Another Gunman Putting the 'AR15' On The Negative Skyline

[MLRyan]

I think the first step will be banning high capacity magazines first. I heard something to the effect that 60 rounds fired.

and only killed 2 people?

 

[uncle money bags]

Here's how I'm looking at it: the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted to protect the right to self-defense, both from dudes trying to jack your wallet and a tyrannical government, with reasonable restrictions for the greater public interest. Keep in mind that I'm talking about HOW ACTUAL COURTS INTERPRET THE LAW NOW, not what the 2nd Amendment means to you.*

Nationwide, shall-issue CCW is a huge advance for self-defense against dudes trying to jack your wallet, which is a (relatively) common threat. Nationwide "Constitutional carry" is even better.

However, the mag ban would be a loss for resistance against a tyrannical government, but revolutions are REALLY REALLY uncommon. The stakes are higher, but the likelihood of the situation happening are pretty small.

So does that constitute a net gain or net loss for 2nd Amendment rights? I don't really know. It depends on how you weight the respective benefits of being able to defend yourself against muggers, and The People being able to defend themselves against government.

In reality, I think that with the way the SAF has been agitating for CCW rights over the past few years, shall-issue CCW might happen anyways so it's a moot point.

*I know I'm still going to get a lot of "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS UNCLEAR" from people with bad reading comprehension.

A magazine ban is a loss for resistance against all types of aggression, not just against tyrannical government.

A nation wide constitutional carry is only as good as the next election, or mass shooting.

 

[daniel1daniel2]

I would think that even with body armor it would still let him know that he was getting shot at I know someone who took several rounds in Korea and said that he definitely knew when hit even in the heat of battle ( I should say that he did have body armor on not sure what type)

 

[poopgiggle]

A magazine ban is a loss for resistance against all types of aggression, not just against tyrannical government.

A nation wide constitutional carry is only as good as the next election, or mass shooting.

I'm not sure why a ban is less easily repealed than nationwide CCW?

 

[recon279]

the ban is dum u can kill that many people or more with ur daddys deer rifle

 

[WAGS]

So far the pattern to all of these shootings are in locations that are "no weapons allowed". Coincidence, no. These guys did their homework as to which places they could cause the most carnage with no resistance. In my opinion, if one person returned fire these guys would have tucked tail and headed for an exit(body armor or not). People who do these acts are nothing but cowards. When these types of people are met with resistance, they will fold. The answer isn't banning hi cap mags or the evil black rifles. The answer is allowing the U.S. citizen to carry a weapon anywhere he deems needed. No restrictions on where you can or can't. Maybe the more of these cowards that get killed trying to murder others will help deter others from doing so.

x2... Excellent Kennedy, and dead on- Thanks

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

So this got me thinking. Here's a thought experiment for you.

The machine gun registry was closed in 1986, which sucked, but it was part of FOPA which was a good thing for gun owners overall.

If there was really strong push for banning high capacity baby-killing assault clips for our evil black rifles, given the current political climate the NRA probably would have enough clout to demand something in return for letting the ban go through.

Would you be willing to trade your 30rd mags for something like Federal shall-issue CCW, with preemption of state and local laws? Is there anything you can think of that you would trade in your PMAGs for?

Why do we have to "trade" anything? Machineguns were sacrificed in the past and now you want to sacrifice hi-capacity magazines for something you want. Are you thinking that the anti-gunners will not come back later and ban what you just fought for? Don’t expect me to offer you any help for you guns when you have already sacrificed mine.

 

[uncle money bags]

I'm not sure why a ban is less easily repealed than nationwide CCW?

Me either. why give the Federal government any more power over us than we have to. Havent the states done ok so far in as much as CC is concerned?

 

[trbii]

Just heard on the Wednesday night news that the "shooter" as he dubbed himself before opening fire, stole the AR from someone he knew and experienced several stoppages, jams and malfunctions during his attack on the Oregon mall. I get the impression neither he or the weapons owner knew about semi-automatic rifle maintenance. I would be so proud to hear of some citizen, off duty LEO, armed service member, security guard or the like leaning out slightly from behind cover and dumping say , half a pistol mag into one these miscreants while he is frustrated with an unexpected weapon failure.

 

[poopgiggle]

Why do we have to "trade" anything? Machineguns were sacrificed in the past and now you want to sacrifice hi-capacity magazines for something you want. Are you thinking that the anti-gunners will not come back later and ban what you just fought for? Don’t expect me to offer you any help for you guns when you have already sacrificed mine.

I didn't say we had to trade anything or that I thought we ever would. "thought experiment"

Me either. why give the Federal government any more power over us than we have to. Havent the states done ok so far in as much as CC is concerned?

So you think that the Federal government applying the 2nd Amendment against the states under the 14th Amendment was "giving the Federal government more power"?

There are a lot of people in IL, CA, and NY who would just love some Federal pre-emption.