Buying an AR-15 in California

[Cebel]

Cars are not designed with the intent to harm. Guns are. Apples to orangutans mate.

Lmao. The intent poses no argument in this conversation. You really think the millions of us that carry or own guns intend to go kill people? You're a moron.

[Endus]

But owning an AR-15 doesn't run up on other people's rights. So why is that an acceptable restriction to you?

The risk it presents as a weapon does. Same reason you can't own a nuclear weapon, or bio-weapons, or grenades, or whatnot.

On the spectrum of weapons from "pocket knife or small stick" to "nuclear missile", there's gonna be a line drawn where stuff is no longer legal for private citizens to own. The 2nd Amendment doesn't negate that.

[TITAN308]

The risk it presents as a weapon does. Same reason you can't own a nuclear weapon, or bio-weapons, or grenades, or whatnot..

That is a straw man. There is a clear and distinct difference between small arms and arms that can kill indiscriminately as well as continue to kill after being used.

[Cebel]

Congress? They don't allow the CDC to do any research on gun violence.

I just googled Gun Violence research, theres plenty.

Also what does the center for disease control have to do with gun violence.

[Endus]

That is a straw man. There is a clear and distinct difference between small arms and arms that can kill indiscriminately as well as continue to kill after being used.

It isn't a straw man", at all. There's a line drawn where some weapons are deemed unacceptable for private citizens. The 2nd Amendment does not specify "small arms", that is a straw man.

Once you acknowledge that Congress is free to pass laws defining where that line is drawn, you've given up the 2nd Amendment argument for defending why an AR-15 can't be on the "illegal" side of that line.

[Cebel]

The risk it presents as a weapon does. Same reason you can't own a nuclear weapon, or bio-weapons, or grenades, or whatnot.

On the spectrum of weapons from "pocket knife or small stick" to "nuclear missile", there's gonna be a line drawn where stuff is no longer legal for private citizens to own. The 2nd Amendment doesn't negate that.

Except breaking news: People who buy guns legally, RARELY commit crimes with them. The vast majority of gun related crimes are fucking thugs in the hood killing other thugs because one thug wears blue and the other thug wears red, and anyone around those other thugs are obviously acceptable collateral according to those thugs.

Meanwhile you have Obama, FROM CHICAGO, yet he's done absolutely NOTHING for the people in Chiraq. In fact, the situation has done nothing but get worse in inner cities under Obamas reign.

But yeah lets just fuck that logic and vote for another democrat who pushes the fuckin race card for no god damn reason to get the vote of the people they've done nothing for for over 50 years.

[TITAN308]

It isn't a straw man", at all. There's a line drawn where some weapons are deemed unacceptable for private citizens. The 2nd Amendment does not specify "small arms", that is a straw man.

Once you acknowledge that Congress is free to pass laws defining where that line is drawn, you've given up the 2nd Amendment argument for defending why an AR-15 can't be on the "illegal" side of that line.

Well at the end of the day good luck to them on that.

I still say a weapon cannot inherently infringe on the freedom of another simply by being a weapon, like you are implying. It doesn't infringe upon anymore than a bottle of booze or a car does. I don't suspect your mind will be changed on this so we can just agree to disagree.

[stabetha]

That is a straw man. There is a clear and distinct difference between small arms and arms that can kill indiscriminately as well as continue to kill after being used.

once these clowns start with the "dur Nuclear weapons are comparable to ar's" it's time to just ignore them and go and shoot some targets.

[TITAN308]

once these clowns start with the "dur Nuclear weapons are comparable to ar's" it's time to just ignore them and go out shooting.

He likes to bring up the idea that limitations exist because people writing laws want there to be reasonable distinctions.

Well anyone who is completely neutral on the matter would clearly rule a rifle is in no shape or form a nuclear device and would treat such a comparison as downright retarded.

In his words how about we draw the "line" at the fucking obvious. Nuclear bombs and anthrax. =/

[stabetha]

Except breaking news: People who buy guns legally, RARELY commit crimes with them. The vast majority of gun related crimes are fucking thugs in the hood killing other thugs because one thug wears blue and the other thug wears red, and anyone around those other thugs are obviously acceptable collateral according to those thugs.

Meanwhile you have Obama, FROM CHICAGO, yet he's done absolutely NOTHING for the people in Chiraq. In fact, the situation has done nothing but get worse in inner cities under Obamas reign.

But yeah lets just fuck that logic and vote for another democrat who pushes the fuckin race card for no god damn reason to get the vote of the people they've done nothing for for over 50 years.

I wish my people would wake up and see blacks are nothing but useful idiots to the democrat party.

[PickleballAce]

Yeah! Who wants to live somewhere with drastically lower gun violence rates than the US?

Either way, Chile's homicide rate (3.6) is roughly equal with the US (3.9). It's not really a utopia in comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

[Endus]

He likes to bring up the idea that limitations exist because people writing laws want there to be reasonable distinctions.

Well anyone who is completely neutral on the matter would clearly rule a rifle is in no shape or form a nuclear device and would treat such a comparison as downright retarded.

I wasn't making that comparison.

I was pointing out that both are weapons, and that because everyone agrees that nuclear bombs shouldn't be in private hands, we're not discussing whether some weapons should be illegal to own, we're discussing which weapons should be illegal.

The entire point of my argument was that nuclear bombs and bioweapons are way over that line, so far that there's no real debate about them. I clearly wasn't equating them to AR-15s and the like, just demonstrating that there's a range of weapons, from relatively-innocuous to mass-destruction, and somewhere along that range, there's a line drawn saying "private citizens can't own stuff beyond this line". AR-15s and similar weapons are near where that line's drawn, in the USA, so there's debate about whether to redraw that line to eliminate them or not. This is a small shift in gun legislation, not some huge leap like some pretend.

And it isn't comparing them to nukes. Nukes were the most-extreme end of the range of available weapons. They were cited just to get you to admit that yes, some weapons shouldn't be legal to own. Because once you admit that, we can agree that it's about where to (re)draw the line, not whether you draw that line.

[Mavett]

What's next? sealing mag wells on semi automatic pistols forcing you to manually load one round at a time?

[stabetha]

I wasn't making that comparison.

I was pointing out that both are weapons, and that because everyone agrees that nuclear bombs shouldn't be in private hands, we're not discussing whether some weapons should be illegal to own, we're discussing which weapons should be illegal.

The entire point of my argument was that nuclear bombs and bioweapons are way over that line, so far that there's no real debate about them. I clearly wasn't equating them to AR-15s and the like, just demonstrating that there's a range of weapons, from relatively-innocuous to mass-destruction, and somewhere along that range, there's a line drawn saying "private citizens can't own stuff beyond this line". AR-15s and similar weapons are near where that line's drawn, in the USA, so there's debate about whether to redraw that line to eliminate them or not. This is a small shift in gun legislation, not some huge leap like some pretend.

And it isn't comparing them to nukes. Nukes were the most-extreme end of the range of available weapons. They were cited just to get you to admit that yes, some weapons shouldn't be legal to own. Because once you admit that, we can agree that it's about where to (re)draw the line, not whether you draw that line.

so that line starts with "they're scary looking" ?

[Thepersona]

Chile's homicide rate (3.6) is roughly equal with the US (3.9).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

Gun homicide rate is much lower tho. Its funny (well no that much) but many of our homicides are weird drunken fights (with axes).
On the grim side, about 10% of the total homicides in 2014 were due to gender violence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ted_death_rate

[stabetha]

Cars are not designed with the intent to harm. Guns are. Apples to orangutans mate.

guns are designed to release a firing pin to strike a primer and set off a chemical reaction firing a projectile.
It's the person holding it that causes the harm.
A gun is a hunk of metal and wood or plastic it has no intent.

[PickleballAce]

Gun homicide rate is much lower tho. Its funny (well no that much) but many of our homicides are weird drunken fights (with axes).
On the grim side, about 10% of the total homicides in 2014 were due to gender violence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ted_death_rate

Drunken axe fights seem pretty funny to me.

[Thereaperszone]

You mean 10 round magazine, 30's are banned. Soon to be followed by having to have a Ammo license to buy/sell/trade ammo, 500 ammo max limit. yada yada yada. Kommifornia. Getting worse by the day lmao

go to a gun range if you need to shoot that many rounds

[Kithelle]

Nobody NEEDS an AR-15

Lots of things people don't *need*, should we eliminate them?

[Thepersona]

Drunken axe fights seem pretty funny to me.

http://www.riobuenonoticias.cl/2016/...cibir.html?m=1

I'm not making this shit up (its in spanish tho)