Let's talk about why the gun control debate is about to change....

Pretty much any firearm manufactured post, say, 1900, will get that job done. Any other silly questions?

 

Your answer is better than mine.

 

Yes, not a good answer and Rucker was dodging. You missed the efficiently kill as many as possible. Reloading slows one down and a gun that comes with 30 round magazine is just the thing and a rifle is more accurate than a handgun. There you go, an AR is the perfect weapon, good for getting as many rounds off as possible and not much else.

 

If it's not useful for much else, why are there currently about 25 million of them and about 25 mass shootings with them? Your logic doesn't seem to hold.


The Gun Control Act of 1968 found that legitimate uses of firearms included “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”.
Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:
1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/
2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news
3. Practice – for long distance or competition
4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame.
5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting
7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/

 

Yeah, there is an app for that. It's called Google.

 

I do admire all the effort you've put into your rationalizations. Maybe #4 has some validity, for the rest there are better choices, rather than an AR, unless for #7 you are expecting a zombie apocalypse.

 

so that means you ultimately want to ban every possible gun that can be reloaded/

 

what do you think the purpose of the second amendment is? have you ever figured out that given our failure to stop the scourge of fentanyl and heroin,, people willing to cause mass murders will easily get a weapon? Gun banners are all about harassing lawful owners and pretending that will stop felons

 

"Military style" is a meaningless term that speaks only to the cosmetic looks of any particularly weapon, and says less than nothing about its capabilities, effectiveness, or power. In fact, as the gentleman on your video very properly pointed out, as rifles go an AR-15 is a low powered one, because it uses a tiny round (when compared to other rifle rounds) of .223", or 5.56mm.

I think it's good to know a thing or two before messing with the rights of people on the other side of the planet, first, don't you.

 

I see that as a very valid for wanting to own a particular firearm, though you weren't talking to me.

 

In reference to the post you were responding to that does not make much sense.

Wow, some big questions. I think the purpose of 2A was a compromise. Many of the signers were fearful of a standing federal army. They decided instead on state militias and to prevent them from being disarmed by the federal government their right to bear arms was protected. Militias didn't work out and it has since turned into something else, not initially intended.
Would there be more or less of a "scourge" if we repealed the drug laws? Most all countries have stronger gun laws and they don't have our mass murder rate. Do you think there is a connection?
As a "gun banner" I want to get illegal guns off the street, but you "gun nuts" don't want to do anything about it because it might inconvenience you. Fine upstanding citizens.

Oh, BTW I think you will be safe if we have a zombie apocalypse....

 

You can do all of these with a single rifle with a few uppers. The flexibility of the AR platform is unmatched.

There are entire categories of long range competition limited to AR-15 and similar rifles. 3 Gun competition pretty much require them, which takes care of 2 and 3. It's one of the top choices for varmint control, and is gaining popularity as a big game hunting. A properly set up AR is likely the ideal home defense firearm.

 

If getting illegal guns off of the streets requires infringing the rights of the people, are you still for it?

 

So you know better than the entirety of the Supreme Court? Not to mention, words written in plain and fairly straightforward English?

 

Not if you've spent even the tiniest bit of effort prepping and training for your murder spree. Sure, if you show up with ONE magazine, and hundreds of rounds of loose ammo, that's going to slow you down considerably, and we can all hope that a shooter would be that dumb. To date, none have been.

That statement is true of pretty much all modern weapons, which is a point that I made that apparently went by too fast for you to grasp. The one exception I can think of is the little single round .22lr pistol I got from my dad that is essentially good for nothing asides from some sort of up-close assassination attempt on someone that you or your employer may want dead. It's so small you could fit it inside a package of cigarettes, and if you miss the first time, you're in trouble.

What "illegal guns" are the ones you're trying to get off the street, but having a hard time with?

 

The CDC themselves have a response planned for zombie scenarios.

 

before we even get to the second, there is the ninth and the tenth. Getting "illegal" guns off the streets was a state power. Can you cite to anything in the Constitution (Article One Section Eight) that gave the federal government the proper power to "inconvenience" us?

 

Many leftists allow their emotions to speak for their words...

 

ARs are unnecessary for any legit rifle activity. They are good for boys who want to play pretend soldier and those that want to kill as many humans as possible.

You know I've made workable suggestions. From the right, suggestions have been lock'm up and throw away the key as well as stop and frisk. They don't seem concerned about infringing anyone's rights.

Congressional powers are limited to what is "necessary and proper" is quite subjective don't you think? I think controlling the "scourge" of gun violence is necessary and proper. Congress needs to limit gun access on a national level instead of this spotty state by state system we have now that doesn't work.

 

Don't forget women love the AR too. And the elderly, and the infirm, hell even effeminate men love the AR platform.

Those folks would probably tell you that the AR's role in Home or Self Defense is very legitimate.

 

I just learned that the lawyer who successfully argued a case for the Sandy Hook parents, Josh Koskoff, has been retained by 2 of the Uvalde parents (so far). Look out Daniel Defence! I think that the predatory marketing practices of guns will be a big change to the gun debate going forward.

 

I am curious, what credentials do you have to tell someone who is obviously a high echelon level rifle shooter what is legit rifle activity. It sounds like your unfounded opinion is purely based on your anti gun agenda rather than having a clue what you are talking about. When I see this sort of nonsense from someone, I realize their opinions on gun issues are worthless because one of the first organized shooting events in the USA was the national service rifle championships. The NRA was founded for a couple reasons-one being Union officers were appalled at how poor the shooting skills of many volunteers for the North were were-the other was to help freed blacks be armed to fight off the Klan. Long before there was an olympics there were the national rifle matches which continue to this day-between Camp Perry Ohio and Camp Atterbery in Indiana. When the Springfield 30-06 was the infantry rifle-competitions, military and civilian used it. Then the MI Garand. The idiotic 1934 NFA meant civilians had to use semi Auto versions of the M14 and the M16 (there are no full auto stages anyway and the service teams (US Army, Marines, National Guard units etc) use essentially the same improved rifles that civilians use. And that mean an AR 15 style rifle. So you just proved you are absolutely ignorant of that use

 

you seem to think the Texas court is as hateful of both rule 11 and the bar against bogus lawsuits as the far left pettifoggers on the CT court. I hope the texas court not only throws out any such suit but impose substantial costs and punitive damages on any plaintiffs who file such a bogus law suit

 

It is obvious she doesn't have any understanding of how the rifle works or why plenty of us professional instructors recommend them as the most versatile home defense weapon. And I would note that I fortunately can afford any firearm I want and I was several times all American in Skeet-both NSSA and ISU and held Triple A ratings in all four guns, doubles and Master in the old USSCA and then NSCA (sporting clays) and NRA /US Shooting (ISU Skeet) . So I am a world class shotgun competitor and I still prefer an AR 15 for home defense