On 9/30/2020 1:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:58:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?
The police and the army.


Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You were? I specifically mentioned a policeman , you replied, "an
example where only one shot (even a blank!) was needed to turn away
multiple bad guys." and now you tell us that you were talking about
civilians.

Frank, you just have to stop this changing the target. Your arguments
are becoming extremely reminiscent of Tom.


You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are one type.
But it's certainly possible to design that rounds-in-a-minute limit into
most types of guns. It's not rocket science.

I thought I posted a reference to a bloke with a break action shotgun
firing something like 30 rounds in one minute?

But further to your scheme, you plan to outlaw essentially all of the
existing cartridge using firearms in the world and substitute some
sort of gun that incorporated a clock to prevent the firing of more
then X shots in one minute?"

And the justification is that you don't think that an AR-15 is a
proper firearm?

I read that "According to BATF data there have been 17.7 million
modern sporting rifles (MSR) made or imported into the US since 1990.
That would include other rifles like AK clones, but the majority would
be ARs. 54% of all rifles sold in 2017 were MSRs. That number comes
from the BATF’s annual reports of firearms manufactured and
imported..."
https://www.quora.com/How-many-AR-15...merica?share=1

In this corner we have Frank and in the other some 17.7 million owners
of a "modern sporting rifle".... and the vote is?
I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and
how silly it is, and how detrimental to society.

In a similar way, I don't deny that there are many other stupid
fashions, everything from "rolling coal" to Kardashians. "It's popular,
so it must be good!" is an intellectually empty, vapid argument.
Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had in mind
when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I think that they'd
have phrased it much differently if they knew about the choices
available to today's gun nuts.

There you go again. The 2nd Amendment is quite specific that the
intent is for the state to have a "A well regulated Militia" and I'm
fairly sure that had automatic forearms been available in 1791 they
would have been welcomed by the embryo U.S.
:-) You're fairly sure?

I'm fairly sure that the reason the 2nd amendment mentions "well
regulated militia" is because they intended weapons to be used by a well
regulated militia. There can be no other reason for inclusion of that
phrase.

It took the likes of the grifter LaPierre to con gun nuts into demanding
our current state of gun chaos. But even rational gun users are calling
for more controls. https://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/

What you're pretty sure of is meaningless since you have never bothered to read the Federalist Papers nor to actually read the Constitution.

Tom, you have no idea what I've read. And you so consistently guess wrong!

--
- Frank Krygowski