GOP Representative threatens O'Rouke after AR comment

[JEDIYoda]

That is a bit of a silly statement. Are you willing to admit that banning private sell and ownership of Surface to Air missiles and launchers makes us safer? What about restrictions on high explosives?
What we are talking about is the same thing. Placing proper restrictions on simi-automatic weapons will be just as effective, given enough time.

Don`t say that too loud! He might have to go cry to his imaginary sniper friend!!

 

[glenn1]

That is a bit of a silly statement. Are you willing to admit that banning private sell and ownership of Surface to Air missiles and launchers makes us safer? What about restrictions on high explosives?
What we are talking about is the same thing. Placing proper restrictions on simi-automatic weapons will be just as effective, given enough time.

Given the expense and limited use case for a civilian owning a SSM it's hard to see where that's really relevant, particularly if you're looking to use that as an example why similar restrictions should be placed on extremely common rifles. Most private citizens wouldn't want to own a guided missile frigate either but that's hardly an argument for why we should restrict those citizens from owning a canoe. I could load up the later with high explosives and paddle right up to the UN building and set it off, does that mean we should have universal background checks and need to buy all our personal watercraft at an FFL dealer?

 

[nOOky]

Jaysus who cares guys, give it a rest. I wouldn't waste a second of my time thinking I have to prove something to a random person on an online message forum lol.

Given the expense and limited use case for a civilian owning a SSM it's hard to see where that's really relevant, particularly if you're looking to use that as an example why similar restrictions should be placed on extremely common rifles. Most private citizens wouldn't want to own a guided missile frigate either but that's hardly an argument for why we should restrict those citizens from owning a canoe. I could load up the later with high explosives and paddle right up to the UN building and set it off, does that mean we should have universal background checks and need to buy all our personal watercraft at an FFL dealer?

The irony is that you can't just go get a bunch of high explosives because they are illegal, and very hard to obtain. Kind of blows that argument right out of the water

 

[glenn1]

Jaysus who cares guys, give it a rest. I wouldn't waste a second of my time thinking I have to prove something to a random person on an online message forum lol.


The irony is that you can't just go get a bunch of high explosives because they are illegal, and very hard to obtain. Kind of blows that argument right out of the water

They aren't illegal, like fully automatic weapons they require a special tax stamp to obtain and use plus some specific certification IIRC so the amount of effort required is more than most private citizens are willing to expend.

The primary point still holds though, there's not really enough distinction between "assault rifles" and "hunting rifles" to have completely different treatment of them. This isn't a question on F1 race car vs. your Prius where "time and manner" restrictions make sense for the former, it's more like restricting a black Ford Escape SUV while at the same time being perfectly OK with buying a white Honda Odyssey minivan. Aside from cosmetic differences like the sliding side door and the like they're essentially the same vehicle. Same deal with an AR-15 compared to a Remington 750, under the bans the Democrats would impose the first would be outlawed and the 2nd perfectly fine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given the expense and limited use case for a civilian owning a SSM it's hard to see where that's really relevant, particularly if you're looking to use that as an example why similar restrictions should be placed on extremely common rifles. Most private citizens wouldn't want to own a guided missile frigate either but that's hardly an argument for why we should restrict those citizens from owning a canoe. I could load up the later with high explosives and paddle right up to the UN building and set it off, does that mean we should have universal background checks and need to buy all our personal watercraft at an FFL dealer?

That's ridiculous. Federal law prohibits the possession of explosives other than under certain circumstances.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Jaysus who cares guys, give it a rest. I wouldn't waste a second of my time thinking I have to prove something to a random person on an online message forum lol.

You just did.

They aren't illegal, like fully automatic weapons they require a special tax stamp to obtain and use plus some specific certification IIRC so the amount of effort required is more than most private citizens are willing to expend.

That is actually what most of us are talking about, restrictions not out and out bans. We are using the term ban as a shortcut, but I'm willing to bet that almost everyone here would be happy with the same sort of restrictions placed on semi-automatic firearms as there are on fully automatic firearms.

The primary point still holds though, there's not really enough distinction between "assault rifles" and "hunting rifles" to have completely different treatment of them. This isn't a question on F1 race car vs. your Prius where "time and manner" restrictions make sense for the former, it's more like restricting a black Ford Escape SUV while at the same time being perfectly OK with buying a white Honda Odyssey minivan. Aside from cosmetic differences like the sliding side door and the like they're essentially the same vehicle. Same deal with an AR-15 compared to a Remington 750, under the bans the Democrats would impose the first would be outlawed and the 2nd perfectly fine.

I'm talking about restricting all semi-automatic firearms. That is a lot closer to your F1 race car vs. Prius argument, and makes sense in that context. The semi-automatic AK-15 is to the F1 what the Prius is to the bolt action hunting rifle.

 

[Paratus]

Jaysus who cares guys, give it a rest. I wouldn't waste a second of my time thinking I have to prove something to a random person on an online message forum lol.


The irony is that you can't just go get a bunch of high explosives because they are illegal, and very hard to obtain. Kind of blows that argument right out of the water

I see what you did there.

 

[glenn1]

That is actually what most of us are talking about, restrictions not out and out bans. We are using the term ban as a shortcut, but I'm willing to bet that almost everyone here would be happy with the same sort of restrictions placed on semi-automatic firearms as there are on fully automatic firearms.

So basically a distinction without a difference? The reason why few bother to jump through the necessary hoops for fully automatic weapons is that they're not super practical for most civilian applications, semi-autos are a very different story. Not only are there already 10s of millions of them in circulation unlike full autos, there's much more legitimate use cases for them for which many more people would pay for the $200 tax stamp. If you attempted to raise the price I have zero doubts that SCOTUS would strike it down as being an unnecessary burden on 2A rights. So you'd make it nominally harder for people to own them but it would be more annoyance and delay than ban.

I'm talking about restricting all semi-automatic firearms. That is a lot closer to your F1 race car vs. Prius argument, and makes sense in that context. The semi-automatic AK-15 is to the F1 what the Prius is to the bolt action hunting rifle.

The F1 is "banned" because it lacks the necessary signaling lights and such to make it street legal, not that it's an F1. Add those and you can drive it up I-95 if you like. If you got your wish to have semi-autos "banned" then shooters can adapt to lever actions which can be trained to shoot just as quickly (or something new will be invented to skirt the law) although like with above I have little doubt SCOTUS will strike it down posthaste.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If you attempted to raise the price I have zero doubts that SCOTUS would strike it down as being an unnecessary burden on 2A rights. So you'd make it nominally harder for people to own them but it would be more annoyance and delay than ban.

There is much more to the restrictions than just a $200 tax stamp. There is a registry and requirements for handling and transfer of the firearm, including requiring written permission to transport it over state lines for any reason. There is also a much more strict background check.

I doubt very seriously that SCOTUS would strike it down as to do so they would have to strike down the same laws that make military weapons restricted.

The rest of your post is just basically you getting pedantic about the analogy. Yes, I understand that a firearm is not a car you didn't need to tell me the differences. As for finding ways to skirt the law, we do that with everything and we just add to it when they do. Bumper Stocks?

 

[nOOky]

I see what you did there.

Sorry, that first line was from a previous thought I typed, but didn't post nor delete the draft. I meant to post it earlier in the middle of the boyz bickering about the photo of their guns, but decided not to.

 

[Jhhnn]

They aren't illegal, like fully automatic weapons they require a special tax stamp to obtain and use plus some specific certification IIRC so the amount of effort required is more than most private citizens are willing to expend.

The primary point still holds though, there's not really enough distinction between "assault rifles" and "hunting rifles" to have completely different treatment of them. This isn't a question on F1 race car vs. your Prius where "time and manner" restrictions make sense for the former, it's more like restricting a black Ford Escape SUV while at the same time being perfectly OK with buying a white Honda Odyssey minivan. Aside from cosmetic differences like the sliding side door and the like they're essentially the same vehicle. Same deal with an AR-15 compared to a Remington 750, under the bans the Democrats would impose the first would be outlawed and the 2nd perfectly fine.

So dishonest. Sporting autoloaders from Remington, Browning & others were not prohibited by the AWB because they don't have the right combination of features.

 

[Jhhnn]

So basically a distinction without a difference? The reason why few bother to jump through the necessary hoops for fully automatic weapons is that they're not super practical for most civilian applications, semi-autos are a very different story. Not only are there already 10s of millions of them in circulation unlike full autos, there's much more legitimate use cases for them for which many more people would pay for the $200 tax stamp. If you attempted to raise the price I have zero doubts that SCOTUS would strike it down as being an unnecessary burden on 2A rights. So you'd make it nominally harder for people to own them but it would be more annoyance and delay than ban.



The F1 is "banned" because it lacks the necessary signaling lights and such to make it street legal, not that it's an F1. Add those and you can drive it up I-95 if you like. If you got your wish to have semi-autos "banned" then shooters can adapt to lever actions which can be trained to shoot just as quickly (or something new will be invented to skirt the law) although like with above I have little doubt SCOTUS will strike it down posthaste.

Please. $200 in 1934 was the equivalent of $4000 today.

 

[glenn1]

So dishonest. Sporting autoloaders from Remington, Browning & others were not prohibited by the AWB because they don't have the right combination of features.

Yeah the bayonet lug makes the "true" assault weapons even more deadly. It's like a +5 damage buff, even more if you're also using the adamantium sundering gauntlet and elvish chain mail.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yeah the bayonet lug makes the "true" assault weapons even more deadly. It's like a +5 damage buff, even more if you're also using the adamantium sundering gauntlet and elvish chain mail.

more like +5 to intimidate. not necessarily any more deadly, but to the average person, it's a bit more threatening.

 

[SlowSpyder]

more like +5 to intimidate. not necessarily any more deadly, but to the average person, it's a bit more threatening.

The only gun I have a bayonet for is a bolt action rifle that holds five rounds. Would Beto consider that a weapon of war, as it is a WW1 era rifle? Would he take my Mosin?

 

[glenn1]

more like +5 to intimidate. not necessarily any more deadly, but to the average person, it's a bit more threatening.

Most people would have no fvckign clue what a bayonet lug is, and wouldn't be able to pick it out in a police lineup style test even if you gave them $20 if they could. It's a pretty small piece of metal in the grand scheme of things. I guess progressives must piss themselves when they think of this 5mm protrusion being used against them.

 

[JSt0rm]

Most people would have no fvckign clue what a bayonet lug is, and wouldn't be able to pick it out in a police lineup style test even if you gave them $20 if they could. It's a pretty small piece of metal in the grand scheme of things. I guess progressives must piss themselves when they think of this 5mm protrusion being used against them.

lol. look at this nerd. Nobody cares about your dick replacement.

 

[glenn1]

lol. look at this nerd. Nobody cares about your dick replacement.

If a bayonet lug frightens you so much you want them banned, maybe you should look into getting a dick newly installed for the first time.

 

[herm0016]

slow, that is the only thing i ever had with a bayonet also. They are good fun and spam cans of ammo are cheap. I traded it and a crate of ammo for a boat many years ago.

 

[Jhhnn]

Most people would have no fvckign clue what a bayonet lug is, and wouldn't be able to pick it out in a police lineup style test even if you gave them $20 if they could. It's a pretty small piece of metal in the grand scheme of things. I guess progressives must piss themselves when they think of this 5mm protrusion being used against them.

So dishonest. Bayonet lugs had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the AWB. Civilian versions of military carbines came with & without them, then & now.

 

[trenchfoot]

What I know about bayonets is that I used to think of them being mounted on an AK and seeing it just about to stab me in the face so that I'd not fall asleep at my OP or in my hole at night, especially when the FOF all of a sudden goes quiet just like how the house goes quiet when the kids are up to some shit.

Never thought about that for the longest time until I read this thread and thought I'd bring a different perspective to the subject about what a bayonet and the lug it gets attached to means to some other folks.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Beto sounds like someone that gets his information on guns from the movies. Ignorant people trying to make decisions about my constitutional rights. What is going on today?

Beto O'Rourke on CNN: I Will Not Confiscate Hunting Rifles

Democrat presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke confirmed his support for gun confiscation but said he does not plan on taking hunting rifles.

www.breitbart.com

 

[JEDIYoda]

The F1 is "banned" because it lacks the necessary signaling lights and such to make it street legal, not that it's an F1. Add those and you can drive it up I-95 if you like.

Again you don1t know what your talking about.........that is just 1 of the many issues --

Because, there is no local area in the world where F1 cars would be street legal. It doesn’t have the requirements like ground clearance, lights, rear view mirror, proper suspension, engine, brakes and pretty much every bit of the car is refined and engineered to suit the track conditions but not the street..!!

But the even bigger questions is why would even someone want to legalise something like that for the street? The reality of trying to drive one would be laughable…. you’d either destroy the front wing or breach it trying to drive down the driveway to leave your home…. and i’ll list out the odds of driving it..

• You have to be able to drive it with almost “no brakes” as you can never get them to working temperature on these streets.
• You need to have a new set of tires for every 20 miles or so considering the road conditions.
• Even if you did, the road debris and the lack of water to cool down the slick tires would degrade the ride quality.
• And get ready to jump signals and pay the tickets coz’ if you stop at a red light… you might blow the engine up due to the lack of sufficient airflow around it.
• And make sure you get a replacement engine for every 5 hours of driving it non stop… but, if you stop at red lights you may need one every 2 hours.
• Do not expect to return home as the probability of you ending up in an accident is a lot as you can only have the view of the road in front from beneath the SUV’s and Trucks..!!
• This list could go on and on….
  
  If you are rich enough to do all the above and still willing to do it…. hire a physio as the suspension would kill your back making you a cripple in nothing less than a month…!!!
  
  If I were you probably settle for a Saleen S7 or a Bugatti Veyron or a Koinigsegg Agera One or a McLaren P1… well, probably anything with 700+ Horsepower and 6 Pistons per calliper brake shoes..!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

a f1 would yank the manhole covers off the road and toss them 2 stories up. Glenn doesnt know what he is talking about.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Love this video. Beto, you're not taking AR's. Mark my words, even if he wins, he will not confiscate AR15s and AK47s. The pro-2A crowd tends to be a bit on edge about Democrats wanting to take our guns, Beto was just more transparent about it compared to the typical lying lefty politician. He's galvanizing pro-2A'ers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1174852966911795201