[Hindsite]

Are you sure you were a soldier? First of all he used an AR-15. The military rifle similar to it is the M-16. The AR-15 is chambered for .223 cal ammunition.

Yes, I made a mistake on typing M-15 instead of AR-15. The point I was trying to get at is that many believe he had a military assault rifle like the M-16, but that is not the case. His rifle used a smaller .221 bullet. His rifle was only a look-a-like and not a real military rifle. The AR stands for Armalite rifle, not assault rifle.

Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. The term "assault rifle" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault weapon". According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles," which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons," which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle."

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

[The Immortal Goon]

In fairness, if you're going to be a Constitutional absolutist about the Second Amendment, you should also be for disbanding the standing military.

The whole idea was that a standing military was counter to the idea of freedom, and so the revolutionary citizen soldier would take its place.

I, for one, support completely dismantling the bourgeois military apparatus and only arming the proletariat. Though I'm only coincidently in alignment with the Founders on this as we both try to achieve permanent revolution.

[Hindsite]

In fairness, if you're going to be a Constitutional absolutist about the Second Amendment, you should also be for disbanding the standing military.

The whole idea was that a standing military was counter to the idea of freedom, and so the revolutionary citizen soldier would take its place.

Today, more than ever, we need a standing military to defend our interests inside and outside our nation. We also need to continue to allow those that wish to defend themselves in and out of their homes the right to buy arms to do that. Then many people enjoy hunting with rifles and competitive shooting in the pursuit of happiness. This remains an important principle that the revolutionary citizen soldier originally took up arms to obtain that freedom.

[4cal]

If you think folks will turn in high capacity magazines if they are made illegal you are on drugs. There will be a continuing supply of any commodity for which there is a demand.

No doubt. And 99.999999% of which will never be party to any crime, used to hurt anyone, involved in any nefarious activity of any sort. Agreed?

[ingliz]

There are a few ARs modified for 5.56 but their accuracy suffers.

Twist rates:

You can shoot .223 ammo out of a 5.56 chamber. The loss of accuracy is negligible if you select the correct bullet weight.

[Crantag]

First of all, nothing is going to change.

That said, if there was a ban on any particular weapons categories and/or accessories; one of the only good applications of 'mandatory minimum' sentences I can think of would be in applying them to those caught not handing over the items (and those handing over the items should be fully compensated). I'd be in favor of paying rewards to snitches, as well. Another very rare case where I see an application.

[4cal]

FWIW what seems to be the problem in addressing any issue is absolutism. Outside of religion and life/death; i do not recognize a place for the trait.

There are places in the west and some in the east where it may be a hundred miles or more to the nearest town much less police station. If you live out there, you would be smart to have some weapon for self defense...why many liberals can't understand that is sad.

[Hong Wu]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/cnn-c ... -survivor/

CNN studio audience boos when a rape survivor who supports the right to own firearms is brought up.

Now, no one seems to be arguing that gun control will reduce murder and suicide rates. With this in mind, the blind spot on social atomization is vexing. Consider what is basically being argued here; a young woman shouldn't be able to own a pistol because we can no longer assume she won't use it to shoot random people?

Guns with multi-round magazines existed for over 150 years before this kind of thing became an issue.

[Hong Wu]

FWIW what seems to be the problem in addressing any issue is absolutism. Outside of religion and life/death; i do not recognize a place for the trait.

There are places in the west and some in the east where it may be a hundred miles or more to the nearest town much less police station. If you live out there, you would be smart to have some weapon for self defense...why many liberals can't understand that is sad.

Some leftists take the position that you shouldn't defend yourself from attack but should wait for the police. They must know this isn't going to be effective, so why would being a hundred miles from the police change anything there?

[Godstud]

Guns with multi-round magazines existed for over 150 years before this kind of thing became an issue.

Partially true, but irrelevant.

Some leftists take the position that you shouldn't defend yourself from attack but should wait for the police.

most "lefties" think that a AR-15 is overkill in the self defense department, and that a small calibre pistol will do the required job, and not endanger your neighbours.

Also, in some countries, you don't need to defend yourself from an attack because they are so freaking rare(eg. Canada). Yes, allowing for the police to handle it,is usually the wisest course of action. That, or fleeing. Humans are either flight or fight. Most humans, unless they are trained, choose to flee a dangerous situation.

They must know this isn't going to be effective, so why would being a hundred miles from the police change anything there?

The majority of people are not a hundred miles away from a police officer.

Now, no one seems to be arguing that gun control will reduce murder and suicide rates.

There is evidence to suggest that gun control can reduce suicide rates.

Consider what is basically being argued here; a young woman shouldn't be able to own a pistol because we can no longer assume she won't use it to shoot random people?

No one is making that argument. Many people are not anti-gun. Most are pro-gun, but under strict controls to prevent guns being owned by mentally ill, or criminals.

As I already mentioned, removing semi-automatic rifles from the civilian populace would make the place a lot safer. You could still keep your bolt action hunting rifles, with 5 round magazines, of course.

Limit home defense weapons to small caliber guns with strict controls in the home, to prevent them being used by children.

Pretending that you need a semi-automatic AR-15 to defend yourself against your government, is foolishness. If your government wants you dead, you are a Hellfire missile away from death, and no AR-15 will change that. It's also foolish to assume that your government is going to do such things, given your Constitution, and the many Americans who serve in the military who will be unlikely to attack you simply because the government says so.

[Potemkin]

Pretending that you need a semi-automatic AR-15 to defend yourself against your government, is foolishness. If your government wants you dead, you are a Hellfire missile away from death, and no AR-15 will change that. It's also foolish to assume that your government is going to do such things, given your Constitution, and the many Americans who serve in the military who will be unlikely to attack you simply because the government says so.

You are a remarkably trusting person, Godstud. I'm sure the government could find plenty of people serving in its military who would be only too happy to be given government sanction to kill dark-skinned people, Hispanic people, left-wing people, Jewish people, Arab people, left-handed people, or what have you. The historical record strongly suggests this.

[Rich]

I, for one, support completely dismantling the bourgeois military apparatus and only arming the proletariat. Though I'm only coincidently in alignment with the Founders on this as we both try to achieve permanent revolution.

The Russian Army and Navy it should be noted were highly democratised in October 1917, when the Bolsheviks took power. Lenin and Trotsky were set on destroying every vestige of working class power. They disbanded the regular army and set up a new one without democratic control, totally subordinate to the Bolshevik central committee and Politburo. The last place of working class power, of democracy was the Kronstadt naval base. "We shot them down like partridges" - Leon Trotsky.

When Trotsky used the term permanent revolution he meant the very opposite of jefferson's repeated revolutions. He wanted permanent and irreverable transfer of all power to the party bureaucracy.

[Drlee]

Yes, I made a mistake on typing M-15 instead of AR-15. The point I was trying to get at is that many believe he had a military assault rifle like the M-16, but that is not the case. His rifle used a smaller .221 bullet. His rifle was only a look-a-like and not a real military rifle. The AR stands for Armalite rifle, not assault rifle.

Wrong again but I will not continue your education.

You can shoot .223 ammo out of a 5.56 chamber. The loss of accuracy is negligible if you select the correct bullet weight.

Yes. But his was the .223 and shooting 5.56 out of that is another matter altogether. It will work. For awhile.

I am still waiting for someone to give us a good reason why a civilian should want to own a military style rifle with a 30 round magazine. I a still waiting for someone to tell us why they should even want to own a semi-automatic rifle at all. That is other than the entertainment value.

I am still appalled at the notion that Ms. Smith, the Home Economics teacher, should be sporting a Glock under her apron. And how that makes her safer from a crazy person with a semiautomatic rifle with a large capacity magazine.

Note to everyone. This shooter dropped his rifle and fled. What would the death toll have been if he had kept shooting until the police got him? 50? 100?

On the other hand. What would the death toll have been if all he could have carried into the school was a pistol or bolt action rifle? Or even if his semi automatic rifle had been equipped with a 5 round magazine?

I totally get that there are a lot of these magazines out there. They will be available for awhile. But the trip of a thousand miles begins with a single step. For the record though I have no problem requiring all owners of large capacity magazines to turn them in for destruction. If gun owners are as law abiding as they would have us believe, access to these would be much harder at once.

[Victoribus Spolia]

How about limiting the magazine/clip size to 8 rounds and outlawing the sale/manufacture/possession of any magazines/clips that hold a greater capacity?

I would oppose that regulation and would not allow it on the table for a compromise unless they utterly rescinded the ban on fully-automatic weapons. which would be kind of funny too.

8 round clips and full-auto...

In all seriousness though:

As a 2nd amendment absolutist, I believe weapons should be military comparable to guarantee the effective execution of guerrilla warfare by the people against a wayward government if such were necessary.

[Suntzu]

Rifles of all types account for less than 10% of gun deaths in America.

[The Immortal Goon]

Today, more than ever, we need a standing military to defend our interests inside and outside our nation. We also need to continue to allow those that wish to defend themselves in and out of their homes the right to buy arms to do that. Then many people enjoy hunting with rifles and competitive shooting in the pursuit of happiness. This remains an important principle that the revolutionary citizen soldier originally took up arms to obtain that freedom.

Fine. But don't try to hide behind the Founders to justify your view. They would have universally seen you as someone promoting tyranny that should be expelled. Federalist and Anti-Federalist alike wrote extensively on the dangers of a standing military.

The Russian Army and Navy it should be noted were highly democratised in October 1917, when the Bolsheviks took power. Lenin and Trotsky were set on destroying every vestige of working class power. They disbanded the regular army and set up a new one without democratic control, totally subordinate to the Bolshevik central committee and Politburo. The last place of working class power, of democracy was the Kronstadt naval base. "We shot them down like partridges" - Leon Trotsky.

Oh Rich, how I missed my old forum stocker that will take every opportunity to whine about any misinformation you can have, get corrected, not show up again, and a year later show up as if you had never been corrected.

Since you seem to like Trotsky as a source (though that can't be a real quote as he was not in charge of the military during the rebellion), you might read this. But, of course, you won't as it would contradict your fee-fees, and we will just have this discussion again. You'll bring up your feelings, I'll bring facts that prove you wrong, and you'll come back a year later pleading with your citationless feelings again.

When Trotsky used the term permanent revolution he meant the very opposite of jefferson's repeated revolutions. He wanted permanent and irreverable transfer of all power to the party bureaucracy.

Please cite Trotsky's love of bureaucracy with a primary source. Or even better, take your butt-hurt fee-fees into another thread where they belong.

[Drlee]

As a 2nd amendment absolutist, I believe weapons should be military comparable to guarantee the effective execution of guerrilla warfare by the people against a wayward government if such were necessary.

This idea is just stupid in oh so many ways.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This idea is just stupid in oh so many ways.

The intellectual rigor of this critique is just so overwhelming, but I suppose you did not want me to know you were making it as you did not tag me when you quoted me. How honorable of you.

But I expect nothing less, good doctor.

[4cal]

Some leftists take the position that you shouldn't defend yourself from attack but should wait for the police. They must know this isn't going to be effective, so why would being a hundred miles from the police change anything there?

I’m sure some of __________ group feel that spearmint is superior to peppermint….

My opinion (and I would dare say I speak for most adults) is that if your nearest law enforcement entity is regularly hundreds of miles away and doesn’t exactly have the capabilities of the 82nd Airborne once they arrive on the scene…it is almost unthinkable not to have some form of aggressive deference; and yes I mean firearms. Those “liberals” that feel it is best to wait for the cavalry are entitled to their opinion as well.

There is a good chance (and by that I mean 100% since it is practically all you do/have ever done) that you’re taking someone’s “let the professionals handle it” stance to an extreme that was never intended.

[4cal]

[quote=“Victoribus Spolia”]I would oppose that regulation…[/quote]

Based on what? Surely there is no 2nd Amendment cover for the size of a magazine clip considering repeating arms in practicality were not invented for several decades later.