HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "Let's ban AR-15s&qu...

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:03 AM

"Let's ban AR-15s"

Since many/most of the big news event multiple casualty shooters use AR-15s, most or all of these events will be prevented in the future.


How can logic like that be reasoned with?

49 replies, 4098 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Let's ban AR-15s" (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 OP
Elmergantry Dec 2015 #1
bowens43 Dec 2015 #2
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #4
TeddyR Dec 2015 #5
FiveGoodMen Dec 2015 #29
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #8
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #15
krispos42 Dec 2015 #18
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #3
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #6
jmg257 Dec 2015 #9
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #10
jmg257 Dec 2015 #11
jimmy the one Dec 2015 #12
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #19
jmg257 Dec 2015 #20
Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #44
gejohnston Dec 2015 #21
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #22
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2015 #23
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #24
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2015 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #26
jimmy the one Dec 2015 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #14
jimmy the one Dec 2015 #16
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #17
madville Dec 2015 #41
abakan Dec 2015 #27
melm00se Dec 2015 #28
Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #30
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #31
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #35
DonP Dec 2015 #37
ileus Dec 2015 #32
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #33
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #34
pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #36
DonP Dec 2015 #38
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #40
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #39
pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #42
pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #43
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #45
pablo_marmol Jan 2016 #46
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2016 #48
pablo_marmol Jan 2016 #49
pablo_marmol Jan 2016 #47

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:10 AM

1. Its impossible.

 

Seriously. In the wake of yet another mass shooting, we get calls to do something that would have not changed the outcome of said shooting - like preventing no-fly list people from obtaining weapons. How about some "jihadi control" instead? But maybe we should ban "crock pots" as Obama called the pressure cookers used by the Tsarnev brothers. - Or perhaps he knew about the WMD material cooked up by wife with one of those things. I'm just not sure anymore. Theatre of the absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:26 AM

2. The problem with this is what exactly?

 

Let's start with a ban on ammunition, easy to bring about and it would go a long way toward preventing mass shootings. And yes we should absolutely confiscate ALL firearms.

We should mandatory VERY long prison sentences for any one found to be in possession of a firearm.

Of course the gun fetishists will whine and moan and declare this absurd.......the time is coming. You are going to lose your guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:45 AM

4. of course both

 

Unconstitutional and that is a good thing it will never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:47 AM

5. "The time is coming"

 

Reminds me of the Christian predictions that Jesus' second coming is any day now. They've been saying that for about a thousand years.

You can't ban ammunition - violates that Second Amendment. http://www.islandlawblog.com/washington-d-c-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/.

And even if an ammo ban wasn't unconstitutional, Congress can't pass a law requiring universal background checks, which is supported by 80% of the population. Do you really think they are going to pass an ammo ban?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:40 PM

29. TWO thousand years

Paul predicts the return within the lifetimes of some of his correspondents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:26 AM

7. Tell me the names of the 290 members of the House and 67 Senators you are going to get to go along..

 

with that.

Then tell me how you'll keep 13 states from shutting it all down after you get those members of the House and Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:00 AM

8. Who is this "we"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:38 AM

15. Other than that it won't accomplish fuck-all?

 

And as for confiscation...well, not in the lifetime of anyone on DU. Or their grandkids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 12:18 PM

18. good to know that gun owners aren't paranoid

You really are coming for our guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:44 AM

3. typical for the uninformed

 

There is no fix for that unfortunately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:24 AM

6. "Common legal use"

 

They screwed the pooch on being able to ban AR-15s because after the AWB sunsetted, the demand was high and now they are in common legal use throughout the nation. Any ban now fails the test of constitutionality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:13 AM

9. Except in NY and CT - so far anyway. Edit: and apparently IL. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:18 AM

10. Locally in IL, not statewide.

 

And it's not an actual ban. It requires modification from what is standard, which is how they get around the whole ban thing.

In IL, some municipalities have their local laws, and that's what the SCOTUS refused to hear. You can move one block in the suburbs, be in a different suburb, and legally own where you couldn't before. It's a bit of a mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:25 AM

11. Gotcha - thanks for the info. In NY, they say agree with the "legal/common use', but

the level of scrutiny made it OK.

Also because there were alternatives that could be purchased that were quite similar in function (i.e other SAs).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:55 AM

12. chicago AW ban upheld, yay

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Police say the attackers in San Bernardino used such weapons as did the gunman who attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic two weeks ago in Colorado.

The court declined to take up a challenge to a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than ten rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. It specifically includes certain rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact-n475421

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:52 PM

19. you just get the stupid looking

 

NY SAFE compliant semi-automatic rifles with no pistol grip. Funny thing is they still operate exactly as the ones with a pistol grip. In Australia, they just went to a pump action AR type rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:02 PM

20. Yep - not sure how popular those fugly things are! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 29, 2015, 05:55 PM

44. Yeah, one stock looks like the clutch pedal of a 48 Ford.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:06 PM

21. In NY, target pistols used

almost exclusively in the Olympics and the World Cup are banned as "assault weapons"
The Walther GSP is a popular choice for the various 25 m pistol shooting events governed by the ISSF (some contested at the Olympic games). The .22 LR variant was used for the 25 m Pistol (formerly "Sport Pistol", 25 m Standard Pistol while the .32 caliber variant was used in the 25 m Center-Fire Pistol event.

Under the N.Y Safe Act the Walther GSP is now classified as an assault weapon under N.Y state law. It is also classified as an assault weapon under Chicago and Cook County laws due to the magazine being outside of the pistol grip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP

An "assault weapon" is whatever some politician decided it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 04:36 PM

22. I guess the will not

 

Be hosting the Olympics with all of those assault weapons being banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:12 PM

23. England hosted the olympics

I think some exemptions were allowed, temporarily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:49 PM

24. where did the Brits actually practice?

over here maybe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:02 PM

25. Apparently, in Zurich

So, not quite as bad as transatlantic travel.

edit to add http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jan/17/comment.gdnsport3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:05 PM

26. long drive though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:01 AM

13. Scotus agrees with dscntnt's OP

Hey dscntnt, the supreme court agrees with your OP premise, at least for them that can hold > 10 rounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Police say the attackers in San Bernardino used such weapons as did the gunman who attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic two weeks ago in Colorado.

The court declined to take up a challenge to a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than ten rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. It specifically includes certain rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact-n475421

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:10 AM

14. It's good to see that you're...

...maintaining your standard of (ir)relevance.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181970

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:53 AM

16. irrelevance?

dscntnt: It's good to see that you're....maintaining your standard of (ir)relevance.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181970

Dunno what you're driving at, by posting a link to a rebuttal of your OP about a police one survey, you giving a bogus phony 'poll' as having any sort of credibitily. But since you bring it up, I'll paste my report here:

(jimmy wrote, nov 23, 2015): Only a gullible sap would say such a thing in light of the skewed results; factcheck debunks your 'police one' study as unscientific, since it was an internet poll as well as by invitation apparently to members only:

The ad includes an image of a police badge with a reference to a March {2013} survey by a group called PoliceOne. com, a news and resource site for law enforcement officers. The survey wasn’t a scientific poll that aimed to gather responses from a random sample of the nation’s police officers.
Rather, it was a self-selected Internet poll, in which more than 15,000 of PoliceOne.com’s 400,000 registered members chose to respond, either because of email solicitation or a link to the survey on the PoliceOne.com website.
And there was no question asking whether “background checks” would have an “effect on violent crime.”

In fact, the survey methodology says that a question on criminal background checks was removed “due to flaws with the question details, highlighted by a handful of users.” We spoke with Jon Hughes, vice president of content for the Praetorian Group, which owns PoliceOne. com, about the NRA ads’ claim. He told us he was “unclear where that came from specifically.” He said that the question that was dropped — because of “an error in how it was phrased” — couldn’t be the source either, as the data didn’t match the claim. Hughes said fact-check articles by the Washington Post and Slate.com on the ad “did a pretty good job of analyzing the data to try to determine where that claim came from.” http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/

And what's up with the flim flamming, discontent irony sarcasm? since you posted re police one survey on this same may 2013 thread which I did with the same factcheck link; you like to continue to post disinformation every year or so?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123586

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:55 AM

17. thanks for the additional confirmation...

...of irrelevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 09:07 PM

41. That depends on the state

Many states (like California or Florida) have strong preemption laws (unlike IL) on their books. Basically local governments can't pass firearms laws more strict than the existing state law.

The court not hearing this case doesn't affect most other states due to preemption. There is also nothing to stop IL from just tweaking their preemption law and that city's ban would instantly be voided.

If I remember right this IL city's misdemeanor ban only applies to residents, it can't be enforced against non-residents or people commuting through their city because Illinois' preemption law specifically doesn't allow that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:07 PM

27. I think we should not waste time banning guns...

We should ban bullets. You can have all the guns you want, but not the bullets that go into them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abakan (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:12 PM

28. go up and read reply #5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abakan (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 06:44 PM

30. "And for our next act, Will Blow Gaskette farts Swannee River!"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abakan (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:18 PM

31. settled law

 

Just like you could not tax printers ink so high to basically ban 1st amendment speech rights. Oh sure, you can have a printing press but no ink. Unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 12:59 PM

35. It's just a thought-free sound bite

Ban bullets, tax bullets $100/each, make gun owners pay for all gun injuries and deaths...

Pro-control has numerous thought and logic free zones.
It's easier to think with your glands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 02:49 PM

37. They have so many "great" ideas ... and no ambition to ever do anything about them

 

Over the years, we've seen the same ideas recycled so many times, as if it's new and a "brilliant solution" the stupid "Gun Humpers" never thought of. Chris Rock should charge the gun control people royalties on his stand up routine from 30 years ago.

Then they all go back to take a nap until the next time they feel "brilliant". Heck, even the "Hosts" of Bansalot only show up once a month or so, when there are new gun cartoons somebody else thought of and drew.

I guess they figure Bloomberg and his paid stooges will do it all for them so they can claim victory.

In the meantime gun owners just keep moving ahead and violent crime continues to drop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:55 AM

32. Banners wanna ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:47 AM

33. ~~~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:21 AM

34. true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 01:57 PM

36. In close races, this "logic" loses elections. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 02:51 PM

38. They don't care

 

We've had them tell us that they don't want "those votes" and they'd rather lose a seat than compromise their "principles".

Of course it's always somebody else district or election and they never, ever reach for their checkbook to put their money where their mouth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 05:23 PM

40. "put their money where their mouth is"

Why would they? That's Bloomberg's job. You know, getting incumbents unelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 05:11 PM

39. Here's a thought:

Can we just leave all that ban something, tax it to death, end castle doctrine, hunt down Zimmerman and have him drawn and quartered talk out of this election season? As much as I'd like to, we don't have to put on the curb like an old lawn chair but can we just leave it in the shed like the old lawn chair? Or maybe in the renovated attic along with the in-laws great aunt who thinks the garden gnomes are alive and speak French?

Let's just see how it goes if the whole topic spends some time getting acquainted my leisure suit and 1970's velvet tux.

I know there's folks who have a sad if we don't demand a ban at every turn for any excuse or none at all, but can they restrain themselves until the votes are counted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 10:12 PM

42. Re. your last sentence:


1) Couldn't agree more

2) The fact that The Controllers haven't put it together yet makes me believe that they never will......and gives me a sadz.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced that the upcoming election is in the bag.......and the damage we've caused with our continuous brazen lies could really bite us in the ass.

The "logic" that "we wouldn't have had those votes anyway" is naive in the extreme. Those who know the score neither like or respect The Little Boy Who Constantly Cries Wolf --- that is especially relevant in the case of Independent voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Thu Dec 24, 2015, 10:18 PM

43. Substitute the word 'dishonest' for the word 'whiny' and this T-shirt would be MUCH improved.


The word 'whiny' plays into the false narrative that gun owners are lacking in compassion.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VVXHV3O?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 29, 2015, 07:21 PM

45. Nice

Since you seem like a t-shirt kind of guy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:09 AM

46. Nice........


.......though I think I'm a little too old to pull off that style!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 07:06 AM

48. Perhaps then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 08:23 PM

49. Ha ha ha ha...........LOL ---- GREAT!


Going to have to check out Wicked Jester now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread