LeviF

Well it roughly translates to "come between them" so...both?

That's "molon labia" you idiot

Again, you have the gall to call yourself reasonable when you insist on calling a situation in which you get whatever you think you want and I get nothing a "compromise." The intellectual dishonesty you've managed to doublethink your way into (I don't think you're being this way purposefully) is astounding.

That's not the point. And this is what you gun-grabbers don't get. If I come and take some part of something that rightfully belongs to you, that's wrong. Even if I come for all of it, and you say no, then I say "let's compromise, I'll only take half" with the full force of the law behind me then it's still wrong. You're the person taking in the above illustration. You're in the wrong. You're the one calling something a compromise when only one party gets anything and then have the gall to call me "absurd." !@#$ right off.

History is a perfectly logical base on which to build an argument. You can deny it until you're blue in the face but that doesn't make it untrue.

Yawn

Dang, 99. Dude is an American icon. Rest easy.

Assuming your AR is chambered in .223/5.56, there are a couple of things to think about. A .223 round from an AR is going to be travelling at about 3000 feet per second, while say a 9mm round from a pistol will be more on the 1000 feet per second side of things. On the other hand, a .223 round is much lighter than the 9mm round. When light rounds hit something hard, like sheet rock, the bullet will start "tumbling," essentially losing its energy very quickly. A heavier round, while slower, won't "tumble" nearly as much. But both rounds are likely to end up penetrating a wall, assuming we're talking about full metal jacket rounds not sold for self-defense. Some light rounds that are designed for self-defense are designed to expand when they hit solid material, and are likely to fragment as soon as they hit anything hard. Premium pistol ammunition, slower and heavier, is not designed this way. tl;dr depends a lot on the ammo. Know your ammo and look up the testing it's gone through. An AR can actually be less likely to cause collateral damage/innocent casualties if you buy the right ammo. This might be effective if this wasn't exactly what your ilk here in the States is asking for. Oh good, we're trotting out this number again. Next will be chainsaw bayonets.

That I am in camp #1 is well-documented here, I didn't feel the need to state it again. Calling the slippery slope argument fallacious doesn't make it fallacious. Aside from letting one portion of one law expire, there has been zero legislation on the federal level to protect gun rights generally since 1934. Looking at the last 80 years of gun legislation makes it clear that it's not going to stop and every gun ban or restriction is seen as a "new normal" from which we need to retreat to be closer to an all-out ban on personal firearm ownership. PS: An AR platform firearm is a much more effective home and personal defense tool than a handgun, IMO.

Unfortunately the position in #3 almost inevitably leads to #4. This has been seen time and again and has been demonstrated several times in this very thread. "An AR-15 is an assault weapon that is only good for killing lots of people!" "Your AR-15 won't protect you if someone comes for your guns!" Which is it, brahim?

At least they didn't chant "African roundball"

Did you originally put a period between **** and house? That would (rightfully) be interpreted as attempting to get around the word filter (which our fearless leader is not fond of) notwithstanding whether the word filter would have caught it or not.

The word filters are funny. It'll catch any combination that has !@#$ in it: !@#$wad, !@#$wit, !@#$stick, sir!@#$salot. But it won't catch a lot of variations on ****. Shithouse, shitbird, ****head, shitpost, etc. Edit: Apparently it does catch ****head. Interesting.

What, depth of your rectum?

Same. We should start a club. Boyst is only an inch shorter than me, he can be in it too.

I thought that gunfire and bald eagle screeches were the sound of freedom. On the 4th of July Toby Keith gets added in too.

Guess I'm lucky I'm not an average person then! I'm taller than average!

He's Canadian and therefore is better? Idk I couldn't hear him over the sound of all my freedom.

You're the only one who's brought him up. And again, if you weren't too lazy to, you'd be able to find the grayed out names on old posts of users who came here, espoused white supremacist nonsense, were promptly mocked mercilessly and eventually banned (once Darin woke up from a nap).

Yeah and I'm sure he was chanting the 14 words and heil Hitler while he went around and got those signatures.

By what, exactly? Making another law for state officials to ignore? Put pressure on states and municipalities and courts to do their !@#$ing jobs and suddenly it gets "tightened up." The Air Force suddenly started adding names to the database after their !@#$up was put on national TV.

Assuming he was involuntarily institutionalized, your gripe is with the state of Florida, not with the background check. The background check will always catch the institutionalization...if the state officials do their jobs and enter the info into the database. Same issue with the former Air Force guy who shot up the church in Texas; if the AF officials responsible for entering the information into the database had done their jobs, the background check would have picked up his DV charge.

There are ways in some states to get your 2nd Amendment rights back if you've been involuntarily committed in the past, but as a general rule an involuntary commitment or an adjudication as mentally defective works the same as a felony: they strip you of your 2A rights. It still comes up in your background check too. I don't run backgrounds for FFLs but there must be an addendum or something for the ones who have gone through the process.

...you cannot possess a firearm legally if you've been involuntarily institutionalized for any amount of time.

In large part this is because the GOP hasn't resembled anything remotely close to "conservative" since Reagan took office.