(02-18-2018 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Screw him. The problem is the public school system that is churning out killers.

Yep, these rifles are not a new thing, they have been around for a LONG time now. What is a new thing is so many 17 years olds suddenly feeling to need to mass murder classmates and others.

The question is what in our culture has driven these teens in their heart to now want to mass murder their own communities?

Focusing on rifles misses the whole problem.

Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Screw him. The problem is the public school system that is churning out killers.

Yep, these rifles are not a new thing, they have been around for a LONG time now. What is a new thing is so many 17 years olds suddenly feeling to need to mass murder classmates and others.

The question is what in our culture has driven these teens in their heart to now want to mass murder their own communities?

Focusing on rifles misses the whole problem.

Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Errr,

Ain’t it citizens (writ, civilians) that make up our military?

I know my Pops and Uncle sure were civilians first. Are the rest bots of some sort?!?

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Screw him. The problem is the public school system that is churning out killers.

Yep, these rifles are not a new thing, they have been around for a LONG time now. What is a new thing is so many 17 years olds suddenly feeling to need to mass murder classmates and others.

The question is what in our culture has driven these teens in their heart to now want to mass murder their own communities?

Focusing on rifles misses the whole problem.

Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

I realize I'm talking to a wall here but maybe we should start focusing in on the actual problem, which is WHY these kids now feel the need to mass murder their classmates.

They aren't murdering them simply because rifles exist.

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Screw him. The problem is the public school system that is churning out killers.

Yep, these rifles are not a new thing, they have been around for a LONG time now. What is a new thing is so many 17 years olds suddenly feeling to need to mass murder classmates and others.

The question is what in our culture has driven these teens in their heart to now want to mass murder their own communities?

Focusing on rifles misses the whole problem.

Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Many military people are just as wrong as you are on here on a daily basis.

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Screw him. The problem is the public school system that is churning out killers.

Yep, these rifles are not a new thing, they have been around for a LONG time now. What is a new thing is so many 17 years olds suddenly feeling to need to mass murder classmates and others.

The question is what in our culture has driven these teens in their heart to now want to mass murder their own communities?

Focusing on rifles misses the whole problem.

Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Perhaps you would like to explain the exact functional difference between an 'AR-15' and my .223 semi-auto deer rifle?

Or for that matter the functional difference between an 'AK' and my .308 semi-auto elk rifle?

When someone actually can, I'll listen to the debate of the mean scary AR's and mean scary AK's. Floor is open to you......

I didn't realize AKs were military issue now

A fair number of the cannons used by the Continental Army were privately owned.

Of course, we didn't have Ritalin back then.

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

"Many".

The new thing with the alt-left is to find the handful of anti-2A former military, hype them up into superstars (easy to do when you're looking for confirmation bias), and pretend they speak for the military on the whole.

Everything the alt-left does is a scam.

(02-19-2018 06:39 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 05:05 PM)Claw Wrote:  Screw him. The problem is the public school system that is churning out killers.

Yep, these rifles are not a new thing, they have been around for a LONG time now. What is a new thing is so many 17 years olds suddenly feeling to need to mass murder classmates and others.

The question is what in our culture has driven these teens in their heart to now want to mass murder their own communities?

Focusing on rifles misses the whole problem.

Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

I realize I'm talking to a wall here but maybe we should start focusing in on the actual problem, which is WHY these kids now feel the need to mass murder their classmates.

They aren't murdering them simply because rifles exist.

Well, most of them seem to have mental issues. So it doesn't help when people want to cut spending for things like mental health programs. Not that they're a panacea, there's a ton we don't know about trying to fix mental issues. But it's a start.

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

(02-19-2018 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

US issues non-automatic, as do many NATO countries with their regional 7.62 or 5.56 rifle. M16 is semi with select fire option. Select fire is not full auto. The proper question to ask is "does any military only issue semi-auto rifles to their soldiers?"

The answer is 'not any military that I am aware of.'

(02-19-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

US issues non-automatic, as do many NATO countries with their regional 7.62 or 5.56 rifle. M16 is semi with select fire option. Select fire is not full auto. The proper question to ask is "does any military only issue semi-auto rifles to their soldiers?"

The answer is 'not any military that I am aware of.'

The Army upgraded all M4 rifles with the kits converting them to M4A1 standards, or capable of fully automatic fire instead of the three round burst. This was done in 2012. The M4 generally replaced the M16A2 back in the mid 00's. The Marines changed over to all M4A1's for combat personnel in 2015.

I suspect that the military people who say the AR-15 is a military weapon would not choose it out of a pile to be deployed to Afghanistan with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-19-2018 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

US issues non-automatic, as do many NATO countries with their regional 7.62 or 5.56 rifle. M16 is semi with select fire option. Select fire is not full auto. The proper question to ask is "does any military only issue semi-auto rifles to their soldiers?"

The answer is 'not any military that I am aware of.'

The Army upgraded all M4 rifles with the kits converting them to M4A1 standards, or capable of fully automatic fire instead of the three round burst. This was done in 2012. The M4 generally replaced the M16A2 back in the mid 00's. The Marines changed over to all M4A1's for combat personnel in 2015.

Fair enough. I stand corrected as to the M4 and M16. Appreciate the correction. Have the NATO states done the same thing with their typical (as of 2000-ish) 5.56 and 7.62 long rifles?

(02-19-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

US issues non-automatic, as do many NATO countries with their regional 7.62 or 5.56 rifle. M16 is semi with select fire option. Select fire is not full auto. The proper question to ask is "does any military only issue semi-auto rifles to their soldiers?"

The answer is 'not any military that I am aware of.'

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a deterrent against the gov't infringing on the rights of others via tyrannical methods. For the longest time, our access to firearms largely mirrored the access that the military and police had access to. We first started diverging with the invention of tanks, airplanes and then automatic weapons. In today's world we are pretty far from the original intent IMHO. We cannot buy automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tanks, jet fighters, etc etc. While access to today's weapons systems is not realistic, I would argue that we are significantly restricted in firearm access now than we were back when the constitution was first ratified.

As has been stated by others already in this thread - we have a major mental health crisis on our hands that has resulted in significant issues in our country when it comes to mass shootings. This coupled with the easy access children have to social media are the factors resulting in elevated mass shootings.

(02-19-2018 02:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I suspect that the military people who say the AR-15 is a military weapon would not choose it out of a pile to be deployed to Afghanistan with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

TY Ark +1, this is what I was trying to get at.

(02-19-2018 02:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Unless I'm completely mistaken, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a deterrent against the gov't infringing on the rights of others via tyrannical methods. For the longest time, our access to firearms largely mirrored the access that the military and police had access to. We first started diverging with the invention of tanks, airplanes and then automatic weapons.

For all intents and purposes even *back in the day* the government was better armed. How many tall war ships did private citizens own? Really by the time of the civil war the idea of a group of civilians fighting an army on the field was on it's way out.

But....

Look at Vietnam, Iraq, .... A large armed populace fighting for their home and their liberty can be damn pesky.

I don't believe the US Army would be able to stomach a long drawn out conflict where they are gunning down their country men. Morale would collapse. Hence the current weapons people are allowed are sufficient to the task so long as enough people own them.

(02-19-2018 02:31 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 02:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Unless I'm completely mistaken, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a deterrent against the gov't infringing on the rights of others via tyrannical methods. For the longest time, our access to firearms largely mirrored the access that the military and police had access to. We first started diverging with the invention of tanks, airplanes and then automatic weapons.

For all intents and purposes even *back in the day* the government was better armed. How many tall war ships did private citizens own? Really by the time of the civil war the idea of a group of civilians fighting an army on the field was on it's way out.

But....

Look at Vietnam, Iraq, .... A large armed populace fighting for their home and their liberty can be damn pesky.

I don't believe the US Army would be able to stomach a long drawn out conflict where they are gunning down their country men. Morale would collapse. Hence the current weapons people are allowed are sufficient to the task so long as enough people own them.

Even in the late 1700s, citizens did not own "ships of the line" or land based cannons. But private citizens - of means - could buy smaller sized ships like clippers armed with cannons (privateers). That at least puts them significantly closer to armament than what we have in today's world.

(02-19-2018 02:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

US issues non-automatic, as do many NATO countries with their regional 7.62 or 5.56 rifle. M16 is semi with select fire option. Select fire is not full auto. The proper question to ask is "does any military only issue semi-auto rifles to their soldiers?"

The answer is 'not any military that I am aware of.'

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a deterrent against the gov't infringing on the rights of others via tyrannical methods. For the longest time, our access to firearms largely mirrored the access that the military and police had access to. We first started diverging with the invention of tanks, airplanes and then automatic weapons. In today's world we are pretty far from the original intent IMHO. We cannot buy automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tanks, jet fighters, etc etc. While access to today's weapons systems is not realistic, I would argue that we are significantly restricted in firearm access now than we were back when the constitution was first ratified.

As has been stated by others already in this thread - we have a major mental health crisis on our hands that has resulted in significant issues in our country when it comes to mass shootings. This coupled with the easy access children have to social media are the factors resulting in elevated mass shootings.

Miko -- your first paragraph is dead spot on.

One of the writings that is *cited* by the Founding Fathers *and* other authors of the Constitution is "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved" by James Otis in 1764.

Read the last three or four paragraphs here:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libra...nd-proved/

Another point that is spot on is Hamilton's Federalist Papers No. 29
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

In fact, the entire body of the Bill of Rights (except the 9th and 10th Amendments) can be read as a pure streak of republicanism (little R). A good concise overview can be found here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/w...ans-today/

(02-19-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Many military people came out and said that the AR-15 is a military weapon which is used for war to kill people. They said these weapons are not meant for civilian use.

Did they happen to mention any military that uses them? Any military at all have a non automatic rifle issues to their soldider?

I can find "many military people" who will say this is not a military rifle.

The difference is people backing my opinion would be able to justify it on something other than $ScaryLooking

US issues non-automatic, as do many NATO countries with their regional 7.62 or 5.56 rifle. M16 is semi with select fire option. Select fire is not full auto. The proper question to ask is "does any military only issue semi-auto rifles to their soldiers?"

The answer is 'not any military that I am aware of.'

The Army upgraded all M4 rifles with the kits converting them to M4A1 standards, or capable of fully automatic fire instead of the three round burst. This was done in 2012. The M4 generally replaced the M16A2 back in the mid 00's. The Marines changed over to all M4A1's for combat personnel in 2015.

Fair enough. I stand corrected as to the M4 and M16. Appreciate the correction. Have the NATO states done the same thing with their typical (as of 2000-ish) 5.56 and 7.62 long rifles?

Not sure about all of them, but I do know Canada's C7 rifles are Colt Canada's version of the M16A3 which is fully auto,