After AR15's are banned, then what?

Yep, there are choices and there are choices. Some of them I managed to achieve high skill with. As I have posted, previously, one gun, my first was a 1950’s J.C.Higgins .22 s-l-lr Tube fed bolt action that has taken more game than my entire collection combined. I could shoot it extremely rapidly and put so many rounds down range with it that shooting it was/is instinctive; if I could see it, whether still, moving or flying, I could hit it.
My current (Swiss Army Knife)... a continuously modified, AR lower with a Geissele trigger group and upper chambered in .223/5.56, Grendel, and .458. Instinctive for me.
BTW, long before ‘bumpfire’ was coined, back in the 70’s/early 80’s we learned (not sure where) how to do controlled bumpfire, un-assisted, on demand with any semi auto ranging from .22s to my Browning Safari (even my Remington shotgun).
My, .22... in possession of my eldest girl, destined for her son someday.
Still searching for that perfect Hollywood gun...never misses, never malfunctions, endless capacity, good for anything and is concealable. Someday...

 

Many, like the SMLE Enfield or the very fast operating Swiss K31, were quickly reloaded loaded using stripper clips. But, with the LE, you could carry 10 rnd mags for even faster reloading. BTW, the Florida school shooter, carried 10 rnd mags... they better fit in his pack. The SWISS K31 used en blok clips (the design basis for Garand clips). 20 rnd mags were available (still are) for the SMLE, but, loaded with .303, are heavy and inconvenient for prone use; but then why... clip reloads or 10 rnd mag reloads are very quick... It’s worth noting that the Brits used the SMLE throughout WWII and beyond when other options were available.
Given the hysteria about ‘standard’ capacity (usually 30 rnd) mags or larger what GCAs don’t understand is many inexperienced shooters will experience mag feed problems of which increase in frequency potential for 40, 60 and 100 rnd mags. Again... the Hollywood educated perceive guns with endless capacities that never malfunction.

 

Well hey my favorite TV cowboy The Rifeman could shoot that modified deal of his like a semi auto. Based on what I understand it was a 44-40' Winchester 1892 ?? I think the Henry used .45 cal but I could be wrong I was wrong once.

 

Semi-automatic rifles have been on the market well over a 100 years. They are not automatic. Also, semi-autos are better rifles than other rifles. They have advantanges, which is why they are slowly taking over the firearm's market. Also, the whole thing is stupid. Less people were murdered in the U.S. last year with all rifles (of which semi-autos are only a subset) than with fists or knives.

 

Yes
I am just saying to treat them like full auto
After all, as many on this thread have pointed out, the full auto weapons are easily available....

 

Nobody has said full auto weapons are easily available. They are available, but it's far from easy. Pretty much only the rich can afford them. I don't want to live in a society that only the rich have full rights, but I guess you're ok with it. Semi-auto weapons have been commonly available for a century. It's silly to ban them or greatly restrict them based on a few incidents. That, and then the mass murderers will start changing weapons, and will start using fires or trucks. In Japan, in July, a young man, mad at an anime studio for rejecting his ideas, burned the studio down. Killed 33 people and injured another 30. That's a higher bodycount than all but two of our mass shootings.

 

Give them a inch and they think they are rulers.

 

I just want them regulated the same way.

There seems to be an adequate supplu of ar so this will not be a problem

All non semi auto guns would be in affected

Equal.... right.... eqaul to full auto weapons

 

I guess that is a distinction that has not yet been made
I just assumed that since so many people rushed to tell me about the availability of autos... they were satisfied with the availability of these guns

Do tell
Then why was it so terribly important to tell me they were a available? What was the point being made?

I had no idea.... i was just going on what people told me

Like full auto

Yes.... but the same rationale coild apply to full auto weapons

a shame

 

We won’t let you do this though, which you seem to keep ignoring.

 

To show you that you really don't know enough about firearms and firearms law to be commenting on them.

Personally, I believe that full auto weapons should be legal for any who can legally own a gun. I also believe that any illicit usage of a gun should be harshly punished. A convicted felon caught with a gun should never see the light of day (except through chain link) again. Anybody who uses a gun as part of committing another crime should have at least 20 real years tacked onto their sentence. Anyway, people who want to hurt other people will find a way. Punishing innocent people by taking away their rights won't stop the bad guys from getting guns. All it does is stop good people from having guns. I've had possession of guns since I was about 14 (almost 39 years ago). I have harmed exactly 0 people with guns (and have had 0 guns stolen, etc., guns that have been in my possession have been totally harmless to other human beings). Why should I be restricted in owning guns at all? How does stopping me from owning a .22 semi-automatic (which a proposal in Florida does) at all help reduce violent crime. It doesn't. All it does is harass me.

 

What happened to the first amendment?

You are entitled to an opinion.... unlike me, who you think is not entitled to an opinion

Yes, but we do not make rpg rocket launchers legal
Using that logic

It seems to work well for rocket launchers

We have lots of good people who already have guns
I hardly think anything we mighy actually do will cause a shortage of guns

You can now buy a machine gun
All you have to do is follow a procedure

I can see you are upset

 

What gets me is the term gun buy back, as if the firearm property were originally owned by the government. Sorry, mine aren't for sale.

 

If there is truly no meaningful difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic, then fully-automatic firearms should be subjected to the same restrictions as semi-automatic firearms, rather than the other way around.

 

Fun fact: They also declined to allow use of the detachable magazine (at least initially) and you can still find early models with a fine chain that connects the magazine to the trigger guard so it cannot be detached easily. They assumed 1) that the british soldier is a brute beast who will lose his equipment if its not tied to him and 2) that such fire rates would mean they were constantly wasting ammunition instead of choosing their shots.
That and a magazine interrupt so the 10rd mag would stay filled and you would reload by hand. Then, at a whistle command you would lock back the interrupt and do a 'mad minute' of sustained fire.

 

Full autos are restricted to only those registered before May 16 1986. So... no you would immediately run into a structural issue, to say nothing of the constitutional violations

 

You are entitled to an opinion, but, IMHO, it's wrong, due to your ignorance. Really, you need to study the issue before making up silly laws and claims. You just end up showing us that you don't really know what you are talking about.

RPGs are legal, they just take a lot of paper work.

isn't that your intent? To rid the country of guns.

Yes, because your ideas are unjust and ridiculous. Of course I'm upset. My basic liberties are being threatened, in a country where we have half of the murder rate that we had 30 years ago. We are in a fairly peaceful time in this country.

 

I am curious
Have you ever encountered anyone with different opinions whom you think DOES know what they are talking about?

It seems to me that you have a set of facts the inexorably leads to the opinions that you have..... which inevitably implies that anyone who has a different opinion does not know the facts and therefore is uninformed, and therefore has no right to have an opinion

Yes, this is a good plan for semi autos too

No, that is not my intent
My intent is that more destructive guns require more paperwork
And become difficult to obtain like other very dangerous weapons. (Rpg)

No, your basic liberties will still be there.... just more cumbersome

Yes, i agree

Lets postulate a spectrum of possible policy opinions
On one end of the spectrum.... you have zero regulations. Gun policy would be like Afghanistan or Somalia.... you buy what ever you can afford

On the other end-of the spectrum....lets say china or north korea.... where you have zero access or right to own a gun

So there is a spectrum of policy options which we can choose
I want to move the policy further away from the Afghanistan end of the spectrum

You have said that my intent is to rid the country of guns
That is not my intent. Making the country less like Afghanistan is not the same as elimination of all guns

There are absolutely people who need guns
And there are responsible people who simply like guns
I am fine with that too
So, no, i do not want to eliminate guns

 

I'm a staunch 2A supporter, as my posting history would show, but I think the only thing that would happen if we amended that "amendment", got rid of AR15's... is an end to the ever increasing gun massacres and little else.

I've never heard a valid argument to owing one. You never see, "Good guy with a gun" prevents a tragity" using an AR15 or "Home intruder thwarted" with AR15, even the whole protection from a "Tyrannical Government" falls flat considering what we'd be up against now...

Honestly, the only time I ever hear about an AR15 at all, is when people are slaughtered with one.

That crazy cop, who murdered Daniel Shaver in that hotel hallway, got it right when he had "You're ****ed" etched onto his AR15.


If It could've saved even one of those babies at Sandy Hook, or a teen at Parkland or a concert goer in Nevada or any person enjoying an evening out, any child going to school or church, people shopping or wherever, they can have those fck'n AR15's.

And what's really sad is it WOULD save lives and we know it, but by making it a political issue ONLY, you have to deliberately ignore the obvious. (Just like the Liberals do regarding immigration laws! "Oh! There are some wonderful immigrants! Let's let em ALL in!" ).

People who dig in with their political beliefs even when it's clearly detrimental to our nation, whatever their affiliation, will never make any sense to me.

 

01

Then going after the AR is incorrect as it is not a very destructive gun when compared to many other rifles out there, in fact it is quite underpowered in the grand scheme of things.

 

There are a chit ton of people who would beg to disagree with you, only they can't cause their dead now.

 

Then you are not looking very hard for such uses, recently an elderly homeowner used an AR to thwart a home invasion or Stephen Willeford who engaged a active shooter in Sutherland Texas.

The Hero of the Sutherland Springs Shooting Is Still Reckoning With What Happened That Day

A year in the life of Stephen Willeford, who disrupted the mass murder in his small town’s First Baptist Church and became known as the ultimate good guy with a gun.

"He rushed into a back room and opened his steel gun safe, where he stows his collection of pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Without hesitation, he snatched one of his AR-15s. He’d put the rifle together himself, swapping out parts and upgrading here and there over the years. It was light, good for mobility, and could shoot quickly. It wasn’t as accurate as some of his other rifles but good enough to hit the bowling pins he and his friends used for targets. He loaded a handful of rounds into the magazine."

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/stephen-willeford-sutherland-springs-mass-murder/

 

Well they do not understand rifles and firepower.

But if you wish to get emotional versus factual go for it, but do not forget that's a typical GCA argument.