[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

High powered ammunition usually goes straight through unless hits something solid like bone which causes it to shred off course or The projectile been modified to spread out. We’re lower powered ammo tends to bounce around inside body when it hits hard mass.

Which caused MORE damage...

That is why a .22 was the gun of choice for "Mafia Hits" back in the day...

One to the melon just rattles around in there...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

I think you are right but being in civilian dress you could still be confused with the shooter and having another person with a CC take you out , take your chances and do the right thing

Which is why you try to ID yourself as a "good guy"...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Who is trying to deny the rights of law biding citizens?

You're kidding, right?

Please tell me you're kidding...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taurus510

If you modify an existing semi-automatic to become a fully automatic weapon without that license, and you’re discovered, the very least worry you will have is a legal issue of a modified firearm.

That is a guaranteed trip to "Club Fed"...

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I am done with this thread.

I doubt that, Martin. As soon as facts are introduced it seems to be so upsetting for you that you can't stay on topic and discuss the solutions that have been presented so far. Is this a problem solving exercise or just a complaint session? If it's the later I'll stop wasting my time trying to educate. Selective outrage it seems.

Banning the most popular rifle in America is denying Rights to law abiding citizens.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Which is why you try to ID yourself as a "good guy"...

YELLING,,.., SCREAMING,, Pandemonium, GUN FIRE,, Oh Hey I, am the good guy

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Who is trying to deny the rights of law biding citizens?

Hmm, let's see, the shooter at the 4th got his weapons legally, the shooter at Ovalde got his weapons legally. Shall we go through the entire list?

Oh, wait you are just deflecting from mass shootings the topic of this thread to gun violence in general, I understand. It is easier to conflate the two.

Yes, and the system failed, has red flags. So, what makes you think additional laws will make difference. It hasn’t since Reagan got shot?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I doubt that, Martin. As soon as facts are introduced it seems to be so upsetting for you that you can't stay on topic and discuss the solutions that have been presented so far. Is this a problem solving exercise or just a complaint session? If it's the later I'll stop wasting my time trying to educate. Selective outrage it seems.

Banning the most popular rifle in America is denying Rights to law abiding citizens.

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

I"m pretty sure you have it backwards. The Constitution does not enumerate *which* arms you can bear, just as it doesn't enumerate *which* religions you have freedom of or *which* speech is protected. To ban any speech or any religion or any arms requires justification since that *would* be chipping away at a guaranteed right.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

YELLING,,.., SCREAMING,, Pandemonium, GUN FIRE,, Oh Hey I, am the good guy

Tell me you've never taken a defensive shooting course without telling me you've never taken a defensive shooting course...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

Nothing that doesn't guarantee it, either... Nor anything that denies that right...

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

Did you come from foreign country? In free county you can have and do what you want, if you’re willing to pay the price. That’s why everybody in world want to come here and for the hand outs of course.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

First let's understand that the Constitution is the People's document. The Constitution describes the limitations of government and delineates the powers ascribed to the Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. In other words, our Constitution is the People's document to limit the power of government, not the governments document to limit the power of the People. Limited government.

Our Constitution, through the Bill of Rights, acknowledges certain Rights, but is not to be construed that those are the only Rights we have.

In this instance we are talking about our 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause of this amendment is in bold. Let's break it down so that it is very clear. Some people seem to not understand who this right belongs to. It is straight forward in stating it is a Right of the People. It is not a Right of the Militia. What is the Right? It is the Right to keep and to bear Arms. To "keep" means to have possession of and to "bear" is to carry. Arms are weapons and ammunition, armaments.

Is that Right limited? Does it state that we can only have certain arms? No, it doesn't. At the same time, it does not say it is unlimited. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, private individuals could own any armament that they could afford. Armaments were not restricted.

Now we look at "shall not be infringed". We can see the definition in 1787 of that word is clear; to violate, to hinder, to destroy.

We know from McDonald, Heller and Bruen that the SCOTUS looks at Text, History and Tradition and applies strict scrutiny. The AR style rifle has been available to citizens since 1957 and there are millions of them in possession by civilians. Therefore, the text of the 2nd Amendment does not put limitations on any armaments. History demonstrates that the AR has been available to The People for 65 years. Tradition demonstrates that not only were they available in the Sears & Roebuck catalog for delivery to your home by the US Mail up to 1968, but Americans have purchase millions of this firearm since its availability.

So, there is nothing in the Constitution barring me from owning that rifle. I believe any state law that would prohibit me from owning that rifle would be deemed unconstitutional.

[dhdallas]

"For too long, you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time."

— National Press Club speech (1997) Charlton Heston

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by dhdallas

"For too long, you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time."

— National Press Club speech (1997) Charlton Heston

The Heston quote brings out a very good point. The information on this topic is all too often hidden by the deluge of MISinformation about guns and the right to bear them. Social media (the ultimate oxymoron) guarantees that no matter how bizarre one's beliefs, he or she not only find like-minded people but also manufactured and misinterpreted information to support that belief. A prime example is one that has been mentioned here: 300 or more "mass shootings" so far this year--not a statistic, but the result of completely changing the definition of the term "mass shooting" by including gang and criminal-on-criminal gun violence. Not only that, but those same people have been so conditioned by media to associate "mass shooting" with "AR-15" that they immediately assume AR-15's have been involved in most or all of those manufactured "mass shootings" when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the difference between looking for information vs. hunting for validation. Far too many of us, when we hear "information" that supports this-or-that point of view we have, believe it without question.