Sniper gun questions and the right to bear arms

[Philthy_Phil]

I am the true poster child for bigotry.

You sure as hell are, sir cucksalot.

 

[butters]

1950's: The ArmaLite Company is Founded

The ArmaLite Company traces its humble beginnings back to the early 1950's in Hollywood, California. The company was founded by George Sullivan, who worked as the patent counsel for the Lockheed Corporation (today Lockheed Martin). The small arms company received its funding from the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, the company that would soon become Fairchild-Republic, a major manufacturer of military aircraft for the U.S. Military.

Originally, the company focused on weapons design, rather than manufacture. Instead of producing weapons themselves, ArmaLite focused on weapons design. The chief architect behind ArmaLite's weapons designs was Eugene Stoner, a young man in his thirties with a knack for weapons design. Sullivan quickly promoted Stoner to the position of chief design engineer for ArmaLite.

1954-1956: ArmaLite Begins Designing Rifles : AR-5, bolt action rifle, .22 Hornet round for airforce crew; the AR-7 was a civilian survival rifle

1955: The U.S. Army Seeks a Replacement Rifle : needed higher capacity for ammo ... Ar-10, military was enthusiastic but it didn't survive the 'torture test' so wasn't adopted

1959: ArmaLite Sells the AR-15 Design to Colt; Production Begins

In 1959, ArmaLite finally catches a break, striking a deal with Colt. The company manages to sell both the AR-10 and the new AR-15 designs to Colt Firearms. At this time, the AR-7 gets launched full scale, marketed as a civilian survival rifle, although it also saw some military use.

1961 airforce commissions 8,500 AR-15s for its use

1963: General Curtis LeMay saw a demonstration of the AR-15 in 1960. Impressed by the prowess of this new firearm, when General LeMay became the Air Force Chief of Staff in the Summer of 1961, he placed 80,000 AR-15's on order for the U.S. Air Force.

1989: Production of the First AR-15's for Civilians Begins

With the AR-15 patents long expired, Jim Glazier and Karl Lewis started manufacturing the first civilian versions of the AR-15. These opened AR-15's up to the civilian market from the year 1989 to 1994.




a full, and valuable article detailing the entire history of the Ar-15
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifle

 

[LittleDixie]

I won't argue with anybody's constitutional right to bear arms but I'm still quite confused why anybody would need to own a military style gun? Beyond the obvious reasons of for killing human beings.

For the same reason that black people aren't forced to sit in the back of the bus. Why do they NEED to sit in the front of the bus or eat at the lunch counter?

Because fuck you, that's why.

No one has to justify a need to exercise a right. It is their right, and out of your jurisdiction.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

You sure as hell are, sir cucksalot.

That must be why you have to manipulate my messages.....lol the projection continues

 

[butters]

For the same reason that black people aren't forced to sit in the back of the bus. Why do they NEED to sit in the front of the bus or eat at the lunch counter?

Because fuck you, that's why.

No one has to justify a need to exercise a right. It is their right, and out of your jurisdiction.

so here you equate the desire of black people to sit peacefully at the front of a bus or at a lunch counter (just like anyone else) to individuals wanting to be able to instantly access and use weapons of mass death and carnage

you find people of colour that threatening? oh my

 

[Philthy_Phil]

That must be why you have to manipulate my messages.....lol the projection continues

Manipulated to convey the true facts. Own it.

Your rapper name is derived from facts too, a reliable contact shared the info with me.

Aren't you Proud, Boy?

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Manipulated to convey the true facts. Own it.

Your lies and delusions aren't facts.

Your rapper name is derived from facts too,

I am the UltraMAGAking.... it's true.

a reliable contact shared the info with me.

The voices in your head are not "reliable" contacts.... they're why you need to take your meds.

Aren't you Proud, Boy?

Of what?

 

[LittleDixie]

so here you equate the desire of black people to sit peacefully at the front of a bus or at a lunch counter (just like anyone else) to individuals wanting to be able to instantly access and use weapons of mass death and carnage

you find people of colour that threatening? oh my

I'm not equating the two. I am showing that the arguments are the same.

Your ability to exercise your rights is not limited by your need. You have the right to free speech, but do you need to say your opinion? Why do your need to have a child? Why do you need to vote?

No one has to make a case to anyone why they enjoy flexing their rights. No one gets to veto your rights because they don't think you need them.

 

[ll74]

No one has to make a case to anyone why they enjoy flexing their rights. No one gets to veto your rights because they don't think you need them.

In the land of guns, rights are quickly removed all the time....19 kids...10 people at a supermarket...

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

In the land of guns, rights are quickly removed all the time....19 kids...10 people at a supermarket...

Which is why murder is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

 

[ll74]

Yes, exactly like taking away bus sitting stealers

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Yes, exactly like taking away bus sitting stealers

Not even 7 and you're already reduced to incoherent babbling and drinking games.

It's going to be a great day.

 

[mordbrand]

As I have always maintained, if you want to take away or change a right set forth in either the Constitution/Bill of Rights, go for it as LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE THAT ALLOWS IT!

What chaps my hide and that of most logical people is the constant attempts to circumvent the procedures that were created to allow that change. You want to legislate it or mandate it depending on who currently holds a shred of a majority temporarily, because humanity has shown it absolutely isn't swayed by a current event and a media system that has been following a "if it bleeds, it leads" policy since they started going to needing to fill a 24 hour daily news cycle.

If you want guns banned, change the second amendment following the procedure designed to allow it. I'll be in line to turn mine in the very next day. If you want to pass a kneejerk fucking law decided by people who are briefly in power, against all procedures listed in the Constitution, have fun trying to take them away. I absolutely will resist your tyrannical attempt by any means available.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'm not equating the two. I am showing that the arguments are the same.

"Arguments are the same"? Remind me exactly how many children perished by gunfire the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus?

 

[dmonty]

not so:


https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

https://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/
inventor's family:

First mistake, the "AR" is for "Armalite" not "Armalite Rifle" - the shotgun owners AR-9 and AR-17 would be very surprised that their shotguns are rifles....

Second mistake, Eugene Stoner, started designing the gun in 1947, for civilians - never for the military, it wasn't until the late 1950's when Armalite had financial troubles that Colt bought it, and repurposed it for the military as the M16 (NATO 5.56 caliber), by adding features not available or designed for civilian firearms markets(fully automatic/selective fire, carry handle). Eugene Stoner did design the AR-10 (Win .308 caliber) as military service rifle, they did not win the contract for that; he then took the AR-10 lessons learned and applied them to the AR-15 (smaller Remington .223 caliber). There is a difference between design work and prototype to manufacturing, sometimes these overlap.

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it is inaccurate, and quite a few "supposed" reliable sources have continued to misprint the "1950's" date of origin.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/167...-an-ar-15-an-m16-theyre-frighteningly-similar

Third mistake, mass shootings did happen and occur while Eugene Stoner was alive and designing firearms. Camden Shootings (1949), University of Texas Tower Shooting (1966), Easter Sunday Massacre (1975), now these happened about 1 or 2 per decade.... then the laws changed in 1990 (Gun Free Zones) and since then it went from 1 or 2 a decade to over 20 a year.... so it isn't the Modern Sporting Rifles its the law of intended consequences, the democrats knew that by making Gun Free Zones only criminals would have guns and ensure higher body counts to be able to use in their propaganda to disarm US Citizens with more unconstitutional laws.

 

[butters]

oh well, i guess the NPR isn't a reliable source of information, nor the man's family, nor any of the other, highly detailed links i provided.

keep your ignorant self away from the vulnerable and they may survive your mindset.

 

[mordbrand]

oh well, i guess the NPR isn't a reliable source of information, nor the man's family, nor any of the other, highly detailed links i provided.

keep your ignorant self away from the vulnerable and they may survive your mindset.

To be fair, you can't fully trust any news outlet today and Wikipedia is hot or miss on accuracy, depending on who edited it recently and their personal slant on a topic.

That said, it is clear that Stoner was designing military level weapons. But that doesn't mean a civilian should not be able to own a dumbed down version of a military rifle. In fact, through the CMP, civilians have been able to acquire at not for profit prices surplus military weapons since the early 1900s. Civilians were owning field grade M1s as early as the late 50s, when the weapon was just being replaced with the M14 and was still being used by active military units. Even today, the garand style action is widely available in semi automatic format.

You want to ban assault rifles like we did in the 90s? Do you know that you could still legally buy a semi automatic rifle chambered in either 5.56 or 7.62, with up to a 30 round clip, during the entire portion of the so-called ban?

That's right, a weapon identical to an AR-15 in specs or one chambered with the same ammo as the AK47. The only difference was it wasn't sold in black, didn't have a scary pistol grip, and didn't have a flash hider (serves no purpose outside of armed conflict anyway). This rifle utilized the military style m14 action.

It is the Ruger mini 14 or mini 30 for the ak variety. Functionally identical to the firepower capabilities of either the AR-15 or AK 47, just not "scary" looking.

If that level of incompetent thought and lack of true firearm knowledge by Congress doesn't highlight the utter lunacy of banning a weapon based on looks and knee jerk reactions doesn't give you pause, I feel sorry for you.

You, like Biden, probably think people couldn't and still can't own Cannons. They are legal and we're legal even before the 2nd amendment. You can own suppressors and fully automatic weapons as well. Many people own them legally and they have never been used in a mass shooting by legal owners.

If you want to ban weapons, then work to change or remove the 2nd amendment. Babbling about how a split congress should be able to legislate a right out of existence speaks of idiocy and desperation. Any future "assault" weapon "law" would have a hard time getting past SCOTUS at the national level. Many state level "laws" are already being subjected to review and being found unconstitutional these days as well.

 

[Eringobra]

So, first "assault" is an action not on object, therefore, logically speaking any weapon that I could choose to assault someone with is an assault weapon.

2nd during the founding of this country, other than rifles, machine guns, and cannons existed. Not to mention, most privately owned weapons were far superior to any military issued weapon. Yes, they had an idea of technology and advancement they watched it happen in their day as well. The argument that were stupid or had no idea because of when they lived is made from pure chronological snobbery.

3rd, the 2nd Amendment, was written specifically in order for the citizens to defend themselves against future governmental tyranny. The forefathers wanted to ensure that a tyrannical government could not size power over the people, because they understood the idea of power leading to corruption.

Lastly, just because a semi-automatic rifle that shoots .223 looks like a military style rifle. Does not make it a military style rifle. No Soldier would carry a civilian AR-15 style rifle into combat.

 

[Eringobra]

guns that could fire hundreds of rounds a min (or whatever) and shoot from a 1000 metres away ... they just want to own the most powerful and deadly guns they can

An AR can do neither of these, nor is it powerful. You can't even legally hunt deer with it, because it most likely won't drop the deer.

 

[phrodeau]

An AR can do neither of these, nor is it powerful. You can't even legally hunt deer with it, because it most likely won't drop the deer.

It can’t? Who needs it then?

 

[ll74]

It can’t? Who needs it then?

It's an inanimate object. It doesn't do anything ....

 

[dmonty]

It can’t? Who needs it then?

To be fair, most firearms aren't typically effective past 600 yards, the caliber is the reason why states ban it from deer hunting (its not "generally" to small to take down a 100lb deer as a "humane kill"), states have a minimum caliber restriction while hunting


Target shooters, home owners for self defense, varmint/pest control and small game hunters, gun collectors, militia members, Americans, 2nd Amendment advocates, self defense advocates, firearms hobbyists (the AR platform has lots of customization options), etc.

your grandfathers vintage Henry lever action rifle — the quintessential 20th century deer rifle — was originally deployed to devastating effect in the Civil War. civilians have been buying "weapons of war" for a very long time, since the black powder musket days. This is partly because soldiers who come home from wars to enter civilian life often want to buy a version of the weapon they were trained on and trusted their life to. And it's also because "military grade" is widely (if sometimes mistakenly) understood to mean "this technology has been tested in the real world, the kinks have been worked out, and its reliability and effectiveness have been proven in the field by an entity with the resources of an entire nation at its disposal."

 

[CuttingEdge]

Ulvalde: the cops were armed. They didn't go into the classroom for fear of their own lives because they didn't have the kind of body armour necessary to protect them from an assault style rifle

i appreciate your good intentions, but (unless you are an exceptional shot with a calm head) your chances of hitting them outside their protected areas is greatly reduced in such a stressful situation. You might get lucky. The far more likely response is for them to return fire with a far deadlier weapon with a much greater ammo capacity, killing both you and your students. If they run and hide, that means you've lost sight of the threat and it's simply moved to another area and still capable of rendering great harm from there and on the way there. It may provide you with a few precious moments to attempt to move the children, but even that doesn't assure their safety since you won't know where the gunman is and might be shepherding the kids into further danger.

Unless they've been highly trained (beyond your usual 'cop') and most teachers aren't nor would be, a 'good guy with a gun' (pistol/hand gun) just isn't equipped to take on a homicidal fucker intent on killing children, co-workers, spouses, church congregants, regular people going about their everyday lives in shops, in movie theatres, at concerts. It is more a case of a last resort hail mary which has occasionally, though rarely, been answered.

Semantics: all your theory is useless when you do a simple google search regarding teachers who stopped mass shootings. Idaho. Texas. Georgia...just to name a few. You say arming teachers cannot work, and yet history shows that it has.

The police in Ulvalde were scared and now are coming up with reasons to defend their cowardness. Every day the police all across the country execute search warrants where they fear criminals with high powered rifles are present, and yet they still go in to make the arrest. The police are there to serve and protect, and they did neither in Ulvalde.

 

[ll74]

It

Semantics: all your theory is useless when you do a simple google search regarding teachers who stopped mass shootings. Idaho. Texas. Georgia...just to name a few. You say arming teachers cannot work, and yet history shows that it has.

The police in Ulvalde were scared and now are coming up with reasons to defend their cowardness. Every day the police all across the country execute search warrants where they fear criminals with high powered rifles are present, and yet they still go in to make the arrest. The police are there to serve and protect, and they did neither in Ulvalde.

MOAR GUNZZZZZ!!!

 

[CuttingEdge]

The fact that I have posted state by state and nation by nation the results of reducing the number of firearms reduces the murder rate and you can't prove anywhere that it doesn't.

Funny: we have the least restriction on guns, and yet we have the lowest crime rate of every county in the United States. A big part of that is: almost every home here has a gun of some kind, and more than likely: several.

We are a Constitutional Carry state as well. It would downright shock you who is carrying loaded firearms. They originally said that by going to that (one of the first in the nation that did), that crime would go up. It actually went down.