Any gun collectors?

[LinvilleGorge]

20 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

But if its not an Assault Rifle without that one attribute, if you take that away it ceases to be an AR.  Therefore banning that aspect is a de-facto ban on the weapon classification.

You can make an AR with a fixed lower capacity magazine. That's my point. Focus on the features that actually matter. 

[Cullenator]

17 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You can make an AR with a fixed lower capacity magazine. That's my point. Focus on the features that actually matter. 

That's all I'm focused on.  The detachable magazine.  Its universally listed as a (not the, but a) defining characteristic of an AR.

 

If its a 5 round fixed magazine regardless of the recoil mechanism, the size or power of the round, the length of the barrel, the shroud, any rails, and a threaded barrel it ceases to be an AR by any of the standard definitions.

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

That's all I'm focused on.  The detachable magazine.  Its universally listed as a (not the, but a) defining characteristic of an AR.

 

If its a 5 round fixed magazine regardless of the recoil mechanism, the size or power of the round, the length of the barrel, the shroud, any rails, and a threaded barrel it ceases to be an AR by any of the standard definitions.

Cool. So drop all the other stuff from the list of features to ban and we agree.

[Cullenator]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Cool. So drop all the other stuff from the list of features to ban and we agree.

Yep and we have banned ARs by all common definitions.

[LinvilleGorge]

7 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

Yep and we have banned ARs by all common definitions.

You can retrofit an AR to have a fixed five round mag.

 

[Cullenator]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You can retrofit an AR to have a fixed five round mag.

 

At which point is ceases to meat the definition of an AR.  Retrofit any AR and bingo-bango no more AR

 

We are actually agreeing even if you cant bring yourself to say it.

[LinvilleGorge]

6 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

At which point is ceases to meat the definition of an AR.  Retrofit any AR and bingo-bango no more AR

 

We are actually agreeing even if you cant bring yourself to say it.

We're not though. You're just hinging your entire definition on one specific feature to ignore everything else they want to ban. There are already commercially available solutions for this in the handful of states with regulations requiring it with the anticipation of more likely to follow.

[Cullenator]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

We're not though. You're just hinging your entire definition on one specific feature to ignore everything else they want to ban. There are already commercially available solutions for this in the handful of states with regulations requiring it with the anticipation of more likely to follow.

Im simply working from the two most common definitions of the required qualities and in both cases that detachable magazine is pivotal.

 

If pulling that feature gets us a step forward and closer together on reform Ill take it.

Any carbine without a detachable magazine is simply not by definition an AR as we currently define them.  If that becomes the law of the land and then people want to take on folding stocks, pistol grips. forward grips, Picatinny rails, et. al. Ill fight those fights that make sense when I have to.

[LinvilleGorge]

20 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

Im simply working from the two most common definitions of the required qualities and in both cases that detachable magazine is pivotal.

 

If pulling that feature gets us a step forward and closer together on reform Ill take it.

Any carbine without a detachable magazine is simply not by definition an AR as we currently define them.  If that becomes the law of the land and then people want to take on folding stocks, pistol grips. forward grips, Picatinny rails, et. al. Ill fight those fights that make sense when I have to.

Because you're talking about the working definition of an "assault rifle". I'm talking about an AR-15. They aren't one in the same.

[Cullenator]

[LinvilleGorge]

What are you confused about?

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Not my conversation but im confused why yall call it magazine.

 

Just say clips dammit!

Because they're magazines. Clips are devices that make loading magazines easier.

[d-dave]

I'm kind of surprised we're not in the TB yet, to be honest =P

My problem with the AR-15 is less the gun and more the ammo.  The bullets do TREMENDOUS amounts of internal damage.  I mean, the base of the AR-15 and the  M-16 (Source: https://special-ops.org/whats-the-difference-between-an-ar15-m4-and-m16/#:~:text=The distinction between an AR,military in close-quarters combat) are similar in nature, and both fire the same ammunition.  This is not a weapon made for civilians, it was made for combat and the ammo was designed for war, not self-defense.

So fine, people wants their "cool" looking AR-15s and other tacti-cool gear for Insurgency Cos-Play, hog hunting or scaring people with whom they have a disagreement.  My biggest problem is the actual wounds caused by the weapon are much worse than other firearms.

Time after time, when the super popular AR-15 is used in a violent attack, there is always a medical professional who is saying that the wounds are just worse. 

Quote

While handguns have the potential to seriously harm people, sometimes fatally, semi-automatic rifles can cause even more damage.

"Disturbingly, in mass shootings, the AR-15 or the AR-15-style rifle seems to be the weapon of choice," Dr. Cornelia Griggs, a pediatric and critical care surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, told ABC News. "That's not to say that there aren't other rifles that can cause quite a lot of damage in the human body, but this type of injury is devastating and unique to many military-grade weapons."

https://abc7.com/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

That is the MUCH larger issue.  While the 2nd amendment says, and has been interpreted, as buy as much guns as you want - there is nothing about limiting the ammunition.  Or is there a way to redesign the round so that ammo sold to civilians would be more of a straight shot through a target as opposed to the devastating wound pattern the military round causes?

I've fired some higher powered, long rifles before.  There is a certain cool "this thing is powerful" feeling.  I get that.  You feel it from your tingly bits on up.  The dopamine rush is real.  Last time I did, I was at an outdoor "not strictly regulated" range.  There were some bowling pins we could set up, and being able to see those things hit and fly was cool as crap.  I think for many people, that's where the fantasy ends.  Like you can shoot a bunch of random stuff, and it's cool and all; but then you have to ask yourself the hard question: what happens if I shoot a living creature or a person with this weapon?

Hopefully I won't get this thread tossed in the TB, but while I respect people who collect cool and antique firearms, or those who responsibly own guns; I do think there is more that can be done to protect the greater public from the people who want to abuse the good behavior of the larger population.

[Cullenator]

9 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

What are you confused about?

Not confused.  Exasperated

We spent a whole page talking about Assault Rifles and just at the point we were about to come to some measure of agreement you realized you were talking about making them illegal.  All of a sudden you are talking about a very specific weapon made by a very specific manufacturer and our common usage of AR (which had at no time been in question) becomes Assault Rifle to me and AR-15 to you. I was unambiguous in my usage, only abbreviating to AR after multiple uses of Assault Rifle.

 

That's the kind of poo that earns people labels like gun nut

Edited May 2, 2023 by Cullenator