Biden gets one right.

[Joe_Hoopsier]

No that isn’t at all what he said. Be honest. It was assault weapons paired with large capacity mags and the damage they do to a mass of people. Not one

No, he was a hawk on the velocity of the .223/5.56 and OMG how terrible it is, shudder, wet myself, it's just evil.
AR's are just the rage of the day. Much like lulumon. there are 2 dozen other firearms that are as or more dangerous, readily available, but the easily lead sheep focus on some pretty plastic around a firearm. Just like lulumon on a chubby butt and small package. (not pointing at you and laughing I swear!)

 

[Cthulhu85]

A couple of things. I think the .223 high velocity round does more damage to a human being. I also think lifting immunity will have an effect in the number of guns sold. A similar theory was how Purdue Pharma got nailed.

Part of the reason for the immunity law was the suit the city of Chicago was about to file against manufacturers and distributors for flooding the market with hand guns. That suit scared the gun industry.

Get rid of .223 and people will switch to the .300 AAC blackout.

 

[larsIU]

Bullshit. No liquor manufacturer is held responsible for their product being misused.

Liquor manufacturers don't sell direct to the consumer. That added layer shields them. So let's sue the gun shop owners. I agree with COH. Congress can't fix this. Only the trial lawyers can at this point.

Still trying to figure out how alcohol is of social utility - unless it's to help fat girls have sex, too.

Social utility is sort of a nebulous concept, right? Everyone's idea of social utility is different.

Religious ceremonies
Socially accepted for 10,000 years

AR type guns with large mags don't have a social utility. They have a military utility. Maybe, in some highly regulated situations, with killing vermin and such. Though it would need to be a shit ton of coyotes.

It’s not about what’s right or just. It’s about your opinion of guns.

Yes. And the opinion that AR type guns with large mags are not socially useful will likely end their existence.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yeah he knows first hand the damage they do. His opinion matters. So let’s hear it in your own words. What social utility attends these weapons?

See my post above.

An AR15 is the compromise weapon that mass ownership allows a free people to have a fighting chance should the government unilaterally decide that the rules have changed. It can be used for other things but that is its main social utility. When government fails, when the courts fail, you have the 2nd amendment.

"But they couldn't just own cannons back then Crazy."

Yeah they could.

Private Cannon Ownership in Early America

"Although I hesitate to bring this to President Biden’s attention, individuals and nonprofits own cannon today. In 2019, for example, Brown’s Company of Artillery fired for five hours in Lebanon … the one in Connecticut. And the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, a private artillery...

www.aier.org

"Well they just owned single shot muskets and rifles."

Which were the military rifles of their day. It is clear what was intended for the second by the quotes I posted. We have bargained that the populace do not have SAWs or M4's, but the AR15 is the compromise. The killing power is the point.

 

[mcmurtry66]

They assume I'll follow them. At this point there isn't much left on the table except ban and confiscate.

Let's say you ban the AR. What happens when these shooters start using the next semi-auto in line? Want me to start listing all the available options?

sure. we list drugs and other things that are banned. so let me break this down @Ty Webb iu @DANC @Hoopsdoc1978 as you guys appear to be the group that supports assault weapons.

Everything in life involves a risk benefit analysis. when you look at assault weapons, the data, which i have, they really aren't that great of a risk. the number of deaths from same isn't much. however, perception matters, that an inordinate amount of the deaths have involved children, that now our kids have "active shooter" as part of their vernacular increases the risk significantly. now what benefit do we derive from assault weapons/high cap mags etc. personal enjoyment. and that's really all. fair? defense against the gov? stop it. the gov would squash in a second. they could kill you with a microwave or a drone. that's silly, paranoia talk. it's just personal enjoyment. fun looking at it fun shooting it.

gov implements measures all the time for our protection, to mitigate risk. seat belts, speed limits, fda regs, on and on and on. the benefits or social utility of cars and pharma are enormous, yet we regulate same. so why not regulate a product more stringently that serves very little social utility but provides so much risk?

 

[Cthulhu85]

See my post above.

An AR15 is the compromise weapon that mass ownership allows a free people to have a fighting chance should the government unilaterally decide that the rules have changed. It can be used for other things but that is its main social utility. When government fails, when the courts fail, you have the 2nd amendment.

"But they couldn't just own cannons back then Crazy."

Yeah they could.

Private Cannon Ownership in Early America

"Although I hesitate to bring this to President Biden’s attention, individuals and nonprofits own cannon today. In 2019, for example, Brown’s Company of Artillery fired for five hours in Lebanon … the one in Connecticut. And the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, a private artillery...

www.aier.org

"Well they just owned single shot muskets and rifles."

Which were the military rifles of their day. It is clear what was intended for the second by the quotes I posted. We have bargained that the populace do not have SAWs or M4's, but the AR15 is the compromise. The killing power is the point.

I can own a cannon now too.

 

[twenty02]

Seems technology is here (or will soon be here) to implement the use of smart gun technology. A smart gun could only be fired if the registered owner is using it. This could be via handprint tech on the handle... similar to what is used for unlocking your phone. Or a small wearable device (ring/necklace) .

A gun not being operated by the lawful owner would be as useless as a toy pistol. Would eliminate the thousands of children that are accidentally shot, as well as kill the black market for guns.

This is a safety measure that the legal system could force better adoption of, just as car makers are liable for not implementing safety equipment.

Would diehard 2A people get behind this?

 

[mattndallas]

Does creation of hesitancy to establish a military state constitute "social utility"?

What about creating hesitancy to attempt invasion and occupancy of the US because of the logistical nightmare created by hundreds of thousands of "citizens" running around with AR's taking potshots at invading occupiers? Does that equate to "social utility"?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yes. And the opinion that AR type guns with large mags are not socially useful will likely end their existence.

In 2016 it was estimated that 5 to 10 million of those kind of rifles were circulating in the US. They will still exist and a whole cottage industry to 3D print (and therefore not be able to track) even more would immediately spring up the minute any ban came down. Not to mention that the type of lawsuit mentioned would help to clear the shelves (through purchase) of any currently available stock.

Attempted seizure of the weapons wouldn't be super popular either. Which of you are volunteering to go door to door to collect them?

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

They assume I'll follow them. At this point there isn't much left on the table except ban and confiscate.

Let's say you ban the AR. What happens when these shooters start using the next semi-auto in line? Want me to start listing all the available options?

How many firearm enthusiast here are now felons due to pistol braces? I am . IT's still setting in the safe just were it was a year ago when it was legal. They can take any further fire arms laws, and several thousand that exit and shove them up their corn hole game.
They are removing my protection while limiting me to protect myself. What type of control does that sound like. I'm not playin.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I can own a cannon now too.

Smooth bore are apparently completely legal. Have at it.

 

[mattndallas]

Would diehard 2A people get behind this?

Depends on who controls the on/off switch, I would assume.

 

[Cthulhu85]

sure. we list drugs and other things that are banned. so let me break this down @Ty Webb iu @DANC @Hoopsdoc1978 as you guys appear to be the group that supports assault weapons.

Everything in life involves a risk benefit analysis. when you look at assault weapons, the data, which i have, they really aren't that great of a risk. the number of deaths from same isn't much. however, perception matters, that an inordinate amount of the deaths have involved children, that now are kids have "active shooter" as part of their vernacular increases the risk significantly. now what benefit do we derive from assault weapons/high cap mags etc. personal enjoyment. and that's really all. fair? defense against the gov? stop it. the gov would squash in a second. they could kill you with a microwave or a drone. that's silly, paranoia talk. it's just personal enjoyment. fun looking at it fun shooting it.

gov implements measures all the time for our protection, to mitigate risk. seat belts, speed limits, fda regs, on and on and on. the benefits or social utility of cars and pharma are enormous, yet we regulate same. so why not regulate a product more stringently that serves very little social utility but provides so much risk?

There are benefits in home defense situations and situations where they are the best option.

I won't need just an AR if society fails. Just look at yugoslavia in the 90s for a modern example. If shit really hits the fan and everything falls apart, plenty of battalion and regimental commanders will split with their loyal troops and gear an pick their side.

 

[snarlcakes]

sure. we list drugs and other things that are banned. so let me break this down @Ty Webb iu @DANC @Hoopsdoc1978 as you guys appear to be the group that supports assault weapons.

Everything in life involves a risk benefit analysis. when you look at assault weapons, the data, which i have, they really aren't that great of a risk. the number of deaths from same isn't much. however, perception matters, that an inordinate amount of the deaths have involved children, that now are kids have "active shooter" as part of their vernacular increases the risk significantly. now what benefit do we derive from assault weapons/high cap mags etc. personal enjoyment. and that's really all. fair? defense against the gov? stop it. the gov would squash in a second. they could kill you with a microwave or a drone. that's silly, paranoia talk. it's just personal enjoyment. fun looking at it fun shooting it.

gov implements measures all the time for our protection, to mitigate risk. seat belts, speed limits, fda regs, on and on and on. the benefits or social utility of cars and pharma are enormous, yet we regulate same. so why not regulate a product more stringently that serves very little social utility but provides so much risk?

I’ll answer. Almost zero people are killed by them and people can easily switch to another weapon and accomplish the same nefarious intentions.

Speaking of governments protecting it citizens. We had 100k + people die from ODs, last year, and people want to argue over outlawing assault rifles that might save a few dozen people. It’s the epitome of how stupid America is today.

 

[larsIU]

See my post above.

An AR15 is the compromise weapon that mass ownership allows a free people to have a fighting chance should the government unilaterally decide that the rules have changed. It can be used for other things but that is its main social utility. When government fails, when the courts fail, you have the 2nd amendment.

"But they couldn't just own cannons back then Crazy."

Yeah they could.

Private Cannon Ownership in Early America

"Although I hesitate to bring this to President Biden’s attention, individuals and nonprofits own cannon today. In 2019, for example, Brown’s Company of Artillery fired for five hours in Lebanon … the one in Connecticut. And the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, a private artillery...

www.aier.org

"Well they just owned single shot muskets and rifles."

Which were the military rifles of their day. It is clear what was intended for the second by the quotes I posted. We have bargained that the populace do not have SAWs or M4's, but the AR15 is the compromise. The killing power is the point.

If we haven't voted out the fascists by the time they have seized power, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves. And the government unilaterally decides nothing. We have elections. Not that we pay much attention.

It is very clear what was intended by the 2nd amendment AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN as the men writing could likely be strung up and hung. So yeah, i'd probably want a gun by the door then too. Just in case. I mean the British CAME BACK for round two less than 40 years later. At that time in our history it made sense to own a gun to prevent a hostile government of depriving you of your rights. BECAUSE IT HAD JUST HAPPENED. The South had a shit ton of gun in 1860 and got curb stomped by the Union. The South literally seceded from the Union and it took that action for the government to do anything. Sure the Feds today are much stronger but come on. There is no civil war coming.

But is your reason for ownership a fear the government coming to attack your town or a defense against crime?

Those are the only two "social utilities" I can think of for owning a gun. Protection from the government and crime. Home invasions are probably best dealt with by a shotgun. Those are legal and will be forever.

There is no protection against the United State federal government if it ever reaches a point where it turns on its citizens. The Rubicon would be 1000 miles behind up by that point. And nobody's AR is going to do shit against the US military.

 

[Cthulhu85]

Seems technology is here (or will soon be here) to implement the use of smart gun technology. A smart gun could only be fired if the registered owner is using it. This could be via handprint tech on the handle... similar to what is used for unlocking your phone. Or a small wearable device (ring/necklace) .

A gun not being operated by the lawful owner would be as useless as a toy pistol. Would eliminate the thousands of children that are accidentally shot, as well as kill the black market for guns.

This is a safety measure that the legal system could force better adoption of, just as car makers are liable for not implementing safety equipment.

Would diehard 2A people get behind this?

What do you do with the 400 million already in private ownership?

I think they are a great option in addition to the current marketplace. I wouldn't trust my life with one in a self defense situation.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

In 2016 it was estimated that 5 to 10 million of those kind of rifles were circulating in the US. They will still exist and a whole cottage industry to 3D print (and therefore not be able to track) even more would immediately spring up the minute any ban came down. Not to mention that the type of lawsuit mentioned would help to clear the shelves (through purchase) of any currently available stock.

Attempted seizure of the weapons wouldn't be super popular either. Which of you are volunteering to go door to door to collect them?

Off shore manufacturing and import will look much like the Governments efforts with the Narco wars the last 50 years. And we all know that they have handled that magnificently. Hell we pack up a bunch of weapons and sent them to the cartels ourselves. YEA, I'm going to trust DC and the pacifist"... NOPE.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’ll answer. Almost zero people are killed by them and people can easily switch to another weapon and accomplish the same nefarious intentions.

Speaking of governments protecting it citizens. We had 100k + people die from ODs, last year, and people want to argue over outlawing assault rifles that might save a few dozen people. It’s the epitome of how stupid America is today.

ODs overdose? The manufacturers of opioids are paying 100 billion dollars

 

[larsIU]

In 2016 it was estimated that 5 to 10 million of those kind of rifles were circulating in the US. They will still exist and a whole cottage industry to 3D print (and therefore not be able to track) even more would immediately spring up the minute any ban came down. Not to mention that the type of lawsuit mentioned would help to clear the shelves (through purchase) of any currently available stock.

Attempted seizure of the weapons wouldn't be super popular either. Which of you are volunteering to go door to door to collect them?

I'm not. But you can stop the manufacture and sale and prosecute the shit out of offenders. We sometime make laws in this country and this argument isn't going anywhere and the gun owner side is losing. At some point, like abortion, this will become enough of a political loser for Republicans (high capacity mags and AR type weapons) that they will be forced into a decision.

 

[bawlmer]

See my post above.

An AR15 is the compromise weapon that mass ownership allows a free people to have a fighting chance should the government unilaterally decide that the rules have changed. It can be used for other things but that is its main social utility. When government fails, when the courts fail, you have the 2nd amendment.

"But they couldn't just own cannons back then Crazy."

Yeah they could.

Private Cannon Ownership in Early America

"Although I hesitate to bring this to President Biden’s attention, individuals and nonprofits own cannon today. In 2019, for example, Brown’s Company of Artillery fired for five hours in Lebanon … the one in Connecticut. And the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, a private artillery...

www.aier.org

"Well they just owned single shot muskets and rifles."

Which were the military rifles of their day. It is clear what was intended for the second by the quotes I posted. We have bargained that the populace do not have SAWs or M4's, but the AR15 is the compromise. The killing power is the point.

As someone asked above, do you not think democratic elections are the answer to abuse of power? If not, aren't well regulated state militias a more sensible check on federal abuse of power than Bubba and his cousins up the road?

 

[Cthulhu85]

If we haven't voted out the fascists by the time they have seized power, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves. And the government unilaterally decides nothing. We have elections. Not that we pay much attention.

It is very clear what was intended by the 2nd amendment AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN as the men writing could likely be strung up and hung. So yeah, i'd probably want a gun by the door then too. Just in case. I mean the British CAME BACK for round two less than 40 years later. At that time in our history it made sense to own a gun to prevent a hostile government of depriving you of your rights. BECAUSE IT HAD JUST HAPPENED. The South had a shit ton of gun in 1860 and got curb stomped by the Union. The South literally seceded from the Union and it took that action for the government to do anything. Sure the Feds today are much stronger but come on. There is no civil war coming.

But is your reason for ownership a fear the government coming to attack your town or a defense against crime?

Those are the only two "social utilities" I can think of for owning a gun. Protection from the government and crime. Home invasions are probably best dealt with by a shotgun. Those are legal and will be forever.

There is no protection against the United State federal government if it ever reaches a point where it turns on its citizens. The Rubicon would be 1000 miles behind up by that point. And nobody's AR is going to do shit against the US military.

Who are the fascists? It seems the democrat party exhibits authoritarian or even fascist tendencies.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Obviously the goal here is to prevent AR's falling into the hands of "domestic terrorists". For instance, those associated with "Moms for Liberty", who the SPLC has listed.

And quite honestly, recent analysis that has shown that Trumptards or Deplorables are also deemed worthy of additional scrutiny. Voting records should be investigated with any Trump voter deemed "anti-government" and therefore restricted for mag purchases deemed "unnecessary socially" for general public safety purposes.

Identify, isolate, obliterate. Sounds like a government with ill intentions to me.
I'll keep my weapons.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Get rid of .223 and people will switch to the .300 AAC blackout.

The issue is semi auto high velocity.

 

[twenty02]

I’ll answer. Almost zero people are killed by them and people can easily switch to another weapon and accomplish the same nefarious intentions.

Speaking of governments protecting it citizens. We had 100k + people die from ODs, last year, and people want to argue over outlawing assault rifles that might save a few dozen people. It’s the epitome of how stupid America is today.

Yep, and how hard are the pharma manufacturers getting sued for their part of it? Purdue Pharma went bankrupt and was dissolved.

 

[Cthulhu85]

How many firearm enthusiast here are now felons due to pistol braces? I am . IT's still setting in the safe just were it was a year ago when it was legal. They can take any further fire arms laws, and several thousand that exit and shove them up their corn hole game.
They are removing my protection while limiting me to protect myself. What type of control does that sound like. I'm not playin.

The pistol brace is an old concept. The Mauser C96 machine pistol came with one. That was in 1896. Lee Van Cleef used one in For A Few Dollars More.

 

[snarlcakes]

ODs overdose? The manufacturers of opioids are paying 100 billion dollars

Yep, and how hard are the pharma manufacturers getting sued for their part of it? Purdue Pharma went bankrupt and was dissolved.

So, we’re going to pretend we can’t count now? The difference is opioids kills 10,000s of more people per year and they were overprescribed.

 

[mattndallas]

And nobody's AR is going to do shit against the US military.

Then why do they want them? To "save" 25 people/year? C'mon.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So, we’re going to pretend we can’t count now? The difference is opioids kills 10,000s of more people per year. Not, mention to they overprescribed them.

right. and they were punished and in some cases dissolved. what am i missing?

 

[Cthulhu85]

The issue is semi auto high velocity.

I don't consider it an issue.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

democratic elections are the answer to abuse of power?

With term limits. I am 100% certain that we have enough evidence that the legacy swamp people dig a hole in DC, gather alphabet agency support and then become NOTHING like a democratically ran, of the people for the people by the people, gov. Peolosi, Briben et al are more like Putin and Pyrogzhin going at it and we are the ones that get pissed on.

 

[Ty Webb iu]

when you look at assault weapons, the data, which i have, they really aren't that great of a risk. the number of deaths from same isn't much.

That pretty much says it all. Thanks

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

right. and they were punished and in some cases dissolved. what am i missing?

You are hanging 1 home gorwn legit company and over looking the 24 south American cartels, and China pumping them ingredients to KILL US.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The pistol brace is an old concept. The Mauser C96 machine pistol came with one. That was in 1896. Lee Van Cleef used one in For A Few Dollars More.

in reading your posts you're obviously a gun enthusiast. i have some in my family. i truly do understand. it sucks and is shitty we can't have fun things. because i understand how they can be fun. to me that doesn't outweigh the misery of worrying about kids - regardless of understanding the odds etc. the balance is clear for me. i don't give credence to the gov overthrow stuff nor personal defense. get a shotgun. if the gov moves on us we're f'd regardless, and i don't believe that will ever happen. i think we need more reg on assault weapons. if you say you can live with that number of kid deaths vs the personal enjoyment many derive then it simply is what it is. i don't think assault weapons are a national crisis

 

[IUCrazy2]

If we haven't voted out the fascists by the time they have seized power, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves. And the government unilaterally decides nothing. We have elections. Not that we pay much attention.

It is very clear what was intended by the 2nd amendment AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN as the men writing could likely be strung up and hung. So yeah, i'd probably want a gun by the door then too. Just in case. I mean the British CAME BACK for round two less than 40 years later. At that time in our history it made sense to own a gun to prevent a hostile government of depriving you of your rights. BECAUSE IT HAD JUST HAPPENED. The South had a shit ton of gun in 1860 and got curb stomped by the Union. The South literally seceded from the Union and it took that action for the government to do anything. Sure the Feds today are much stronger but come on. There is no civil war coming.

But is your reason for ownership a fear the government coming to attack your town or a defense against crime?

Those are the only two "social utilities" I can think of for owning a gun. Protection from the government and crime. Home invasions are probably best dealt with by a shotgun. Those are legal and will be forever.

There is no protection against the United State federal government if it ever reaches a point where it turns on its citizens. The Rubicon would be 1000 miles behind up by that point. And nobody's AR is going to do shit against the US military.

We just fought 2 insurgencies overseas over the past 20 years and you guys still think that jets and heavy artillery would be the way that would go? You dropping JDAMs in the middle of suburbia?

The guns are insurance, nothing more or less. Maybe not you but plenty of people on that side of the aisle were/are saying that democracy itself might be over if Trump were to get back in charge. How could that happen with government we can vote for and courts? Erdogan was voted into office. Hugo Chavez was voted into office. He took away guns to protect the people too. They never got another real election to oust him or his successor since.

"That can't happen here." Why? Why are we so special that interests couldn't seize the government? People are people. Do I think the government is going to go authoritarian in my lifetime? I don't think so, but there are things happening right now that people are accepting of that I would have told you was crazy town 10 to 15 years ago.

I don't think guns should be turned on this government. I think guns should have been turned on Chavez and Erdogan. I don't want to give up the option should it be needed even in the high likelihood it won't.

 

[snarlcakes]

right. and they were punished and in some cases dissolved. what am i missing?

I don’t consider it an apt comparison. You can carry on.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I agree with COH. Congress can't fix this. Only the trial lawyers can at this point.


Yes. And the opinion that AR type guns with large mags are not socially useful will likely end their existence.

You’ve belied your intentions with the lawyers comment because if immunity laws are repealed, they’re not stopping at AR’s. I can assure you of that.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You’ve belied your intentions with the lawyers comment because if immunity laws are repealed, they’re not stopping at AR’s. I can assure you of that.

No, because handguns are far and away the violence problem. It isn't even close.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Chavez and Erdogan.

There is one common denominator for country's that become slaves.... "It COULD NEVER happen here, we have laws".

Cool, me and my 200 million + fellow firearms owners will ensure, that stays true.

 

[larsIU]

Who are the fascists? It seems the democrat party exhibits authoritarian or even fascist tendencies.

Dunno, whoever's in charge at that point.

 

[DANC]

Liquor manufacturers don't sell direct to the consumer. That added layer shields them. So let's sue the gun shop owners. I agree with COH. Congress can't fix this. Only the trial lawyers can at this point.


Religious ceremonies
Socially accepted for 10,000 years

AR type guns with large mags don't have a social utility. They have a military utility. Maybe, in some highly regulated situations, with killing vermin and such. Though it would need to be a shit ton of coyotes.


Yes. And the opinion that AR type guns with large mags are not socially useful will likely end their existence.

Religious ceremonies? lmao Come on, man.

Gun manufacturers don't typically sell direct to the consumer, either. If they do, they're held to the same standards as a gun store.

So pass a law limiting the mag size, if that's such a big issue.