Student Shot In GA Middle School...

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

And the obvious problem is that simply owning a gun does not infringe upon your Constitutional rights in any way.

And you do not have the right nor power to infringe upon MY rights simply because you fear someone MIGHT infringe upon yours.

Thats what this boils down to. You want to revoke the rights of 300 million people, because you fear one of those poeple might, one day, infringe upon your rights.

Imagaine if we handled all jurisprudence that way.

In effect, you wish to find Guilty all Americans for a crime that not only has not yet occured (the removal of your rights) but might NEVER occur.

Thats not how it works. WHEN someone takes your rights from you, THEN they face the penalty of Law and potential removal of their rights (freedom, voting, gun ownership, etc).

Not before hand.

I'm shocked that this needs explained to a professional educator.



Yet you do not have the power or right to revoke 300 million Americans right to free speech, in ADVANCE, becaus eone of them MIGHT use their freedom of speech to threaten you or yell fire in a theatre, do you?

Amazing.

And, I am sorry but handing out assault weapons to people with a history of mental illness or criminal records (because of poor oversight at gun shows) absolutely is a horror show waiting to happen thus compromising the rights of everyone.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Its an interesting perspective.

Here is my perspective;

Your constitutional rights cannot infringe on my constitutional rights. Freedom of speech does not afford you or me the ability to verbally threaten someone or yell fire in a movie theater when there is none. Irresponsible gun laws and listless enforcement of those laws are a serious threat to the most basic constitutional rights we enjoy.

So as an example, a society which tacitly (at the very least) allows mentally ill citizens with criminal records longer then my arm to purchase assault weapons at gun shows (thanks to loop holes in the laws) is protecting one right at the potential loss of another.

I understand your perspective. I just wanted you to understand that when you tell us gun-owners that we must "compromise", it's what we've been doing for a century and to be quite honest, we've compromised enough.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

And, I am sorry but handing out assault weapons to people with a history of mental illness or criminal records (because of poor oversight at gun shows) absolutely is a horror show waiting to happen thus compromising the rights of everyone.

I agree that people with mental health issues should not be able to purchase weapons.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by freestater

I understand your perspective. I just wanted you to understand that when you tell us gun-owners that we must "compromise", it's what we've been doing for a century and to be quite honest, we've compromised enough.

I'm interested in what gun owners have had to compromise, I apologize if you already stated in another post.

[dickkotite]

Originally Posted by cr726

I'm interested in what gun owners have had to compromise, I apologize if you already stated in another post.

Well there was a time less than 100 years ago that you could buy a gun at the hardware store with just cash. You could carry for self protection anywhere with no permit as well.
Now, in places like ny, you can never dream of getting a carry permit no matter how responsible you are or how much you have proven to society that you can be trusted. Even for a dumb target permit, you have to shell out a lot of cash and wait for almost a year to get a piece of paper that allows you to go to and from a range with millions of rules that treat you like a child.

The worst part about it is that the state sets you up to be a victim. Youre on a train, 5 punks come over and spit on you. They take your wallet, feel your 14 year old daughters boobs, slap her across the mouth and then jab a knife in your gut for kicks and laugh as your daughter watches you bleed to death. Thats not pleasant, fair or right. It does happen so dont say that it doesnt.
Imo, because you are not allowed to have a defense, the state is responsible. You cant even carry a knife, brass knuckles or a stun gun for christs sake.

Its not right

[dickkotite]

Everybody is smug and cocky until something happens to them.

I had an incident once. When the smoke cleared i sat there shaking, staring at my .45 subcompact thinking about the fact that i have never felt this level of fear before in my life ......and as bad as it was, if i didnt AT LEAST have that pistol.....the fear and terror would have been unimaginable. I thought about how helpless i would have become....how anything could have happened.

From that day on, I NEVER question anyones right to self defense.

[cr726]

I have never stated guns should be banned, but where does owning a AR-15 fit in your experiences?

Did you shoot someone or was there a fire?

Originally Posted by dickkotite

Everybody is smug and cocky until something happens to them.

I had an incident once. When the smoke cleared i sat there shaking, staring at my .45 subcompact thinking about the fact that i have never felt this level of fear before in my life ......and as bad as it was, if i didnt AT LEAST have that pistol.....the fear and terror would have been unimaginable. I thought about how helpless i would have become....how anything could have happened.

From that day on, I NEVER question anyones right to self defense.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by cr726

I'm interested in what gun owners have had to compromise, I apologize if you already stated in another post.

http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=39

page 2 of the thread you're in.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by cr726

I have never stated guns should be banned, but where does owning a AR-15 fit in your experiences?

Didn't you say earlier that no civilian should own an AR? If you did, then you are calling for the ban of a specific gun. One that thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime with them, own.

I own an AR because it's the best technology for small arms that I can afford. I can hit a 3-inch group at 100yds from a standing position with it. It's design and weight allow for the best recoil recovery and target acquisition on the market. The fact that the bolt is recoiling directly at my shoulder (rather than above it) gives the gun nearly zero climb and the pistol grip is ergonomically the best design I've ever fired.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by freestater

Didn't you say earlier that no civilian should own an AR? If you did, then you are calling for the ban of a specific gun. One that thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime with them, own.

I own an AR because it's the best technology for small arms that I can afford. I can hit a 3-inch group at 100yds from a standing position with it. It's design and weight allow for the best recoil recovery and target acquisition on the market. The fact that the bolt is recoiling directly at my shoulder (rather than above it) gives the gun nearly zero climb and the pistol grip is ergonomically the best design I've ever fired.

What's the purpose for this gun? When do you think you will need to be shoot a non-moving target from a 100 yards? Practical non-military use?

Your post about the Lautenburg amendment conviently left out the misdemeanor was for domestic abuse, not just some random misdemeanor.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by cr726

What's the purpose for this gun? When do you think you will need to be shoot a non-moving target from a 100 yards? Practical non-military use?

Your post about the Lautenburg amendment conviently left out the misdemeanor was for domestic abuse, not just some random misdemeanor.

Why does it need to have a "practical non-military use"?

Why should I have to justify it? It's one of the weapons I prefer to have at my disposal in the event of any foreseeable situation. I like it. That's all the justification I require. According to you, they should only be in the hands of those who have killed more people than all the civilian mass murderers throughout US history. Hell, I could probably come up with a single day in the last ten years our govt. has killed more people than all the mass-shootings in this country's history. Make it the last 80 years and I'm positive I could. If you really wanted to save lives from these terrible, scary assault weapons, you'd take them out of the hands of the govt. trained killers, too. Of course, that's not really the goal anyways.

Somehow, I'm not overwhelmed with a sense of trust for a govt. agent who so virulently, covetously eyes my liberty and my property. Call me crazy.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by cr726

What's the purpose for this gun?

Who are you, that you think you have the right or authority to decide what "purposes" are legitimate or not for others?

Perhaps evey post you make should be checked by a Mod, to see if you "purpose" meets certain qualifications.

An AR-15 is 100% cappable of:

1. Hunting
2. Target Shooting
3. Protection
4. Looking Cool and Thats It.

Owning an AR-15 (or it's equivalent non-"millitary style" .223 semiauto which would remain legal under the proposed ban) is not a crime, nor should it be a crime.

If it's misused, then there is a crime. Not before.

The day the State has the right to decide all citizens are guilty of a crime because ONE MIGHT commit a crime, it a bad day for personal freedom and liberty, and a good day for Tyrany.

[cr726]

I don't think you are crazy, maybe a bit paranoid.

Originally Posted by freestater

Why does it need to have a "practical non-military use"?

Why should I have to justify it? It's one of the weapons I prefer to have at my disposal in the event of any foreseeable situation. I like it. That's all the justification I require. According to you, they should only be in the hands of those who have killed more people than all the civilian mass murderers throughout US history. Hell, I could probably come up with a single day in the last ten years our govt. has killed more people than all the mass-shootings in this country's history. Make it the last 80 years and I'm positive I could. If you really wanted to save lives from these terrible, scary assault weapons, you'd take them out of the hands of the govt. trained killers, too. Of course, that's not really the goal anyways.

Somehow, I'm not overwhelmed with a sense of trust for a govt. agent who so virulently, covetously eyes my liberty and my property. Call me crazy.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Who are you, that you think you have the right or authority to decide what "purposes" are legitimate or not for others?

Perhaps evey post you make should be checked by a Mod, to see if you "purpose" meets certain qualifications.

An AR-15 is 100% cappable of:

1. Hunting
2. Target Shooting
3. Protection
4. Looking Cool and Thats It.

Owning an AR-15 (or it's equivalent non-"millitary style" .223 semiauto which would remain legal under the proposed ban) is not a crime, nor should it be a crime.

If it's misused, then there is a crime. Not before.

The day the State has the right to decide all citizens are guilty of a crime because ONE MIGHT commit a crime, it a bad day for personal freedom and liberty, and a good day for Tyrany.

The weapon was built for the military to kill humans. I was trained by the USMC to fire a M-16 from 500 yards and in.
If you are using a AR-15 to hunt, that's sad and get a new hobby. Protection? What are you protecting? Target shooting? There are plenty of smaller caliber weapons that would suffice. Looks cool = GIANT TOOL.
You're worried about tyranny? I am worried when people run out to buy a weapon that was just used to slaughter 20 children, maybe that's just me?

Well regulated means what exactly?

[freestater]

Originally Posted by cr726

The weapon was built for the military to kill humans. I was trained by the USMC to fire a M-16 from 500 yards and in.
If you are using a AR-15 to hunt, that's sad and get a new hobby. Protection? What are you protecting? Target shooting? There are plenty of smaller caliber weapons that would suffice. Looks cool = GIANT TOOL.
You're worried about tyranny? I am worried when people run out to buy a weapon that was just used to slaughter 20 children, maybe that's just me?

Well regulated means what exactly?

Just wondering, we are told that civilian versions of military rifles are purposely designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time and, for that reason, ordinary people should not have access to them. At the same time, we are told that only police and government officials should have them. Under what circumstances is it OK for the police or government officials to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

We are told that average, everyday citizens do not need AR-15 or similar rifles, but the police need them in order to combat criminals. If using a firearm for self-defense is OK, and if you acknowledge police need these types of weapons to protect themselves and others from criminals who also have them, why can't average, everyday citizens have them? How does this make us safer?

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by freestater

Just wondering, we are told that civilian versions of military rifles are purposely designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time and, for that reason, ordinary people should not have access to them. At the same time, we are told that only police and government officials should have them. Under what circumstances is it OK for the police or government officials to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

We are told that average, everyday citizens do not need AR-15 or similar rifles, but the police need them in order to combat criminals. If using a firearm for self-defense is OK, and if you acknowledge police need these types of weapons to protect themselves and others from criminals who also have them, why can't average, everyday citizens have them? How does this make us safer?

I would say that the average citizen does not go through the training that a professional law enforcement agent goes through. And I am not just referring to training with how to use the weapon.

That is what worries me when I hear gun advocates claim that arming everyone will make us safer.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by cr726

I was trained by the USMC.....

So you say.

The weapon was built for the military to kill humans.

The M-16 is.

The AR-15 is not.

I'd expect a double-professional (soldier/federal officer) to be far more knowledgeable regarding the differences between a millitary full-auto/3-round burst M-16 and a semi-auto civillian AR-15, a gussied up .22 rifle.

Yes, both are "guns" and yes both can kill, traits every single gun shares.

If you are using a AR-15 to hunt, that's sad and get a new hobby.

You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is all it is. I'm sure if we here knew all of YOUR preferred hobbies, we'd find at least some of them to be sad too. Yet I doubt most of us would want to federally ban them.

Target shooting? There are plenty of smaller caliber weapons that would suffice.

Plenty of caliburs smaller than .223, eh?

Like what? .22, .223 or 5.56mm is all but the smallest common calibur in firearms. Only the rather obscure .20/5mm is smaller.

What, target shooters should use BB's?

A Professional former-solider and current law enforcemen officer would be well aware that the calibur of an AR-15 is not very large at all, and is amongst the smallest commonly used in firearms.

Looks cool = GIANT TOOL.

It's looks apparently fooled you, a self-professed double-professional, into thinking it was the equivalent of your M-16.

I am worried when people run out to buy a weapon that was just used to slaughter 20 children, maybe that's just me?

The two have nothing to do with each other. The AR-15 has long been one of the more popular civillian firearms.

Well regulated means what exactly?

Means the Milita (the Millitary) should be well regulated. Not the basic right to own firearms (which shall not be infringed).

Remind me again, what does "shall not be infringed" mean? You keep ignoring that part.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Gotta love the gun grabbers.

They're the 1st to redefine life citizenship and marriage unlawfully yet deny you your incontrovertible Constitutional right to be armed, which is regulated anyway.

The AR-15 as offered in many variants is a very suitable rifle to hunt any type of game and kill Predatory animals like coyotes and wolves.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...-hunting-rifle

[cr726]

Lol, so I say, yea I'm lying, you want my Dd-214 too? Stop using Wiki for your info, the AR-15 and M-16 shoot .223 Remington and the 5.56x45mm round is practically the same exact thing. They are interchangeable. The only difference is that as the M16 is a military rifle, it has a selective fire mode, making it an assault rifle whereas the AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle.

Sorry I have failed to meet your expectations.

Here's what I and the Supreme Court think about infringe.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by Warfish

So you say.



The M-16 is.

The AR-15 is not.

I'd expect a double-professional (soldier/federal officer) to be far more knowledgeable regarding the differences between a millitary full-auto/3-round burst M-16 and a semi-auto civillian AR-15, a gussied up .22 rifle.

Yes, both are "guns" and yes both can kill, traits every single gun shares.



You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is all it is. I'm sure if we here knew all of YOUR preferred hobbies, we'd find at least some of them to be sad too. Yet I doubt most of us would want to federally ban them.



Plenty of caliburs smaller than .223, eh?

Like what? .22, .223 or 5.56mm is all but the smallest common calibur in firearms. Only the rather obscure .20/5mm is smaller.

What, target shooters should use BB's?

A Professional former-solider and current law enforcemen officer would be well aware that the calibur of an AR-15 is not very large at all, and is amongst the smallest commonly used in firearms.



It's looks apparently fooled you, a self-professed double-professional, into thinking it was the equivalent of your M-16.



The two have nothing to do with each other. The AR-15 has long been one of the more popular civillian firearms.



Means the Milita (the Millitary) should be well regulated. Not the basic right to own firearms (which shall not be infringed).

Remind me again, what does "shall not be infringed" mean? You keep ignoring that part.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by cr726

Stop using Wiki for your info

I didn't need Wikipedia to tell me that the .22 rimfire and .22 and .223 centerfire rifile rounds are not only amongst the smallest caliburs commonly used, but that they are the most common caliburs used in target shooting and varmint hunting in the United States today.