giving military weapons to civilians. You're off your f**king rocker if you think automatic assault rifles should be available to all.



    Geez!

    How about "would he have done it everyone in the theater had M-16's"?

    If, outlawing certain guns will get them off the streets; lets outlaw heroin and meth to get that off the street too??

    sigh.......

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts