Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree28Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 30th, 2017, 01:12 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Using a decent semi-auto rifle such as the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine a good rifleman can exceed 100 rounds per minute so long as he does not take too long to change magazines. A practiced rifleman can change mags in 1 to 3 seconds. So no, 100 rounds in 56 seconds is not out of the question. Use a bump stock and exceeding 100 rounds in 56 seconds is not at all difficult.

Can an unpracticed novice do it? No, probably not. But it is certainly well within the capability of the rife itself.
A semi-auto AR-15 would either jam or melt at a rapid fire rate like what you point out, even with a bump stock. The "rate of fire" is figured by simply firing through 20 rounds as quickly as possible, and then multiplying that to get an estimated rate of fire per minute.

Military AR-15's would do the same, which is why we were trained to fire in short bursts, hell even in single shot mode rounds would jam during qualification.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:00 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
A semi-auto AR-15 would either jam or melt at a rapid fire rate like what you point out, even with a bump stock. The "rate of fire" is figured by simply firing through 20 rounds as quickly as possible, and then multiplying that to get an estimated rate of fire per minute.

Military AR-15's would do the same, which is why we were trained to fire in short bursts, hell even in single shot mode rounds would jam during qualification.
At some point in time it certainly would, if CONTINUALLY fired at that rate.
Any firearm would at some point if fired continually in such a manner.

What's a "military AR-15?" Do you mean an M-16 or an M-4 model?
Hollywood is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
SMFH. A state has the ability to ban weapons, states, even cities and towns, have already been doing so for centuries. They can deny weapons from being sold within their borders. Weapons manufacturers have to obtain a states authorization and certification before it can be sold there, some states are more stringent then others.
Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale - Firearms Division - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

While you have the right to own a weapon, the state has the right to deny certain weapons from being sold or owned while being a resident in their boundaries.
Ah, ok, I see now. So if the state (as in any authority/sovereign political construct, not as in the federated 50 United States) has been doing something for long enough it's ok for it to violate its constitution? Exactly how long is long enough?

If I go around murdering, raping, pillaging, jay walking, or whatever, does it then become if I was doing it long enough?

BTW - the Bill of Rights has only existed for a little over 2 centuries.
Thanks from Sabcat and discollector
Neil is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,781
[QUOTE=Neil;1120062]How about militia purposes, defending our nation from invasion? How about revolution purposes, like what was done to found the United States of America?

Maybe people simply don't want to become vulnerable to enslavement or genocide.



Gosh. I thought we had a military for stuff like that.
Clara007 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:11 PM   #25
Political Agnostic
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,855
An AR-15 is not an "assault" weapon.
Thanks from discollector
Quigley is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:34 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
At some point in time it certainly would, if CONTINUALLY fired at that rate.
Any firearm would at some point if fired continually in such a manner.

What's a "military AR-15?" Do you mean an M-16 or an M-4 model?
The military used the AR-15 early on, it's newer version is now called the CAR-15 (15 inch barrel). The Military also uses the M16 (20 inch barrel) and M-4 (14 inch barrel), i.e. their newer versions. The AR-15 is now obsolete, yet the CAR-15 was still in use while I was in the Army during the late 80's through the 90's.

The AR-15 moniker is what is now used on the civilian side for marketing for a semi-automatic sport rifle. The M-16 and even the M-4 and the AR-15 are all almost identical in appearance. That is why I asked Clara to define what she called an assault weapon.

Last edited by TreeDoc; December 3rd, 2017 at 07:47 AM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:36 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Gosh. I thought we had a military for stuff like that.
Well the military can't revolt, but aside from that which are you referring to? Are you referring to having military to help protect We the People from invasion by backing & supplementing the armed citizenry (aka militia)? Or, are you referring to using the military for enslavement or genocide of disarmed people?
Thanks from Sabcat and discollector
Neil is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:39 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Ah, ok, I see now. So if the state (as in any authority/sovereign political construct, not as in the federated 50 United States) has been doing something for long enough it's ok for it to violate its constitution? Exactly how long is long enough?

If I go around murdering, raping, pillaging, jay walking, or whatever, does it then become if I was doing it long enough?

BTW - the Bill of Rights has only existed for a little over 2 centuries.
What violation of the constitution?

I fear your interpretation of the 2A doesn't fall in line with actual law as has been opined on for more then 200 years (centuries). We can go back as far as 1689 and the English Bill of Rights that grants you the right to own a weapon as allowed by law. So now we've gone back almost 320 years (again centuries).
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:40 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 9,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley View Post
An AR-15 is not an "assault" weapon.
You're certainly welcome to use that defense at your trial if you get caught with one where they are prohibited.

Where the Supreme Court just let stand any law, in any state or locality that bans them.

And you have no recourse or legal standing to appeal a conviction in that jurisdiction.

What your definition is or isn't is irrelevant.
skews13 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:43 PM   #30
Political Agnostic
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
You're certainly welcome to use that defense at your trial if you get caught with one where they are prohibited.

Where the Supreme Court just let stand any law, in any state or locality that bans them.

And you have no recourse or legal standing to appeal a conviction in that jurisdiction.

What your definition is or isn't is irrelevant.
It's a made up term, you use an AR-15, I'll use a 16 or a 47 We'll see who comes out of it. It's best that people like you who have never actually had to fire one at an enemy just keep their mouths shut.
Thanks from Sabcat and discollector
Quigley is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
case, hear, refuses, scotus



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Contraception Case skews13 Current Events 4 June 28th, 2016 12:25 PM
SCOTUS To Hear ex-Goverenor McDonnell Appeal excalibur Current Events 0 January 15th, 2016 06:40 PM
S C To Hear Abortion Case That Could Erode Roe v. Wade RNG Current Events 10 November 13th, 2015 03:08 PM
Court to hear protests at soldiers' funerals case CNN Current Events 84 March 9th, 2010 06:29 AM
SCOTUS refuses to hear gay book case tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 16 October 17th, 2008 02:31 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.