Boulder Gun Owners Defiant Of Assault Weapon Ban

[jet57]

At last count, never.

Uh sorry, but every time you approach the AR15 OR the second amendment you are shown the door: NOTHING you say sticks or proves me wrong.


This of course is your chance to prove all my arguments wrong. And - you know what I mean by "prove" right?

 

[RF667799]

(chuckle)

Having trouble trouble interpreting the language are you?

*notes Jet couldn't clarify his remarks*

Yes.

I'm not very fluent at Authentic Anti-gun Gibberish.

 

[RF667799]

I have trouble with all of them.

Examples?

Because I never see you railing about....oh....M1 carbines for instance.

 

[jet57]

Examples?

Because I never see you railing about....oh....M1 carbines for instance.

I don't rail on them because they are antiques. They are not made anymore. They fire small caliber rounds. Nobody uses them anymore. They're effective range with 5 inch groups in 100 yards. The AR15 is 400 to 600 yards, fires a much more powerful round and is particularly deadly with - yep - you guessed it - banana clips...

We've seen this over and over again; I'm sure you read a news paper once in while, so you know.

Nope not gonna work dude. You're new here so the gun crowd's ridiculous "what about" stupidity NEVER works against reality, just sayin, so you don't make the same mistake twice.

 

[Rucker61]

Uh sorry, but every time you approach the AR15 OR the second amendment you are shown the door: NOTHING you say sticks or proves me wrong.


This of course is your chance to prove all my arguments wrong. And - you know what I mean by "prove" right?

I don't even know what all of your arguments are. I do know that the AR-15 is a firearm in common use for lawful purposes and therefore protected from being banned by the federal government or any state.

I think one argument is that we should ban the AR-15 because it's been used in mass shootings, but that's not a Constitutional argument. I remember you pointing out that we should ban it because a shooter used it to kill 58 people and wound over 400 in a single shooting, but that's not a Constitutional argument. There's nothing that looks at how many people one person killed using one type of firearm that negates Constitutional protections. If we expand our view how many people are killed by all users of handguns over a year period, that number is certainly higher by a couple of orders of magnitude ever year, and if the number of dead were important to a Constitutional argument then it would certainly lead us to believe that handguns, being much more deadly to society than AR-15s, should be able to be banned, but then we'd look back at Heller and see that handguns, even though they account for close to 10k homicides and 15k or so suicides every year compare to an average of 17 homicides in mass murders with all types of "assault weapons" each year, are still protected from bans and less restrictions than the AR-15.

 

[jet57]

*notes Jet couldn't clarify his remarks*

Yes.

I'm not very fluent at Authentic Anti-gun Gibberish.

*Note*... you can;t prove any argument and how can a gun owner be anti-gun? Rifle team member, sharp shooter medal, raised around guns...

Please, thrall us with your genius.

Teach TD and Rucker oh learned one. Ask CLAXX19 why shotguns use a different load...

ga'head

 

[Rucker61]

I don't rail on them because they are antiques. They are not made anymore.

https://www.auto-ordnance.com/auto-ordnance-m1-carbine/

Currently in production.

They fire small caliber rounds.

They fire a .30 caliber round, twice the mass of the standard 55 gr M193 5.56mm NATO round.

Nobody uses them anymore.

https://ammoseek.com/ammo/30-carbine

For a round that no one uses anymore, there sure are an awful lot of manufacturers making it and retailers selling it.

They're effective range with 5 inch groups in 100 yards.

Some can see better results than that, with modern ammo and a little tuning. At any rate, nearly all mass shootings take place at point blank range. You've pointed out that the M1 Carbine has perfectly acceptable accuracy for that purpose.

The AR15 is 400 to 600 yards, fires a much more powerful round

The Hornady M1 Carbine FTX personal defense round has a muzzle energy of 977 ft/lbs. The Hornady 55 grain FMJ has a muzzle energy of 1282 ft/lbs. Compare either for purposes of mass murder to that of the most commonly used round, the 9mm, at 332 ft/lbs for the Hornady 9mm FTX defense round. For purposes of banning due to danger to mass shooting victims, looks like the M1 Carbine is just as deadly as the AR-15.

and is particularly deadly with - yep - you guessed it - banana clips...

From just the first source that Google gave me, here are four different 30 round .30 caliber M1 Carbine magazines for sale. I presume that's what you mean by "banana clips".

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/parts-and-accessories/magazines/m1-carbine.do

We've seen this over and over again; I'm sure you read a news paper once in while, so you know.

Nope not gonna work dude. You're new here so the gun crowd's ridiculous "what about" stupidity NEVER works against reality, just sayin, so you don't make the same mistake twice.

Shall we have TD add "they fire small caliber rounds", "they are not made anymore", "Nobody uses them anymore" and "banana clips" to his list of your lies?

 

[Rucker61]

*Note*... you can;t prove any argument and how can a gun owner be anti-gun? Rifle team member, sharp shooter medal, raised around guns...

Please, thrall us with your genius.

Teach TD and Rucker oh learned one. Ask CLAXX19 why shotguns use a different load...

ga'head

So does my SP101. It can fire shot. It's not a shotgun.

 

[jet57]

I don't even know what all of your arguments are. I do know that the AR-15 is a firearm in common use for lawful purposes and therefore protected from being banned by the federal government or any state.

I think one argument is that we should ban the AR-15 because it's been used in mass shootings, but that's not a Constitutional argument. I remember you pointing out that we should ban it because a shooter used it to kill 58 people and wound over 400 in a single shooting, but that's not a Constitutional argument. There's nothing that looks at how many people one person killed using one type of firearm that negates Constitutional protections. If we expand our view how many people are killed by all users of handguns over a year period, that number is certainly higher by a couple of orders of magnitude ever year, and if the number of dead were important to a Constitutional argument then it would certainly lead us to believe that handguns, being much more deadly to society than AR-15s, should be able to be banned, but then we'd look back at Heller and see that handguns, even though they account for close to 10k homicides and 15k or so suicides every year compare to an average of 17 homicides in mass murders with all types of "assault weapons" each year, are still protected from bans and less restrictions than the AR-15.

god; once again - from the top this time...

1: Who designed the AR15 and for what purpose?.

2: The 10th amendment and the long history of gun control in this country AND Scalia's own words in Heller proves beyond reasonable doubt that your gun guy version of the constitutionality of the second amendment is absolutely wrong.

3: NOTHING and I mean NOTHING you or TD or the gun crowd around here have EVER said has proved me wrong by any means.

You opine, obfuscate, divert, deny, move goal posts all over the field and just plain blather. TD tried to prove me a liar and failed miserably, so he ran away!

Get your facts straight. Read American history. Learn something. And stop listening to the NRA anti-American anti-constitutional gun sales propaganda and think yourself. Come up with something original. Or, just admit that you're wrong and we can call it a day.

 

[jimbo]

I don't rail on them because they are antiques. They are not made anymore. They fire small caliber rounds. Nobody uses them anymore. They're effective range with 5 inch groups in 100 yards. The AR15 is 400 to 600 yards, fires a much more powerful round and is particularly deadly with - yep - you guessed it - banana clips...

We've seen this over and over again; I'm sure you read a news paper once in while, so you know.

Nope not gonna work dude. You're new here so the gun crowd's ridiculous "what about" stupidity NEVER works against reality, just sayin, so you don't make the same mistake twice.

Jet, when you find yourself painted into a corner, it's time to put down the brush. The military carbine is .308 (7.65 mm) caliber. The AR 15 was originally designed in 5.56 mm. 5 is smaller than 7. The AR 16 and 4 are 5.56.

I've no idea what you're babbling on about curved magazines being more deadly than straight magazines. Clips are devices making it more convenient to load magazines, I've never seen a clip holding more than 10 rounds. I get that the terms are used interchangeably by those not familiar with firearms, but that doesn't make it correct.

 

[Rucker61]

god; once again - from the top this time...

1: Who designed the AR15 and for what purpose?.

Stoner, in a fully automatic configuration, using a bullet caliber developed 20 years earlier for varmint hunting and a bullet type developed to meet the restrictions of the Hague Convention. The semiautomatic version, sold later to civilians for sporting purposes, uses a firing mechanism developed 60 years earlier for a hunting rifle (Remington Model 8). The AR-15 sold today does not meet the military specifications for a service rifle. Nothing in Stoner's design with regards to caliber, firing mechanism, or ammunition capacity was unique.

The M1903, chambered in 1906 for a cartridge developed specifically for it, the .30-06, was a military service rifle using the Mauser bolt action. Does this mean that the federal government has the authority to ban all bolt actions using the Mauser action or all rifles chambered in .30-06, as both were developed for a military service rifle?

2: The 10th amendment and the long history of gun control in this country AND Scalia's own words in Heller proves beyond reasonable doubt that your gun guy version of the constitutionality of the second amendment is absolutely wrong.

You mean the part of Heller's dicta where he pointed out that firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected, and the part of the decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with membership in a militia? When you refer to the long history of gun control, are you referring to the complete absence of federal gun control laws for the first century and a half? Or that no federal gun control law has ever even mentioned the word "militia"?

3: NOTHING and I mean NOTHING you or TD or the gun crowd around here have EVER said has proved me wrong by any means.

See post #307.

You opine, obfuscate, divert, deny, move goal posts all over the field and just plain blather. TD tried to prove me a liar and failed miserably, so he ran away!

Get your facts straight. Read American history. Learn something. And stop listening to the NRA anti-American anti-constitutional gun sales propaganda and think yourself. Come up with something original. Or, just admit that you're wrong and we can call it a day.

Given Cruikshank, Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, I don't need to listen to NRA. I do think for myself. You're just wrong.

 

[jet57]

So does my SP101. It can fire shot. It's not a shotgun.

Who said it was a shotgun? Not me; I said it was a pistol. You tried that trick and it didn't work, 'member?

Aaaaaand, still can't prove I'm a liar and that you know more about the constitution can 'ya...

 

[jimbo]

*Note*... you can;t prove any argument and how can a gun owner be anti-gun? Rifle team member, sharp shooter medal, raised around guns...

Please, thrall us with your genius.

Teach TD and Rucker oh learned one. Ask CLAXX19 why shotguns use a different load...

ga'head

How is it possible to attempt to discuss an issue with someone who can't define the point, so just invents a new definition? From Mirriam:

shot·gunDictionary result for shotgun
/ˈSHätˌɡən/Submit
noun
1.
a smoothbore gun for firing small shot at short range.

 

[Rucker61]

Who said it was a shotgun? Not me; I said it was a pistol. You tried that trick and it didn't work, 'member?

Aaaaaand, still can't prove I'm a liar and that you know more about the constitution can 'ya...

Why do you claim a shotgun is a rifle?

See post #307. You can admit to being ignorant or being a liar. I'll let you pick.

 

[HumblePi]

I think the only people that should be allowed to carry any assault rifle should be wearing a U.S. military uniform. All the others.... nope.

 

[jet57]

Stoner, in a fully automatic configuration, using a bullet caliber developed 20 years earlier for varmint hunting and a bullet type developed to meet the restrictions of the Hague Convention. The semiautomatic version, sold later to civilians for sporting purposes, uses a firing mechanism developed 60 years earlier for a hunting rifle (Remington Model 8). The AR-15 sold today does not meet the military specifications for a service rifle. Nothing in Stoner's design with regards to caliber, firing mechanism, or ammunition capacity was unique.

The M1903, chambered in 1906 for a cartridge developed specifically for it, the .30-06, was a military service rifle using the Mauser bolt action. Does this mean that the federal government has the authority to ban all bolt actions using the Mauser action or all rifles chambered in .30-06, as both were developed for a military service rifle?



You mean the part of Heller's dicta where he pointed out that firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected, and the part of the decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with membership in a militia? When you refer to the long history of gun control, are you referring to the complete absence of federal gun control laws for the first century and a half? Or that no federal gun control law has ever even mentioned the word "militia"?


See post #307.



Given Cruikshank, Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, I don't need to listen to NRA. I do think for myself. You're just wrong.

The AR-15 sold today

What, and for what purpose was the rifle designed for? You left that part out didn't you...

The 223 is a larger capacity round with a 600 yard effective range and does more damage - doesn't it....

"Dicta"?


Yeah, TD's trying to teach you how to lose an argument again. There have been gun bans and state controls on guns throughout our county's history that "proves" Scalia's ruling that the second is not an unlimited right, and that is fact - isn't it...

Nope, you listen to NRA rag propaganda and your writing proves it.

 

[jet57]

How is it possible to attempt to discuss an issue with someone who can't define the point, so just invents a new definition? From Mirriam:

shot·gunDictionary result for shotgun
/ˈSHätˌɡən/Submit
noun
1.
a smoothbore gun for firing small shot at short range.

Uh, what's your point? CLAXX19 even says that they use different loads, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[jet57]

Why do you claim a shotgun is a rifle?

See post #307. You can admit to being ignorant or being a liar. I'll let you pick.

It's a long gun; it aims like a rifle; looks like a rifle, so it's an easy comparison from that standpoint. True, every bit of it. It's not a pistol - is it...

Off to a House Warming Party now... It'll - give you time to - think.

 

[RF667799]

Firearms knowledge according to Jet: A shotgun is the same as a rifle but an AR15 is significantly different from an M1 carbine.

 

[RF667799]

I don't rail on them because they are antiques. They are not made anymore. They fire small caliber rounds. Nobody uses them anymore. They're effective range with 5 inch groups in 100 yards. The AR15 is 400 to 600 yards, fires a much more powerful round and is particularly deadly with - yep - you guessed it - banana clips...

We've seen this over and over again; I'm sure you read a news paper once in while, so you know.

Nope not gonna work dude. You're new here so the gun crowd's ridiculous "what about" stupidity NEVER works against reality, just sayin, so you don't make the same mistake twice.

All of that- mostly incorrect- anti-gun gibberish says nothing.

 

[RF667799]

*Note*... you can;t prove any argument and how can a gun owner be anti-gun? Rifle team member, sharp shooter medal, raised around guns...

Please, thrall us with your genius.

Teach TD and Rucker oh learned one. Ask CLAXX19 why shotguns use a different load...

ga'head

Exactly! It certainly isn't an impossibility. What we're interested in is the root of this disconnection in rationality.

So- once again- why do you consider your air cooled, semi-automatic, gas operated, magazine fed, intermediate caliber carbine to be perfectly okay...but my air cooled, semi-automatic, gas operated, magazine fed, intermediate caliber carbine is not?

It really looks like the only difference is yours vs mine.

 

[RF667799]

https://www.auto-ordnance.com/auto-ordnance-m1-carbine/

Currently in production.



They fire a .30 caliber round, twice the mass of the standard 55 gr M193 5.56mm NATO round.


https://ammoseek.com/ammo/30-carbine

For a round that no one uses anymore, there sure are an awful lot of manufacturers making it and retailers selling it.


Some can see better results than that, with modern ammo and a little tuning. At any rate, nearly all mass shootings take place at point blank range. You've pointed out that the M1 Carbine has perfectly acceptable accuracy for that purpose.



The Hornady M1 Carbine FTX personal defense round has a muzzle energy of 977 ft/lbs. The Hornady 55 grain FMJ has a muzzle energy of 1282 ft/lbs. Compare either for purposes of mass murder to that of the most commonly used round, the 9mm, at 332 ft/lbs for the Hornady 9mm FTX defense round. For purposes of banning due to danger to mass shooting victims, looks like the M1 Carbine is just as deadly as the AR-15.



From just the first source that Google gave me, here are four different 30 round .30 caliber M1 Carbine magazines for sale. I presume that's what you mean by "banana clips".

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/parts-and-accessories/magazines/m1-carbine.do



Shall we have TD add "they fire small caliber rounds", "they are not made anymore", "Nobody uses them anymore" and "banana clips" to his list of your lies?

That is devastating.

Doesn't appear there's been a response....

 

[RF667799]

Uh, what's your point? CLAXX19 even says that they use different loads, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

A shotgun uses a different load than a rifle so a shotgun is the same thing as a rifle?

That's some Monty Python level nonsense.

 

[marke]

I think the only people that should be allowed to carry any assault rifle should be wearing a U.S. military uniform. All the others.... nope.

Major mobs of modern lefties live in large cities with little opportunities to enjoy the time-honored traditions of American hunting and gun ownership. But that does not mean city-dwelling leftist snowflakes have a right to stop American hunters and gun owners from enjoying those traditional rights and freedoms just because leftists don't care to take advantage of them, don't like them, don't approve of them, or don't want other people continuing to like them and take advantage of them.

If leftists want to cut down on gun violence in their cities, let them try something different than passing more gun laws which do not work for reasons they cannot seem to comprehend.

 

[Rucker61]

I think the only people that should be allowed to carry any assault rifle should be wearing a U.S. military uniform. All the others.... nope.

Why is that? Do you differentiate between "assault rifle", common terminology for an intermediate caliber selective fire weapon and "assault weapon", a semiautomatic rifle with certain cosmetic features?