If Obama Took 'Executive Action' On Guns, What Might He Do?

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Just curious here, but what exactly do you need an assualt rifle in the urban/city area of Maryland of which you live?

Need is irrelevant. There are lots of things people don't necessarily need. You don't need those shoes, these shoes will work just fine for you. I wouldn't want to dictate to you what to do with your life just as I wouldn't want you to dictate to me. If you think the government will stop once they get what they want regarding 2A, you're kidding yourself.

Speaking if 2A, I never hear anyone say anything about how not only would any type of confiscation be a 2A infringement but it would also be a 14A infringement. Of course any type of confiscation would be impossible not only from a legislative standpoint but also an enforcement standpoint.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

"The republic will rise again" -Alex Jones-

Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3

Need is irrelevant. There are lots of things people don't necessarily need. You don't need those shoes, these shoes will work just fine for you. I wouldn't want to dictate to you what to do with your life just as I wouldn't want you to dictate to me. If you think the government will stop once they get what they want regarding 2A, you're kidding yourself.


Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

I can understand why members here are misunderstanding my post. It was a joke and snide/sarcastic remark directed at Chase, in line with this joke:

Originally Posted by simsima325

If banning ARs keeps one out of your hands, I'd support the ban.

Here I clarified:

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showpos...8&postcount=33


Tough crowd in here...

Originally Posted by badfast

Certainly doesn't mean we should downplay these mass shootings as you seem to be doing.

What should we do about the gang violence?

Look the school shootings ARE a problem but the cause of those isn't the weapons. Do you think the kid in the shooting just yesterday decided to do so because he had an arch nemesis on campus? Of course not. He got the idea by the non stop coverage of the Sandy Hook shooter.... these guys get vilified in the media as if they're Darth Vader so naturally a kid who is desperate and lonely is going to go that route if they think their life isn't worth a damn....

But to focus on the school shootings and make the argument around ARs it goes to show the insincerity of those pushing for gun control.. they aren't going after the real problem (pistols in the cities) but rather attacking ARs because it's an easy target given the school visuals. I'm sorry but that's bogus.

Originally Posted by Lair

No, it didn't ban AR's. Please stop spreading the gun lobby's lies.

I was referring to the Chicago ban and the further ban that Rahm is proposing

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Just curious here, but what exactly do you need an assualt rifle in the urban/city area of Maryland of which you live?

Enjoyment. Target shooting, range fun, going to my family's farm and shooting hundreds of yards for entertainment with friends. The possibility of a Mayan apocalypse or home introducers. As of late, the main driver has been the fact that the left has been looking to ban my ability to own one... if you said that starting tomorrow you can't buy cars because the horsepower has gone too high and people are dying exponentially in car crashes, guess what people would go buy today.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Are you offended on Chase's behalf?
.......

why don't you ask Chase

Why the need for posting pictures?

And what on earth does my appearance have to do with me deciding I want to purchase a firearm. This is exactly what those in favor of gun control have been shaking their heads at the entire debate. Rather than logic or facts you just twist the argument into a personal grudge match.... oh chase doesn't need a firearm because he's tall and has long blonde hair???

Home introducers? What harm have they done?

And you're not blonde, Chase. You know it, we know it. Embrace it.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Home introducers? What harm have they done?

And you're not blonde, Chase. You know it, we know it. Embrace it.

Why is it that buying a weapon for self defense is at all out of the norm?

Not blonde? Get your eyes checked broseph

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Difference? aside from the fact both fire bullets and are lethal?

I'll entertain your post (without goolge-fu and rely on my memory from service). In sum, AR's typically require the use of two hands and a person's shoulder to steady the weapon where as handguns can be used with one hand (however typically two hands are used for support/stability when firing a handgun). Then there are physical characteristics, size, weight, etc. Other differences include magazine capacity - though I realize there is magazine capacity limit for civilian use. Next is the type of munition used such as 9mm vs 5.56. ARs and handguns also differ in range and accuracy, depending on type and model. Then there are the roles of each weapon, where in a military context, hands guns are used for scenarios such as close quarters or a last resort, where as ARs are used to project firepower at range (e.g. M16 max effective range for an area target is 800m and point target at 550m). Also, in a strictly military context where fully automatic weapons exist, rifles have different rates of fire where, for example, you can select three round burst or single rate of fire. Handguns, as with the standard issue M9 Beretta have a single rate of fire.

At the end of the day, as I previously mentioned, they both fire bullets and are lethal. To add, AR and handguns that are in compliance with US law for civilian use, have a single rate of fire unless the person has a Class 3 license (that is if I recall correctly). However, I think member Rhumb put it best in a prior post,that it is perhaps the intangible (or tangible depending on how you define it) degree of efficiency an AR or handgun can inflict damage or harm. The last sentence being an opinion, not necessarily a fact.

Excellent. You seem to have a decent grasp on the subject, far better than most anti gun liberals. Great.

Now lets proceed. What round does more damage to a human, a 223 or a .45acp hollow point....or even a 9mm HP. Lets also keep in mind that a bullet is even more lethal when lodged.

Why is chase fixated on Piers Morgan? Nobody gaf about Piers Morgan.

Chase has blondish hair. Just sayin'

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Now lets proceed. What round does more damage to a human, a 223 or a .45acp hollow point....or even a 9mm HP. Lets also keep in mind that a bullet is even more lethal when lodged.

As the saying goes: Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

We could let people own all the guns they want, and outlaw the owning of bullets. After all, the 2nd Am is the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear projectiles.

The fact of the matter remains, it has been ruled by the SCOTUS that restrictions on the possession of certain guns is constitutionally acceptable. As I recall, the AW ban put in place under the Clinton admin was upheld as constitutional as well. So there is constitutional precedent for such a ban.

So to those that say any type of AW ban is a violation of the 2nd amendment, I would suggest you look back at when this constitutional question has been raised before. The results may surprise you. But, that may be to much work, rather than a knee jerk reaction not based on reality.

And for those, like that "CEO", it is a pity that if an AW ban is imposed under previous constraints ruled as constitutional by SCOTUS, they would gladly violate the constitution and the constitutional rights of all citizens. After all, actions in violation of the constitutional powers of the judicial branch, Article III of the constitution, violates the constitutional rights of all citizens. But, they seem ignorant of that portion of the constitution. It appears for these people, ignorance is bliss, and that is truly pitiable.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Why is it that buying a weapon for self defense is at all out of the norm?

A carbine is not an ideal choice for self-defense. A shotgun or handgun is far superior in most situations.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Excellent. You seem to have a decent grasp on the subject, far better than most anti gun liberals. Great.

Now lets proceed. What round does more damage to a human, a 223 or a .45acp hollow point....or even a 9mm HP. Lets also keep in mind that a bullet is even more lethal when lodged.

you are such a subject matter expert.

You are completely missing the point--as usual.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

As the saying goes: Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

We could let people own all the guns they want, and outlaw the owning of bullets. After all, the 2nd Am is the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear projectiles.

The fact of the matter remains, it has been ruled by the SCOTUS that restrictions on the possession of certain guns is constitutionally acceptable. As I recall, the AW ban put in place under the Clinton admin was upheld as constitutional as well. So there is constitutional precedent for such a ban.

So to those that say any type of AW ban is a violation of the 2nd amendment, I would suggest you look back at when this constitutional question has been raised before. The results may surprise you. But, that may be to much work, rather than a knee jerk reaction not based on reality.

And for those, like that "CEO", it is a pity that if an AW ban is imposed under previous constraints ruled as constitutional by SCOTUS, they would gladly violate the constitution and the constitutional rights of all citizens. After all, actions in violation of the constitutional powers of the judicial branch, Article III of the constitution, violates the constitutional rights of all citizens. But, they seem ignorant of that portion of the constitution. It appears for these people, ignorance is bliss, and that is truly pitiable.

So you would rather have people make their own ammo at home out of rusty nails and glass then?

The point is simple. A 9mm or a 45 is more lethal than a 223. A 223 is a smaller round, and it is a sharper round with more penetrating power. It will go through a person where a 9mm or a 45 will get lodged, causing infection, sepsis, and a heap of other lethal issues. If anyone knew what they were talking about (legislators and politicians) they would understand that an AR is LESS lethal than a handgun. A AR is also harder to use on the move. A telescoping stock and a pistol grip does nothing for a weapon's lethality, and neither does a barrel shroud. An AR is far harder to conceal. An AR is more awkward to use to someone that is not trained. Anyone who knows anything about guns would know this...but the people who pass laws regulating weapons are completely clueless. Oh, and lets not forget that it is mechanically the same to any hunting rifle. If you cannot admit that this ban is nothing more than a political big d!ck contest that will sound all good and tough on paper but accomplish nothing, you need a reality check. Furthermore, thanks to the loom of this ban, more ARs have been sold in a few months than would normally sell in almost 5 years....so MORE ARs are now on the street. I wasn't even planning on getting one, but I just bought 4.

Originally Posted by badfast

you are such a subject matter expert.

You are completely missing the point--as usual.

Go sit at the kiddie table troll, adults are talking.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Go sit at the kiddie table troll, adults are talking.

You hardly qualify as an adult, must less a coherent individual.

Originally Posted by badfast

You hardly qualify as an adult, must less a coherent individual.

No need to rustle. Simmer down. We get it, you don't like me. Carry on.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

So you would rather have people make their own ammo at home out of rusty nails and glass then?

Facetiousness is lost on you.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

The point is simple. A 9mm or a 45 is more lethal than a 223. A 223 is a smaller round, and it is a sharper round with more penetrating power. It will go through a person where a 9mm or a 45 will get lodged, causing infection, sepsis, and a heap of other lethal issues. If anyone knew what they were talking about (legislators and politicians) they would understand that an AR is LESS lethal than a handgun. A AR is also harder to use on the move. A telescoping stock and a pistol grip does nothing for a weapon's lethality, and neither does a barrel shroud. An AR is far harder to conceal. An AR is more awkward to use to someone that is not trained. Anyone who knows anything about guns would know this...but the people who pass laws regulating weapons are completely clueless. Oh, and lets not forget that it is mechanically the same to any hunting rifle. If you cannot admit that this ban is nothing more than a political big d!ck contest that will sound all good and tough on paper but accomplish nothing, you need a reality check. Furthermore, thanks to the loom of this ban, more ARs have been sold in a few months than would normally sell in almost 5 years....so MORE ARs are now on the street. I wasn't even planning on getting one, but I just bought 4.

The point is, "good law" or "bad law", there are bans on AW that are constitutional (at least under current rulings).
You may not like it or agree with it, but, it is the constitutional reality. One must understand and embrace this. The USSC has made ruling I don;t like or agree with. I still don't think corporations are "citizens", but, it is the constitutional reality. One acknowledges this and moves on.

You want to talk about potential. Then lets talk about potential. One of the issues with certain AW is their capability to be converted from semi-auto to full-auto. You want to talk about potential damage. A full-auto AW can spit out enough rounds to cut a person in two. That is a far more lethal capability than any handgun. And before all the chiming in about "oh those conversions hardly ever happen." Well, perhaps my perspective is different, since I knew a guy who got popped for doing such conversions in 1985. Did at least 12 years, hard time. Any machinist worth his/her salt can make the parts required for the conversion. And once they have made the part once, making dozens is much easier and quicker. So if you wish to speak about potential harm, you need to consider all potentials contained within the weapons, not just bullets.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

No need to rustle. Simmer down. We get it, you don't like me. Carry on.

First, you are right. I don't like you (at least the way you present yourself online).

But, allow me to provide a quick explanation on the other side. Not understanding the other side makes these arguments pointless. The anti-gun group has the advantage to argue from emotion of sympathy. Whereas gun owners as also arguing from emotion, but it comes off as more angry.

Let me explain to you the argument in pictures:

This a .40 next to a 7.62x39. You can see the difference. There is also velocity differences, etc. etc. Granted no one would want to be hit by either.

Now you see the difference in magazine capacity. The Kahr magazine holds only 6 rounds. The AK magazine holds 30. 3 Kahr magazines (1 in the gun, 2 backups). That is a total of 18 rounds (19 if I keep one in the chamber, but I don't). It would take 5 Kahr magazines for the same capacity of 1 AK magazine.

Now you can see 6 AK magazines next to each other totaling 180 rounds. For the Kahr to carry that amount would require 30 magazines.


Here are the 2 guns that I used. Now at a close range they are both equally effective, but at increasing distances the handgun starts to lose out. Are you the handgun is just as effective as the rifle at a range of 30m? 100m?

Once you begin to understand that you will really begin to understand the other side. The reality is it is all emotional. Either one of those guns and bullets give the capacity to kill. This isn't a statistics based issue at the moment because as you can see there are stats to support both sides.

Learn to understand the other side first, then you can better support your own side.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

So you would rather have people make their own ammo at home out of rusty nails and glass then?

The point is simple. A 9mm or a 45 is more lethal than a 223. A 223 is a smaller round, and it is a sharper round with more penetrating power. It will go through a person where a 9mm or a 45 will get lodged, causing infection, sepsis, and a heap of other lethal issues. If anyone knew what they were talking about (legislators and politicians) they would understand that an AR is LESS lethal than a handgun. A AR is also harder to use on the move. A telescoping stock and a pistol grip does nothing for a weapon's lethality, and neither does a barrel shroud. An AR is far harder to conceal. An AR is more awkward to use to someone that is not trained. Anyone who knows anything about guns would know this...but the people who pass laws regulating weapons are completely clueless. Oh, and lets not forget that it is mechanically the same to any hunting rifle. If you cannot admit that this ban is nothing more than a political big d!ck contest that will sound all good and tough on paper but accomplish nothing, you need a reality check. Furthermore, thanks to the loom of this ban, more ARs have been sold in a few months than would normally sell in almost 5 years....so MORE ARs are now on the street. I wasn't even planning on getting one, but I just bought 4.

If handguns are more lethal why are not the chosen weapon in war? Why do they serve as a backup?

Originally Posted by badfast

If handguns are more lethal why are not the chosen weapon in war? Why do they serve as a backup?

Because you can't bust in a door, hit someone 2 feet in front of you, hit someone 300 yards away and put a 60 round magazine in a pistol. Also the guns they use are fully automatic which are MUCH more lethal than the semi auto ar15 we can guy here. They're not even the same gun.
However if you're in the mall and you're trying to murder like 5 people because you just went crazy, they're essentially the same lethality. Pistol might even be better because they're easily concealed.
Try again.