Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Phatguysrule said:
If we ban AR15's or somehow make them too expensive to buy people will start making them on the black market, and they will be fully automatic (it's far easier to make a fully automatic than a semi-automatic, and they are in higher demand).

Or they will choose to use a semi-automatic 30-06, which while it does travel at a very slightly slower speed, impacts with around twice the force and a larger mass. It will destroy anybody it hits, and if they are small and in a line it'll probably destroy the next 3 people in line. You can buy or make extended magazines for these, or you can just bring multiple magazines. It takes about half a second to change magazines with an afternoon of practice.

I don't see any way that this would be anything other than incredibly counterproductive. And it would take decades to achieve. And the political capital will be wasted which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives as well as improved the lives of millions.

What happens when the military changes to the new XM-5? Another decades long fight to ban another model? Or is there a specific feature you're looking to ban?

The law has to be specific. What feature is banned? The magazine? The ammunition? Barrel length? The lower receiver? What specific aspect of these parts make them qualify to be banned? How do you ban this highly adaptable almost lego-like style of weapon without banning nearly all other hunting models?

That's the point. And that's what will make this take forever, and likely fail in the end. Because there is nothing specific to these guns that makes them more dangerous or different than most hunting rifles that have been sold for the last 100 years. They are quite literally less capable of killing than most hunting rifles.
Click to expand...
I’ll take my chances with the fucktards who tote these things around not being able to make them. And those who do make them should not be difficult to track and eliminate from the gun making system. I’d rather roll the dice with that than teens going into a gun store and picking up one off layaway like it’s a fucking flat screen
 
calvin natt said:
I’ll take my chances with the fucktards who tote these things around not being able to make them. And those who do make them should not be difficult to track and eliminate from the gun making system. I’d rather roll the dice with that than teens going into a gun store and picking up one off layaway like it’s a fucking flat screen
Click to expand...
It's not an either/or choice. And the people who would make them in the black market almost certainly make and sell high quality rifles now. And there will be about 30 states which aren't interested in enforcing this ban... and those are just the ones who do it illegally. Banning the AR15 would still allow the same teenager to walk into a store and buy a 30-06 to do even more damage.

In fact, you can bet people would just start making stocks which make the 30-06 (or any other model) look like an AR15, and be as adaptable. Yet, far more deadly. How do we ban that?

And that's probably why the military is switching to a new rifle based on a 30-06 sized round. It's a far more deadly round.
 
Phatguysrule said:
It's not an either/or choice. And the people who would make them in the black market almost certainly make and sell high quality rifles now. And there will be about 30 states which aren't interested in enforcing this ban... and those are just the ones who do it illegally. Banning the AR15 would still allow the same teenager to walk into a store and buy a 30-06 to do even more damage.

In fact, you can bet people would just start making stocks which make the 30-06 (or any other model) look like an AR15, and be as adaptable. Yet, far more deadly. How do we ban that?

And that's probably why the military is switching to a new rifle based on a 30-06 sized round. It's a far more deadly round.
Click to expand...
Make it a federal crime. Who cares what bumfuck Idaho or Alabama thinks. And if it’s already happening now, then what do we have to lose. We need to make as many barriers as possible to block the irresponsible, criminal, and mentally imbalanced. If you can navigate all these and do what’s required yayayaya you get to keep the gun. But you don’t get the AR type weapons. Totally unnecessary
 
calvin natt said:
Yet we (you) bend over backwards to make sure we don’t infringe on gun owners rights. But the right to life, liberty and and pursuit of happiness of those who are killed by these COMPLETELY unnecessary weapons is ignored.
Click to expand...
I don't think you'll be ABLE to infringe on those rights.

I'm discussing alternatives which could accomplish the same outcome because I'd actually like to see some action toward getting these killings reduced/stopped, rather than just getting upset about them every now and then and complaining about republicans and other people who don't agree with me.
 
calvin natt said:
Make it a federal crime. Who cares what bumfuck Idaho or Alabama thinks. And if it’s already happening now, then what do we have to lose. We need to make as many barriers as possible to block the irresponsible, criminal, and mentally imbalanced. If you can navigate all these and do what’s required yayayaya you get to keep the gun. But you don’t get the AR type weapons. Totally unnecessary
Click to expand...
You didn't address the 30-06... which is not an AR type weapon. But is at least as deadly, and very readily available. Why wouldn't deranged killers use that if the AR has been taken off the shelves? Or a .270? Or if those kick too hard, how about a .243?

Make it a federal crime, like growing and selling marijuana? There are some really smelly stores around who don't seem too worried about the federal law...
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
And that's probably why the military is switching to a version new rifle based on a 30-06 sized round. It's a far more deadly round.
Click to expand...

I'm ex military. I have many friends still currently serving. I have heard nothing about this? Maybe you could share a link on this? NATO and the US military switched from the .30-06 because of size and weight as well as overall velocity and battlefield capability. Currently they use the 5.56 and 7.62 rounds and there are no plans to change? Maybe you have something i missed here?
 
Fairly-Hard said:
I'm ex military. I have many friends still currently serving. I have heard nothing about this? Maybe you could share a link on this? NATO and the US military switched from the .30-06 because of size and weight as well as overall velocity and battlefield capability. Currently they use the 5.56 and 7.62 rounds and there are no plans to change? Maybe you have something i missed here?
Click to expand...


How Well Do the Army's New Guns Perform?

NGSW signifies an evolution in Soldier lethality
 
Sig Spear .277
  • Caliber(s): 5.56 or 7.62 NATO
  • Finish: High Temp Cerakote
  • Core Material: Inconel
  • Diameter: 1.67in.
  • Overall Length: 5.24in./7.49in.
  • Weight: 8.8oz -19.4oz.
  • Attachment Type: Clutch-Lock QD™ or Direct Thread
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yep.
SIG MCX - Wikipedia
SIG MCX SPEAR — The rifle was further developed into the SIG MCX Spear, which was adopted in its .277 Fury chambering as the XM5 by the U.S. Army
Click to expand...
Which is much different from a .30-06
It allows an aluminum barrel and weapon under 7 lbs.

Anyway. Again this just waters down the real issue.

Children were murdered in cold blood and that needs to stop.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Which is much different from a .30-06
It allows an aluminum barrel and weapon under 7 lbs.

Anyway. Again this just waters down the real issue.

Children were murdered in cold blood and that needs to stop.
Click to expand...
And I'm discussing ways to make that stop...
And, it's closer to 30-06 than a .223 or 5.56 is (these are the sizes AR-15 typically come chambered in)... 7.62 is almost exactly the same size as a 30-06 ( 7.63mm)

So, when you ban the AR (which won't happen, but let's pretend it could) and people start using hunting rifles to kill 100 or so people per year (the same kids, in the same schools, that we've left unguarded with open doors, so they don't feel like they are in a prison)... what next? Another decades long fight to ban another caliber? Which won't matter because they'll just change the design of the gun to bypass that law as well?
 
Last edited:
RR7 said:
I feel like size or strength of the bullet discussion seems a little silly to me who, admittedly doesn't know much about guns, because those measures seem like they would matter a lot more when hunting deer and elk, and not 10 year olds.
Click to expand...
The size of the bullet matters quite a lot, because a larger bullet traveling at a similar speed results in far greater damage. For example, if the difference was large enough, shooting a single round into a crowd could kill 3 or 4 people instead of just 1.

Did you watch the watermelon test?
 
Fairly-Hard said:
You don't know this. You have no idea if he could have gotten in anyway.
Click to expand...
How many of these school killings have had a shooter break through locked doors?

Children were being killed before the police were even called. Again you don't know this.
Click to expand...
If the doors were locked and windows were polycarbonate the shooter would have been outside making a lot of noise when the police showed up. Assuming they didn't get "lost" on the way once they heard he was still outside... so if they decided to do there job the police would have been the only ones at risk.

Troubled kids? Mass shooting happen at all ages.
Click to expand...
Yes, and people are much more likely to live happier and healthier lives if their problems are diagnosed and treated as children.
Did you happen to forget Las Vegas?
Click to expand...
I did not forget Las Vegas. A millionaire decided to buy a lot of guns and commit a horrible act. No law in the world could have prevented that rich asshole from doing that. He could have commissioned any guns he wanted.

Nobody anywhere made a snide comment except you with your "look scary" and trying to set up people with "Gotcha" pictures of rifles that happen to fired in much of the same way. Buy the way the M1 fires a .30-06 round which is more powerful than the AR15 5.56 round but doesn't have quite the velocity. So they are equally deadly.
Also go back and read again. I said the question is stupid. I at no time said you were stupid.
Click to expand...
Right, how sensitive of me. You just said I ask stupid questions...
Fairly-Hard said:
This conversation isn't worth having. It's for a bunch of idiots who want to make themselves feel like they know weapons.
Click to expand...
Truly, very polite response to a very simple question. My apologies.
The only person here talking about sides is you. Children at schools know no sides. They just want to feel safe in school and their parents should feel safe sending them there. This problem is not about right and left. It's about right and wrong. When you start to understand that the conversation can actually start.
Click to expand...
Do I really need to go back and quote all of the posts about right wing talking points and politicians? That's what most of this thread is about... And that's fine, but don't pretend nobody in here is taking sides...
 
riverman said:
I didn't jump to the defense of anyone...I took issue with YOUR post about what YOU said concerning empathy and the left and I have read your posts and posted about the process of addressing gun laws just like you have.....what you said about people using death to promote their political agenda....I agree about most of your political views regularly here but this one I think you've gotten a bit off track here and yes.....I think you're showing little interest at least what I have to say about the subject...you're welcome to that opinion as I am welcome to mine. This topic is a trigger for you I'd guess and pardon the pun. Just get this clear....nobody here wants kids to die so they can pass laws.....they want to pass laws so kids don't die
Click to expand...
Then I don't need people implying that I don't care about kids dying either. As has been done multiple times, even though I've politely made proposals that would unquestionably save lives, and wouldn't encroach on the rights the opposition has historically sited. Thereby making them far more likely to be adopted.

I can play the same game. Because this political stalemate is in fact costing lives. And the refusal to consider alternatives is in fact costing lives. These kids could have been protected without violating the current accepted meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
You just said I ask stupid questions...
Click to expand...

Again. Misquoting me just muddy's the waters.

I said "The question is stupid".

Phatguysrule said:
That's what most of this thread is about... And that's fine, but don't pretend nobody in here is taking sides...
Click to expand...

I have not and will not "Take Sides"

This is a right or wrong issue to me. Not left or right.

Get your facts right and i will back you 100% but as long as you continue to make this a very cloudy issue i simply can't continue to respond.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Again. Misquoting me just muddy's the waters.

I said "The question is stupid".



I have not and will not "Take Sides"

This is a right or wrong issue to me. Not left or right.

Get your facts right and i will back you 100% but as long as you continue to make this a very cloudy issue i simply can't continue to respond.
Click to expand...
If you want to claim that replying to my question by saying it is a "stupid question" is not offensive or aggressive then it is clear you are the one clouding the waters.

If you don't want to have the discussion, don't push that off on me. If you can't deal with the realities of the conversation that's on you.
 
https://www.providencejournal.com/s...ecticut-ri-new-hampshire-vt-maine/9942615002/

How do the New England states compare on gun control legislation?

The slaughter of 19 children at a Texas elementary school has put gun violence and how to solve it into the national spotlight again.

Following shootings in Southern California, Buffalo, Texas and elsewhere, politicians and gun control advocates have publicly said they are not optimistic the slayings will prompt new state or federal regulations.

That’s unacceptable, advocates argue, because of the ways political power and lobbying have long stonewalled such efforts. It’s “why nothing has really substantially and meaningfully happened,” Nicole Hockley told MSBNBC Wednesday.

Hockley co-founded the Sandy Hook Promise Foundation after her son, Dylan, was among the 20 children and six staff members shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

There have been 213 mass shootings in the United States in 145 days this year, according to Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks gun violence incidents in the United States. Ten were mass killings, including the racially motivated attack in a Buffalo supermarket on May 14 and the May 24 Uvalde, Texas, elementary school shooting.

Gun laws vary from state to state in New England, from New Hampshire’s limited controls to some of the most stringent restrictions in the country in Massachusetts.

Here’s how each New England state regulates firearms.

'What are we doing':Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy gives emotional speech on Texas elementary school shooting

Connecticut gun laws
Connecticut has the fifth-strongest gun laws in the country, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun violence prevention and awareness organization.

The state requires background checks and permits, but has no waiting period for gun buyers. The state has red flag laws and mechanisms for law enforcement and families to petition courts to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns.

Residents must be at least 21 years old to buy a handgun.

Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only New England states that allow local officials to pass their own firearms-related public safety laws.

Reliving the horror:My son never came home from Sandy Hook. My heart bleeds for Texas as I relive Dylan's murder.

“Connecticut continues to be a leader in preventing gun violence, including with a best-in-class gun removal program and new law limiting qualified immunity for police who abuse civilians,” Everytown for Gun Safety wrote on its page on Connecticut’s laws.

A bipartisan group of Connecticut legislators quickly enacted new gun violence legislation after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, expanding its bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and strengthening background check requirements.

Additional gun control measures stalled this year in the Democratic-led General Assembly, in large part because of a short legislative session and threats by Republicans to hold up legislation through a filibuster.

Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said Wednesday he’s uncertain whether he will call a special session on the bills. The measures would put limits on bulk purchases of firearms and require the registration of so-called ghost guns, untraceable firearms that can be assembled at home.

“I think it’s become an incredibly partisan argument right now in our society,” Lamont said. “It wasn’t that way, you know, 30, 40 years ago. So that is disturbing, even in a state like Connecticut, where after Sandy Hook we had strong bipartisan support.”

Massachusetts gun laws
Massachusetts is one of the only states to bar gun purchases by people with outstanding warrants and to require secure storage for any firearm not in the owner’s immediate control, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which ranks Massachusetts’ gun laws the fourth strongest in the country.

In addition to requiring background checks and all gun buyers to obtain a license, Massachusetts also requires sellers to get a state dealer license. Unlicensed sellers are allowed to transfer ownership of up to four guns per year, and the state records all sales.

Many assault weapons, large-capacity magazines and silencers are banned in Massachusetts, although .50 caliber rifles are legal.

Firearm manufacturing:Massachusetts gun makers accused of 'exporting bloodshed' to the nation

Residents must be 21 years old to purchase a handgun or high-capacity weapon. Eighteen is the minimum age for ammunition and other firearms.

Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only New England states that allow local officials to pass their own firearms-related public safety laws.

Massachusetts doesn't have a waiting period on gun purchases or restrict the number of firearms a buyer can legally purchase at one time.

“This is one of the basic functions of government, keeping people safe," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, said after the May 24 Uvalde massacre, as reported by the Boston Globe. "And I get it, we’ll never be able to keep everyone 100 percent safe. But we can do better for our babies than we are doing right now.”

Maine gun laws
Maine doesn’t require background checks prior to private gun sales, doesn’t mandate that gun sellers or buyers obtain state licenses and doesn’t require firearms owners to register their weapons.

Assault weapons, .50 caliber rifles and large-capacity magazines are legal in Maine.

Maine ranks 26th overall on Everytown for Gun Safety’s rankings and is the highest-ranked state that doesn’t require concealed carry permits. Maine’s House of Representatives passed permitless carry legislation in 2015.

Cities and towns in Maine don’t have the legal authority to regulate guns at the local level.

In Maine, there is no waiting period for gun purchases or limits on the number of guns that can be bought at one time.

“Despite 90% of gun deaths in the state being the result of suicide, the Pine Tree State lacks most basic laws that would help reduce suicide, including background checks for all gun sales, a standard Extreme Risk law, and waiting periods,” Everytown for Gun Safety wrote on its page on Maine’s gun laws.

New Hampshire gun laws
New Hampshire is New England’s most lenient state when it comes to gun regulation and fourth most lenient in the country, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

The state doesn’t require gun owners to get a license or register their weapons.

It's one of 24 states that allows people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Assault weapons, large-capacity magazines and .50 caliber rifles are legal in New Hampshire.

Granite State handgun dealers are required to get a state license, but the state doesn’t require a state license to sell rifles and shotguns.

There is no requirement for a background check in private gun sales in New Hampshire.

The governor's desk:Sununu vetoes NH red flag gun bill

New Hampshire performs its own background checks for handgun sales from licensed sellers, whereas other states tap the FBI. In performing those background checks, the state has access to both state and federal databases.

A bill has passed New Hampshire’s House and Senate this year that would prohibit any and all federal gun laws from being enforced in the Granite State if they are inconsistent with the state’s laws.

Rep. Bob Lynn of Windham, a Republican backer of the bill, reportedly told New Hampshire Public Radio on May 25, one day after the Uvalde shooting, that Democrat-backed gun controls wouldn’t stop mass shootings.

The fallout:Texas officials investigate whether police acted fast enough to stop shooter at Uvalde school

“I think the answer to things like this, to the extent there is an answer, and I’m not saying there is any kind of panacea, much more involves mental health-type issues than the gun issue, itself,” Lynn reportedly said.

New Hampshire and the 12 other states at the bottom of Everytown for Gun Safety's rankings have nearly three times as many gun deaths per capita as the eight states with the most stringent laws, according to the organization.

Rhode Island gun laws
Rhode Island has the 12th-strongest gun control laws in the country, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

The Ocean State requires background checks for private gun sales, has red flag mechanisms to remove guns from people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, and prohibits ghost guns.

It imposes a seven-day waiting period on all gun sales, but firearms owners are not required to register their weapons. There is no limit on the number of guns a person can buy at one time.

'Enough is enough': RI lawmakers call for action on 'common sense' gun legislation

State law allows residents to openly carry loaded rifles in public. Eighteen-year-olds are also legally allowed to purchase long guns and ammunition, while handguns are only available to buyers over the age of 21.

Rhode Island has passed restrictions in recent years that include measures to ban firearms from school grounds and close the “straw purchasing” loophole that had allowed people to buy guns for someone else.

Bills that would have banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are pending. Previous versions haven’t made it out of legislative committees, where politicians cited support for the Second Amendment while blocking those bills from advancing.

More:Threatening emails target sponsor of RI gun-control bills

Gov. Daniel McKee, a Democrat, voiced support for the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans in a statement after the May 24 shooting in Uvalde.

“We need action now, here in Rhode Island and in our nation’s capital,” he said.

Vermont gun laws
Vermont requires background checks for gun transactions, has red flag laws and bans guns in K-12 schools.

Vermont ranks 22nd in the country for gun law strength in part because it’s the only New England state without a secure storage law and has never required a permit to carry a concealed firearm, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

That ranking is despite the fact that Vermont has implemented several new gun control measures in recent years.

Controversy:Gov. Scott signs VT gun bills, calling for civility, as protesters yell 'traitor'

In 2018, Vermont banned the purchase of rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or pistol magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. It also banned bump stocks and prohibited anyone under the age of 21 from buying a gun in Vermont unless they can show they’ve completed a hunter safety course.

While signing the package of bills during his first term as governor, Republican Phil Scott said he felt compelled to “choose action over inaction, doing something over doing nothing, knowing there will always be more work to do.”

"I understand I may lose support over the decision to sign these bills today, but those are consequences I am prepared to live with," Scott said during a signing ceremony in which he was met with jeers and angry shouts.

The details:Vermont's new gun safety bill goes into effect July 1. Here's what Vermonters need to know.

A new bill signed in March will lengthen the state’s waiting period from three days to seven days once it takes effect July 1.

The bill will also allow a judge to order Vermonters suspected of abuse and subject to a "relief from abuse order" to immediately relinquish all firearms in their possession and refrain from purchasing other firearms until the order expires.

Material from the Associated Press and USA TODAY was used in this report.
Click to expand...

A great look at where some states currently sit. I'm hopeful that all these laws and other solutions are being looked at in statehouses across the country. And before anyone says "these laws don't make any difference", that's how this will get to critical mass and require a constitutional amendment. At least, that's my hope. In the meantime, the power lies along what the President can pass and/or push through via EO. Probably some economic related shit for mental health college seekers that won't even make a substantial difference, idk. But it needs to continue to be talked about so laws can continue to be written that may make a difference. Will it? More studies need to be done and published from law enforcement as well about the locations where firearms were acquired. Crossing state lines to commit weapon related crimes needs to be more harshly penalized. Call me stupid, but I think there may be a blue line between the truth and what can be done. I will be bumping some NWA this afternoon in honor of my feelings towards law enforcement right now though.

Personal insults towards anyone except the heinous individuals that commit these acts, probably doesn't help. Fuck these murders! They must be stopped.
 
Phatguysrule said:
If we ban AR15's or somehow make them too expensive to buy people will start making them on the black market, and they will be fully automatic (it's far easier to make a fully automatic than a semi-automatic, and they are in higher demand).

Or they will choose to use a semi-automatic 30-06, which while it does travel at a very slightly slower speed, impacts with around twice the force and a larger mass. It will destroy anybody it hits, and if they are small and in a line it'll probably destroy the next 3 people in line. You can buy or make extended magazines for these, or you can just bring multiple magazines. It takes about half a second to change magazines with an afternoon of practice.

I don't see any way that this would be anything other than incredibly counterproductive. And it would take decades to achieve. And the political capital will be wasted which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives as well as improved the lives of millions.

What happens when the military changes to the new XM-5? Another decades long fight to ban another model? Or is there a specific feature you're looking to ban?

The law has to be specific. What feature is banned? The magazine? The ammunition? Barrel length? The lower receiver? What specific aspect of these parts make them qualify to be banned? How do you ban this highly adaptable almost lego-like style of weapon without banning nearly all other hunting models?

That's the point. And that's what will make this take forever, and likely fail in the end. Because there is nothing specific to these guns that makes them more dangerous or different than most hunting rifles that have been sold for the last 100 years. They are quite literally less capable of killing than most hunting rifles.
Click to expand...

Just giving a reason why.
 
If AR-15 weapons are for hunting why are they called Assault Weapons?

I've never heard of a hunter needing to assault a deer.

And if an assault weapon is for hunting what is a hunting rifle for?

zQ8mjgu.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top