New Republican bill would make the AR-15 the ‘national gun’

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Bowerbird, Feb 26, 2023.

?

Is this a good or bad idea

  1. Great idea I hope it passes with bells on

    7 vote(s)
    35.0%
  2. I like it but they could be spending time on more important things

    3 vote(s)
    15.0%
  3. I neither like nor hate it

    3 vote(s)
    15.0%
  4. I hate the idea and they absolutely should be spending time on more worthwhile projects

    1 vote(s)
    5.0%
  5. May their districts be redrawn and they lose their seats

    6 vote(s)
    30.0%
  1. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The definition of assault rifle is a question of fact, not of opinion.


    Plenty of people who discuss the issue use the term in the proper manner.


    It depends on what others you refer to.

    If you mean use the term according to its actual proper definition, the reason would be a desire for truth and accuracy.

    If you mean use a fraudulent definition for the term, the reason why people do that is to mislead the ignorant.


    Well, it is wrong to try to mislead people.


    Assault weapon is a perfectly good term to use when referring to actual assault weapons.


    OK.


    That is doubly wrong.

    First, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is an ordinary hunting and self-defense rifle.

    Second, the AR-15 is not even close to being the most popular for mass shootings.

    Mass murderers prefer handguns.


    Not wrong. You cannot provide a single example of an assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian being used to commit a crime.


    Goal post moving.

    The question was not legally owned guns, but legally owned assault weapons.


    He did not use an assault rifle. He used an ordinary hunting and self-defense rifle.


    No there weren't.


    Backing up your claims is your research, not my research. Rest assured that I will do sufficient research to back up my own claims.

    As for my alleged ignorance, your inability to back up your claims is evidence that I was correct to say that no such event has occurred.


    More goal post moving. The question was not legally owned weapons, but legally owned assault weapons.


    I will pay attention to facts.

    But there are no facts to support your claims. Your claims are untrue.


    I'm not the one who can't back up his claims.


    I'm not the one who can't back up his claims.


    It is a fact that no assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.


    I'm not the one who can't back up his claims.


    The left has no motivation for outlawing pistol grips and flash suppressors other than their desire to violate people's civil liberties.


    Your failure to provide any examples of an assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian being used to commit a crime is evidence that my claim that it has never happened is entirely credible.


    Your name-calling is a poor substitute for facts and logic.
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  2. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,631
    Likes Received:
    13,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yea. man. Creating a law to name AR-15 the 'national gun' will show 'em.

    Bang, bang, pew-pew-pew.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2023
  3. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In other words, you are completely ignorant of the arguments of those in favor of regulation. I, on the other hand, have already heard the arguments by the pro-gun crowd, presented much better, by the way, than you have been doing.

    So there is clearly nothing of relevance, you will tell me, about this issue. Why don't you read some of the posts, or research online, the argument for various gun controls, so you might at least be able to present an informed argument? Or don't-- but if not, I wouldn't advise holding your breath, awaiting my replies to more of the meaningless tripe, which has, so far, been your "argument's" fare.
     
  4. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. Those arguments do not exist.

    If the arguments existed you would be presenting them. But you are not able to present an argument that does not even exist, so you are left making excuses for your failure to address my points or to even make any new points of your own.


    Since I have demolished your position and left you unable to respond with facts or logic, those other arguments must have been truly devastating indeed.


    The fact that your claims are completely wrong seems at least a little bit relevant.


    Because I am already able to do so. Note how you cannot even respond to any of my points and can only make excuses for your failure to do so.


    I don't consider the fact that your claims are completely wrong to be meaningless.

    I think that is relevant to the conversation.
     
  5. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are addressing multiple replies of mine, made almost 3 weeks ago. One would think anyone doing so, would have the sense to offer an explanation of the context of each of my comments, because it is not apparent, without the quotes to which they had been responding. Your replies to my quotes-- besides not being effective arguments-- don't even help to make clear what are their subjects.

    When my old quote says, for instance--

    DEFinning said: ↑
    IOW, if you'd thought that was a good argument you were making, you were incredibly wrong--

    it is clear to no one, including myself, to what argument I am referring. Your useless response-- "Seems like a good argument to me. Is there any counter to the argument?"-- does not clarify things, in the least. Apparently you expect me to trace down all the original quotes, to understand the subject under discussion. That work, IMO, was the job of the person replying (i.e., you), this long after I'd made those comments. You could have supplied short, explanatory notes; offered the quotes, to which my posts applied; or, in your reply, you could have defined the issue, upon which, you were offering your inflated two cents. Instead, you give me this:

    DEFinning said: ↑
    If you are just going to ignore my points, I am not going to bother to address yours. What would be the point? But I do not accept your contentions as presented, just because you say so.
    <End Quote>

    <Your reply>

    I think his answer did address your points.
    <End>

    Well, thanks for that-- I'm sure many of us, found it interesting, and compellingly argued. But I especially love the insight of this one:

    DEFinning said: ↑

    and #3 & #4, are nothing but your subjective, personal opinion.

    <Your reply>

    That is incorrect. He is correct about the left being motivated solely by a desire to violate people's civil liberties.
    <End>


    Insightful, as I'd said-- not as an argument from you, but rather, offering insight to us, about the quality of your thinking. This is helpful towards readers' decision, whether their getting the full experience, would be worth tracking down the quotes, back in February, to have the slightest idea, what various topics you are talking about.

    That clarified-- if in your mind, that "the left is motivated solely by a desire to violate people's civil liberties," is not subjective opinion, but rather, "fact," this is all the insight I require, to know that answering you any more fully, would be an utter waste of time.



    P.S.-- I have saved your final, arbitrary pronouncement, from your quote's random collection, at top, to close the show:

    Yes, the Left has been a baaaaaaad boy. I suppose the most reasonable solution is to thrown them all in prison?-- or too expensive? Perhaps, then, gas chamber?
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2023
  6. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can easily click on a quote and go right back to the original message that is being quoted.

    There is a little "up arrow" right at the top of the quote.


    Arguing against reality is always a waste of time. Yet many on the left choose to do it.

    I recommend accepting reality instead. Few on the left choose to take my advice on that however.


    I'm against murder. Although if we are talking of a penalty imposed by a judge after being found guilty in a fair trial perhaps that isn't murder.

    Willfully violating people's civil liberties for fun is not a death penalty offense though.

    So lets rule out the death penalty.

    How about 20 to 30 years in prison?
     
    SiNNiK and Turtledude like this.
  7. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You have been misled, or you know better and are intentionally spreading misinformation.

    For starters, mass shootings- the real kind, not the ones the press arbitrarily declares to be a 'mass shooting' are incredibly rare events. Your chances of dying in one over your entire lifetime (where your overall chances of death are 1 in 1) are 1 in 11,125. Your read that right, for every 11,125 people who die (which is eventually all of them) 11,124 of them will die of something not a mass shooting, by any definition. Your chances of drowning, dying in a bicycle accident, getting eaten by a shark, hit by lightning, or squished by a boulder rolling down a muddy mountain are more likely.


    This means you could eliminate every mass shooting death ever and there would be no discernable or statistically significant change in overall homicide rates, homicides with guns, and so on.

    Next, if you are that unlucky 1 in 11,125, the chances are far higher that your death will come via handgun, vs. an AR-15 or any other kind of long gun. Those happen more frequently, but because they don't fit the narrative of black rifle bad, they stay in the news cycle for about 12 hours. Mass killings with ARs or similar will remain in the headlines for days if not weeks.


    I don't know what you know, or what you think you know, but the AR-15 is a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle. The .223 cartridge is, unsurprisingly, .003 inches wider than your run of the mill .22lr, which is the least powerful rifle round that exists. That is such a small difference, you can't see it with the naked eye, and it would take calibrated calipers to be able to measure it, that go to a 1/1000th of an inch accuracy. Compared to other rifles, it is on the lower end of the power spectrum, so much so that in States where the deer grow large, it is frequently illegal to hunt with because it is so underpowered that it causes a slow, painful death, instead of quick and clean. A larger caliber is required for the quick, and clean kill without causing the animal unnecessary suffering. It is more powerful than many handguns, true, but that is because it is a rifle, and like all rifles, it shoots rounds at approximately 3,000 fps, vs. 1,100 fps for most pistols.

    F=ma, and the 'a' component (acceleration) is -3000 fps which causes a similar mass round to have 3x the power of a pistol round of similar size. Larger rounds can actually be stronger out of a pistol, but I don't feel like doing a lot of complex math to figure out which.


    My point is there is nothing special or unusual about this gun. It's a rifle, plain and simple, and that's it. Yes, people, particularly veterans like them because they know them... I bought my first 20 years or so after getting our of the Army, but because basic training ingrains what it teaches so deeply, it was like 20 minutes had passed. I could still take one apart, clean it, and reassemble it blindfolded in short order,

    If you want to argue that it is too powerful, then an intellectually honest and consistent argument would result in banning basically every rifle that exists.

    Furthermore, if your goal is to prevent mass shootings, however defined, you would also need to ban handguns, as they are used more often than rifles to commit those crimes. Indeed, the worst school shooting in US History remains (and will hopefully stay that way) the Virginia Tech shooting, that was committed with the two least powerful handguns in existence, a .22, and a 9mm.

    And that puts us at what I believe the ultimate goal of you and your side is- a complete ban of all firearms, whether pistol or rifle, semi-auto or otherwise, and regardless of caliber. Because without that, the rare mass shootings cannot be prevented.

    But that won't help at all, either. Guns are simple mechanical objects, that work with a few springs, a firing device (trigger), and a firing pin that hits the explosive charge on the round (except for .22lr, which is rim fire), and tubes that use the gases from the gunpowder explosion to push the old round out, and put a new one in. They are easy to make out of a block of aluminum, some springs, and a few ounces of plastic. You can already print usable handguns with consumer grade 3d printers that use plastic, and I predict within 5-10 years you'll be able to do the same with metal. I would not shoot one of the plastic ones as I don't trust the plastic itself, but once it's possible with metal, that's a whole different thing.

    In addition, just a bit of maintenance and they will not just last for decades, but centuries, so you can't count on the 400,000,000 in present circulation to disappear, even if you ban future manufacturing and sales. Even without the ease of using a 3d printer, they are quite easy to make with a CNC machine and the knowledge of how to use it. I have neither personally, but many, many others do.

    They aren't going away, no matter what Unconstitutional laws you can manage to pass. Which, of course, requires modifying the Constitution first, which is a practical impossibility. You will never get 38 States to agree to it, even if you could pull off a miracle and get 2/3rds of the Congress to do so.

    Quite simply, shootings (mass or otherwise) that don't happen rarely make the news. Sometimes they don't even get reported to law enforcement, as in countless instances, the mere presentation of a weapon is enough to make a bad guy disengage and bug out. Why call the cops when you might be putting yourself at risk- say you are in a State that is not friendly to firearms, or your local prosecutor is out to get anyone who uses them even for legit self defense? Will the cops investigate a non-incident anyway? Doubtful. So, there is no point, and I can tell you if I am ever in such a situation, I wouldn't share that information with anyone, ever.

    But when they do not get stopped, especially when so-called 'assault weapons' are used, as I mentioned previously, they stay in the nooz for a long time.

    But all of this is just mental masturbation and wasting electrons. After the recent Supreme Court decisions of Heller, McDonald, and most importantly, Bruen, this is all academic. It doesn't matter how anyone wants to parse the language of the 2nd Amendment to make it fit your agenda, and it doesn't matter what weapons are used for self-defense, or even just putting holes in paper. Unless you can demonstrate a long standing, centuries long tradition of any specific proposed or existing gun control measure, it is Unconstitutional, period. The States of NY, NJ, CA, and IL, and possibly others are trying to play games to get around those decisions, but they will get put in their place sooner rather than later (it's happening in real time as I type this), and should they fail to comply this next time, I expect it will result in sanctions, jail for Contempt of Court, or worse for the politicians involved. Mz. Hochul may see the inside of a jail cell if she doesn't pass laws consistent with those rulings, which she is trying her best to avoid doing, as I predicted long ago.

    All it will do is kick the can down to road a few months, nothing more.

     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2023

Share This Page