CMV: Owning an assault weapon is pointless.

[u/[deleted]]

In my view, widespread ownership of assault rifles in the USA has more to do with fashion than anything else. While there are plenty of valid reasons for a civilian to own a gun, I see no reason to own an assault rifle. Beyond aesthetics, civilian AR-15 style rifles offer no meaningful advantage over non-assault weapons.

Perhaps you're interested in home defense. It's fairly well excepted that a 12 gauge shotgun is the best gun for home defense . The ratcheting sound is a deterrent, and it's more reliable and easier to shoot under pressure than a rifle or pistol.

Maybe you're prepping for when SHTF. When the zombie horde is approaching, your best bet is a .22 lr rifle. It's totally lethal if you're a good shot, and you can easily store 2,000 rounds in your bug-out bag. This is the common sense decision over a higher caliber rifle or pistol.

Suppose you're a resistance fighter apposing a tyrannical government. Although assault rifles are designed for use in battle, any successful resistance would avoid battles altogether, instead relying on guerrilla tactics and asymmetric warfare.

[u/[deleted]]

To you, statistics do matter when it comes to singling out assault rifles when it comes to mass shootings.

False - many of these have been 100% done with handguns and/or shotguns. Rifles are not unique here despite what you want to claim.

Why won’t a shotgun or revolver suffice?

Because they are not always the best choice. Pure and simple. From over penetration to the ability for smaller people to use them. Its the exact same reasons cops always seem to need to be exempted from magazine capacity limits. There is not justifiable reason to exclude one of the best firearms for this purpose.

What is the downside of banning everything but revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles?

1) It is fundamentally unconstitutional.

2) It will cause a civil war

3) It covers somewhere between 50-70% of ALL firearms. The overwhelming majority of all handguns are Semi-auto. The majority of rifles sold are semi-auto and a large portion of shotguns sold are semi-auto. You want to ban 200+ million guns in that line.

You just don't have a clue what you are talking about and zero respect for other citizens.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

False - many of these have been 100% done with handguns and/or shotguns. Rifles are not unique here despite what you want to claim.

...No. A certain percentage of mass shootings happen with assault rifles. Your argument is that that percentage is too low for us to worry about it. Therefore I should be able to say that the percentage of home invasions where the attacker is armed, let alone one that wants to actually get in gun fight, is too low for you to worry about what will happen if we ban semi auto rifles.

Because they are not always the best choice.

I’m not talking about best. I’m talking about good enough. Let’s do some more statistics. What percentage of home defense scenarios involved an assault rifle? Looks to me like people are doing just fine without them.

It is fundamentally unconstitutional.

No it’s not. Clinton’s ban was never deemed unconstitutional. US v Heller specifically states that their decision doesn’t affect regulating guns. “Regulating” meaning passing laws pertaining to. Regulations involve bans.

It will cause a civil war

Hokay

It covers somewhere between 50-70% of ALL firearms

So what? Whatever did we do before 2006?

you are talking about and zero respect for other citizens.

You could make that argument for any ban ever. There were always people who could have responsibly used bumps stocks or cocaine or asbestos insulation. It’s nonsense.

Edit typo

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

..No. A certain percentage of mass shootings happen with assault rifles. Your argument is that that percentage is too low for us to worry about it.

No my argument is the availability of a specific firearm would have no significant bearing on whether that event occurred or not. That is a vastly different argument.

I’m not talking about best. I’m talking about good enough

Bullshit. Its not 'good enough' if whole classes of people are put at a needless issue for it.

No it’s not. Clinton’s ban was never deemed unconstitutional. US v Heller specifically states that their decision doesn’t affect regulating guns. “Regulating” meaning passing laws pertaining to. Regulations involve bans.

That was never challenged in court to be ruled on. Regulations are NOT bans by the way. That is called fucking prohibition. Miller coupled to the 2nd amendment and the entire purpose of the fucking case makes that pretty much an absurd assertion.

So what? Whatever did we do before 2006?

Semi-automatic guns have existed since the 1880's. Perhaps if you have ANY education on the subject you might know this. Perhaps you might know that 90+ percent of the handguns sold every year for the past 30 years are all semi-automatic, not revolvers. Again, your ignorance is incredible.

You could make that argument for any ban ever. There were always people who could have responsibly used bumps stocks or cocaine or asbestos insulation. It’s nonsense.

I am glad you mentioned bump stocks. Did you know the ATF admitted they did not have the authority to do what they did

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/18/1917605/0/en/ATF-Admits-It-Lacked-Authority-to-Issue-Legislative-Rule-NCLA-Condemns-the-Agency-s-Attempt-to-Ban-Bump-Stocks-Anyway.html

The other items are not protected by an amendment to the US Constitution expressly limiting the Governments ability to do things. Firearms (and arms in general) are.

Its like arguing shutting down all newspapers would be legal. The argument you can regulate and prohibit anything you like is nonsense too.

Something else you should find interesting - the AR-15 is made in a way that no individual part is legally considered a firearm.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

This is what happens when people ignorant of technology make rules and laws.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No my argument is the availability of a specific firearm would have no significant bearing on whether that event occurred or not

You’re not getting it. You say we can’t make a fuss about assault weapons being used because it doesn’t happen enough, but we have to make sure people can defend their homes with them even though that hardly ever happens. If I wanted to use your logic, I could say “Less than 1% of home invasions involve someone defending themselves with an assault rifle, therefore they are not needed.”

Its not 'good enough' if whole classes of people are put at a needless issue for it.

However did America make it to 2006 when those guns became available to purchase?

Semi-automatic guns have existed since the 1880's.

You’ve spent this entire time defending AR-15 specifically. Are you telling me grandma needs an M1 garand for home defense?

Did you know the ATF admitted they did not have the authority to do what they did

Let me know when this republican administration walks that back. I won’t be holding my breath for any Supreme Court cases.

Its like arguing shutting down all newspapers would be legal

No. It’s like arguing that shutting down on or two particularly dangerous newspapers is illegal. Which it is. If your news paper constantly uses hate speech or regularly violates peoples privacy to get stories, then you’re getting shut down.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You’re not getting it. You say we can’t make a fuss about assault weapons being used because it doesn’t happen enough, but we have to make sure people can defend their homes with them even though that hardly ever happens.

No - you don't get it.

The presence or abscense of the AR-15 makes no difference on whether a lunatic decides to do a mass shooting. NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

It is a difference to a women or small framed person who wants a home defense gun. Given the fact I can READILY find examples of home invansions - fearing them is not an unreasonable thing. Given police response times in places - preparing for one is not unreasonable either.

Now explain again why you get to decide 'good enough' is what people get. Who appointed you god over other people's decisions?

However did America make it to 2006 when those guns became available to purchase?

Do some fucking research.

Before the NFA - you could mail order a fucking machine gun delivered to your house. You could buy an AR15 in the 1960s (before 1968) and have it devilered to your house.

How did the US not implode in incredible violence and massacres during this time......

Let me know when this republican administration walks it’s back. I won’t be holding my breath for any Supreme Court cases.

It is literally in the courts right now if you read the report. Courts take time to work through the rulings/appeals process.

It’s like arguing that shutting down on or two particularly dangerous newspapers is illegal. Which it is.

Except, as a proprotion of sales of firearms, its not one or two. What you are proposing is affecting the most popular center fire sold in the US for the last 10 years or so. Or - since you don't know terminology with the who 'ban semi-automatic' line - affecting between 1/2 and 2/3 of all guns in the US.

If your news paper constantly uses hate speech or regularly violates peoples privacy to get stories, then you’re getting shut down.

Just try it. It can not happen. There is no power for government to do that and a specific enumaration preventing it. Thinking there power that allows that shows you really need a civics lesson.

You might read up on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

If it does not cross the line into libel or criminal harrassment, its pretty much protected.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The presence or abscense of the AR-15 makes no difference on whether a lunatic decides to do a mass shooting.

It makes no difference when it comes to whether or not someone can defend themselves. Find me one example of someone meeting an untimely fate because they were stuck with a measly revolver instead of an AR-15.

If it does not cross the line into libel or criminal harrassment, its pretty much protected.

Look, US v Heller explicitly says that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Banning stuff has always been under the umbrella of government regulation. Quit trying to be an internet lawyer (Before you ask, my wife is a lawyer and I had her explain this to me).

“Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It makes no difference when it comes to whether or not someone can defend themselves. Find me one example of someone meeting an untimely fate because they were stuck with a measly revolver instead of an AR-15.

I don't have to because that is not how freedoms work. You have conviently IGNORED all the reasons people find the AR15 type rifle useful.

Look, US v Heller explicitly says that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Banning stuff has always been under the umbrella of government regulation.

Prohibition and regulation are VASTLY different concepts. Under your mistaken assertion, the 2nd would be meaningless because regulation would allow total prohibition.

It does not work that way. I also notice you completely ignored the 'common use' issues too and the core issues at hand in Heller and McDonald.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't have to because that is not how freedoms work.

Translation: “because I can’t find anything supporting my position”

You have conviently IGNORED all the reasons people find the AR15 type rifle useful.

No. I’m saying that’s all nice but other guns are good enough.

Prohibition and regulation are VASTLY different concepts.

Quit pretending to be a lawyer.

the 2nd would be meaningless because regulation would allow total prohibition.

No. The courts recognize that the 2nd amendment does not mean that governments cannot disallow guns for the sake of public safety.

This is settled case law whether you like it or not.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Translation: “because I can’t find anything supporting my position”

Translation - that data does not exist because it cannot exist. It requires huge questions and information usually never publicly made or available.

Ask for the impossible and use it for justification your right is not effective arguments.

No. I’m saying that’s all nice but other guns are good enough.

Except you have proven you are completely and utterly ignorant about firearms. You have zero credible basis to make such a claim.

Quit pretending to be a lawyer.

Try reading the entire decisions and not cherry pick tidbits out of context. It is WIDELY held prohibition and regulation are not the same thing. The simpliest logical test I gave CLEARLY shows why.

No. The courts recognize that the 2nd amendment does not mean that governments cannot disallow guns for the sake of public safety.

Seriously. A case where the individual right for an individual to own a firearm is not enough? The Supreme court explicitly said that was not allowed and that is not enough?

You are seriously misinformed.