Quote :

"^ so you are saying that if full autos were not highly restricted and thus with a lower price that people would STILL buy more semi-auto? So an AR-15 with a fully auto setting would sell less than a current AR-15? It is like you are in the opposite imaginary world as settledown."

I think the majority of gun owners would stick with semis, simply because I think there's support for a weapon that relates each trigger pull with a single round (1 choice per shot). Some people would buy a full-auto AR15 for the novelty, but I do not think the majority would.

I'm saying people are comfortable with semi-autos and probably wouldn't see the need for such an ammo-waster that's more difficult to fire accurately. I'm saying that I believe the majority of pro-gunners don't regularly pitch a fit about the full-auto restrictions because what we have now works well.

Also, ^

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 11:30 PM. Reason : clarity]

2/15/2013 11:27:43 PM

The full auto AR-15 has semi auto.. So it would not be an either/or choice. And it probably would be cheaper than the semi-auto only because they could just get it off the same assembly line the military orders from no mods.

Basically all I am saying in this is give the gun control side an ounce of credit in minimizing the amount large scale fully auto massacres. And I would be interested to know all of the fully auto massacres since it will be posted after this comment.

2/16/2013 12:11:55 AM

Quote :

"Yes, full auto would be less common than semi auto. It is expensive to shoot."

So your family's safety is paramount.

Until it's expensive.

Gotcha.

2/16/2013 1:21:08 AM

Quote :

"And I would be interested to know all of the fully auto massacres since it will be posted after this comment."

The number of full-auto shootings I've heard is: 3. I guess it depends on what counts as a "massacre". 1 of said 3 shootings was purportedly done by a cop who "went nuts". Not sure of source.

2/16/2013 6:13:18 AM

Quote :

"So your family's safety is paramount. Until it's expensive. Gotcha."

i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. if i had a select-fire AR, i'd never go full auto or 3-round burst in a home defense situtation. the military teaches semi-auto, two in chest, and one in head in close quarters combat for a reason.

2/16/2013 7:07:00 AM

So if those of you in support of this "new" "assault weapons" ban think it's needed because it will reduce crime and mass shootings, then how do you explain that it explicitly exempts 2,200 firearms which are identical to banned firearms, save 1 or 2 cosmetic features?

2/16/2013 11:19:13 PM

if it makes you mad it must be good

that's how I'll judge any legislation

2/16/2013 11:52:36 PM

k

2/17/2013 1:39:09 AM

Quote :

"people would buy a full-auto AR15 for the novelty"

That's the reason that people buy AR-15's now, I feel fairly certain they would prefer even more novelty.

Quote :

"i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. if i had a select-fire AR, i'd never go full auto or 3-round burst in a home defense situtation. the military teaches semi-auto, two in chest, and one in head in close quarters combat for a reason."

First, people intent on doing you harm don't always come alone. Two, guns aren't death rays...
Let's say three people kick down your door in the middle of the night who are there for more than your TV.

etc.

2/17/2013 3:06:33 PM

^ are you trying to make a point that full auto would be better for multiple intruders? It might be good to scare them but, as has already been said in this thread, full auto is good for cover fire. If I'm facing multiple people trying to kill me, I want to be as accurate as possible. I'm not really looking to fill my walls with holes in hopes they turn and run.

I also wasn't aware people bought AR15s just for novelty. I guess I'm just crazy but I thought it was because they're easy to handle, reasonably accurate, and offer the support needed to set the gun up however you want all for a reasonable price.

Also, you guys do realize you can build/buy a full auto assault rifle legally now, right? You have to jump through a few hoops but the legalities aren't really the factor that restricts the average gun owner. It's cost.

[Edited on February 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2013 3:14:26 PM

Quote :

"are you trying to make a point that full auto would be better for multiple intruders?"

I'm making the point that there is some situation that could justify it, and I referenced earlier arguments implying that if there is a situation that could justify it then one should have access to it.

Quote :

"I also wasn't aware people bought AR15s just for novelty."

You probably wouldn't buy one if you were.

Quote :

"I guess I'm just crazy but I thought it was because they're easy to handle, reasonably accurate, and offer the support needed to set the gun up however you want all for a reasonable price."

You could say the same thing about a slingshot or a fighter jet. That's not a reason to buy one.

2/17/2013 6:58:49 PM

^ that is really some of the worst arguments I've ever seen.

You're trying to say that there COULD be a remote example that MIGHT show a full-auto weapon as a better option than semi? How does that help your argument again?

I've purchased AR-15s and plan to buy more. Novelty is definitely not a factor. I would like to pick up some other guns for novelty and they're all a poorer choice for everything except maybe some sort of reenactment.

Exactly what kind of slingshots and fighter jets are you used to seeing? I'm not aware of any that fit the criteria of accurate, easy to handle, and affordability.

2/17/2013 7:31:29 PM

I'm sure if select-fire weapons were the same price as semi-auto, there'd be way more select-fire weapons sold. Because "why not?" But when achieving novelty means tens of thousands of dollars or federal charges, people default to practical firearms.

That the gov't successfully banned automatic weapons, however, has no bearing on whether it could ban semi-auto weapons. The ban on automatic weapons worked because:

a) There weren't that many select-fire weapons to begin with, due to 1930's-era regulation limiting them before they became popular

b) No one really cares too much, given that they are in fact novelties.

None of those apply to semi-auto. There are easily over a hundred million semi-automatic weapons in America, and Americans find them to be very, very practical.





[Edited on February 17, 2013 at 9:58 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2013 9:56:26 PM

Quote :

"That's the reason that people buy AR-15's now, I feel fairly certain they would prefer even more novelty."

I think the look might be a little of it, and the ergonomics are a little of it, and the fact that the '94 (a) drew attention to them and (b) generated interest in them by restricting them is a little of it, but I believe that by FAR, the biggest factor is the modularity (and massive aftermarket that follows). You can build an AR to be suitable for the vast majority of things that one might use a rifle for. You can build one lower receiver, and then swap out different uppers to have different calibers and configurations for vastly different purposes.

2/17/2013 10:58:34 PM

Quote :

"You're trying to say that there COULD be a remote example that MIGHT show a full-auto weapon as a better option than semi? How does that help your argument again? "

It's irony.

Quote :

"I've purchased AR-15s and plan to buy more. Novelty is definitely not a factor."

Tell me what those factors are and I will tell you some things you don't need to do. It's a toy, and having more than one of them is definitely a toy, and reenactments are grown men playing pretend with toys. You must be aware of this.

Quote :

"You can build an AR to be suitable for the vast majority of things that one might use a rifle for."

Or you could buy a rifle that is better at the one legitimate purpose for a rifle, killing animals.

2/17/2013 11:30:20 PM

I am so tired of this debate. I really think that evidence points both ways which means that there is no big difference either way. It is all just one big charade by the industry to boost gun sales.

Just another example where we are all a bunch of poor saps for falling for it. Lots of interesting points can be made but the bottom line is the same thing with abortion and gay marriage: Is it really that important to be the platform divide between the two parties in this country?

2/18/2013 12:43:49 AM

Quote :

"the one legitimate purpose for a rifle, killing animals"

naw

2/18/2013 6:51:41 AM

Quote :

"the one legitimate purpose for a rifle, killing animals"

This is false.

2/18/2013 9:48:47 AM

Time for a debate reset:

ASSAULT WEAPON

go!

2/18/2013 12:38:47 PM

^ You'd prefer to debate terminology over rights?

[Edited on February 18, 2013 at 1:53 PM. Reason : typing accuracy FTL]

2/18/2013 1:53:00 PM

^^^ & ^^^^ such compelling arguments!

2/18/2013 8:04:21 PM

What? Those retorts are on par with your original statement.

[Edited on February 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/18/2013 8:39:15 PM

here's theDuke866 again, fucking debate referee

2/18/2013 8:47:23 PM

Quote :

"Vice President Joe Biden recommended today that "if you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun" "If there's ever a problem," Biden said he told his wife Jill, "just walk out on the balcony here--walk out, put that double barrel shot gun and fire two blasts outside the house -- I promise you whoever is coming in ... You don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use...Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!""

dont think his neighbors appreciate this horrible advice from this clown that somehow became VP

2/20/2013 6:38:33 AM

2nd Amendment is the civillian's form of checks and balances against a tyranical government.

plain and simple.

No other justification needed.

But here's another one:

another legitimate purpose for a rifle, defense against threats both foreign and domestic.


Our current 2 party system is just 1 party away from being a communist/socialist/tyrany. I mean just look at it. Look how big our government has gotten. Look at how many laws (many of them oppressing/restricting overall freedom) we have. Keep the shit simple. Stick to the constitution. Our government is excessive and it keeps growing. It's getting to look a LOT like Britain back in the 17th and 18th century.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 6:51 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2013 6:49:07 AM

Quote :

" Our current 2 party system is just 1 party away from being a communist/socialist/tyrany"

i am going to disagree. the republicans have been co-conspirators with all the issues you mentioned. its only going to get worse too, personal responsibility is not popular with voters and politicians vote to stay in office not solve problems. term limits would help a lot but that's not going to happen.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 7:00 AM. Reason : a]

2/20/2013 6:59:47 AM

http://www.wral.com/police-shot-reported-at-pa-campus-was-newspaper/12124410/

We have to ban these assault newspapers. These shooters are launching projectiles from moving vehicles, in what appears to be a consistent string of drive-by throws with assault papers. It is so bad now, that students are fearing for their lives when the sounds of these assault papers goes off.

2/20/2013 9:54:21 AM

Quote :

"defense against threats both foreign and domestic"

Might as well be using a sticks and rocks against modern weaponry. A rifle does nothing against drones, missles, or fighter jets.

2/20/2013 11:00:51 AM

That really doesn't lend to a reasonable discussion on gun control

2/20/2013 11:01:22 AM

I agree, but I'm not the one who impled that one could use their guns to defend against an oppresive government.

2/20/2013 11:08:21 AM

(sorry, i was actually talking about the post above your's about newspapers)

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ]

2/20/2013 11:17:50 AM

I'll add fuel to this fire. I think you underestimate the power of the 2A and the people. Were it to come to armed revolution, while the people would certainly be outarmed by the military, you would 1) have many defections from the military, 2) many military members would refuse to fight their own people, 3) you aren't considering the likely very politically controlled nature of a war against its own people (think Vietnam in terms of politically controlled warfare), 4) the large number of people who would side with the people and take up arms in the fight, 5) the use of improvised weapons, among other factors to consider.

A war with China isn't scary because of their military might; it's the sheer volume of the their military that is scary. The biggest issue they have is mobility. Numbers and improvising are powerful tools to an underhanded combatant. The recent middle east wars are good examples.

I'm not saying the people would win, but it's surely not as simple as, "oh they have jets, they win". You have to also consider the people receiving support from other nations, not friendly to the U.S. government, and procurement of other weapons from outside nations. Combine all of this and you begin to see a picture of how revolution in the U.S. might go down (which I truly believe will not happen unless the country/government/economy truly crumble). And as with all wars today and in the past, small arms fire makes up a good portion of warfare and the handheld tool has done the vast majority of damage. Considering all of this, the idea that the second amendment is still useful in the case of repelling tyranny isn't all that dead.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2013 11:29:48 AM

supposedly POTUS can't use the military against U.S. citizens anyway. the Bonus Army found out that's bullshit, though.

2/20/2013 12:04:39 PM

get the fuck out of here with that revolution shit

we have a system that lets you determine the direction our nation goes without having to shoot people

gun obsessed sore loser assholes

2/20/2013 12:07:16 PM

Quote :

"we have a system that lets you determine the direction our nation goes without having to shoot people"

rofl

2/20/2013 12:09:24 PM

so you basically would die for the 2nd amendment but don't give a fuck about the rest of the document. cool.

2/20/2013 12:10:56 PM

When are you revolutionary, government taking all of my freedom, i need my guns to stand up to the government people going to take up arms and do something?

What is the line the government has to cross for you to take up arms?

2/20/2013 12:11:05 PM

never. it's all a fantasy.

2/20/2013 12:15:04 PM

somewhere around my threshold

2/20/2013 12:15:45 PM

so you are "around" your threshold

what additional action by the government would cause you to take up arms, and what targets would you take up arms against?

2/20/2013 12:16:43 PM

we've been through this before

2/20/2013 12:17:28 PM

no, you dodged it before

if standing up to the government is a reason you need your guns, what would make you stand up to the government and what targets would you attack (since "the government" isn't a target)?

this is not a trolling post, the question is serious and relevant.

2/20/2013 12:21:43 PM

^^ you are a terrorist

like, seriously


[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM. Reason : t]

2/20/2013 12:22:27 PM

when enough folks agree with me that the U.S. is no longer a "free state". i'd suggest shooting anyone who enforces the measures that prevent it from being a "free state".

2/20/2013 12:29:10 PM

2/20/2013 12:30:08 PM

so the last thing that stands between you murdering police, government officials, politicians, etc, is more people agreeing that it's time to start murdering those people?

2/20/2013 12:32:06 PM

Are you actively pursuing your militia or just hoping someone else does it? If your freedoms are being attacked, why are you not proactively raising your militia?

Will you only attack federal law enforcement officers, or will you also attack local law enforcement officers acting on federal laws (that have been mirrored by their respective jurisdictions)?

2/20/2013 12:32:43 PM

I don't even like the dude, but I'm going to advise Neuse to not answer these questions

2/20/2013 12:36:33 PM

not discussing this any further

2/20/2013 12:36:45 PM

see, its a terrible justification for keeping a gun because no one will ever actually use it for that

2/20/2013 12:41:27 PM