• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
I think this is a fantastic idea.

So let's think. Who has business owning a gun that can send a whole bunch of bullets into the air, accurately and quickly, equipped with magazines that make it easy to keep firing with minimal interruption? Such weapons include, but are not limited to, the AR-15.

Who has business owning such a weapon?


Hmmmm.........I can't think of anyone.


Anyone else have any suggestions?
Click to expand...
OK, so let's ban the millions of AR-15s out there. Now, what do we do about the millions of other guns out there that can do exactly what an AR-15 can do?
 
Meadmaker said:
I think this is a fantastic idea.

So let's think. Who has business owning a gun that can send a whole bunch of bullets into the air, accurately and quickly, equipped with magazines that make it easy to keep firing with minimal interruption? Such weapons include, but are not limited to, the AR-15.

Who has business owning such a weapon?


Hmmmm.........I can't think of anyone.


Anyone else have any suggestions?
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

CaptainHowdy said:
OK, so let's ban the millions of AR-15s out there. Now, what do we do about the millions of other guns out there that can do exactly what an AR-15 can do?
Click to expand...

See the hilite.
 
johnny karate said:
No, I'm saying that you're using right-wing dog whistle terms to try to mask something everyone here has already figured out, so there’s no point in not being direct.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that classes of people who are restricted from gun ownership should be expanded. A convicted felon cannot currently own gun. A drug addict cannot. A person with a restraining order against them cannot. Are you OK with those classes of people not being able to buy a gun? If so, why is requiring a person to be a citizen before they can buy a gun a "dogwhistle"? How many other countries that allow private ownership of guns let non-citizens own a gun?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
No, I'm saying that classes of people who are restricted from gun ownership should be expanded. A convicted felon cannot currently own gun. A drug addict cannot. A person with a restraining order against them cannot.
Click to expand...

In which jurisdictions? Or are you pretending that federal laws place such restrictions?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
......A convicted felon cannot currently own gun.......
Click to expand...

Want to just back that up? I've seen evidence to the contrary, posted earlier in this thread, so if you've got something newer or more authoritative, now is the time to produce it.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
No, I'm saying that classes of people who are restricted from gun ownership should be expanded. A convicted felon cannot currently own gun. A drug addict cannot. A person with a restraining order against them cannot. Are you OK with those classes of people not being able to buy a gun? If so, why is requiring a person to be a citizen before they can buy a gun a "dogwhistle"? How many other countries that allow private ownership of guns let non-citizens own a gun?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is based on your definitions of "classes of people" and how you view them as expressed previously on this Forum?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
So you want to take away all guns?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying that since you're so keen on taking away all AR-15's, you might as well take away other guns with the same capability while you're at it. But, of course, you knew that when you constructed your strawman; you seem perfectly able to classify people, so your pretend inability to classify guns has no credibility.

Dave
 
MikeG said:
Want to just back that up? I've seen evidence to the contrary, posted earlier in this thread, so if you've got something newer or more authoritative, now is the time to produce it.
Click to expand...

Summary of Federal Law

Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;23
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;24
Is underage;25
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;26
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.27

A crime punishable by more than year in prison is usually a felony but there is an exception for certain felony crimes of a nonviolent nature. So it's not true that ALL felonies will exempt you from gun ownership. But most will
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I'm just saying that since you're so keen on taking away all AR-15's, you might as well take away other guns with the same capability while you're at it. But, of course, you knew that when you constructed your strawman; you seem perfectly able to classify people, so your pretend inability to classify guns has no credibility.

Dave
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Keep in mind that with practice, one can wipe out a lot of people quickly with a bolt action rifle, and this one isn't even a straight-pull rifle, and he's having to aim to hit a distant target. There are bolt action rifles that take AR-15 magazines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsYpMzuArbc
Click to expand...

The key phrase is "with practice"


With practice, the longbow had a faster rate of fire or better effective range than any weapon used by the British army until breach loading rifles, yet armies chose muskets in preference to longbows.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I don't follow. The cocking handle is on the left on an FN. It would be your pistol hand cocking if you shoot left handed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I probably didn't word that as well as I could have.

We were trained that we must keep our pistol hand on the pistol grip. For right handers this meant flicking the safety on with their thumb of the right hand, cocking the rifle with the left (support) hand, pulling it back toward their right ear and releasing. If you were left handed, you had to flick the safety on with the index finger of your left hand, and reach across the top of the breach with your right hand, find the tab (which you could not see) and cock the rifle with the right hand. When you do this your right wrist is coming straight back at your nose... if you slip... whack.

Cock, hook and look was also much easier for a right hander.


Captain_Swoop said:
AUG is a good weapon.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I didn't much like it, mainly because it was about 3lb lighter, and I found it harder to hold steady.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
No, I'm saying that classes of people who are restricted from gun ownership should be expanded. A convicted felon cannot currently own gun. A drug addict cannot. A person with a restraining order against them cannot. Are you OK with those classes of people not being able to buy a gun?
Click to expand...

It’s pretty obvious why those people might be restricted from owning a gun.

If so, why is requiring a person to be a citizen before they can buy a gun a "dogwhistle"? How many other countries that allow private ownership of guns let non-citizens own a gun?
Click to expand...

It’s not so obvious why being foreign-born or poor should restrict someone from owning a gun. At least from a non-xenophobic, non-racist standpoint. Thus, dog whistle.

Also, your original argument wasn’t that you had to be a citizen to own a gun. It was that you had to be native-born. You explicitly argued that naturalized citizens should not be allowed to own guns. This deceptive pivot away from your original, more xenophobic position only bolsters my argument regarding your agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom