The AR-15 was built for slaughter in war zones

[smilesammich 10,727]

Oh I took what NB said the other way.

The AR15 is chosen because IT gets the most publicity, not the shooter trying to add to their own publicity.

that might be what he actually meant, but i read it as the latter.

but still, i have an issue with working gun control around marketing and sales trends. i'm more in line with working gun control around trying to keep the numbers of dead down. in my mind that's the only reasonable approach at this point in the game. i am a supporter of the second, mainly because if i ever decide i want a gun for protection i want to be able to go out and buy one. but let me tell you, if guns were ever banned in the us (across the board) i would definitely be right there in line to get a gun black market. but that's not what's on the table. i'm suspicious as to why the nra/gop keeps pushing propaganda as if this were the agenda. it's never been the agenda. i don't see anything wrong with attempting to limit the number guns a person is allowed to legally own and i see no issue with limiting the type of gun a person is allowed to legally own. i don't think either of those actions go against the 2nd because, well, they had absolutely no idea what we'd be dealing with in 2016. sometimes i feel like we'll be having this argument in 25 years about concealed carry mini nukes.

[Merle 458]

the purpose of gun control is not to 'stop these deranged heathens from wanting to kill us' - how can you control a thought? you can't, you can't control a thought until that thought becomes a traceable action. don't you think attempting to control objects is more attainable than attempting to control thought? i get the feeling you're approaching this from the angle that only religious radicals are hell bent on killing people and that isn't the case. it's about taking the most effective action to, if anything, lessen casualties. waving a magic wand to make one type of gun disappear seems more doable than waving a wand and making a particular group of people disappear.

You dont need to control thoughts and there were traceable actions. The Orlando shooter as well as the San Bernardino shooters were on the radar for possible terrorist activity.

[smilesammich 10,727]

In your opinion maybe. The gun control laws in France didn't stop those heathens from acquiring AK47 rifles. Well there's a will there's a way as "they" say.

no it didn't, but i'm pretty sure the gun control laws in france are the reason they haven't had 100s+ shootings since the bataclan shooting. cause as of the 17th of this month, we'd already had 125 additional dead and 269 injured. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/17/guns-have-killed-at-least-125-americans-since-the-orlando-pulse-massacre.html

i've got pretty crazy opinions about the usefulness of law, so i understand what you're saying about criminals doing what they do, this is true. but end of the day, my opinions don't matter and we're a nation of laws so..unless you want to get rid of every last one of them (laws) the 'criminals do what they do' argument just doesn't work for me.

Edited June 23, 2016 by elitesthuglib

[smilesammich 10,727]

You dont need to control thoughts and there were traceable actions. The Orlando shooter as well as the San Bernardino shooters were on the radar for possible terrorist activity.

right, but it wasn't until they did something illegal (not an illegal thought, but illegal action) could anything be done outside of investigating for traceable illegal action. these are americans we're talking about, we can't allow the government to swallow people up over perceived ill intention or 'mind reading'. that's why we have watch lists and not arrest lists.

[Merle 458]

these are americans we're talking about, we can't allow the government to swallow people up over perceived ill intention

The same quote could be said by law abiding AR15 owners to the libs who don't know what the 2nd amendment actually is. Hint: its not about hunting.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The same quote could be said by law abiding AR15 owners to the libs who don't know what the 2nd amendment actually is. Hint: its not about hunting.

i wholeheartedly disagree, the government detaining a person (taking away a person's freedom) over a possibility or thought is much different than the government deciding certain guns should no longer be legally purchased (well regulated, ahem).

hint: i know

[Merle 458]

i wholeheartedly disagree, the government detaining a person (taking away a person's freedom) over a possibility or thought is much different than the government deciding certain guns should no longer be legally purchased (well regulated, ahem).

hint: i know

Apparently you dont know. If you did you wouldn't think the government should regulate gun rights more than they already are. Or do you even know they have been regulated already? Ever hear of the National Firerams Act?

[Sousuke 1,214]

My guess is that if the AR15 were somehow magically removed from civilian hands (and its soviet counterpart), these two rifles would take its place.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Sousuke

[Merle 458]

My guess is that if the AR15 were somehow magically removed from civilian hands (and its soviet counterpart), these two rifles would take its place.

What wimpy and unscary looking guns, with their wood stocks and lack of pistol grips. Those probably couldn't even harm a kitten. Also, it looks like neither are equipped with a barrel shroud or a shoulder thing that goes up.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Apparently you dont know. If you did you wouldn't think the government should regulate gun rights more than they already are. Or do you even know they have been regulated already? Ever hear of the National Firerams Act?

no, i'm pretty sure that there are in existence americans who know what the 2nd amendment is and feel the government should do more in regulation. or did you just feel the need to tell me i'm wrong and what i would think if i were 'right'?

up until this point, you've been pretty civil but with your last two questions i see your tolerance for civility is going south. so let's just leave it at i'm an idiot liberal and you're the typical overly emotional 'muh guns' kinda guy. mmk?

[Merle 458]

no, i'm pretty sure that there are in existence americans who know what the 2nd amendment is and feel the government should do more in regulation. or did you just feel the need to tell me i'm wrong and what i would think if i were 'right'?

up until this point, you've been pretty civil but with your last two questions i see your tolerance for civility is going south. so let's just leave it at i'm an idiot liberal and you're the typical overly emotional 'muh guns' kinda guy. mmk?

When statements start with "I'm pretty sure that..." it just sounds like more opinion. I was just asking a few simple questions because it doesn't sound to me like you know what the intent of the second amendment is and there are regulations in place on weapons. Civility? I never called you any names, but you sure labeled me pretty quick and you don't even know me . Sounds like you got your panties in a bunch all by yourself. Feel free to ignore me if you can't have a discussion like an adult without getting your feelings hurt as soon as someone questions you.

[smilesammich 10,727]

When statements start with "I'm pretty sure that..." it just sounds like more opinion. I was just asking a few simple questions because it doesn't sound to me like you know what the intent of the second amendment is and there are regulations in place on weapons. Civility? I never called you any names, but you sure labeled me pretty quick and you don't even know me . Sounds like you got your panties in a bunch all by yourself. Feel free to ignore me if you can't have a discussion like an adult without getting your feelings hurt as soon as someone questions you.

aw, come on. i labeled myself first. i'm not upset and never thought about ignoring you. but our convo hit a brick wall in that you don't think i'm qualified to discuss the topic. i'm cool with that, let it go and you and sousuke can go on brainstorming about what guns will be used for mass killings in the future, what guns couldn't harm a kitten, and whatever about 'scary looks'.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

When statements start with "I'm pretty sure that..." it just sounds like more opinion. I was just asking a few simple questions because it doesn't sound to me like you know what the intent of the second amendment is and there are regulations in place on weapons. Civility? I never called you any names, but you sure labeled me pretty quick and you don't even know me . Sounds like you got your panties in a bunch all by yourself. Feel free to ignore me if you can't have a discussion like an adult without getting your feelings hurt as soon as someone questions you.

Wow somebody peed in your cornflakes ?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Wow somebody peed in your cornflakes ?

my bad, i guess.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

20 pages in and I still don't have an answer to a question I asked several pages ago. Why do you need to have an AR-15 in your possession? I've heard folks say they need it for protection and to take care of family in case SHTF, but can't a handgun do the exact same? Or even a shotgun? Where do you live if you feel the need to have on for "safety"?

For the collectors, I kind of get it. You like guns, but this whole I need one for protection is a bit much.