SMH

The AR-15 rifle. It is in fact a very good platform for hunting and is the must purchased civian semi-automatic rifle. Bernie is right if this sets the precident.

The AR-15 was not designed for duck hunting.

Or hunt at all. I know the truth is hard to take. Why don't you dispute what I posted with some facts.

...small point, doesn't really detract from the points made.

These rifles are marketed as 'military' weapons. What's their purpose for civilians?

Since you have to add material to the base receiver and put in an auto search which is controlled by the feds as a machine gun itself. I know this bull works on the less informed.

...and you are correct that there are several manufacturer modifications which make it impossible to convert them to fully automatic.

edit:

For what purpose would the average civilian need a working rifle which is marketed as a 'military' weapon?

Target shooting. Same as I do with my full military specification rifles.

...but only to active competitors with restrictive licensing.

I'd also like to see a ban on hunting with the AR-15.

Any other civilian uses you believe are valid?

The second amendment does not require a list of qualified civilian activities as far as I know. And you do know the AR platform and all rifles in general are the least used in firearms murders, right.

...has that ever happened?

How often have civilians been on record having defended their home against intrusion with an AR-15?

The rights afforded civilians for the possession and use of these weapons designed(originally) for the military should be much more restrictive. The purposes you've listed can be mitigated without denying you your right to possess and use a firearm, just not this particular one.

I think public safety outweighs unrestricted recreational use, and hunting isn't a feature consistent with it's design.

...your right to hunt would still be very much intact if the AR-15 was banned.

It's also a weapon of choice of several mass killers in recent years:

A total of four independent, premeditated and indiscriminate mass shootings occurred in the latter half of 2012. There was no connection between the shooters and the victims, and no reason was established in the selection of victims other than inflicting mass casualties. An AR-15 rifle was the weapon used in all four of these events. The odds of this particular weapon being selected for all four of these independent events simply by chance was estimated to be less than one in a million using two different approaches. The intentional selection of this firearm is additionally supported by the behavior of all four shooters. It is felt that this finding fundamentally changes the assault weapon debate. It is not that this weapon was simply being used at these events, there is little if any doubt that it was being intentionally selected as a weapon of choice in those premeditated indiscriminate mass killings. As this weapon is being actively sought for these events, leaving it unregulated and expanding public availability could only increase the opportunity for its use in future mass shootings of the nature we witnessed in 2012.

Four unrelated, premeditated, indiscriminate mass shooting events occurred in the last six months of 2012. All these events occurred in different states, the assailants were not connected with one another nor their victims, all were premeditated, no apparent reason existed for the selection of the targets (except to inflict mass casualties), and none were considered to be “copy cat” events of each other – all involved different populations and are considered to be independent events. The four events were the Aurora CO movie theatre shooting on 7/20/2012, the Happy Valley OR mall shooting (12/12/2012), the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, CT on 12/14/2012, and the ambush of first responders in Webster, NY on 12/24/2012. In each of these events the shooter used an AR-15 rifle. Several other events that occurred during that timeframe have been identified as mass shootings (ref), but have been excluded for reasons that follow.

Heavy consideration was given to including the Sikh Temple shooting in Oak Creek, WI on 8/5/2012, but under the definition of events being used here it differed from the above four as a reason existed for the selection of the victims. The assailant (Page) was a white supremacist with ties to neo-Nazi groups (ref) who harbored ethnic/racial hatred thus establishing a motive in the selection of the victims. Although what specifically triggered Page remains unknown, the Southern Poverty Law Center has referred to Page as being a frustrated neo-Nazi, and the chairman of the Sikh Council on Religion and Education expressed his concerns of other white-supremacy and neo-Nazi groups harboring similar intentions. This event was felt to be more of a hate crime than an indiscriminate mass murder event.

Regarding the four selected events above, no apparent reason was found for the selection of the targets: movie theatre goers (Aurora), holiday shoppers (Happy Valley), school children and their teachers (Newtown), and first responders that were intentionally drawn to a scene for the purpose of committing mass murder (Webster). Although the Webster event also included attacking a specific population (first responders), there was no evidence of animus towards firefighters on the part of the shooter and a typewritten letter by the assailant (Spengler) reflected the intent to ambush the first responders but offered no motive for the shooting, stating that he had to get ready “..and do what I like doing best, killing people” (ref).

The other excluded events are more straight-forward. The 8/13/2012 shooting in College Station, TX came from a home where gunfire from an AR-15 was directed at law enforcement officers attempting to serve an eviction notice. The 9/27/2012 shooting in Minneapolis was employment-related and directed at members of the assailant’s company; he pulled the gun when his employment was terminated. The 10/21/2012 shooting in Brookfield WI was directed at the assailant’s estranged wife who worked in the spa (she had issued a restraining order) and it is unclear if any of the other deaths/injuries that occurred in the spa were premeditated. And the Frankstown Township PA shooting spree on 12/21/2012 involved the shooter killing a woman on the steps of a church, driving to a neighbor’s home where he killed the neighbor and after leaving the scene intentionally rammed his pick-up truck into the vehicle of that neighbor’s son-in-law where he then shot the relative establishing some level of connection between the shooter and 2 of his 3 victims.

Although there has been much discussion of ‘assault weapons’ being used this past year in several mass shootings, it is felt that the considerations presented here fundamentally change the assault weapons debate. It is not just that the AR-15 rifle was being used in these events, there is little if any doubt that it was being intentionally selected as a weapon of choice in premeditated indiscriminate mass murder events of the horrific nature we witnessed in the latter half of 2012. Keeping this weapon unregulated and increasing public availability could only increase the opportunity for its use in future mass shootings of the nature we witnessed in 2012.

This places lawmakers who oppose the AWB into a troublesome position. Are they willing to leave a weapon unregulated knowing that it is being intentionally selected for indiscriminate mass killings in the civilian population (what its look-alike version was designed to do in battle)? Or if they remain opposed to a ban, would they also be opposed to limiting the magazine capacity of a weapon being sought for such horrific events? (Maddow makes the point that Lanza had to reload the AR-15 only four times over a space of 5 minutes in Sandy Hook Elementary rather than 14 times had the magazines held only 10 bullets). Or are they willing to keep their position that regulating this product is an infringement on the rights of, or an imposition to, ‘law abiding’ citizens. It is important to note that Supreme Court justices in both the Heller and McDonald rulings made clear that the Second Amendment did not confer ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose’ and that a wide range of gun control laws remain ‘presumptively lawful’ including prohibiting ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’. A legal summary of both cases is provided here.

http://www.artonissues.com/2013/04/selection-of-the-ar-15-rifle-in-premeditated-indiscriminate-mass-shootings/

There is no department of needs for a constitutional right.

...as I pointed out, you don't lose the right to bear or use arms because of a restriction on a type of weapon.

In this case, arguing about defending 'constitutional rights' is a non sequitur, because no constitutional rights are being eliminated - just abridged - in the ban of the AR-15 advocated.

The function is the same

...and we could then look at other 'military' weapons marketed to civilians.

an individual weapon. It is a class of weapons that functions the exact same way as any semi-automatic rifle. You are for banning cosmetic features, that is just plain idiotic. And one more thing, the AR 15 is not a military weapon.

...it's marketed to civilians as a 'military and police' weapon.

The AR-15 was designed as an ‘assault rifle’ for the United States armed forces and Colt marketed the firearm to various military services around the world including the US Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps.

It appears that the feature which attracts 'sportsmen' to the weapon - it's ability to fire rapidly and accurately - is tragically accommodating to those seeking to kill as many people in a short time as possible.

The AR 15 is a standard semi-automatic rifle just like this one


Are you against this type of rifle?

between those two?

and what the functional difference is between these?
?resize=930x870%3E

The actual way it works isn't relevant to their fear.

300 people are killed by rifles, of any kind, in a given year but we must ban the class that looks the scariest in the name of safety

Why not go after the M9, which functions and looks the same as the Barreta sold to civilians and is more likely to kill people in a mass shooting than an AR15?

Feature bans are.

And he could adopt other Republican positions, which would help him attract even more Republican votes.

But maybe that is not the way to go. For every Republican vote he picks up, he will lose Democratic votes.

I don't think it would help Bernie to run as a "second amendment" champion. At least not in our house...

That I am sure of.

You don't hunt duck, or hunt at all, yet you're moniker is "Duckhunter935"?

Has nothing to do with guns

This gun was not designed for hunting.

It was modified as the M-16, and that was the go-to gun in Viet Nam. The AR-15 is the civilian version.

You want to go round and round. I know. You have your agenda.

"Sandy Hook is an anomaly. Aurora theater is an anomaly. Crazy people get guns. It's sad. Taking them away or banning their legal sales won't change a thing is your argument."

I disagree.

Banning them is a good start. Yeah, I'll feed your ginned-up fantasy!

It was an assault weapon compliant AR model. It was legally sold in a state that had an active assault weapons ban and the seller conducted a required federal background check that the purchaser passed. The AR platform is the most widely sold semi-automatic rifle sold ad since 1986 it has been designed not to fit any M16 autosear trigger parts.

Accurate, light weight, and adjustable it is an excellent hunting rifle, especially for teens, women and other small framed people.

Could we say every civilian, every child's death since then is blood on the hands of these 'legislators'?

Connecticut kept that law in place after the federal law sunsetted.

as Connecticut does now - after Sandy Hook - then we don't have to play games with versions and modifications.

To the gun used in Sandy Hook. It was a legally sold and purchased firearm. It wasn't modified to be fully automatic, doesn't fire any faster than any other semi-automatic rifle (or semi-automatic handgun), and isn't used by a single military in the world that I'm aware of. Sandy Hook was a tragedy but this lawsuit has zero merit.

I get tired of the outrightbliesoutright lies posted here to try and gin up the people. Facts do matter!!

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.

He has always voted to ban them, it's why the NRA turned on him in Vermont.

His pro-gun control record earned him many F's and a lifetime D minus rating from the NRA.

He also said - and correct me if I am wrong - that this could lead to the end of gun manufacturing and sales in America. Which the NRA publicly agreed with him!

This broad interpretation of the specific issue regarding the AR-15 is not about Bernie wanting to sell weapons to civilians.

And that's why I support his vote for the PLCAA.

A manufacturer or seller should not be held liable for crimes committed using a weapon that was made and sold legally.

If the manufacturer is immune from this kind of civil litigation, the manufacturer has no incentive to stop selling to the public or to make the product safer.

If you want to stop the sale of those weapons then a ban on them is the only option and Bernie has always supported one.

Tobacco, alcohol and guns can all be deemed "unsafe" but trying to sue companies for manufacturing and selling legal products is bullshit.

There are no allegations in this lawsuit that the firearm is defective.

For adding sanity to this conversation.

I've got the facts at the ready!

I think Hillary could do a better job of making this clear (and also lawsuits for safety efforts). She did once in the debates, but mostly left it at urging the right to sue, with Sanders' responding as the Bardens describe above.

is defective and hurts someone they can be sued. People are clueless on this topic.

There are actually 6 exceptions to allow lawsuits in the PCLAA

i'm all for outlawing the sale of these types of guns, but there is no logical way to hold a gun manufacturer liable for the use of a weapon legally produced and distributed. the gun did what it was designed to do. just outlaw the fucking things.

The same as every other semi-automatic rifle, the only difference is the looks and it is modular. But the function and rate of fire is exactly the same.

TheThe M1 rifle? What is an assault rifle as the rifle used in Sandy Hook was not an assault rife or even an assault weapon.

Just FYI, assault rifles are heavily regulated and none have been made for the civilian market since 1986. They are capable of fully automatic or burst fire unlike a civilian available semi-automatic rifle.

"Guns" is business.

As if we didn't know this.

with the exception the manufacturers can not sell to the general public but only federally licensed dealers. Those dealers can only sell to non-prohibited persons that pass a federally mandated background check.

I'm so glad we are safe from the 'manufacturers.'

Who manufacture and promote the product, as the Sandy Hook parents are pointing out.

Or is it the other way around? The 'manufacturers' are uniquely safe from us?

just not for the criminal use by a third party of a legal product they did not sell to the murderer.

from using this product - which was designed and promoted for mass killings - as argued in the letter above from Sandy Hook parents - is just a thing that happens that we can't do anything about - because it's legal?

The argument is to make it illegal to sell to the public!

To stop the manufacturer from selling to the public!

For mass killings. Facts matter. The AR and rifles are the least used weapons in murders. THAT IS A FACT.

I do not see anything about mass killings or murders. Big fail on your part.

From the Sandy Hook parent's letter:

"...emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians."

Rifles that are accurate and work well in bad weather. The same for a good hunting rifle. That has been the same for thethe last several hundred years. Yes fail. They are not promoting mass killing like you charged.

It is what it is, and is very effective in its design.

We're due...another one is coming...soon...

Too bad you are going after the least used weapon for mass killings.

This is what the Sandy Hook parent's are "going after."

I feel thay are misguided

But it isn't illegal and there's zero reason to hold the manufacturer liable for the firearm's misuse

These guns were sold before the Heller decision and would still be sold if Heller was reversed. Nothing would change other than the fact that a few crime-ridden areas like DC would ban law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves while criminals continue to commit murders. Heller really only impacted a handful of places, like Chicago and DC. The state I live in, Virginia, wasn't impacted at all, and if Heller went away tomorrow I would still have a right to keep and bear arms under the Virginia constitution, as would the citizens of about 44 other states under their state constitutions.

And US constitionality of that law through the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Which supersedes state law.

Congress won't pass universal background checks, which has massive public support, so do you really think they would pass any more onerous gun control laws? And of course, the public is NOT in favor of stricter gun control law (other than UBCs), although my recollection is that public opinion is relatively split on whether the "assault weapons" ban should be reinstated. However, I think many that support that law wrongly think it would ban ownership of automatic weapons, which are already strictly regulated.

Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats (ask Bill Clinton). Gun control proponents rarely vote on that issue, while Second Amendment advocates are very politically active.

I admire them for standing up, I don't know if I would have that kind of strength.

But, again.. when your candidate is a ridiculous LIAR, it must make one desperate....

and then sold to the public to make more money.

Bernie said he would reconsider his vote on the liability issue - before he went off on ending gun manufacturing!

Does this make Bernie "a ridiculous LIAR"? Of course not - that would be silly!

if a manufacturer makes an item that is legal and it is sold legally, I don't see how they are liable unless there is a manufacturing flaw that causes damage. We all might think these things shouldn't be sold to the public - and, personally, I hate all guns - but until laws are passed prohibiting their manufacture or sale, these people won't win a court case against the manufacturer. We're in a real mess in this country and the people to blame are those who decided the second amendment meant individuals are allowed to own guns, the Heller decision. Good luck overturning that decision given the percentage of gun nuts in this country.

I don't get blanket immunity for the gun industry.

That's the same as it is with every other industry. You wouldn't sue a car manufacturer if someone intentionally hits you with a car. It's just common sense. Ford didn't break your leg, Joe the felon did. On the other hand, if Ford sells a new car with defective parts and your leg is broken, you can sue. The reason the gun manufacturers and sellers were given limited immunity was to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Small gun shop owners would be run out of business in short order if they had to defend lawsuits where a legally purchased weapon was subsequently used in a crime. As I noted previously, I hate guns and I would be happy as a clam if no guns were sold in this country by anyone. But this is the real world and that's never going to happen.

That is a greater point at stake here.

I think that judges and juries are perfectly capable of sorting out frivolous lawsuits. Corporations don't need immunity, especially when some manufacturers get it and others don't.

I'm not defending this, you know. Just saying people who sue as the people in the OP did are opening themselves up for being stuck with giant legal fees. If the law isn't there to sustain the suit, the judge often makes the people who sued pay everyone's legal fees. What we need is a change in law and given the GOP majority in Congress, good luck with that.

A firearm has to pass at the minimum a federal background check. That is unlike any other legal product for sale to the public.

lawsuits. Other manufacturers were not bring sued to put them out of business by defending frivolous lawsuits. It is not blanket immunity as they can and are sued for legitimate reasons.

He may have a D rating from the NRA but his record on guns is miserable.