Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:03 AM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownership

Guns in America is a complicated issue for many reasons. However, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for Domestic Terrorists and others who wish to kill and harm people quickly and efficiently. It serves no other purpose other than to accomplish this. Banning this gun will show that we can act on this issue. It will have symbolic weight while also making one small step forward on dealing with this epidemic.

121 replies, 12755 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

121 replies	Author	Time	Post
White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership (Original post)	Scuba	Jun 2016	OP
What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9...	PoliticAverse	Jun 2016	#1
Pointless.	Just reading posts	Jun 2016	#2
Why do you say this Ms. 81 posts?	vkkv	Jun 2016	#59
If 20 dead 1st graders didn't get anything done, why would a petition?	NightWatcher	Jun 2016	#3
Credit where it's due. It would have at least as much impact as the petition to build a Death Star.	Just reading posts	Jun 2016	#9
Laws must be constutional, it doesn't matter how many people support it...	pipoman	Jun 2016	#4
The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't found to be unconstitutional and it banned specific weapon models.	PoliticAverse	Jun 2016	#5
Because it was allowed to sunset in 2004...why?	pipoman	Jun 2016	#6
It did survive several legal challenges...	PoliticAverse	Jun 2016	#10
The 80 year old SCOTUS standard is	pipoman	Jun 2016	#11
Assume a Democrat is elected and appoints a liberal replacement for Scalia. Do you think the newly	PoliticAverse	Jun 2016	#13
Yes.	pipoman	Jun 2016	#15
Tough call - look at the 4th circuit re:the Maryland ban.	jmg257	Jun 2016	#12
Indeed. As Heller was a 5-4 decision a liberal justice replacing Scalia could swing the court	PoliticAverse	Jun 2016	#14
Not likely, the precedent is 80 years old	pipoman	Jun 2016	#22
symbolism over substance	Crepuscular	Jun 2016	#7
No thank you.	aikoaiko	Jun 2016	#8
Pointless	Calista241	Jun 2016	#16
^^ All of this.	pablo_marmol	Jun 2016	#21
I dont get this.	ncjustice80	Jun 2016	#109
Not true progressives. Folks on the fence. NT	pablo_marmol	Jun 2016	#114
Signed, even though they already had enough signatures.	liberalnarb	Jun 2016	#17
thanks. I signed, and passed it along - but	ellenrr	Jun 2016	#18
The weapon used in Orlando wasn't actually an AR-15. NT	Adrahil	Jun 2016	#19
So what?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#90
So, if we want effective legislation, we need...	Adrahil	Jun 2016	#93
So DU should be writing legislation?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#99
Forgive me. I thought we were having an adult conversation...	Adrahil	Jun 2016	#100
No, you didn't. You were the one who played the NRA hand.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#102
We've already had more than enough security theater, thanksverymuch.	Lizzie Poppet	Jun 2016	#20
Just signed. Even if this may be pointless, it sends a message to some in congress and the senate.	Laser102	Jun 2016	#23
Exactly.	Scuba	Jun 2016	#25
signed. eom	LittleGirl	Jun 2016	#24
At this point it would be like trying to ban human slaves from civilian ownership	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#26
Anyone who owns an AR-15 desperately wants to kill someone?	Marengo	Jun 2016	#29
If you think someone is coming to murder you	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#30
That doesn't answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe they WANT to?	Marengo	Jun 2016	#33
Yes	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#34
Do you realize that there are DU members who own AR-15s or similar rifles?	Marengo	Jun 2016	#38
I'm sure law enforcement monitors online forums	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#39
Another non-answer. Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers.	Marengo	Jun 2016	#52
Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers. Yes i am.....	stonecutter357	Jun 2016	#56
I'd like to see you respond with that answer to DU members who state...	Marengo	Jun 2016	#63
I own an AR.......	stonecutter357	Jun 2016	#68
I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were answering for yourself...	Marengo	Jun 2016	#72
I own a Colt 6920 rifle	Duckhunter935	Jun 2016	#107
potential mass killers.	stonecutter357	Jun 2016	#110
So what?	Lizzie Poppet	Jun 2016	#57
There were many law abiding responsible slave owners too	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#40
You are equating owning an AR-15 to owning slaves?	Marengo	Jun 2016	#53
So I want to kill people?	Duckhunter935	Jun 2016	#105
Not desperately ...	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#69
Is that the case for any gun owner? Wanting to kill?	Marengo	Jun 2016	#74
No, just people who buy devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#75
I own several AR-15s and I am not desperate to kill anyone	hack89	Jun 2016	#41
I'm sure many confederates owned several slaves without mistreating any of them	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#42
The vast majority of gun owners will never hurt someone	hack89	Jun 2016	#43
That 1% is what ruins things for everyone	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#46
I am not worried about losing my guns nt	hack89	Jun 2016	#47
People are worried about losing their lives	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#48
The Democratic party has been good to gun owners	hack89	Jun 2016	#49
You have the ability to kill a lot of people efficiently relatively speaking though	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#70
So?	hack89	Jun 2016	#73
Not with a device DESIGNED to do so though...	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#76
So?	hack89	Jun 2016	#77
Strawman, I said devices I could care less what they are if its designed to kill a lot of humans...	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#78
That is the fundamental difference between us	hack89	Jun 2016	#79
I have faith in people just not wackos, that's the difference between us... I want a high filter	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#80
Good luck.	hack89	Jun 2016	#81
I disagree with the NRA and punk ass'd legislators on that account, it''s not long or difficult ...	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#82
Playing fast and loose with facts does not help you	hack89	Jun 2016	#84
Strawman, didn't say they did... I said regulations... I'm correct and right on that account	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#86
There are plenty of new laws we can pass	hack89	Jun 2016	#87
And it's not a great target shooting gun, either.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#92
It is the standard for high power rifle competition	hack89	Jun 2016	#94
Well, when everyone I know who does competition says it's crap, I'm going with that.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#98
I'm more inclined to believe the multitudes that use ARs for competition	linuxman	Jun 2016	#121
Then why spend money an AR-15?	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#91
It is the standard for high power rifle competition	hack89	Jun 2016	#95
Sorry, but that's not what anybody I know says.	HuckleB	Jun 2016	#97
You need better informed friends	hack89	Jun 2016	#104
Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis aside, that's the elephant in the room for confiscation advocates.	Lizzie Poppet	Jun 2016	#58
And the bloodshed continues	IronLionZion	Jun 2016	#66
Now if only we cound get someone on board for the mental help programs being proposed right now...	Matt_R	Jun 2016	#115
Yeah, there will be violent resistance ... some harsh language... obscene gestures and pictures...	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#71
I Signed - Over 104,000 To Date	scottie55	Jun 2016	#27
You get to keep it	hack89	Jun 2016	#44
Pass	pintobean	Jun 2016	#28
What we need is a new constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A and ban all guns.	LonePirate	Jun 2016	#31
France, Belgium, Netherlands, ad infinitum, ad nauseum,	bernie_is_truth	Jun 2016	#32
But they don't have near daily mass gun murders like we have in the US.	LonePirate	Jun 2016	#35
So repeal the 2nd, go ahead and get started	DonP	Jun 2016	#54
I like the 'near daily' part	bernie_is_truth	Jun 2016	#113
Exactly! The real problem is that people have guns. That's why gun violence rates are so high in	hughee99	Jun 2016	#96
So the fact that all "mass shooters" had mental health problems is a-ok.	Matt_R	Jun 2016	#116
A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when	Brickbat	Jun 2016	#36
The petition (I assume) was not intended to be a legal draft.	Scuba	Jun 2016	#50
Banning is not: well regulated.	Festivito	Jun 2016	#37
"Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store!"	MisterP	Jun 2016	#67
Cute? Obtuse? Obfuscation? Redirection? Cathartic? Or,	Festivito	Jun 2016	#89
hidden agenda? I'm pretty damn open about being anti-semiautomatic	MisterP	Jun 2016	#108
I see opinion and no resolve to have anything other than having an opinion. eom	Festivito	Jun 2016	#111
signed!	MisterP	Jun 2016	#112
Nah. Waste of time and effort.	Bonx	Jun 2016	#45
Yes. We look quite foolish to the rest of the civilized world.	ErikJ	Jun 2016	#51
Goodbye AR-15...	JohnnyRingo	Jun 2016	#55
The problem with that idea is that it wouldn't have stopped the massacre...	spin	Jun 2016	#60
This bolt-action rifle owner says 'IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME OBAMA!"	vkkv	Jun 2016	#61
"F" as in "Fudd"? ;)	jmg257	Jun 2016	#64
OK, yes, that is funny!	ManiacJoe	Jun 2016	#120
Fascinating how many poster miss the point that this is to raise awareness in DC, not serve ...	Scuba	Jun 2016	#62
Would police officers also be considered "civilian ownership"?	Glassunion	Jun 2016	#65
Done.	marybourg	Jun 2016	#83
I won't be signing it. n/t	Waldorf	Jun 2016	#85
Signed.	ananda	Jun 2016	#88
Congress would need to do this. NRA pays them too much	Agnosticsherbet	Jun 2016	#101
Signed. 125,000 signatures now. n/t	livetohike	Jun 2016	#103
No.	greytdemocrat	Jun 2016	#106
So the next day Armalite markets the "BS-16"	Recursion	Jun 2016	#117
It worked in 1994, why not again?	ManiacJoe	Jun 2016	#118
I'm still convinced the AWB was an idea planted by gunmakers (nt)	Recursion	Jun 2016	#119

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:08 AM

PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)

1. What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9...

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-9

After the Cleveland School massacre, the TEC-9 was in California's list of banned weapons. To circumvent this, Intratec rebranded a variant of the TEC-9 as the TEC-DC9 from 1990 to 1994 (DC standing for "Designed for California"

. The most noticeable external difference between the TEC-9 and the later TEC-DC9 is that rings to hold the sling were moved from the side of the gun with the cocking handle, to a removable stamped metal clip in the back of the gun. The TEC-9 and TEC-DC9 are otherwise identical.[citation needed]

The TEC-9 and, eventually, TEC-DC9 variants were listed among the 19 firearms banned by name in the USA by the now expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).[5] This ban caused the cessation of their manufacture, and forced Intratec to introduce a newer model called the AB-10, a TEC-9 Mini without a threaded muzzle/barrel shroud and limited to a 10-round magazine instead of a 20- or 32-round magazine. However, it accepted the standard capacity magazines of the pre-ban models.

White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership

1. What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9...

2. Pointless.

59. Why do you say this Ms. 81 posts?

3. If 20 dead 1st graders didn't get anything done, why would a petition?

9. Credit where it's due. It would have at least as much impact as the petition to build a Death Star.

4. Laws must be constutional, it doesn't matter how many people support it...

5. The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't found to be unconstitutional and it banned specific weapon models.

6. Because it was allowed to sunset in 2004...why?

10. It did survive several legal challenges...

11. The 80 year old SCOTUS standard is

13. Assume a Democrat is elected and appoints a liberal replacement for Scalia. Do you think the newly

15. Yes.

12. Tough call - look at the 4th circuit re:the Maryland ban.

14. Indeed. As Heller was a 5-4 decision a liberal justice replacing Scalia could swing the court

22. Not likely, the precedent is 80 years old

7. symbolism over substance

8. No thank you.

16. Pointless

21. ^^ All of this.

109. I dont get this.

114. Not true progressives. Folks on the fence. NT

17. Signed, even though they already had enough signatures.

18. thanks. I signed, and passed it along - but

19. The weapon used in Orlando wasn't actually an AR-15. NT

90. So what?

93. So, if we want effective legislation, we need...

99. So DU should be writing legislation?

100. Forgive me. I thought we were having an adult conversation...

102. No, you didn't. You were the one who played the NRA hand.

20. We've already had more than enough security theater, thanksverymuch.

23. Just signed. Even if this may be pointless, it sends a message to some in congress and the senate.

25. Exactly.

24. signed. eom

26. At this point it would be like trying to ban human slaves from civilian ownership

29. Anyone who owns an AR-15 desperately wants to kill someone?

30. If you think someone is coming to murder you

33. That doesn't answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe they WANT to?

34. Yes

38. Do you realize that there are DU members who own AR-15s or similar rifles?

39. I'm sure law enforcement monitors online forums

52. Another non-answer. Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers.

56. Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers. Yes i am.....

63. I'd like to see you respond with that answer to DU members who state...

68. I own an AR.......

72. I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were answering for yourself...

107. I own a Colt 6920 rifle

110. potential mass killers.

57. So what?

40. There were many law abiding responsible slave owners too

53. You are equating owning an AR-15 to owning slaves?

105. So I want to kill people?

69. Not desperately ...

74. Is that the case for any gun owner? Wanting to kill?

75. No, just people who buy devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently

41. I own several AR-15s and I am not desperate to kill anyone

42. I'm sure many confederates owned several slaves without mistreating any of them

43. The vast majority of gun owners will never hurt someone

46. That 1% is what ruins things for everyone

47. I am not worried about losing my guns nt

48. People are worried about losing their lives

49. The Democratic party has been good to gun owners

70. You have the ability to kill a lot of people efficiently relatively speaking though

73. So?

76. Not with a device DESIGNED to do so though...

77. So?

78. Strawman, I said devices I could care less what they are if its designed to kill a lot of humans...

79. That is the fundamental difference between us

80. I have faith in people just not wackos, that's the difference between us... I want a high filter

81. Good luck.

82. I disagree with the NRA and punk ass'd legislators on that account, it''s not long or difficult ...

84. Playing fast and loose with facts does not help you

86. Strawman, didn't say they did... I said regulations... I'm correct and right on that account

87. There are plenty of new laws we can pass

92. And it's not a great target shooting gun, either.

94. It is the standard for high power rifle competition

98. Well, when everyone I know who does competition says it's crap, I'm going with that.

121. I'm more inclined to believe the multitudes that use ARs for competition

91. Then why spend money an AR-15?

95. It is the standard for high power rifle competition