Change for the sake of change isn't automatically worthwhile, especially when it causes harm. As a whole, the US government is working well enough to be the most prosperous and free country, even though it can always improve. Despite your fallacious critique of my paragraph to Bam, there is always a need for the people to have the right to bear arms, in order to ensure the people can resist the government in case a radical government decides to establish a tyranny. Any semi-automatic gun is as much a weapon of war as an AR-15 (which is to say it's not a weapon that the military would use in war-fare), it's dumb that anti gun activists keep singling this gun out.

I suspect that raynebc is just a young man still in his teens or early twenties. It doesn't really hit you until your late 20's or 30's that this is fucked up, and it doesn't need to be this way. We're still developing until about 25.

If not, it's likely that he's surrounded by a bunch of radical conservatives and he has been forced to assimilate to fit in.

The government has F-15's, Apache's, tanks, and cruise missiles. I promise you, even if a private militia was armed with AK-47's it would have absolutely zero effect against the US government. Case in point: the Taliban/ISIS are far better equipped than American citizens are permitted to be. They're not very effective against the American forces.

The Boston lockdown proved that if the government wants to take over the population they can do it. Boston citizens obviously have plenty of guns, but there was no way they could resist. The military and police had body armor and APC's, and probably a lot more where that came from. Anybody attempting to resist would have been quickly disposed of without any significant threat to the government forces. If you seriously believe that guns empower the people to fight the government in 2019 then you're delusional.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112

The only practical distinction between an AR-15 and the military variant of M-16 is that the M-16 is fully automatic.

The AR-15 is easily modified with a bump-stock (legal in many states!) to simulate automatic firing, and with some modifications to the action could potentially be made fully automatic. Albeit, that would be illegal, but still easy to do since the gun was legally acquired and you can modify it in your basement. There's a reason AR-15's are popular among domestic terrorists.

What's more, it's simply poor sportsmanship to use an AR-15 for hunting. Hunting is about precision. You should only need one shot. The rabbit or deer can't shoot back. And if you litter the body with bullets you'll spoil the meat. If you need more than one shot you need more practice, more patience, or better eyesight. It's sickening how American hunters have stacked the odds in their favor. It's not even a question anymore of whether they'll get something. It's guaranteed. Where's the sport in that?

Bam, I'm in my 30s and have held conservative views my entire life. Willingly. This is the problem with zealots like far-left progressives, they think they're the only people who can have a valid world view. Despite your assertion, small firearms are considered a significant deterrant to tyrannical government. Civilians don't need tanks, nukes or attack helicopters. The taliban could not overtake our armed populace in guerilla warfare on our soil, let alone overtake our military.

The author of that crying Huffpo opinion piece is factually wrong. The fact is that military rifles are gasp actual assault rifles capable of automatic fire. Semi-automatic guns are one bullet per action of the trigger, and this distinction is key. This is obvious to everybody who knows much about guns. The activists have this ever-changing "assault weapon" label that means anything they want it to, but the ill-informed and dishonest ones will conflate that term with "assault rifle" frequently. That Boston example is wholly irrelevant here in that the civilians were allowing the police to search for violent fugitives and not in fact resisting a tyrannical police force.

The AR-15 is not considered a hunting rifle. It is a multi-purpose rifle, and its flexibility one of the reasons it's the most popular rifle in this country. Your uninformed hunting gems are dumb. My Dad is a life-long experienced hunter and he is not in fact guaranteed a kill (which we eat for food) every hunting season. How often have you been hunting? Or do you only know what you've seen on TV?

Edgar, I still feel the same about guns. I'm not an overly emotional, mentally weak man-child afraid of guns because of extreme examples of criminality and made up anecdotes. You'll need to do more than make appeals to emotion to sway me. My rights are more important than your fragile feelings.

The distinction is irrelevant. Ever fired an automatic rifle at a target? I haven't, but I've spent plenty of time researching it. I've watched experienced gun enthusiasts try on YouTube (it's easy to find, Google it). It's nearly impossible to hit anything, even at close range.

Skilled soldiers don't pull the trigger and hold it. That's a good way to empty your gun, overheat/jam it, and miss everything you were aiming at. You may use that to suppress the enemy temporarily, but you'd run out of ammo pretty quickly if that's all you did. If your goal is to kill somebody, at best, a two or three shot burst can be used, or just single shots. If your goal was to kill 30 people with a 30 round magazine you'd want to take individual shots and aim each one. Hey, perfect, the AR-15 can do that masterfully, stock!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#M16

The AR-15 is what Armalite developed in the 50's for the military. First the AR-10, which was denied, and then revised into the AR-15 when the M14, originally T44, failed to keep up with the AK-47 in Vietnam. It was intended to be an assault rifle to counter the AK-47 of the enemy. The modified AR-15 that was adopted by the military was designated the M-16. The modifications were minor, of course.

Claims that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle are absolutely retarded. Of course it is. It was designed to be. And until you're able to admit that it's clear you're incapable of having an honest discussion about gun rights.

You could go hunting with an AK-47 too. It seems American gun enthusiasts actually consider the AR-15 superior to the AK-47. Do you reckon American citizens have the right to own AK-47's? Do you assert that the AK-47 is not an assault rifle? Do you believe that the AR-15 is significantly less effective than the AK-47 or AK-74?

Append:

The distinction that the US army makes is that an "assault rifle" must have a selective fire capability. Since the AR-15 doesn't have that (stock), it doesn't qualify. However, that's little comfort for gun rights debates. As I already discussed, the fully-automatic mode isn't very useful for killing. It's mostly useful for holding the enemy back or forcing them into cover. Which is pretty important on a battlefield, but pretty useless when you're shooting unarmed civilians in a school or shopping mall. It's a technicality, and it doesn't justify American civilians possessing them for personal use.

I think it's ludicrous to argue that anyone would suggest banning AR-15's, but permit similarly functioning weapons. They should all be prohibited. Hunting is meant to be a sport (it certainly isn't a means for survival for the majority of people in 2019 America) so it makes sense that your tools should have limitations. The rabbit or the deer isn't going to shoot back. A bolt action rifle should be plenty adequate for the deer, and a repeater should suffice for the rabbit. There's no need for a semi-auto. If you missed the first shot, you missed. Feel bad, and move on with your hunt.

There's no need for semi-automatic hunting rifles. Sure, they're nice to have, but since they're also effective in terrorist acts I think it's worth challenging. A semi-automatic shotgun might be justified for flying birds (ducks, geese) since they're a bit harder to hit on the move, I suppose, but also that's pretty subjective. Hunters got along fine without them for decades.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-gun-owners-constantly-insist-the-AR-15-is-not-a-military-style-gun-when-the-AR-15-was-invented-for-the-military

That seems like a fairly well balanced post on the subject. The AR-15 is singled out because it stands out as leaning more towards killing humans than killing animals, and is obviously impractical for most self-defense scenarios due to its size. Otherwise, it's just its popularity that singles it out. There are countless other weapons with equal killing power that far exceeds the needs of hunters that could and arguably should also be outlawed.

Instead of arming everyone and expecting individuals to defend themselves, which is ludicrous for many reasons, it makes a whole lot more sense to control guns so that there's a lot less of them and therefore there's a lot less to defend yourself from! If I had a gun and I wanted to rob or kill you I wouldn't announce myself to you. I'd sneak up on you and try to shoot you before you ever even knew what was happening. That's the reality of gun violence. And even if you do happen to anticipate the attack, the majority of people are not going to be sufficiently trained to give themselves an edge. They'd have a much better chance of survival if their attacker had no gun than if they both have guns.

Unfortunately, due to the stupidity of Americans in the last several decades, that reality is a very, very long way off now. The country is saturated with guns. The criminals all have guns. Big guns, small guns, legal guns, illegal guns. Many law-abiding civilians also have guns, but they're probably still outnumbered by the criminals with guns. And worse, lots of crazy people that are technically law-abiding or thereabouts, but are also just one bad day away from a rampage, also have guns. And those are the ones that get the most attention in the headlines.

In reality, all guns not used for hunting or target competitions (sport) are intended to be used against people. And many of the guns that are used for sport are also doubling as potentially being used against people. If gun enthusiasts are honest with themselves, they own AR-15's because they have a fetish for guns and they only own an AR-15 because the M-4 and AK-47 wasn't legal. In reality, they absolutely want a "tactical" style weapon. I know they do because I would too.

The AR-15 may be effective against vermin, and if you stretch it's role against deer or other midsize game, but I'd bet the vast majority of them are used against targets in lieu of bad guys. That's the truth.

I'm in favor of banning all guns not intended for hunting, and that goes also for guns that are technically effective hunting tools, but are also overly effective against people. The reason being because it has worked quite effectively in Canada. And I know the US is different in many ways, and it'll be a long time before this can work in the US, but you need to start somewhere. Hunting in 2019 is predominantly for sport, and sport demands a challenge. Limiting hunting firearms in functionality will enhance the sport while also limiting their effectiveness in terrorist attacks. That's win-win.

I'm not a man-child afraid of guns. I'm not a far-left progressive radical. I'm a just left-of-centre, open-minded, realistic gun enthusiast, that often aligns more with the right than the left, that has come to realize that guns do a lot more harm than good, and humans are far too unstable to warrant their widespread distribution.

Instead, I think that we should be permitted to enjoy guns in controlled environments. Locked down shooting ranges with extremely tight security where the chances of a weapon escaping the facility are negligible. This would still allow gun enthusiasts such as myself to enjoy the sportiness of guns without posing a significant threat to the world outside.

In terms of home defense, the reality is that guns in the home are statistically more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder. And unfortunately people are too selfish to admit that. The author of the above article was 100% correct in saying that both sides are lying to win the argument. And that's the worst place to be because it's a stalemate. Nobody wins, and everything stays the same. And if there's one thing we should all be able to agree on it's that there is a gun problem in the USA that needs solving.

I'm open to any solution that will practically solve it, but of all of the ones that I've considered the most effective one appears to be prohibiting guns that are universally intended for killing people, restricting guns that would be effective for killing many people in a terrorist attack, and still regulating the hunting guns to make them so difficult to acquire that the average Joe having a bad week will either out himself or cool off long before he gets possession. And the ones that already have guns will be a lot less effective.

While we're on the subject, I think that in addition to limiting the types of guns that people can own, I think it's also reasonable to limit the number of guns that are permitted within a household/ownership. There are countless lunatics in both the USA and even Canada that have proven that if left unregulated they will take things to an unhealthy extreme that should make everybody nervous. Nobody needs that many guns.

Append:

I get my gun "kick" from Counter-Strike. It's a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot safer. That said, I've heard from several Americans playing Counter-Strike, many of them ex-military or police, that absolutely should not be permitted to have a gun, but that have dozens of them. To be clear, I'm not saying the video game made them gun-crazed, but rather they were drawn to the video game because they were gun crazed! Nevertheless, they've demonstrated mental instability and a lack of general intelligence sufficient for me to be uncomfortable with their possession of guns. And all I can say is thankfully I live far away from them. Unfortunately for some of you, you do not. My condolences. (Though we too have our share of crazies, and they STILL have guns despite our laws... See, you can still be gun crazy in Canada despite gun control!)

Another point that the author of the above article made that I think was really well thought out was how people abuse the 2nd amendment, and how if they are genuine in their defense of the law would be doing so not to protect their own interests and beliefs, but to protect everyone's, especially the people that they DON'T agree with! The law is meant to represent ALL OF US, not just you.

I'm super baked right now. So forewarning...

You did not just suggest that pistols are superior weapons to rifles... They're worse in every way except price, weight, and subtlety. They're probably more common because they're cheapest, and money counts a lot to most people, but they're also very ineffective.

They still had a lot fewer guns, and a lot fewer gun-related deaths. That's still a win.

I would probably wager that drug prohibition doesn't work because powerful people are the biggest consumer of drugs. The bad people are always going to do whatever they want. The bad people will still have guns when guns are illegal. They do in Canada.

The difference is the good guys won't. That may seem like a failure, but that's simple-minded. In reality, you still have fewer guns to supply bad people with, and you have fewer good people capable of ruining their life (or some other innocent lives) on a bad day.

Append:

To me this goes without saying, but if your country generally produces good people then this should work really effectively. If your country generally produces bad people, firstly you should question your own motives, secondly you should work to change the systems in place to fix it, but also you're either with them or outnumbered. Probably makes more sense to move than to arm yourself...

Now if that was what it was like all over the world perhaps it would make sense as is. There would be nowhere to go to escape it. You would have to fight. Except much of the world isn't like that though. There would be places that you could go where it would just be better, and you could no longer justify the guns. Places not even very far away. Where most things were the same, and the good things that weren't were minor, and the bad things that weren't were major.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cECZQ7rJ8CM

Old, but good. You can continue to argue the wrong points. Some day either you'll come to your senses, or at least the government will and you'll be left behind. Maybe the Democrats will win, and ban all guns, and you 2nd amendment nuts will get to see how your guns do against them.

What really helps to put it into perspective is actually walking yourself through a drill. Actually run around your house. Simulate an attack. How much work it would actually be to try to mount an assault against an attacker? Hell, go to a paintball or airsoft event and live it out. See how far you get before you "die". Odds are not far. Odds are you're no closer to being Walker Texas Ranger than I am. This isn't a TV show. If you get shot you will most likely be good as dead. Unless you train regularly you will most likely panic, and miss every shot you do have, and provoke whoever it is you're against to kill you for fear of their own life. Or you could fumble the gun. Or trip on a coffee table.

Basically, the odds of you actually pulling it off are effectively zero. Even if you have a gun. If somebody comes to your house with bad intentions and a gun you've already lost. Unless they really do just want your TV, in which case let them have it, and hope they leave you alone afterward. If it really is life and death, all you can do is your best. Whether you have a gun or not. The odds of it ever happening though are slim to none for most of us. Otherwise, by your 30's, you'd have several stories where a gun has already saved your life.

Counter-Strike also puts it into perspective. As good as I can be, there are thousands of better players out there. And no matter how hard I try, some are just naturally gifted, and others cheat. And guess what, criminals excel at cheating! That's what they do best. If you're an honest, hard working, law-abiding citizen then cheating probably doesn't come naturally to you. And if you're not, well, I guess you're the bad guy after all.

A gun is unlikely to change anything. If somebody wants to rape or murder your family and they carefully plan their attack you are likely fucked. As Jim Jeffries joked, you aren't possibly going to be ready 24/7. You need to sleep. The good news is most people aren't like that. The odds of that happening are negligible. The relatively few people that do experience these types of events don't justify everybody having a gun. As I said, even if you did have a gun, odds are you wouldn't manage to get yourself out of it.

And even if you DO happen to successfully stop the attacker and kill them you've got a new problem. Convincing the police that it was self-defense. You better hope the forensic evidence supports your story because they're going to be looking for any reason to arrest YOU. And if the pieces happen to fall wrong you could end up facing a life sentence or even a death sentence for all of your trouble. Let alone the mental demons you'd have to live with after killing someone. Men are pretty good at pushing those down and pretending they don't affect us, but they still do, and that tends to lead to rock bottom eventually. You can only pretend for so long. Our subconscious has a mind of its own. Even if you believe you were justified you could still end up feeling sick about it.

Real life is not a movie. I hope nothing like that ever happens to any of you, your families, nor mine for that matter (knock on wood). A gun isn't going to make it "OK". At best, a gun might help you survive it, but it won't help you and your family survive the emotional/mental trauma afterwards. Instead of wishing for a world where you can have guns to protect your family you should be wishing for a world where you'll never need to protect your family. My world seems pretty damn close. And yours probably is too.

Bam, I don't expect Canadians to appreciate or understand why the second amendment exists. It's clear you don't. Your hypothetical scenarios are all worthless.

Aaron, that is a dangerous mindset considering that some far-left activist groups (ie. Antifa) are prone to initiating violence against their political enemies. Words are not violence, but certain kinds of mentally damaged people don't agree and will respond to words with literal violence. That said, I don't have problems with Antifa members who have not committed violent crimes from obtaining and using guns LAWFULLY. This does not mean taking them out with them when they go to counter-protest peaceful right-wingers and brandishing them freely.

Edgar, most veterans are not against the population being armed. This also goes for law enforcement. Your handful of picked cherries is a drop in the ocean.

lmao, you should make that your avatar, rayne

I like Logo.

Now, if you want to arm everybody with light sabers, now you're talking.

{"name":"tenor.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/6\/c62447ea86afb24f0c30a49cda513935.gif","w":498,"h":222,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/6\/c62447ea86afb24f0c30a49cda513935"}