So clearly you think some guns are more effective for killing and maiming people than others. We can agree on that.
Now it is a question of whether we can identify those weapons and whether we should try to restrict them in some fashion so that they are not in the hands of civilians.
McGentrix wrote:To be fair, the M-16 doesn't have a rifled barrel and an AR-15 does. That is why the M-16 bullet tumbles and bounces around while an AR-15 has a tight spiral.
I'm not sure where you received your info, but the M-16 does indeed have a rifled barrel, almost ALL modern day rifles have rifling in them. The "tumble" I was referring to dealt with how the bullet reacted when it hit an enemy, the light weight 5.56 round is meant to bounce around in the body and not punch through like the heavier 7.62 round.
Self defense requires at least five round detachable rifle magazines and ten round detachable pistol magazines.
I split the number on those killings done with both rifle and pistol. It comes out to 95 killings done with rifles, and 212 killings with pistols. It does not appear that rifles are preferred by mass shooters.
I don't think that. A gun is a gun is a gun, as I have said. Don't try and put words in my mouth that you think favor your ill informed opinion on guns.
Despite what could happen, until THAT is changed there will be no mass gun banning.
I do admit that, why do you think I wouldn't want to be left armed only with a bolt action rifle in the event we ever have to fight against our govt
Your argument that all semiautomatic rifles are equal is a double edged sword.
It works well for you as long as you can keep enough gun owners emotionally engaged to want to protect their rifles that would not be banned under assault weapon bans.
But let's assume for a moment that another assault weapons ban is passed. The gun owners no longer vote as a bloc and the ban is passed.
It is challenged repeatedly and the courts rule the same way they have in the past.
Stare decisis would point us in that direction.
But other semiautomatics are no different from those assault weapons. We have years of gun owners such as orally, McGentrix, Baldimo making that argument. They are the authorities on this issue. Heck, pistol grips are just cosmetic!!!!!!
Since all semiautomatics are exactly the same and since some semiautomatics can be banned, any gun that is the same as those that are banned can be banned. You have made the argument they are all the same and would have no legal defense to now claim they are different under a Constitutional challenge. At that point, it would only require the ban to be extended to all weapons that are the same and it would be impossible for you to stop it in the courts and unlikely for you to repeal it.
You and I don't, however, get to determine what the amendment means. A future US Supreme Court with a liberal majority could change the interpretation in light of social and political pressure, much as the current conservative majority has.
and the union itself becomes illegitimate.
So you don't think the M16 is designed to maim and kill people and is more effective at that than an M1 or a .22 bolt action rifle?
I think most people would disagree with you and some of the reasons why have been listed by others on this board.
Um, and how does that happen?
like little boys who never grow up.
I'm trying to envision a situation where "the government" becomes a target of an armed citizenry.
So what are you going to do? Shoot up a Post Office? Bomb the Murrah Federal Building? Assassinate a president? That's all been done, Cap.
It sounds like wannabe Minutemen rationalizing their obsession with firearms, like little boys who never grow up.