Military-Grade, Assault Weapons

[Strychnine 1,808]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia. Ironic, huh?

Funny thing is, Jeff was responding to me and I took it exactly as Jeff later explained without having to ask. It should have been obvious without the necessity of explanation.

[aujeff11 6,243]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia. Ironic, huh?

Funny thing is, Jeff was responding to me and I took it exactly as Jeff later explained without having to ask. It should have been obvious without the necessity of explanation.

You were a military brat( as in military family) if I recall correctly. You know some people don't come back the same even if it wasn't your own family.

[Strychnine 1,808]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia. Ironic, huh?

Funny thing is, Jeff was responding to me and I took it exactly as Jeff later explained without having to ask. It should have been obvious without the necessity of explanation.

You were a military brat( as in military family) if I recall correctly. You know some people don't come back the same even if it wasn't your own family.

Son of retired Navy Master Chief (E-9). He served two tours in Vietnam. He doesn't have PTSD, but he lost plenty of friends and shipmates that affected him deeply. On the other hand, one of his coworkers was a tunnel rat. He absolutely had PTSD, and alcoholism on top of that. I understood exactly what you meant when you said it.

[homersapien 12,172]

We Bought An AR-15 In Orlando In Less Time Than You Spent At The DMV

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ar-15-orlando_us_576059f3e4b0e4fe5143fd4d?dzcp260tnc4ygb9=

[alexava 6,974]

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

ISIS is well regulated.

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

ISIS is well regulated.

:dunno:/>

i think we as in a lot of people are confused by what the framers meant by this. I am for sure. The wording can be interpreted different ways.

[AURaptor 1,137]

i think we as in a lot of people are confused by what the framers meant by this. I am for sure. The wording can be interpreted different ways.

It's less confusing when you know who the framers were and what they were thinking. Too bad such things apparently aren't taught as well as they need to be.

[aujeff11 6,243]

i think we as in a lot of people are confused by what the framers meant by this. I am for sure. The wording can be interpreted different ways.

It's less confusing when you know who the framers were and what they were thinking. Too bad such things apparently aren't taught as well as they need to be.

You're clueless.

[AURaptor 1,137]

i think we as in a lot of people are confused by what the framers meant by this. I am for sure. The wording can be interpreted different ways.

It's less confusing when you know who the framers were and what they were thinking. Too bad such things apparently aren't taught as well as they need to be.

You're clueless.

Woo., that's real convincing!

Read up on the Federalist Papers, and understand where the Founders had just come from and were trying to avoid.

[aujeff11 6,243]

i think we as in a lot of people are confused by what the framers meant by this. I am for sure. The wording can be interpreted different ways.

It's less confusing when you know who the framers were and what they were thinking. Too bad such things apparently aren't taught as well as they need to be.

You're clueless.

Woo., that's real convincing!

:laugh:/>

Read up on the Federalist Papers, and understand where the Founders had just come from and were trying to avoid.

I read the whole book and still have it. Refer me to the number. Even then, only three "founders" wrote it so you can't claim to know what ALL the founders wanted.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Read it again then, because clearly it didn't catch the first time.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Read it again then, because clearly it didn't catch the first time.

I said refer me to the number, DA.

[AUUSN 823]

After another mass shooting in which an AR-15 most certainly posed a problem to many people trapped inside a nightclub, such a blasé approach to powerful civilian weapons may be harder to maintain. Ludwig Wittgenstein, a great 20th-century philosopher and a veteran of the first world war, wrote in his “Philosophical Investigations” that when “we employ the word ‘meaning’,’’ we are most often referring to the everyday purpose of some phrase. “The meaning of a word”, he wrote, “is its use in the language”. By that sensible if trivial standard: if an AR-15 can be used to assault large crowds of people, killing and maiming scores of them, on multiple occasions, it qualifies as an assault weapon.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/economist-explains-11?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/whatmakesthear15anassaultweapon

[AURaptor 1,137]

Read it again then, because clearly it didn't catch the first time.

I said refer me to the number, DA.

All of them, because you clearly did not comprehend the message being given. And what is with the childish name-calling?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Read it again then, because clearly it didn't catch the first time.

I said refer me to the number, DA.

All of them, because you clearly did not comprehend the message being given. And what is with the childish name-calling?

All of them??? You clearly have not ever read the Federalist papers. Only a few are even close to being relevant to the second amendment. It's discussing, as well, how to find the perfect balance of energy, stability, and Liberty, how to elect the President, term lengths, judicial responsibilities, etc.

I read where you called Homer a dumbass yesterday so I felt you deserved the same. Quit complaining and go find a safe space, ya big bully!

[homersapien 12,172]

Read it again then, because clearly it didn't catch the first time.

I said refer me to the number, DA.

All of them, because you clearly did not comprehend the message being given. And what is with the childish name-calling?

More weaseling from a weasel.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Read it again then, because clearly it didn't catch the first time.

I said refer me to the number, DA.

All of them, because you clearly did not comprehend the message being given. And what is with the childish name-calling?

More weaseling from a weasel.

Yep. Weasel gonna weasel.

[AURaptor 1,137]

The musket was " military grade " in the late 1700's.

If the 2nd amendment had been written in the 1200's, the cross bow would be military grade .

Gullible , useful idiots will fall for this bs of trying to blame the gun, & not the militant Muslim

[cooltigger21 0]

Here's a novel idea. Let's actually try enforcement of the laws already on the books before we start passing new ones that won't be enforced.

[alexava 6,974]

So you are in favor of selling guns to a person of Mideast decent who is on a list of possible terrorist watch a gun? Specifically an assault weapons and unlimited mags and ammunition?

[eibua12 81]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ enjoy

[AURaptor 1,137]

So you are in favor of selling guns to a person of Mideast decent who is on a list of possible terrorist watch a gun? Specifically an assault weapons and unlimited mags and ammunition?

Mideast descent is a misnomer, so I'll ignore that part.

But to answer your question - Yes. I'm in favor of selling guns to those on an FBI watch list.

As is FBI director James Comey.

Here's why -

Q: Why can people on the terrorist watch list buy guns?

A: That's the law. Being on a terrorist watch list is not "in and of itself a disqualifying factor" for people purchasing firearms and explosives, according to a 2013 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

People purchasing guns from federally licensed firearms dealers must undergo background checks, and they can be denied if they fall into any of 10 categories. These include convicted felons or drug abusers, people found by courts to have certain mental problems and immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

[AURaptor 1,137]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ enjoy

The public confusion over weapons is exactly what the Left want. Knowledge to the Left is disaster, so they politicize and demagogue the issue, regardless to the facts.

[aujeff11 6,243]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ enjoy

The weapon used was a sig saeur mcx. If that's not an assault weapon, I couldn't care less about assault weapons as its principal distinction would then be totally irrelevant. With that said, I hope our Govt bans the AR15 just to piss a bunch of people off.

[eibua12 81]

So you are in favor of selling guns to a person of Mideast decent who is on a list of possible terrorist watch a gun? Specifically an assault weapons and unlimited mags and ammunition?

You mean the guy who went through 2 background checks and FBI interviews and is a US citizen, dang it to heck that Constitution getting in the way again. You start making lists to preclude people from freedoms I think you might have anarchy on your hands. Yes it sucks but ...

[aujeff11 6,243]

So you are in favor of selling guns to a person of Mideast decent who is on a list of possible terrorist watch a gun? Specifically an assault weapons and unlimited mags and ammunition?

Mideast descent is a misnomer, so I'll ignore that part.

But to answer your question - Yes. I'm in favor of selling guns to those on an FBI watch list.

As is FBI director James Comey.

Here's why -

Q: Why can people on the terrorist watch list buy guns?

A: That's the law. Being on a terrorist watch list is not "in and of itself a disqualifying factor" for people purchasing firearms and explosives, according to a 2013 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

People purchasing guns from federally licensed firearms dealers must undergo background checks, and they can be denied if they fall into any of 10 categories. These include convicted felons or drug abusers, people found by courts to have certain mental problems and immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

I find it funny that the right wants to ban Muslims from entering the country( because they're supposedly either terrorists or are closet terrorist supporters), but they don't mind arming potential terrorists that are already over here.