Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Shadowferal]

No, what I'm saying is that there are many others, selling much better.
Are you suggesting that you can't comprehend the distinction?

Yup. Colt isn't the only maker.
Aero Precision
Armalite
Bravo Company
Daniel Defense (pricey)
Sig Sauer
Smith and Wesson
Windham Armory....and there's more...

This gun isn't going away anytime soon..if ever.

[Breccia]

Are you suggesting that you can't comprehend the distinction?

Between "hard to maintain a competitive market share" and "not selling"? I mean...if the guns were selling, I imagine they'd still make them, right?

I mean, I guess I could have said "that the civilian AR production cut was based on consumer feedback and a close analysis of the market’s ebbs and flows" or "significant excess manufacturing capacity" or “We’ve seen a pretty sharp decline in rifle sales, given our price points, resulting in significant inventory build-up held by our distributors.”

[Shadowferal]

Well, if the market is too flooded, then distributors should have....a fire sale.

I'll see myself out the door.

[PhaelixWW]

Yup. Colt isn't the only maker.
Aero Precision
Armalite
Bravo Company
Daniel Defense (pricey)
Sig Sauer
Smith and Wesson
Windham Armory....and there's more...

This gun isn't going away anytime soon..if ever.

...
PSA
DPMS
ATI
Rock River
Stag Arms
Spike's Tactical
LWRC
Mossberg
Franklin
Bushmaster
Ruger
Ares
Christensen
Anderson
...

There are literally hundreds of manufacturers out there now making AR-15s.

[Calfredd]

First off, this should have been posted in the Mega Thread on gun control, as it is not only about gun control, but guns in general. And it also has been mentioned in that Mega thread today.

But anyway, Colt overpriced their AR-15 when there are just as good, if not better options for a cheaper price. Take the Ruger AR-15, at less then $600 is just as good and only cost about half what a Colt would. Then there is the S&W which is also close to that price range and just as good. Not to mention some more brands which are less then those two and function fine.

First off, this doesn't need to be in the Mega Thread on gun control, as it is not about gun control, but guns in general. The story is about gun sales and like 3 different people in the article say as much.

[Calfredd]

Almost every 6 months there is a big gun sale cuz "OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!" I remember the endless commercials and propaganda for nearly 8 years.

Fear mongering for gun sales cuz fear mongering about how dangerous your suburbs are just wasn't enough I guess lol.

You'd think groups like the NRA would secretly support Democrat candidates because apparently Democrat presidents are the best thing to happen to gun manufacturers.

[Ghostpanther]

I thought this was a excellent short video explaining why the Second Amendment is about the right of the people to have firearms. While some are sure to already understand this, I thought it might be helpful for those who may have some questions and have heard it is only about the militia mentioned.

[Ghostpanther]

First off, this doesn't need to be in the Mega Thread on gun control, as it is not about gun control, but guns in general. The story is about gun sales and like 3 different people in the article say as much.

The topic had already been brought up in the Mega thread first. The purpose of the Mega Gun Control thread is not just about gun control, but has also been used a bunch of times for topics about guns in general. But whatever.

[Svifnymr]

Yup. Colt isn't the only maker.
Aero Precision
Armalite
Bravo Company
Daniel Defense (pricey)
Sig Sauer
Smith and Wesson
Windham Armory....and there's more...

This gun isn't going away anytime soon..if ever.

Colt hasn't been the main name for a few years now. Too many cheap options. I think they made like 40,000 rifles in 2016 when there were like a million+ AR's made.

Folks either go cheap (Aero, Palmetto, S&W, Ruger) or go expensive (Larue, Daniel Defense, et cetera) with little demand in the middle range where Colt lived ($800-1000).

[Kellhound]

Colt hasn't been the main name for a few years now. Too many cheap options. I think they made like 40,000 rifles in 2016 when there were like a million+ AR's made.

Folks either go cheap (Aero, Palmetto, S&W, Ruger) or go expensive (Larue, Daniel Defense, et cetera) with little demand in the middle range where Colt lived ($800-1000).

I know I went with the Ruger myself. Great price for a good gun.

[Rozz]

The Colt Thread has been merged with the megathread, since it relates to the distribution of firearms.

[Svifnymr]

I know I went with the Ruger myself. Great price for a good gun.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Aero or Palmetto, so usually suggest Ruger or S&W. I've got a Colt and the other stuff is assembled on various lowers to get things the way I wanted. I'd never justify a Daniel Defense or similar, so haven't bothered.

[Kokolums]

Yup. Colt isn't the only maker.
Aero Precision
Armalite
Bravo Company
Daniel Defense (pricey)
Sig Sauer
Smith and Wesson
Windham Armory....and there's more...

This gun isn't going away anytime soon..if ever.

Not only that, but gun laws worldwide will soon be useless because 3d printing of guns will make tremendous leaps and bounds. In 10-15 years, someone will able to 3d print a huge fleet of large drones, print an automatic gun for each of them, and terrorize a major event like a real life DDoS and there's nothing anyone can do. You could ban guns and 3d printers worldwide and it would mean nothing.

[Ghostpanther]

Another case of a home owner defending themselves from a intruder.....https://www.foxnews.com/us/southern-...pected-burglar

The San Pedro, California homeowner, a retired firefighter, told police the suspect tried to enter his front door sometime before 8 a.m. then came through a window at the side of the house, KABC reported.

The homeowner said he shot the suspect when he moved toward him.

The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene, according to KABC.

Detectives said it's too early in the investigation to determine if the homeowner shot in self-defense, KCBS reported.

Not sure of the laws in California on this, but in Ohio, while a investigation would be done, the homeowner would have the presumption by law, of defending themselves in a home invasion and would be justified in using deadly force.

[Daelak]

I thought this was a excellent short video explaining why the Second Amendment is about the right of the people to have firearms. While some are sure to already understand this, I thought it might be helpful for those who may have some questions and have heard it is only about the militia mentioned.

I don't need a youtube video to explain the 2nd amendment, it's very straightforward in the text itself. Well regulated militias were the reason for rebuffing the British inland. The refusal to quarter enemy soldiers was another countermeasure to make it harder for an invading force to keep in optimal fighting condition.

[Ghostpanther]

Woman confronts Beto over his stance to ban the AR-15's.....https://www.foxnews.com/media/woman-...cation-hell-no

A Colorado woman confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke Thursday on his controversial proposal to go after high-powered weapons through a mandatory buyback program.

"I am here to say: Hell, no, you’re not," Lauren Boebert told O'Rourke, passionately defending her rights under the Second Amendment.

"I have four children, I am 5-foot-0, 100 pounds, I cannot really defend myself with a fist. ... I want to know how you're going to legislate that because a criminal breaks the law, so all you're going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens, like myself."

She makes a strong case for the use of the AR-15 for self defense to the extent, it is not too heavy, has low recoil and is excellent against multiple criminals. A small or weak person with one, is given more capability to defend themselves using one.

I do however, have to give Beto credit for silencing the crowd and letting her speak.

[szechuan]

I thought this was a excellent short video explaining why the Second Amendment is about the right of the people to have firearms. While some are sure to already understand this, I thought it might be helpful for those who may have some questions and have heard it is only about the militia mentioned.

LMAO.

Right Wing Propaganda, from a fake university who is infamous for spreading misinformation and lies.

[Svifnymr]

I don't need a youtube video to explain the 2nd amendment, it's very straightforward in the text itself. Well regulated militias were the reason for rebuffing the British inland.

And because they wanted such a militia, everyone can have guns. It is pretty straightforward.

The refusal to quarter enemy soldiers was another countermeasure to make it harder for an invading force to keep in optimal fighting condition.

I mean, you understand it doesn't say enemy soldiers and that enemy soldiers probably wouldn't care what the US government said about which house they took, right? It's about the rights of the US, limiting the government's actions. It's as capable of stopping an enemy soldier as a "gun free zone" is.

[szechuan]

And because they wanted such a militia, everyone can have guns. It is pretty straightforward.

Random Civilians who can easily purchase a Gun without a background check through Loophole a well Regulated Militia?

[PhaelixWW]

I don't need a youtube video to explain the 2nd amendment, it's very straightforward in the text itself. Well regulated militias were the reason for rebuffing the British inland.

No, you clearly don't understand it at all. If the necessity of a militia were the only important factor, the Constitution would have just created separate provisions for them (which it did).

The more salient fact is that the original drafted Constitution didn't include the Bill of Rights, and the states didn't agree to ratify it until the Bill of Rights were added. Those rights were put there to put a check on the federal government, not to establish its security. The Bill of Rights stated what the federal government could not take away from the people it meant to govern.

The people weren't worried about the federal government having enough authority/ability to repel the British; that would have been accomplished just fine without the need for the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, the very existence of the 2nd Amendment argues strongly that they were worried about what a strong federal government backed by a standing army could do to its own people in the future, as they had seen first-hand just what that could mean.

But you're just going to see what you want to see.

LMAO.

Right Wing Propaganda, from a fake university who is infamous for spreading misinformation and lies.

UCLA is a fake university? I mean, seriously...

(Eugene Volokh is a Constitutional law professor from UCLA.)