HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Every AR-15 owner is a la...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:57 PM

Every AR-15 owner is a law-abiding citizen...

...until they commit a crime or kill a bunch of children in a rampage. This "law-abiding citizen" argument is a bunch of bullshit, in my opinion.

64 replies, 4755 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Every AR-15 owner is a law-abiding citizen... (Original post)
kentuck Jan 2013 OP
LynneSin Jan 2013 #1
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #2
Tikki Jan 2013 #3
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #4
jmg257 Jan 2013 #5
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #17
xtraxritical Jan 2013 #59
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #64
ileus Jan 2013 #6
pipoman Jan 2013 #7
guardian Jan 2013 #8
Taverner Jan 2013 #9
Recursion Jan 2013 #10
Bandit Jan 2013 #14
Recursion Jan 2013 #15
yesphan Jan 2013 #31
Recursion Jan 2013 #33
blackspade Jan 2013 #43
billh58 Jan 2013 #11
kentuck Jan 2013 #13
billh58 Jan 2013 #16
kentuck Jan 2013 #18
Left Brain Jan 2013 #38
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #12
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #30
Hoyt Jan 2013 #19
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #23
Hoyt Jan 2013 #26
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #27
Hoyt Jan 2013 #46
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #20
iandhr Jan 2013 #21
overthehillvet Jan 2013 #24
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #22
Baseball Mom Jan 2013 #51
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #62
Glassunion Jan 2013 #25
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #28
indepat Jan 2013 #29
former-republican Jan 2013 #32
99Forever Jan 2013 #36
former-republican Jan 2013 #40
99Forever Jan 2013 #45
former-republican Jan 2013 #47
99Forever Jan 2013 #50
former-republican Jan 2013 #53
99Forever Jan 2013 #58
Glassunion Jan 2013 #49
99Forever Jan 2013 #52
Glassunion Jan 2013 #54
99Forever Jan 2013 #56
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #39
hack89 Jan 2013 #34
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #44
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #35
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #37
upaloopa Jan 2013 #41
spin Jan 2013 #55
Rawbbeh Jan 2013 #42
Baseball Mom Jan 2013 #48
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #61
bongbong Jan 2013 #57
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #60
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #63

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:58 PM

1. Or leave their guns lying around where others can grab ahold of them

and use them for a crime.

Just thought that should be added too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:58 PM

2. Everyone is a "good guy" with a gun right up until they're a bad guy with a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:04 PM

3. I wish I could recommend this statement to the ends of the Earth and beyond...

How can they spout those words like they are sacrosanct?



Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:05 PM

4. Indeed, Sir

It founders on the misconception there is some great gulf fixed between 'the criminal' and the rest. This is not so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:09 PM

5. Or until laws are passed making them illegal, in which case they

apparently will gladly break the law in droves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:44 PM

17. Which is why self justifying law is a dubious prospect.

Like our vice laws. We can talk weed for instance. It demonstrates that the law is a humbug when divorced from breaking the peace/interfering with other's ability to live within their rights.

One person doing the exact same thing in the exact same location with the exact same people around them should not rationally be law abiding in one moment and criminals the next based on the law.

Law Enforcement is a distortion, keeping the peace is not an aim but a side effect.

One's rights end at the next person's nose. If no one's rights are interfered with, there should be no crime.

There should be no contraband. Of course one can take that to an extreme and throw up a picture of an ICBM or chemical weapons but I'd ban such items from humanity, including the governments of the world save maybe the nukes for a rare international effort for extraterrestrial reason like to redirect an asteroid or comet or maybe some unforeseen terra-forming project. On millennium, maybe even here on earth we might need to ignite our core to buy some time.

I think I have a form of government problem with the whole line of reasoning. The paradigm put forward is wrongheaded and a failure for equality, the advancement of self determination, and perhaps especially for the rule of and more so the respect for law on any level. "Because I said so" law is toxic because fosters distrust and resentment for what is supposed to tie us together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:40 PM

59. So true, if you were in charge we could dispense with the law.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:11 AM

64. No, more pare it down to the direct interference with the rights of others

or breaking the peace.

There would be no criminals for the law's sake but only for preventing another from living peaceably and securely.

An item could not be illegal but its use may be circumstantially. You could smoke all the crack you like, stealing to do so would be a crime. You could have sex for whatever reason you want with whoever you want but it must be with a sentient capable of giving consent. If you were driving 85 on and empty road then no tickets but driving 45 on a crowded highway in an ice storm might be an issue.

Folks wouldn't be in trouble because the "broke the law", they'd be in trouble for taking what isn't theirs and attacking or injuring, destruction of the commons, damaging property, whatever the action is that crosses the next guy's nose.

A person with an object is neither criminal or peaceable until they act or don't act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:14 PM

6. bunch of hidden criminals...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:14 PM

7. Doesn't that go for every person regardless what they own?

Every person who has alcohol in their possession is law abiding until they drink it and get into a car? Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:15 PM

8. Yeah that whole

 

"innocent until proven guilty" meme is so passť. We have got to stop all these ACLU 'commie' freak types: http://www.aclu.org/blog/capital-punishment/guilty-until-proven-innocent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:17 PM

9. Why would anyone need that much gun?

 

Even in self defense, unless you are trying to kill a lot of people, there is no reason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:18 PM

10. What's an example of a rifle that's "less" gun than the AR-15?

The entire point is that it's a low-power rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:25 PM

14. No the Entire Point is that it is a light weight rapid fire weapon that has been used

frequently in mass murders... That is the "Entire Point". I think the main problem is large capacity magazines.. I really don't see any point in having more than five bullets in your weapon at any given time...The 223 caliber round is not an issue IMO..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:28 PM

15. I totally agree with you on magazines. It will be difficult to get them back, but we need to try

5 or 10 round magazines should be fine (though that's all that Cho used at Virginia Tech, so...)

It's certainly not used "frequently" in mass murders, it was used in the last two famous ones and those are the only ones I've heard of. Most mass shootings are with handguns, with standard-size magazines. It's light weight because it's low power (or I suppose you could say vice versa), and it's no more rapid fire than any other semi-automatic weapon.

But, yes, let's by all means try to get the bigger magazines back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:39 PM

31. low power ?

Looks like this would hurt, alot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yesphan (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:42 PM

33. Now find a similar one for .308 or 30-06

You'll see what I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:14 PM

43. 30-06: here you go....



Both look devastating to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:23 PM

11. But, but

they passed background checks and everything. Do you know that statistically speaking, people who own green ducks with yellow tail feathers and purple feet are more law-abiding than the general US population? And that proves that AR-15 owners are safer than non-AR-15 owners.

Geez, why are you guys always picking on the poor AR-15 owners...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:25 PM

13. Statistically speaking...

"people who own green ducks with yellow tail feathers and purple feet" do not walk into a school or building and start shooting bullets out of the duck's ass....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:43 PM

16. I sincerely hope that

you recognized my post as sarcasm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:47 PM

18. Yes...



But I wanted to clarify for those that might not have...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:56 PM

38. Wow, there's a visual!

Sorry, serious topic, but just couldn't resist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:25 PM

12. Ban ar15-owners... its the only way. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:38 PM

30. There really is a cognitive disconnect in your head, isn't there? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:52 PM

19. Agree, and they don't give a crud about society, especially those who aren't satisfied with just one

I believe interest in such weapons is grounds to deny having one. And, yep, Gungeoneers - it's a Catch-22.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:24 PM

23. I inherited mine..

Does that qualify as interest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:29 PM

26. Do you drool over it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:35 PM

27. No.

Water is bad for guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:40 PM

46. Then, maybe you are OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:53 PM

20. Innocent until proven guilty...

Local law enforcement used to (and still does) use your litmus test for African - American males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:03 PM

21. Sam says this in the West Wing after Bartlett was shot at.

He was talking to Ansley and says. "The shooters bought guns and loaded them and drove and until the pulled the trigger they had yet to commit a crime"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:25 PM

24. nope

 

That is simply not true.

They had already conspired to commit the crime which is a felony.

The problem is having the information that they had entered into this conspiracy before they pulled the trigger. In most cases they would have no reason to notice the conspiracy until the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, murder, or attempted murder was committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:08 PM

22. They might not be. If they bought the gun at a gun show, with no required back round check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reverend_tim (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:00 PM

51. You are wrong.

 

Guns Shows at least in California, require a routine background check. Gun received in 10 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baseball Mom (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:33 PM

62. Not in Arizona not in Texas, so I am not wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:29 PM

25. Funny, the folks over at stormfont say things similar about my skin color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:36 PM

28. 'Xactly.

Holmes, Cho, Loughner--they were all "law abiding gun owners" up until the moment they pulled the trigger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:37 PM

29. Well said. That argument is indeed a large crock of pure de male bovine excrement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:40 PM

32. Everyone is a good husband or father until they .......

 

Every mother is a good mother to their children until ...........

Everyone drinks responsibly until they ............


Boy it seems I can use that on most anything...

funny huh....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:48 PM

36. Do your...

..."most anythings" repeatedly, almost routinely, result in the deaths of multiple, many times dozens of innocent victims?

In other words, what's your point, Mr "Former?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:57 PM

40. Yes , look and see how many times mothers , fathers have killed or injured

 

their babies or children.


Look how many times a drinker has killed an innocent person on the road

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:33 PM

45. Dozens, repeatedly in separate cases?

Links please.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:55 PM

47. google mother kills her child ,mother kills her children

 

Father kills baby etc..

That should keep you busy for a while

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #47)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:58 PM

50. You "google it."

Do your own homework, Mr "Former."

Or I'll do it for you at a reasonable rate. Think you can afford me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #50)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:04 PM

53. You asked the question , do your own research

 

I can't hold your hand .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #53)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:37 PM

58. You can't...

... do much of anything, especially back up your own statements, Mr"Former."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:58 PM

49. A child under the age of 5 is more likely to be murderd by their parents than anyone else.

I remeber reading an article on a psychiatry site, I'll see if I can dig it up. But if I recall correctly filicide (muder of a child by their parent) accounts for roughly 60% of all children mudered under the age of 5.

Once I get a moment I'll try and dig it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:01 PM

52. Which has what to do with shooting spree killers...

... taking out multiple, many times dozens of people in a single incident?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #52)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:08 PM

54. My bad... I misread the dicussion chain.

No, you are correct mothers and fathers do not go around killing dozens at once.

Each year hundreds of parents will do it once, one or two children at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #54)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:35 PM

56. No problem.

My issue is with false equivalences being passed off as "reasonable arguments" by the Delicate Flowers.

It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

And yes sir, it's appalling the way too damn many "parents" (if they can be called that) treat their children, and not just those that get murdered by them. I can't fathom doing that to any child, last of all, my own, as I'm sure you also agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:57 PM

39. Except folks like you are the ones begging the question in the first place.

With the whole "law abiding gun owners" shitola on a stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:44 PM

34. Every drinker is law abiding until they drink and drive. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:16 PM

44. Drunk driving is different than gun violence.

Drunk driving is more involved: 1) Person gets drunk. 2) Person drives car. 3) Drunk driver injures/kills another person by virtue of being drunk and colliding one's vehicle with that other person.

Not to mention it's a crime of recklessness. Vehicular homicide as a result of a DWI rarely garners anything beyond manslaughter.

Gun violence is straight and to the point: 1) Person picks up gun 2) Person shoots gun, injuring/killing another person.

And most gun related homicides are predicated on specific intent.

Drunk driving has a middle man--the car--that gun violence does not. Take out the car, and you just have a drunk person.

Yes, one could die of alcohol poisoning, but that's self-inflicted and more likely an act of recklessness, not intent. And it's to one's own self--outside some very isolated instances of frat pranks gone wrong, one does not literally force another to get alcohol poisoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:47 PM

35. True, but most of the suicide-homicides involve hand-guns

and most of the inner city drug related gang violence is about handguns.

I'm for requiring physical limitation of ALL magazines owned by civilians to 6 rounds.

I'm ok with gun-lovers having magazines that look bigger capacity as long as they can't hold more than 6 rounds.

I can't see any civilian use that actually _requires_ more than a max of 7 bullets in a loaded weapon.

I get that it's FUN to blast off more, but it isn't required.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:53 PM

37. Mike has spawned.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:58 PM

41. Every pro gun argument arrives at the

same conclusion which is that no gun control idea has any merit.
Couple that with the meme that more guns will make us safer and you have all the pro gun bases covered.
Call "no gun control laws have merit" number one and "more guns will make us safer" number two and the pro gun debaters can reply to a gun control thread with posting "one" or "two" which ever is most applicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:30 PM

55. Not true. ...

I am a gun owner who has a carry permit and I can argue in favor of gun rights but that doesn't mean that I totally oppose all current gun laws or do not want to see any improvements to them.

I do oppose gun bans, confiscation and/or registration of firearms.

I do not oppose improving the NICS background check system and requiring it to be used for the sale of all firearms and transfers. Of course the cost of a NICS background check for a private sale should be reasonable, perhaps ten to twenty dollars.

I would like to see that any person who buys a firearm or ammo has a card that shows he/she has had gun safety training.

I would not oppose a requirement that any person who buys a firearm would have to have a background check similar to that required in many states before issuing a carry permit. Once again this assumes that the cost of such a check is very reasonable so as not to be a method of limiting gun ownership to the rich.

I also do not believe that everyone should own a firearm. Not everyone is responsible enough to own one and many people tend to abuse alcohol or drugs or live in a contentious relationship with a significant other.

The NRA and many other gun owners would strongly disagree with many of my views. However a significant percentage of gun owners will agree with me on at least some of my ideas.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)


Response to kentuck (Original post)


Response to Baseball Mom (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:16 PM

61. The big issue is not there are other ways to kill but in the mass shootings the choice was guns.

We own vehicles but have speed limits and rules. And with your thoughts of everyone having a gun and in situations of Katrina events, if you have a weapon which fires thirty times and everyone has the same capacity and they arrive at your door they will probably have their weapon drawn and it will be over for you. This is not the wild west where two face off to see who can fire first.

There are too many crazy talking with no ability to be reasonable. We don't need crazy talk from LaPierre who is trying to sell guns. We need gun safety, recent events have left heartbroken families without their children. Tell the NRA to push safety, to tell their members the reason restrictions are going to happen is because self restraint is not practiced. Stand up and take responsibility and not try to push this on every thing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:37 PM

57. To be fair to the Delicate Flowers

 

They got the Rambo Fantasy floating around in their head. They gotta satisfy it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:59 PM

60. Well, there are professional, habitual, and convicted criminals out there who obtain them illegally


Can't forget about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:40 PM

63. Well, you seem to understand the definition of "law-abiding".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread