Probably isn't the word.  It's been studied and quantified.  The explicit ban, the celebrity of mass shooting, and the spectre of Obama-bin-Kenyansama created the black rifle.

I'm sure the industry could use another bump. They've already sold so many of the things it;s gotta be hard to find more nutters, were it not for the injection of paranoia the last time it wouldn't just be remington that went belly under. Amusingly, remington was late to the party. The R-15 was an addition to their lineup in '08. They were and have always been (in)famous for the Rem700..a bolt action that was the standard for a generation.

(three generations if you count people still looking to get a legit 700..not the fuckup up recall remmies)

Never owned a gun. There's safety in money.

(March 28, 2018 at 12:31 pm)wallym Wrote: Never owned a gun.  There's safety in money.

Guns are cheap compared to the dollhairs you would need to be safe with money alone. Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, sounds good though.

Moot point, since guns don't make anyone safe from anything...they just increase risk.

Statistically? I don't understand that statement either. Certainly our marines are safer with rifles than rubber chickens.

(March 28, 2018 at 12:37 pm)rskovride Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 12:31 pm)wallym Wrote: Never owned a gun.  There's safety in money.

Guns are cheap compared to the dollhairs you would need to be safe with money alone. Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, sounds good though.

If you have money, you can buy a house in an area far enough from poor people that violent crime isn't a concern.

Quote: I agree with the fact that it was never really needed in the first place

But it was, Brian.  To serve a particular political purpose in 1789.  That being to allow the southern states to maintain their slave hunting militias without fear of federal ( i.e. "northern") interference.

Thus sayeth Patrick Henry ( ironically of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame) at the ratification convention.

Quote:

Quote:"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

Quote:"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States.... May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

The current problem stems from a single 5-4 decision by the right-wing shits of the SCOTUS in the Heller case.  Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers explained the intent of the Founders:

Quote:THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

The 2d Amendment is about well-regulated state militias.  It is not about every shithead having a private arsenal.  In 1789 the US was not to have a standing army but was to rely on calling up the militia in various states for the national defense.  It was probably one of the stupider ideas underlying the formation of the nation but at the time it was needed to get the various colonies to sign off on it.

Stevens is right.  The 2d Amendment as written is obsolete.  The militia system has been superseded by the National Guard.

(March 28, 2018 at 12:55 pm)wallym Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 12:37 pm)rskovride Wrote: Guns are cheap compared to the dollhairs you would need to be safe with money alone. Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, sounds good though.

If you have money, you can buy a house in an area far enough from poor people that violent crime isn't a concern.

Yeah, that's what OJ and Nicole did.

Another moot point.  Joe gun owner is not a marine on a battlefield.  The most dangerous firearm to him (and all of his loved ones), is his own.  This is a fact and it is a fact that has to be reconciled by the owner if they want to call or consider themselves largos.  

Speaking of problem firearms...and I do this in every thread, but maybe it will help to give context to why the pulse of gun control at present is so ass backwards.  Here's how trace data from the atf ranks em...they rank state by state and there's minor divergence but this is trend;

1.  Handguns that aren't revolvers.
2.  Revolvers.
3.  Hunting rifles.
4.  Shotguns
5.  Deringers
5.  Receivers and frames (yes, as in, peices of guns people use to commit crimes with)
6.  Machine guns (and for the purposes of atfs trace data they actually include ar-15s..specifically modified ones, in this stat even though they are not officially classified as such)


Then you have "unknown types" "detsructive devices" and "any other weapon".  

So..can we see why a person advocating for gun control but saying we can keep our handguns and our hunting rifles and shotguns just -might- be on the wrong track?  Granted, I can understand why we would focus on an edge case like ar-15s and school shootings..and we restrict explosives heavily even though they're down there at the bottom of the list so I don;t see why we couldn't do the same with ar-15s if people just can't stop shooting up schools with them.  If, however, we focus on the least pressing types of firearms and we allow the most pressing types to squeeze through in negotiation..how will that even begin to approach our gun problem?

-and how long do you think a gun ban like that will last?

(March 28, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Moot point, since guns don't make anyone safe from anything...they just increase risk.

Overall statistics don't dictate individual's probabilities.