[RD] Florida School Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
It matters because that means the AR-15 has a rate of fire comparable to a handgun, as opposed to the much higher rate of fire the assault rifles available to the military are capable of. So by calling semi-automatic rifles assault rifles, it is making the rifle seem more dangerous than it actually is in an effort to convince people to ban them.

If your claims about yourself are only remotely true, you must have shot something like a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and an assault rifle in your life. And still you claim they have comparable rate of fire in semi-automatic mode? Sure, theoretically, if you put both of them in a strong vise and measure how fast you can pull the trigger you might end up with a comparable rate. In practice not only is aiming much faster with an assault rifle (given the same distance to target), but also your shot doesn't throw the gun off target nearly as much as a pistol shot does and you don't have to readjust your position as much. If you had a three-round burst setting on a 9mm pistol, your third shot would certainly be going up into the sky, far away from any target.

The rate of aimed fire is much higher with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle than with a military-grade semi-automatic pistol. Add the extended range, the much better precision and the higher bullet velocity and you have a weapon that is far deadlier than any semi-automatic pistol.
 
The only reason that they aren't is because the SCOTUS has let the 2nd Amendment turn into a loophole that gives a freaking hobby semi-religious status.

Two hundred and fifty years of the right to possess the tools of effective lethal force, irrespective of youth, fitness, wealth, and enormous life investment in the training and practice of violence... are neither a hobby nor a loophole.

This fails the smell test.
 
The rate of aimed fire is much higher with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle than with a military-grade semi-automatic pistol. Add the extended range, the much better precision and the higher bullet velocity and you have a weapon that is far deadlier than any semi-automatic pistol.

True, although pistols are used in homicides far more than rifles. By a massive factor. One being more lethal than the other doesn't really play out in how they're actually used.
 
I must say I do find it odd for people to be so afraid of inanimate objects. I'd be more afraid of my neighbor's dog than his AR-15.

even if yer neighbor was wandering around your property with his ar15?

if I saw an unattended nerf ball on the edge of a table I wouldn't be worried. If I saw an unattended ar15 on the edge of a table I would. If it falls it could go off and kill me.
 
True, although pistols are used in homicides far more than rifles. By a massive factor. One being more lethal than the other doesn't really play out in how they're actually used.

Fortunately, rifles are somewhat impractical when you are not shooting anything.

Mine used to wave to me while I cut across his yard with my rifle slung.

Well, if someone armed with a rifle was cutting across my yard, I would think very hard before doing anything else than a friendly wave ;)
 
Well, if someone armed with a rifle was cutting across my yard, I would think very hard before doing anything else than a friendly wave ;)

True for most places, but in context, if you knew me, I think you'd wave.
 
enormous life investment in the training and practice of violence...
is a hobby, unless you are a professional.

If you do MMA, Boxing, football, rugby, karate, Akido, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, and yes... hunting and shooting, including survivalist training, target practice, etc... and you're not a pro... That's a hobby. All this sanctimonious singling out of the "shooting" hobby as special and sacred is a bunch of baloney that has worn out its welcome, courtesy of a bunch of murderers who gave the hobby a bad name. A few lines in the Constitution and POOF!... a hobby becomes a religion. I'm weary of it... and so are most of my countrymen.

You don't need an assault rifle to chase off foxes and squirrels and you don't need it to chase off (or kill) the odd prowler/or pickpocket... and on the off chance that you live in a neighborhood where you need an AK-47 to cross the street to go to the grocery store (you don't), well then you can fill out an application explaining why having a tri-pod mini-gun on your roof is necessary.

And most importantly... if the Chinese invade, well then, the armory will do just fine. If the Washington (or Chicago) scum come to take you and your neighbors to the concentration camps, the armory will do just fine.
 
Last edited:
I do many things that I am not licensed to do and that I do not get paid to do, that are also not hobbies. I'd say those things may very well take up the lion's share of my life.
 
Is there any constitutional precedent that makes a distinction between hobbies and non-hobbies?
 
I do many things that I am not licensed to do and that I do not get paid to do, that are also not hobbies. I'd say those things may very well take up the lion's share of my life.
Sure... but I didn't say "parenting" or "cooking dinner for your family" or "taking your wife out to eat" was a hobby... I said "MMA, Boxing, football, rugby, karate, Akido, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, and yes... hunting and shooting, including survivalist training, target practice" were hobbies.
who has the keys to the armory?
That's a really good question and to me, exactly the delicious peas that we can debate about (as a country). The steak is that its high time to treat hobbies like hobbies, especially hobbies that are resulting in psychos getting guns and slaughtering schoolchildren.

Anyway, my off-the-top-of-my-head answer to your question is "whoever the people of the town decide". Were going way hypothetical here, obviously, but I'm thinking it would be valid as long as SCOTUS considers it "well regulated".
 
Is there any constitutional precedent that makes a distinction between hobbies and non-hobbies?
There was no constitutional precedent that made a distinction between "separate" and "equal"... until there was.

Again, I'm acknowledging/arguing/advocating that this issue needs a SCOTUS decision.
 
There was no constitutional precedent that made a distinction between "separate" and "equal"... until there was.

Again, I'm acknowledging/arguing/advocating that this issue needs a SCOTUS decision.

Well, there already have been several cases since Heller v. DC. The SC has upheld strict gun laws and licenses. You guys won in the end.
 
If by "you guys" you mean the dead kids in Parkland and their families... I would say I disagree.

No, I mean gun control proponents in general. At least in the courtrooms. But I don't think any proposed measures so far would have stopped the Parkland tragedy, and I don't think they will in the future.
 
But I don't think any proposed measures so far would have stopped the Parkland tragedy, and I don't think they will in the future.

Many countries have drastically reduced their gun deaths and mass shootings, the US could do the same but many people in the US prefer to see thousands die every year rather than take the necessary measures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom