Big win for the second amendment

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

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

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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

Share