HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » White House Petition: Ba...

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:03 AM

 

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

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 121 replies Author Time Post
Reply White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership (Original post)
Scuba Jun 2016 OP
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #1
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #2
vkkv Jun 2016 #59
NightWatcher Jun 2016 #3
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #9
pipoman Jun 2016 #4
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #5
pipoman Jun 2016 #6
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #10
pipoman Jun 2016 #11
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #13
pipoman Jun 2016 #15
jmg257 Jun 2016 #12
PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #14
pipoman Jun 2016 #22
Crepuscular Jun 2016 #7
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #8
Calista241 Jun 2016 #16
pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #21
ncjustice80 Jun 2016 #109
pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #114
liberalnarb Jun 2016 #17
ellenrr Jun 2016 #18
Adrahil Jun 2016 #19
HuckleB Jun 2016 #90
Adrahil Jun 2016 #93
HuckleB Jun 2016 #99
Adrahil Jun 2016 #100
HuckleB Jun 2016 #102
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #20
Laser102 Jun 2016 #23
Scuba Jun 2016 #25
LittleGirl Jun 2016 #24
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #26
Marengo Jun 2016 #29
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #30
Marengo Jun 2016 #33
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #34
Marengo Jun 2016 #38
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #39
Marengo Jun 2016 #52
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #56
Marengo Jun 2016 #63
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #68
Marengo Jun 2016 #72
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #107
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #110
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #57
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #40
Marengo Jun 2016 #53
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #105
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #69
Marengo Jun 2016 #74
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #75
hack89 Jun 2016 #41
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #42
hack89 Jun 2016 #43
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #46
hack89 Jun 2016 #47
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #48
hack89 Jun 2016 #49
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #70
hack89 Jun 2016 #73
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #76
hack89 Jun 2016 #77
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #78
hack89 Jun 2016 #79
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #80
hack89 Jun 2016 #81
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #82
hack89 Jun 2016 #84
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #86
hack89 Jun 2016 #87
HuckleB Jun 2016 #92
hack89 Jun 2016 #94
HuckleB Jun 2016 #98
linuxman Jun 2016 #121
HuckleB Jun 2016 #91
hack89 Jun 2016 #95
HuckleB Jun 2016 #97
hack89 Jun 2016 #104
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #58
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #66
Matt_R Jun 2016 #115
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #71
scottie55 Jun 2016 #27
hack89 Jun 2016 #44
pintobean Jun 2016 #28
LonePirate Jun 2016 #31
bernie_is_truth Jun 2016 #32
LonePirate Jun 2016 #35
DonP Jun 2016 #54
bernie_is_truth Jun 2016 #113
hughee99 Jun 2016 #96
Matt_R Jun 2016 #116
Brickbat Jun 2016 #36
Scuba Jun 2016 #50
Festivito Jun 2016 #37
MisterP Jun 2016 #67
Festivito Jun 2016 #89
MisterP Jun 2016 #108
Festivito Jun 2016 #111
MisterP Jun 2016 #112
Bonx Jun 2016 #45
ErikJ Jun 2016 #51
JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #55
spin Jun 2016 #60
vkkv Jun 2016 #61
jmg257 Jun 2016 #64
ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #120
Scuba Jun 2016 #62
Glassunion Jun 2016 #65
marybourg Jun 2016 #83
Waldorf Jun 2016 #85
ananda Jun 2016 #88
Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #101
livetohike Jun 2016 #103
greytdemocrat Jun 2016 #106
Recursion Jun 2016 #117
ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #118
Recursion Jun 2016 #119

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:08 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:09 AM

2. Pointless.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:58 AM

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

 


Trolling perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:10 AM

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

Has ANY White House petition accomplished anything?

Is signing this petition anything more than offering "thoughts and prayers", which is also known as doing absolutely nothing?

The only thing these petitions do is make people feel better while accomplishing nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:40 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:21 AM

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

 

Oh...and the weapon wasn't an AR15...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:28 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:30 AM

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

 

Because it takes 10 years for the challenges to come down...they were getting close and would have prevailed....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:40 AM

10. It did survive several legal challenges...

Hard to say what might have happened in future "what if" challenges.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Legal challenges

A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed. The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.

Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"

The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:44 AM

11. The 80 year old SCOTUS standard is

 

"In common use for lawful purposes". It was going down when it got to SCOTUS and everybody knew it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:52 AM

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

composed court would really find a new assault weapons ban unconstitutional?

Heller was a 5-4 decision.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:57 AM

15. Yes.

 

The "in common use for lawful purposes" standard will not be changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:49 AM

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

We will likely get the chance to find out, much will ride on the make up of the USSC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:54 AM

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

into a different direction on the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:19 AM

22. Not likely, the precedent is 80 years old

 

There is a limitation on limitations to Constitutional amendments without amending the constitution...a liberal judge will not want to set a new precedent which can endanger other amendments.

It is time for substantive activism toward the constitutionally possible instead of repeating the same failed proposals expecting different results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:30 AM

7. symbolism over substance

silly proposal that lacks any potential impact of actually addressing the issue of gun violence. All these sorts of proposals will do is drive voters towards Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:36 AM

8. No thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:58 AM

16. Pointless

1. the shooter didn't even use an AR-15, despite all the incorrect reporting to the contrary. He actually used a Sig Sauer MCX, which is a very high end, very expensive, totally different from an AR rifle.

2. It will never survive appeal. There are 10+ million AR's in circulation, and if that's not "common usage" I don't know what is.

3. consumers will just switch to another platform, like AK or bullpup, or even other designs like the Sig Sauer the crazy dude actually used. and millions of AR's are already in circulation and the gov't will not start confiscating property. The shit storm that would come from a confiscation campaign would be obscene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:12 AM

21. ^^ All of this.

Especially this:

The shit storm that would come from a confiscation campaign would be obscene.

Let's just hand over the nation to the GOP, shall we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:10 PM

109. I dont get this.

What true progressive would vote for the Rethuglicans over this issue? Do we really have that many lukewarn supporters??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #109)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:01 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:01 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:02 AM

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

it won't do any good.
The only thing that would make a difference against the NRA would be millions of people in the streets.
I don't see that happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:06 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:32 PM

90. So what?

It's just popular jargon for guns that do the same basic thing, which is what the gun used in Orlando was. This is just a silly thing to point out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:38 PM

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

 

... precise and technically meaningful legislation. It's like the old "assault weapons ban." The only part of it worth a shit was the ban on large capacity magazines. The rest focused on completely meaningless cosmetic features.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #93)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:59 PM

99. So DU should be writing legislation?

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #99)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:02 PM

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

 

by all means, rant on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #100)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:11 PM

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

Not ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:12 AM

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

 

Banning an item of which there are already tens of millions of examples in circulation is nothing more than window dressing...it's "stunt politics" to give the impression of doing something, without actually doing fuck-all. Comparatively few crimes are committed with these weapons, and there are literally dozens of other similarly-functioning weapons for spree killers to select (while all the while exponentially more homicides are committed with handguns).

BTW, civilian ownership is the only kind of ownership those rifles have. The military uses a different model, a selective fire (that is, capable of fully automatic "machine gun" fire that the civilian model doesn't have).

Oh, and the Orlando killer didn't use an AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:31 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:42 AM

25. Exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:41 AM

24. signed. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:44 AM

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

it's a worthy goal, but do you want that level of bloodshed again?

We're dealing with people who are heavily armed and paranoid and desperately want to kill someone.

I would not want to be the law enforcement officer who has to go face these people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:52 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:55 AM

30. If you think someone is coming to murder you

do you have a lot of enemies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:09 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:12 AM

34. Yes

happy now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:20 AM

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

 

You are saying these persons are potential mass killers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:24 AM

39. I'm sure law enforcement monitors online forums

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:44 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:51 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:09 AM

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

 

They own an AR-15. Shouldn't be hard to find the threads, you up to the challenge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:52 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:02 PM

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

 

In the affirmative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:38 PM

107. I own a Colt 6920 rifle

 

And an M16A1 clone that is semi-automatic. both are AR 15 style rifles. So you say I want to kill people in a mass shooting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #107)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:16 PM

110. potential mass killers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:51 AM

57. So what?

 

If you're implying that law enforcement is ready to carry out a massive confiscation of AR-15s in the aftermath of a ban, then you don't understand the numbers involved: about 800k LEOs with arrest powers nationwide...c. 15 million AR-15s in civilian hands. And that's leaving aside the overwhelming support for civilian gun ownership among rank-and-file officers, many of whom would not carry out such orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:26 AM

40. There were many law abiding responsible slave owners too

?t=2m10s

Watch from 2:10 onwards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:46 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:33 PM

105. So I want to kill people?

 

I own a couple of AR pattern semi-automatic rifles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:54 PM

69. Not desperately ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:05 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #74)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:11 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:28 AM

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

I just like competitive target shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:30 AM

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

?t=2m10s watch from 2:10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:33 AM

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

At least 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:34 AM

46. That 1% is what ruins things for everyone

as with economic issues and other issues, the god damn 1% of fuckwits who are psychotic assholes are why you can't have things you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:35 AM

47. I am not worried about losing my guns nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:37 AM

48. People are worried about losing their lives

and the NRA wants you to worry about losing your guns



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:39 AM

49. The Democratic party has been good to gun owners

It is not going to change. I don't care what the NRA says on the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:57 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:02 PM

73. So?

Lots of people have the means to kill a lot of people every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:17 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:20 PM

77. So?

The fact that so few people are killed by rifles compared to other weapons proves that people can be trusted with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:30 PM

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

... relatively efficiently then it should NOT be trusted in the hands of the avg owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:43 PM

79. That is the fundamental difference between us

I have much more faith in people and I am willing to trust their judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:45 PM

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

... and that's pretty easy and constitutional to enact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #80)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:48 PM

81. Good luck.

You have a long and difficult path ahead of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:52 PM

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

... just people need to stop making excuses for voting for those who don't agree with 90% of US populous who want some common sense regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:56 PM

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

Yes, 90% support stronger background checks. 90% do not support gun bans or strict measures like registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:58 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #86)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:00 PM

87. There are plenty of new laws we can pass

The only ones I reject out of hand are AWBs and registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:34 PM

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

It's a strange response, all the way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #92)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:38 PM

94. It is the standard for high power rifle competition

It is extremely accurate. I think you need to do some research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #94)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:56 PM

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

You, I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:33 PM

91. Then why spend money an AR-15?

It's not exactly the most accurate gun around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:41 PM

95. It is the standard for high power rifle competition

with the right barrel and trigger group combination it is extremely accurate. You forget it is a modular design - it is very easy to customize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:55 PM

97. Sorry, but that's not what anybody I know says.

Not buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #97)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:49 PM

104. You need better informed friends

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:25 AM - Edit history (1)

High Power Rifle is a specific style of competitive shooting popular in the United States. It is also referred to as "Across the Course", XTC, as well as 'traditional' High Power.

Types of matches popular in High Power Rifle include service rifle, open, Axis and Allies, and F-class.

In service rifle matches, a competitor may only use an M1 Garand style rifle, an M1A (M14) style rifle, an SR-25 (M110) style rifle, or an AR-15 (M16) style rifle. A post front sight is required for the service rifle category.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_power_rifle

Here is a bunch of pictures of competitors using AR-15s

https://www.google.com/search?q=high+power+rifle+competition+ar+15&biw=1173&bih=588&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz2qDozKjNAhVE-2MKHR2IBv8Q_AUIBygC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:55 AM

58. Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis aside, that's the elephant in the room for confiscation advocates.

 

Any real effort to do so will result in violent resistance. That shouldn't even be in question. The notion that potentially saving the 500 or so lives lost via rifles of any type (not just ARs and such) is remotely worth the bloodshed an aggressive confiscation program would cause is insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:22 AM

66. And the bloodshed continues

it's the new normal nowadays. Part of American culture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 06:51 PM

115. Now if only we cound get someone on board for the mental help programs being proposed right now...

no? We don't have mental health programs being proposed, well I'll be damned. I thought we were going to tackle this "mass shooting" problem we have "from multiple angles" not just from rifle control. That is what is being proposed "rifle control" not "gun control"

Now if we could only get the population the help they need, be it counseling, medication, etc. We could get a handle on our mental health problems we face as a nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:02 PM

71. Yeah, there will be violent resistance ... some harsh language... obscene gestures and pictures...

... of Donald tRump being shown to rational adults.

Most people don't want early death so it'll be subdued relatively speaking...

There would be relatively little bloodshed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:44 AM

27. I Signed - Over 104,000 To Date

 

And I own an AK-47/SKS.

I will give up mine, if you give up yours......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scottie55 (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:34 AM

44. You get to keep it

Because I am keeping mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:52 AM

28. Pass

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:57 AM

31. What we need is a new constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A and ban all guns.

Prohibiting one type of gun or a specific gun does not address the real problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:08 AM

32. France, Belgium, Netherlands, ad infinitum, ad nauseum,

 

don't have 2nd ammendments and yet somehow terrorists still end up with big guns killing lots of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bernie_is_truth (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:15 AM

35. But they don't have near daily mass gun murders like we have in the US.

The 2A empowers people to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:46 AM

54. So repeal the 2nd, go ahead and get started

 

How to repeal any amendment is all laid out for you.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

You'll need to start with super majorities (2/3) in both houses of Congress, the ratification process of 3/4 of all the states (38) is going to require a pretty substantial grass roots effort.

You'll need petitions to get it on ballots in all those states and there is a time limit to get the ratification votes.

But after all, 90% of America agrees with you, so no problem right?

So, instead of courageously posting "Fuck the NRA" 45 times in threads as if it matters, get off your ass and get busy starting the petition drive in your state and building the network and funding you'll need.

Or ... too much work? Then just keep whining online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:52 AM

113. I like the 'near daily' part

 

You left out the certain daily use of firearms by citizens to protect themselves from evil being brought upon them whereas in countries without a 2nd ammendment law abiding citizens are completely at the mercy of evil doers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:46 PM

96. Exactly! The real problem is that people have guns. That's why gun violence rates are so high in

places with lax gun laws, like Vermont, but are so low in places with strict legislation, like D.C or Chicago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 06:58 PM

116. So the fact that all "mass shooters" had mental health problems is a-ok.

Maybe we should tackle the mental health problems we face as a nation. Get people the help they need. Maybe even make it free or low cost, just so people go without making excuses. Or not, ban some guns, just like we ban drugs that seem to make it over our south boarder just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:15 AM

36. A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when

precision moves to overly specific, that's also a bad law. "Ban the weapon" is overly specific; the AWB was vague. Educate yourself on what it is you really want to control; educate yourself on how many guns that would actually apply to; educate yourself on whether you want a ban on further sales or a confiscation, and then figure out how many people that would affect and how many resources it would require to put into place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:44 AM

50. The petition (I assume) was not intended to be a legal draft.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:18 AM

37. Banning is not: well regulated.

When living in rural America and confronted with a biker gang, what do I want by my side on my front porch?

Not a BB gun.

ADDING UPON EDIT:

It's a compelling argument for me.

But, if I live down the road from this guy, I want his ownership well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:51 PM

67. "Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:30 PM

89. Cute? Obtuse? Obfuscation? Redirection? Cathartic? Or,

just hiding an agenda that lacks a good response?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:46 PM

108. hidden agenda? I'm pretty damn open about being anti-semiautomatic

there's a reason Malala Yousafzai's made more inroads with the people who shot her than with the American NRA that lives off nothing but idiot fantasies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #108)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:17 PM

111. I see opinion and no resolve to have anything other than having an opinion. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #111)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:32 PM

112. signed!

eventually the amount of phantom lives saved from roiling biker mobs will outweigh the real people killed, I presume

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:34 AM

45. Nah. Waste of time and effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:44 AM

51. Yes. We look quite foolish to the rest of the civilized world.

 

Foolish and stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:48 AM

55. Goodbye AR-15...

...Hello AK-47

The Kalishnakov is the most widely produced assault rifle in the world. It's produced in every industrialized country around the globe, including the US.

It's like banning Vicodin and being surprised addicts switched to Demerol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:58 AM

60. The problem with that idea is that it wouldn't have stopped the massacre...

at the nightclub.

The weapon was not an AR-15, it was a semiautomatic rifle with a much different design known as the Black Mamba.

This Is the Assault Rifle Used by the Orlando Mass Shooter
Developed for US special operations forces, the weapon is known as the "Black Mamba."


MARK FOLLMANJUN. 13, 2016 2:45 PM


Since the Orlando massacre early Sunday morning, pro-gun pundits have come out in force to argue that the weapon used in the attack is not an assault rifle. The gun lobby prefers to call these weapons "modern sporting rifles," euphemistic ammo it can fire in an ongoing semantic debate. But make no mistake: What the Orlando attacker used was a weapon of war. It was designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Witness this harrowing audio captured by a bystander outside the Pulse nightclub in which Omar Mateen fires 24 shots in 9 seconds.

According to a federal law enforcement official, the rifle Mateen used to murder and maim more than 100 people was a Sig Sauer MCX. Mateen legally purchased the weapon, similar to an AR-15, on June 4 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, near where he lived. (He legally purchased a Glock 17 handgun the following day, which he also carried during the attack.)

Sig Sauer bills the MCX as "an innovative weapon system built around a battle-proven core." The company says it "stands as the first rifle to be silenced from the ground up. It also accepts a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment." It has a military-spec trigger and a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. According to the book Guns of Special Forces 2001-2015, the MCX is known in military circles as the "Black Mamba" and was developed at the request of the US Army's special operations forces.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:00 AM

61. This bolt-action rifle owner says 'IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME OBAMA!"

 


- and I rarely use the 'F' word...

BAN 11+ CAPACITY magazines as well, will ya?!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:11 AM

64. "F" as in "Fudd"? ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #64)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:59 PM

120. OK, yes, that is funny!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:02 AM

62. Fascinating how many poster miss the point that this is to raise awareness in DC, not serve ...

 

... as draft legislation. Almost makes one think they're missing the point on purpose.






.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:13 AM

65. Would police officers also be considered "civilian ownership"?

If so then I'm in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:54 PM

83. Done.

Numbers matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:56 PM

85. I won't be signing it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:00 PM

88. Signed.

Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:06 PM

101. Congress would need to do this. NRA pays them too much

Too do nothing.
Elect a better Congress.
Also , they need to ban a class of semiautomatic weappns. There are other semiautomatic rifles just like the AR15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:22 PM

103. Signed. 125,000 signatures now. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:36 PM

106. No.

Because it won't stop with the AR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:12 PM

117. So the next day Armalite markets the "BS-16"

What an effective campaign this will be!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #117)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:27 PM

118. It worked in 1994, why not again?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #118)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:56 PM

119. I'm still convinced the AWB was an idea planted by gunmakers (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread