Buying an AR-15 in California

[Milchshake]

I own AR-15s.

Fuck them for home defense.

Had no idea the EVo's used plastic uppers until I saw this. With an oversized barrel shroud they could totally market it to anime fans.

[TITAN308]

Had no idea the EVo's used plastic uppers until I saw this. With an oversized barrel shroud they could totally market it to anime fans.

Whole thing is polymer.

[Ghostpanther]

we have less gun crime per capita tho

There are more important factors at work in Chile for the low gun violence rate then just gun ownership or gun laws I am sure. Like I said before, if you want to look at the rate per capita here, look at Vermont. Mexico has very strict gun laws. But those have not stopped their horrendous gun violence rate.

[Thepersona]

There are more important factors at work in Chile for the low gun violence rate then just gun ownership or gun laws I am sure. Like I said before, if you want to look at the rate per capita here, look at Vermont. Mexico has very strict gun laws. But those have not stopped their horrendous gun violence rate.

oh yeah, the best thing is that we're so fucking far away from the things (drug trade/war/refugee crisis/hell even a nuclear war wouldnt affect us directly).
we literally live on the butt of the world

[TrumpIsPresident]

There are clearly limits to what "arms" citizens are allowed to bear. Nobody disagrees with that, really. It's just a discussion about exactly WHERE to draw that line.

Then it shouldn't a problem at all to have things like voter ID laws, right?

Seeing as how their existence isn't banning the right to vote but setting a sensible limit.

Don't you agree its just amazingly telling that the same alignment which makes people jump through an absurd amount of hoops to enjoy one right is belligerently against any hoops of any kind in order to enjoy another right - even such hoops that are essential in maintaining the integrity of said right?

Banning weapons like the AR-15 is just a small nudge of that line, not some huge shift.

But is it even banned?

Because from that video it sounds like all they've done is add a bunch of retarded steps to the reloading process.

The gun still functions exactly as any other AR, its still "scary" - derp on that term.

How much tax payer money do you imagine was wasted in the creation of his law to say nothing of the enforcement to come?

All for ...what? ...nothing?

As the guy in the video claims, no guns of "bullet button" type were recovered from crimes.

Meanwhile the count is up to 76 deaths attributed to guns distributed by Obama and Holder's brilliant F&F scheme.

I'd be willing to bet you a steak dinner the lawmakers behind this bit of nonsense didn't have much objection to that whole ordeal.

/humph

[Sunseeker]

They aren't even really banning the AR-15. They are requiring a new modification that makes reloading take longer. Old models are no longer legal to sell while new models will be.

Which most gun people I talk to have suggested isn't a big deal and would go a long way to reducing shootings by 1: reducing the number of rounds you can fire before reloading and 2: giving a longer pause between firing for someone to potentially counterattack or at least escape.

[Mad_Murdock]

"Because they buy their guns outside of Chicago"

However they never explain why places outside of Chicago where people do buy lots of guns has no where near the same gun homicide rate.

But that's pretty obvious. Can't buy a gun in the city limits, go outside the city limits and load up on guns and then drive back. The places outsides the city limits don't have the gangs that the places inside the city limits has.

I grew up in a "dry" county. But the county next to us sold alcohol. Why did our county have higher drinking and drives wrecks and deaths? We were dry! Because many people went to buy the alcohol and started drinking it on the way home or wherever they were going. The people inside the county tend to waited until they got home to start drinking.

[Ghostpanther]

Which most gun people I talk to have suggested isn't a big deal and would go a long way to reducing shootings by 1: reducing the number of rounds you can fire before reloading and 2: giving a longer pause between firing for someone to potentially counterattack or at least escape.

Except the ones who are scums who would go on a shooting spree do not need to get their weapons in California or even care about the laws anyway. Or they could be like the two in Europe who did not even use a firearm. A heavy truck can do a lot of damage in a very short time. :P

[Sunseeker]

Except the ones who are scums who would go on a shooting spree do not need to get their weapons in California or even care about the laws anyway. Or they could be like the two in Europe who did not even use a firearm. A heavy truck can do a lot of damage in a very short time. :P

Okay, so what? The fact that criminals break the law isn't a reason not to have laws.

But your logic laws against murder are a waste of time because murders just gonna do it anyway.

[Orange Joe]

Except the ones who are scums who would go on a shooting spree do not need to get their weapons in California or even care about the laws anyway. Or they could be like the two in Europe who did not even use a firearm. A heavy truck can do a lot of damage in a very short time. :P

So what your saying is, because some will still do it. Make it easy for everyone?

[Dsc]

Only if you ask nicely... (sorry I spelled your username wrong lmao)

very nice. /salute. much respect.

* I still like the AR around the house, but yeah G19 is under the pillow.


edit: I'll add that the Europeans can buy that hearing protection device off the shelf, no hassles. yet we have to submit paperwork, pay for a "tax stamp" and get permission from the ATF to have one. that law needs to change.

[TITAN308]

So what your saying is, because some will still do it. Make it easy for everyone?

For law abiding citizens? Sure.

[lockedout]

Pretty low in Vermont too. And they have very lax gun laws. No permit needed to carry open or concealed there. I know, they do not have as many people or the other issues large cities have, but it is still the fact that gun ownership or loose gun laws of itself does not cause high gun violence in terms of per 100k population.

Hmm, what's different in Vermont and Chicago for instance?

[breadisfunny]

this is sure to be a very rational and reasonable thread full of clearly nonbiased arguments on both sides.

[TITAN308]

this is sure to be a very rational and reasonable thread full of clearly nonbiased arguments on both sides.

No kidding.

But here is my take: I'm not a criminal so fuck anyone who wants to treat me like I am one or a potential one.

[xuros]

Nobody NEEDS an AR-15

I dont NEED it, but I do love my AR-15s.

[Berengil]

The 2nd amendment was one of two terrible mistakes by the founders in the Constitution. The other ( and certainly the worst) was not banning slavery from the beginning of the republic.

It is my firm personal conviction that only police and soldiers ( as well as former police and soldiers who retired in good standing) should possess firearms. The right provided in the 2nd amendment is one I find morally disgusting and am proud to choose not to exercise.

My dad gave up trying to get me to hunt and target shoot pretty early, as you might imagine.

[Sunseeker]

For law abiding citizens? Sure.

Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't.

[Stormdash]

Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't.

And should be treated as such until they aren't, obviously.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

"You'd think this would be an infringement of our right to bear arms . . . "

Yeah, no. Congress has been VERY clear for well over a century that that particular right is limited in nature. Otherwise, you'd be able to argue you had a right to own weaponized Anthrax, or a nuclear bomb, or whatnot. There are clearly limits to what "arms" citizens are allowed to bear. Nobody disagrees with that, really. It's just a discussion about exactly WHERE to draw that line. Banning weapons like the AR-15 is just a small nudge of that line, not some huge shift.

A few things: I disagree with you on more things than I probably do with these gun nuts, I do however probably share a similar view on this topic these guns are unnecessary for civilian use and we'd probably be safer with them being banned. That being said, I don't know how it is Canada, but it in the US (theoretically at least) Congress has 0/zilch/no authority to decide/limit some one's rights, that is the job of the courts-- they interpret the constitution etc. So for example if the courts decide the 2nd amendment includes AR 15s, but rocket launchers are not covered two things can happen. Congress can ban rocket launchers, but not AR 15s or they can allow both weapons to be legal. Maybe I am just putting too much emphasis on your wording, but the whole congress and limiting a right really irked me.