NY Times wilfully ignorant

originally posted by: butcherguy

During the American Revolution, if there had been AR 15 rifles available to the British and the colonists....
Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers would have written the Second Amendment to exclude them?

Absolutely...

when the 2nd amendment was written, the US had rifles that fired 3-4 rounds per minute and they were not very accurate

John Adams said:

I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to

What do you believe he'd say if he held an AR15 and fired at some targets?

The weapons you have are offensive weapons that are being used to massacre children and innocents far to often

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: butcherguy

During the American Revolution, if there had been AR 15 rifles available to the British and the colonists....
Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers would have written the Second Amendment to exclude them?

Absolutely...

when the 2nd amendment was written, the US had rifles that fired 3-4 rounds per minute and they were not very accurate

John Adams said:

I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to

What do you believe he'd say if he held an AR15 and fired at some targets?

The weapons you have are offensive weapons that are being used to massacre children and innocents far to often

Judging by the part you bolded, he'd fire it, realize that those who seek to attack him would have the same weapon, and then wish to have the same to defend himself with.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: butcherguy

During the American Revolution, if there had been AR 15 rifles available to the British and the colonists....
Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers would have written the Second Amendment to exclude them?

Absolutely...

when the 2nd amendment was written, the US had rifles that fired 3-4 rounds per minute and they were not very accurate

John Adams said:

I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to

What do you believe he'd say if he held an AR15 and fired at some targets?

The weapons you have are offensive weapons that are being used to massacre children and innocents far to often

Judging by the part you bolded, he'd fire it, realize that those who seek to attack him would have the same weapon, and then wish to have the same to defend himself with.

who is attacking people that pack these kind of weapons?

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: butcherguy

During the American Revolution, if there had been AR 15 rifles available to the British and the colonists....
Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers would have written the Second Amendment to exclude them?

Absolutely...

when the 2nd amendment was written, the US had rifles that fired 3-4 rounds per minute and they were not very accurate

John Adams said:

I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to

What do you believe he'd say if he held an AR15 and fired at some targets?

The weapons you have are offensive weapons that are being used to massacre children and innocents far to often

Judging by the part you bolded, he'd fire it, realize that those who seek to attack him would have the same weapon, and then wish to have the same to defend himself with.

who is attacking people that pack these kind of weapons?

You're ill equipped for this discussion, apparently. I'd recommend further research.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

who is attacking people that pack these kind of weapons?

You're ill equipped for this discussion, apparently. I'd recommend further research.

thats a pretty weak response..

I genuinely want to hear from the people saying they need these weapons, who they're protecting themselves from that have similar weapons

it could only be a few groups right?

a reply to: network dude

Ok, say you wanted to, I don'tknow, maybe kill a bunch of children at a school. Which weapon would you choose?

Thought so.

originally posted by: JinMI
These threads kill me.

I am laughing myself.

The ignorant pointing fingers at the ignorant.

a reply to: introvert

What's rather disturbing I'd the op ed is in favor of completely repealing the 2nd. Also incorporating varying aspects of the arguments

a reply to: Agit8dChop

What do you believe he'd say if he held an AR15 and fired at some targets? 

He would have asked... 'Where can we get more of these to arm our citizens against the British that would try to take them away from us?'

You think a musket would be a preferred weapon to defend against someone armed with an AR 15?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

What's rather disturbing I'd the op ed is in favor of completely repealing the 2nd. Also incorporating varying aspects of the arguments

These kids will outlive us. Another amendment is coming, it is their right to do so, and I think the future will portray us as ignorant barbarians for allowing and defending school shooting for our selfish desire to own weapons of death.

Dead childern.

Defend it.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

who is attacking people that pack these kind of weapons?

You're ill equipped for this discussion, apparently. I'd recommend further research.

thats a pretty weak response..

I genuinely want to hear from the people saying they need these weapons, who they're protecting themselves from that have similar weapons

it could only be a few groups right?

First, ARs are a style of firearm. The style is popular because it is modular and functional as far as rifles are concerned.

Second, consumers often times like what marketing professionals call "pro-sumer" products that mimic the look and style of what professionals use even if the pro-sumer model isn't the same thing. Guns are no different.

For example, every kitchen nowadays has to have stainless steel appliances to mimic the look of what would be found in a professional kitchen even though most women these days could burn water.

Cars often mimic vehicles like race cars and off road vehicles even if 99.9% of cars will never be on a track or drive over anything bigger than a curb at a shopping mall. SUVs are a prime example of this... People like the look and the practicality, but the typical car is not a true off-road SUV.

Cameras... everybody loves to walk around with their $1000 dslr camera like they are some great photographer even though they don't use or even understand 90% of features.

With guns, they are a tool. People in rural areas not only use them for protection, but for hunting and pest control. The AR style of rifle just offers features of comfort, modularity, and some functionality that make it a great military weapon BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME thing. As the OP pointed out, the rifles in the picture are the same functionally. One just looks like a military rifle and the other doesn't.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: shooterbrody

this is why a sensible debate about guns cant happen... some of you have 0 sense..

People talk about sensible gun laws you rabidly attack it like your 2nd amendment is going to be abolished.
Make changes.. adjust it to suit the times because your society is flooded with mentally deranged people

You can pretend there's no issue and watch people suffer or you can do something and maybe make a positive change..

how can you have a "sensible" debate when you won't even acknowledge the actual facts?

why not try to ban handguns???

Handguns were by far the most popular murder weapon used in the US in 2016. That year 7,105 people were murdered with handguns.

www.statista.com...

Knives or cutting instruments were the second most popular weapon used, with 1,604 murders committed with a knife.

more deaths by Knives or cutting instruments than by "assault weapons"

you people are quite disengenuous

originally posted by: network dude
www.nytimes.com...

The writing below the above picture:

A rifle from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today. Credit Top, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

Here is my first "Assault Rifle" I purchased"

Sure it's only a .22LR, but the lead is the same size as the scary Black rifle above, and it shoots the same way, "semi automatic", it even has multiple rounds. I can buy Ruger's version of the same rifle and get a 100 shot magazine for it.

But the big picture is at this point in the discussion, there just is no excuse for calling a semi-automatic weapon an 'assault weapon'. there is enough information available, people have explained this over and over again. It's pushing an agenda at best, being stupid like a sack of hammers, at worst.

This:

Is and M249 also known as a SAW. It is fully automatic, and is in fact an assault weapon. It is used by our military to use in forward assaults.
Ignorance at this point can't be blamed on anything other than lack of intelligence.

With respect, while the caliber is the same the mass of the bullet and powder charge/power of a .223 is much more than a .22. You can't compare the two. An ar-15 is a lot more powerful than a .22 rifle

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

What's rather disturbing I'd the op ed is in favor of completely repealing the 2nd. Also incorporating varying aspects of the arguments

These kids will outlive us. Another amendment is coming, it is their right to do so, and I think the future will portray us as ignorant barbarians for allowing and defending school shooting for our selfish desire to own weapons of death.

Dead childern.

Defend it.

Good point. The younger generation is speaking and nobody wants to listen. They are the ones that have their whole lives ahead of them.
Things can, do and should change.

I'm not sure what the average age is here but it's not 16. I know that.

" I have 15 years left on this rock. Can't have muh gunz"

Hahaha

These kids see something wrong and they want to change it. I say good on them for at least attempting to stand up for what they believe.

It sucks that people, many on here just dismiss them. They're just snowflakes or they just want to get out of school for 17 minutes.

They shouldn't be dismissed.

That 22 LR is a deadly gun. The thing is that it is not intimidating, and it is not desired by people who are crazy enthusiasts of military style weapons. It is not the gun that kills people, it is the attitude of the person who desires the gun that is a killer. Someone who is desensitized and wants power and control over others and thinks this gun is intimidating to others will reinforce their delusion of power by having this gun.

People who are loose cannons would buy an assault type rifle over a plain jane deer rifle or smaller caliber rifle. It is bragging rights to own a naughty rifle for some people. Both are deadly but who collects the guns is the issue. I do not think a school shooter would be interested in the rifles I own, they are not impressive and they are old.

A normal person buying an assault type gun is no threat....although I do not believe we need such a gun in our life. I can do better at hitting a target with the open sited thirty thirty lever action I own which I grew up with than most people can do with their fancy scoped rifles at the range. The reason...I grew up shooting that gun, I know how it acts when I shoot the Remington shells I always buy for it. I know how much it drops and the effect of wind on it from experience. I do not need anymore than that to hunt anything. Actually a twenty two long rifle bullet in my bolt action long barrel rifle is a good target shooter, the bullet is light and does not drop as much. You do not need an impressive gun to hunt or kill. But some people believe the more impressive a gun is, the more dangerous it is.

Yes, the gun of choice for a person who is a loose cannon would be an assault style rifle. Would banning these weapons help to stop loose cannons? I don't know, they get all hyped up when they get these fancy guns, it might help to stop these people who are loose cannons from getting them. For the majority of people, I doubt if it will matter, but then again, I was a very good shot and I would not even want one of these assault rifles myself. They do not impress the deer at all.

Right. It's a bit disingenuous for people to say there isn't a difference in mass killing power or even killing one target between a one shot gun versus semi auto. a reply to: Agit8dChop

a reply to: Edumakated
I was an Army officer. An AR-15 pretty much does the same thing in semi as an M-16. Oh, and we never used a 16 on full auto. So, pretty much the same thing.

Try and keep up.

a reply to: network dude

What about a laser pistol? If that is semi auto or one shot reload it will still be illegal right? With lead & powder people have a chance to survive, will lasers give a more probable survival chance if hit in a potentially non fatal spot? Or will it totally be unrepairable? Or an electricity gun that works like lightning, it just needs to be pointed at something that can conduct electricity & it pume pumes. Will weapons like those, either semi or full auto, make fully auto lead rifles legal? If laser guns or electrical guns are that much more dangerous, why wouldn't full auto lead guns be legal for self preservation?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The length argument is pretty weak. I own a 16" barrel M4-gery that shoots accurately enough to hit 12" steel plates at 500 yards with iron sights. 5.56x45 isn't especially lethal past 150yards anyway. The round is intended to wound, not kill.

I also have several 8" plates set up at 25 yards and can reliably hit all targets with basic semi-auto pistols, rapid-fire, and swapping between targets. With several 15rd or less magazines, it's easy to keep up a good rate of fire. Reloading takes about a second. 10 round mags wouldn't make a huge difference. I used to own an old Lee-Enfield bolt-action, and I could keep up a pretty good rate of fire with only a 5 round magazine and charger clips.

It's not the gun, but the shooter that makes a shooting lethal.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Right. It's a bit disingenuous for people to say there isn't a difference in mass killing power or even killing one target between a one shot gun versus semi auto. a reply to: Agit8dChop

If the gun grabbers were serious though, they'd go after handguns which exponentially kill more people. Less than 400 people annually are killed with a long gun OF ANY KIND. Like 5% of all shooting deaths. Yet, gun grabbers make ARs to be devil's spawn when factually it simply isnt the case.

Far more damage is done with semi-auto handguns.