So it does not fold after all. Most shotgun stocks can be removed with a screw. And look whats still attached, the frame it rides on. You are probably not the best one to tell others to do their research on this topic
You need to do your research. "When assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, they resulted in far more deaths and injuries. Between 2009 and 2018, the five deadliest mass shooting incidents in the US all involved the use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines: Las Vegas, Orlando, Newtown, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland.10 "Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were disproportionately used in public mass shootings. Of the shootings with known weapon type, 73 percent of those that involved an assault weapon and/or high-capacity magazine occurred in public compared to 45 percent of those that involved a handgun." https://maps.everytownresearch.org/massshootingsreports/mass-shootings-in-america-2009-2019/
That has no bearing on their ownership. I don't see anyone banning cars, or dogs, or lightening or any of dozens of things that can cause death.
It is an idiotic argument to begin with, do don't sweat it. The AR 15 accounts for over 25 percent of all semi-automatics being built in the United States. Add to that all the other semi-auto firearms. Revolvers, bolt actions, and muskets are rare firearms in our society. So, the left calls anything that takes a magazine an "assault weapon." and proposes to ban it. They could ban cigarettes. They cost 450,000 American lives per year. But, they won't. The real objective is gun control. The left doesn't care about saving lives or reducing gun violence. It's about control. Most of those people are socialists, communists, and lefties that want the control the Second Amendment prevents them from attaining.
They don't detach (without tools and then even fixed stocks are detachable given that). We've already discussed this. Telescoping stocks do not reduce the length of the weapon to less than 26 inches. You cannot conceal a 26 inch firearm... and that would be a Hell of a trick to boot when that firearm has a scope attached. Can you name me any shooting where a "concealed" AR 15 came into play? Give us a few links.
The third worst shooting used handguns; prior to 2012, the worst two shootings had been committed with handguns, and Heller showed that those couldn't be banned, either. Everytown seems to disagree with Mother Jones.
Granted, the example I provided was extreme but shows what can be achieved with practice. Every year in the US, Army Drill Sergeants take thousands of young men and women from all parts of the country and from all types of backgrounds and in a few weeks have them firing M4s, regularly hitting targets out to 300 meters. Practice! Let's not forget the Virginia Tech shooting. It happened outside your referenced years but it is still ranked as the third deadliest mass shooting in the US. The firearms used? Two semi-auto pistols, a 9mm and a .22, with 10 and 15 round magazines. The perpetrator walked around campus for over two hours. He killed two then crossed campus and killed another 30. He seemed to have plenty of time to reload. While semi-auto rifles or carbines with 20 or 30 round magazines may be used in the majority of mass shootings those weapons only account for a very small percentage of all firearms homicides. One other thing to remember is most of the shooters in these mass shootings had histories of mental or psychological problems that should have had them institutionalized long before they got their hands on firearms. Look at the histories of the perpetrators at VT, Sandy Hook, Sutherland Springs, Stoneman Douglas HS, Fort Hood.....
Therein lies the real issue. Mass shootings, by and large, are done by people who have been under the care / supervision of a psychologist or psychiatrist and virtually all of them have been on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs. Now, the typical knee jerk reaction is for someone to think that I'm advocating banning SSRIs. I'm not. I simply believe that if a person has known markers in addition to the anxiety or depression that leads to being prescribed SSRIs, then those drugs should only be administered under controlled circumstances. But, I've found that fight to be futile. Gun control advocates do not care about saving lives or reducing gun violence. With gun control advocates, it's all about control. And let's face it: the gun lobby is too damn stupid to seize on the SSRI issue and fight back. If I were in control of the gun lobby, every time the gun control advocates put a bill on the table, I would be countering with getting more funding for mental health and specifically the over - medicating of America. We could talk about why kids are being drugged from the moment they enter the public school system up through the time they are put on SSRIs and then, eventually (and predictably) committing acts of violence. The gun lobby keeps yapping about my proposals would never be passed. They wouldn't have to pass. If the liberals had to deal with it every time they put a gun control bill on the table, their efforts would be far and few between.
The anti-gun left wants to restrict the rights of the law-abiding as much as it possible can, for no purpose other than ti make it as hard as possible for said law-abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. In this, they hope, people won't bother to try. Why? They plan to do things we'd shoot them for.
I agree with you and I am distraught that so many gun owners are inadvertently helping the left by compromising with them. It's if good strategy is anathema to the pro - gun lobby.
By definition, it is impossible to compromise with the anti-gun left, as they offer nothing in return for the limitations they seek on our rights.
You can hunt hogs and coyotes with a 2.23/5.56 with any size magazine. The Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle was designed precisely for doing so, and results in a weapon functionally identical to any civilian legal 'assault' rifle. The failed 2012 AWB had to specifically exempt Ruger's Ranch Rifle because otherwise its wording would have banned it. Which definitively made the proposed law an aesthetically based ban. You can hunt deer with a (civilian legal- modified to semi-auto-only) AK-47, so long as you observe magazine capacity limitations. Low capacity AK mags are specifically manufactured for this purpose. Additionally, both AR and AK platforms are available chambered in most common hunting cartridges, and can he gunsmithed to any hunting cartridge whatsoever. As to why someone would want to... not all us 'gun nuts' are motivated to own an armory. Many folks want one a few firearms that are maximized for versatility. Its possible to have home defense, varmint control, hunting of multiple types of game and range shooting all condensced into one or two firearms. Why the anti-gun would want to make laws that decrease versatility requiring people to buy a different gun for each purpose and end up having more guns doesn't make any sense to me...
Of course you can. "You can't hunt with an AR" is a statement of ignorance, or dishonesty - there is no other possibility.
I'd say a 12ga a .22 rifle, an AR and a semi auto pistol ought to be a well round stable for all shooting purposes.
I'd agree but, I'd add an M1a or AR in 308 / 7.62 x 51 for long range shots and a Glock for the battle belt.
...and a .22 pistol for fun and to compliment three .22 rifles, a .380 for the pocket and a 9mm for the belt, a deer rifle and one for elk and/or moose, a 20 gauge double for fun on upland game, a matched caliber revolver and lever action because they are cool, a .44 revolver for hunting from the tree stand, a .22 hornet for varmints, a 6.5 Creedmoor for long range shooting with friends, granddad's 30-40, the M-1 from the CMP, an AR-7 cause you always wanted one (and it floats)...
OMG. Is there a point to this endless flow of posts like this? FWIW, I would support your Right to a belt fed weapon, but having the government decide whether or not you should own one via registering it is a no - go for me. If an AR 15 can kill a man, it can kill an animal that you hunt for food. If it's accurate enough to hit a man, it's accurate enough for competitive shooting - and they ARE used in competitive sports. An AR 15 is also good for hunting down terrorists, seditionists, foreign enemies on American soil, tyrants and even an oppressive regime that may want to take over. Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court was nominated to the bench by James Madison. Madison is known as the father of the Constitution and the chief author of the Bill of Rights. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/james-madison-father-of-constitution/2883722.html https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1220/james-madison I point out WHO appointed Story to the bench so that his words command the respect they deserve and show the legal weight (authority) to which they hold. Story said: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
