Sandy Hook families take gun case to state Supreme Court

[TupperHappy]

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-families-take-gun-case-to-state-10972962.php

NEWTOWN - The 10 families whose lawsuit against the world’s largest dealer of AR-15 rifles was dismissed last year say their case should be reinstated, arguing that the Sandy Hook massacre was no accident.

“The notion that what happened at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, was unimaginable is a lie,” argues the families’ lawyer, Josh Koskoff, in 50-page brief submitted to state Supreme Court this week. “Sandy Hook was simply gratuitous, senseless proof of what was already known: preparation is no match for an AR-15.”

The families’ argument that Remington is liable for the massacre of 26 first-graders and educators by an AR-15-wielding 20-year-old named Adam Lanza was thrown out of Superior Court in October. The judge ruled that Remington is protected by federal law against claims when people misuse firearms
.
The families are sticking to their argument that Remington was liable, saying the company ssly marketed the semi-automatic rifle to civilians.

Rest at the link.

I've said this before, I feel for the families involved, but Remington is not liable for criminal misuse of a firearm. The lawyers would have us believe that, since Bushmasher manufactured the gun, which was then sold to a wholesaler, which was then sold to an FFL, which was then legally sold to the shooter's mother, who was then murdered and the weapon effectively stolen and used in this horrific crime, therefore Remington, who did not even own Bushmaster at the time the gun was manufactured, is now liable for "negligent entrustment". It's utter insanity.

The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens, 99.9%+ of which are never used in a crime. (And yes I do believe I am using the term literally, literally.)

The only point for continuing this lawsuit is for the lawyers to continue to dip their hands into the wallets of the Sandy Hook families. Its a damn shame.

[ManiacJoe]

1. Where do these victims find such incompetent lawyers?!?!?!

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. I think that your new friends Dunning and Kruger might be their lawyers n/t

[jimmy the one]

3. ar15 white man's toy

tupper: The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens, 99.9%+ of which are never used in a crime.

Except the ar15 can be back fitted to become full automatic, which most all other semi auto rifles cannot, since they were not originally designed to be full automatic.
Converted back, albeit illegally, to full auto with either a common tool (ie file), or a conversion kit.
AK47 can also be converted back to full auto. Probably others.
Doesn't matter if it's illegal, just that they can be converted to full auto, which is inter alia another criterion for defining an assault rifle.

Are you saying that 10's of millions of AR15s are owned by americans? are you trying to say about 20 million and going hyper? multiple ownership for sure then, not quite up to the 80/20 rule, where 80% of the fetish is owned by 20% of the people, but somewhere a bit less imo. (Then 20% of the fetish or fad is owned by the remaining 80% population).
I challenge on this basis that 10's of millions of americans own an ar15, pls provide a source (at least 20 millions by you).
Still about 90% of national rifle stock appears conventional rifles not assault rifles.
Wealthy white man's toy, since not cheap at around $500. A white man's fetish.

[Marengo]

4. How often are AR15s converted to full auto? How many illegally converted AR15s have been seized...

By law enforcement?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Probably a few but you'd have ask in France or Australia

[ManiacJoe]

6. "can" and "can easily" are two very different things.

> Except the ar15 can be back fitted to become full automatic...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Anyone who can convert an AR to full auto...

...can likely build a full-auto from plumbing parts and mouse traps.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Exactly. But those who get their gun knowledge from Hollywood

movies love to spread the myths.

[wincest]

15. if anyone can do it

its this guy

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. I've no doubt whatsoever that you actually believe what you wrote there.

I leave it to the disinterested observer to judge if that is a good thing or a bad thing...

[jimmy the one]

12. iconic amnesia

icon: I've no doubt whatsoever that you actually believe what you wrote there.

You have seen this before, september 2014; you even referenced to irongate a post of mine regarding ar15 & ak47 conversion kits, your post #25.
So don't act surprised & pretend you don't know about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=153559

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. You're are correct, I *have* seen this bullshit before. Thanks for the link to previous broadcasting

...of same

[TupperHappy]

10. That is not what I claimed.

You quoted me above yet obviously did not read it. Others have questioned your blithe assertion on the numbers of AR-15s that have been converted to full auto. As one poster put it (paraprasing), if you can convert an AR-15 to full you could just build your own full auto from much more readily available parts.

Given that there are at least 300 million firearms in this country (likely more), and over 100 million are rifles, my claim that (as you put it) 20 million of them are semi-autos that accept detachable magazines would appear to be on a pretty solid foundation.

[jimmy the one]

11. ar & ak conversions which I do not condone or endorse in any way

tupper happy: That is not what I claimed. You quoted me above yet obviously did not read it.

Blame yourself in good part for being unclear & ambiguous, this is what you wrote: "The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,.."

To phrase it properly so as to avoid confusion, you should have written 'there are literally 10s of millions of semi auto rifles', since 'this kind of rifle' suggests you are speaking of the AR15. It's your post, you clarified it as your prerogative, but don't blame me for your sloppy wording.

tupper: Others have questioned your blithe assertion on the numbers of AR-15s that have been converted to full auto.

I made no assertion, blithe or not, as to how many ar15s have been converted to full auto. I simply wrote that the AR15 & the AK47 could be converted to full auto, using either common tools or a conversion kit. That is a trait which conventional rifles do not possess, to best of my knowledge.

jimmy the one, sept 11, 2015: I have not contended ar15s or aks were converted back en masse, I only said that they could be, and I have also posted that 98%+ of assault rifle owners would not want to do that. Indeed it would utterly foolish for a 'normal' criminal to convert to full auto, would be ridiculous. Only a large scale mass shooter would want to..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175857

What is an ARFA Kit The ARFA Kit contains all of the materials necessary to make the parts that will convert a Bushmaster AR-15 (or other AR-15 with similar specs) from semi-auto to full-auto.
The ARFA Kit includes the following:
•Completed Bolt Carrier Group Counter Weight and detailed instructions for installing the completed part.
•Mostly completed material necessary to make a Trigger Control Group Travel Reducer and ... The instructions include a diagram and layout that can be used to determine when the part has been formed correctly. .. (Because the part is not completed until you make the final bend in the metal, using a pair of pliers, the kit, as-sold, is legal to own.) To make the completed part, you will need a pair of pliers. As an option for those who are concerned that the ARFA Kit may not be legal in their jurisdiction, but would still like to know how it works, we offer a RAW Materials Kit.
http://www.arfakit.com/ --- it's become a dead link, once active: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=153566

Just googled this, dunno how valid: Convert a stock AR-15 to full auto and back again in seconds. The kit is legal to own and very simple to use. https://wn.com/legal_arfa_full_auto_conversion_kit

I checked these links, appear still up: link: From what I understand you could convert practically any AK into it's full auto configuration with about $20 in parts and an hour or two. Highly illegal of course and I would absolutely never condone it
.... Full automatic and select fire on the AR15/M16. The M16 series ... There are several ways to legally and illegally convert a semi-auto AR15 to full auto. The legal ... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=convert+ar15+to+full+automatic
... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=convert+ak+47+to+full+auto
... http://www.savvysurvivor.com/full_auto_and_autoburst_modifica.htm
.. https://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=154167

[yagotme]

13. It is illegal to convert any semi auto firearm into full auto. The law is there.

It is also illegal to murder someone. The law is there.

So, is it illegaler to murder someone with a converted full auto weapon? The criminals must be shaking in their boots over that one. Must be why so few cases of that have surfaced. At least here in the US, anyway.

And, thank god John Moses Browning is no longer with us. He converted a lever action into full auto once.

[Paladin]

14. Is it "illegaler"? Beats me.

I'd be tempted to cut you some slack and figure you were doing an ironic riff on trump's grasp of the English language....but this isn't the group for such charity.

[yagotme]

17. Sorry.

How about super duper double probationary illegal? Wasn't aware a term I've used for years would ruffle your feathers so.
And, is there a group for such charity as you say? I might want to check it out.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. I'm not sure about "illegaler" but it might get you double secret probation.

[yagotme]

54. Used to be Correctional Officer.

I know all about that double secret probation stuff. And about things being "illegaler". Don't know why the other respondent got their knickers in a knot (another old phrase, I might add), but I've used that term long before Drumf was a "thing".

[Straw Man]

29. Correction.

Blame yourself in good part for being unclear & ambiguous, this is what you wrote: "The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,.."

To phrase it properly so as to avoid confusion, you should have written 'there are literally 10s of millions of semi auto rifles', since 'this kind of rifle' suggests you are speaking of the AR15. It's your post, you clarified it as your prerogative, but don't blame me for your sloppy wording.

As far as the grammar issue involved, you are flat-out wrong. The rule for demonstrative pronouns like "this" is the same as the rule for all pronouns: when in doubt, they refer to the closest antecedent, which in this case is "any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine." Furthermore, "the AR-15" is a specific rifle, not a "kind of rifle." "Semi-automatic rifle that accepts ... etc." is a "kind of rifle."

[jimmy the one]

38. no cigar

straw man: The rule for demonstrative pronouns like "this" is the same as the rule for all pronouns: when in doubt, they refer to the closest antecedent, which in this case is "any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine." Furthermore, "the AR-15" is a specific rifle, not a "kind of rifle." "Semi-automatic rifle that accepts ... etc." is a "kind of rifle."

The subject of the sentence was 'The AR-15' - not the semi automatic rifle which was part of the predicate:

"The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,.."

It is sequitur to presume the following sentence referred back to the subject of the first sentence, rather than the semi-auto clause.
I repeat, his wording was sloppy & ambiguous, and most people would agree with my interpretation, not yours.

[Straw Man]

39. I don't smoke cigars.

However, your information is still erroneous.

It is sequitur to presume the following sentence referred back to the subject of the first sentence, rather than the semi-auto clause.
I repeat, his wording was sloppy & ambiguous, and most people would agree with my interpretation, not yours.

Let's look at an analogous sentence, shall we?

ORIGINAL:

"The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,.."

ANALOGUE:

The Pinto was typical of the small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973. This kind of car delivered good gas mileage but often suffered from poor design and inadequate performance.

So you would conclude that "this kind of car" refers only to the Pinto, not to the whole class of "small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo"? I think "most people" would disagree with you.

[jimmy the one]

42. you make my case re AR15

straw man: However, your information is still erroneous.

My premise is correct, as you yourself attested to.

analagous straw man: The Pinto was typical of the small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973. This kind of car delivered good gas mileage but often suffered from poor design and inadequate performance.

Now consider the article title excerpted above being 'A Study of the Ford Pinto'.... The Pinto was typical of the small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973. This kind of car delivered good gas mileage but often...

Quite reasonable to think 'this kind of car' referred back to the pinto.

Recall the title of this thread, which focused on the AR15, not semi auto rifles:
Sandy Hook families take gun case to state Supreme Court ... The 10 families whose lawsuit against the world’s largest dealer of AR-15 rifles was dismissed last year say their case should be reinstated...

then add on, in the OP itself, his remark which I challenged, thinking he was referring back to the subject of his OP:
The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,..
________________________________________

straw man: The rule for demonstrative pronouns like "this" is the same as the rule for all pronouns: when in doubt, they refer to the closest antecedent,

You agree that the sentence wording made what tupper was referring to 'in doubt', by your above wording. Thank you, you make my case. My reply took this doubt into account when I wrote my reply:

tupper: The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,..

jimmy reply #3, asking what he was referring to: Are you saying that 10's of millions of AR15s are owned by americans? are you trying to say about 20 million and going hyper? ...
I challenge on this basis that 10's of millions of americans own an ar15, pls provide a source (at least 20 millions by you).

I challenged on the basis of his uncertain wording, sloppy & ambiguous, and clearly qualified my challenge tentatively on 'this basis', being his referring to the AR15, which it seemed he was.

aside: I once owned a pinto, or at least my ex-wife did, thought it was OK. The chevette a different story, with the aluminum block it was junk after about 55,000 miles when the block warped. Just like they said it might. At least it was relatively cheap to begin with.

[Straw Man]

46. Wrong again, on several counts.

Now consider the article title excerpted above being 'A Study of the Ford Pinto'.... The Pinto was typical of the small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973. This kind of car delivered good gas mileage but often...

The name "Pinto" indicates a specific model of car. "Small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973" designates a kind of cars. The title of the article doesn't change that. The obvious referent of "this kind" is the only one of the two possible antecedents that is in fact a "kind." Add this to the rule of the closest antecedent and you have two reasons to think that the reference is not to the Pinto alone, nor is it to the AR-15 in the original example.

Quite reasonable to think 'this kind of car' referred back to the pinto.

Not reasonable at all. See above.

straw man: The rule for demonstrative pronouns like "this" is the same as the rule for all pronouns: when in doubt, they refer to the closest antecedent,

You agree that the sentence wording made what tupper was referring to 'in doubt', by your above wording. Thank you, you make my case. My reply took this doubt into account when I wrote my reply:

The doubt was yours alone. Rules exist to resolve doubt; doubt has been conclusively resolved -- see above.

You may, of course, chose to ignore the evidence and remain in doubt; that is your prerogative. But don't pretend that yours is a reasonable interpretation.

[TupperHappy]

48. Amazed this is still being debated, but let me interject something.

For all of jimmy's objections, let's not forget that the specific AR-15 used in the shooting, the one that is the subject of all the swirl and anger from the gun banners, IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT ACCEPTS A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE.

Yes, mea culpa, I was unaware that there were AR-15 variants that ARE full-auto. I have since done a little reading on the history of the AR-15. So, YES, there are full auto AR-15s. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the semi-auto version manufactured by Bushmaster and sold to the civilian population. There are, arguably, many more millions of the semi-auto version available than the full version, esp. since any full auto manufactured after 1986 would NOT be available for civilian purchase by any legal means.

Why jimmy decided to go off on a tangent about full auto AR-15s, which were NOT used in the shooting, NOT the focus of the lawsuit, and NOT the firearms being referenced in the original article I was quoting, I don't know.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. Bravo for the hide inspiring response

At least that is my reasonable interpretation.

[Straw Man]

50. And I thought my response was pretty mild ...

... compared to some of the exchanges I've seen on here. I didn't get to see the reply before it got hidden.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. neither did I

[wincest]

16. "ar15 white man's toy"

really? do these people look white to you?

[jimmy the one]

19. proves nothing

your pictures are like testimonials - almost any cause or effort can find people to endorse their product. Often for a price, tho I do not contend this for your pictures above.

The harder part for you to prove is whether the percentage of african americans who own ar15 assault rifles approaches their proportion of the american population, being approx 13% iirc.
Do you contend that near 13% of ar15 owners are black? or ~3% asian? or ~18% non white hispanic? That is what you need to prove. I doubt it.
(Percentages are my educated estimates from recollection)

[yagotme]

21. "proves nothing"

jimmy the one: "ar15 white man's toy"

wincest: Here's some individuals of color with AR-15's.

jimmy the one: "proves nothing"

Yes, it proves that other races own AR-15's. The Koreans on the rooftops during the LA riots had them. Now you want percentages (which are nearly impossible to provide, without super duper government intervention) of ownership by race. Realllllyyyy. Can anybody ever provide enough proof to you on any subject to change your mind on any position? I'll sit here and enjoy my popcorn and Dr Pepper waiting eagerly for your response.

[melm00se]

40. gun ownership demographics

Ownership by race
White 37 %
Non White 32 %
Black 33 %

~5 million americans own AR15's

it is not far of a reach to assume that some of the 33% representing black ownership own AR15's.

[yagotme]

41. Insufficient data.

You will now be asked to provide photo and documented proof of every individual of color in the US that actually owns an AR. Along with the corresponding word salad to make that request as difficult as possible.

[Blue_Warrior]

20. Goodness

The number of crimes committed with illegally converted, full auto weapons must be astronomically low. Do you have any numbers to support your insinuations?

[jimmy the one]

25. to agree, or disagree, with oxymoronic hyperbole

blue warrior: The number of crimes committed with illegally converted, full auto weapons must be astronomically low. Do you have any numbers to support your insinuations?

Your remark is oxymoronic. You are saying that the number of crimes committed with illicit converted automatic weapons is 'astronomically low', which means a very large number at a low end. Ergo you contradict yourself.

informal (of an amount) extremely large.
adverb: enormously ("The bill was astronomically high&quot
enormously or inconceivably large or great •astronomical numbers •an astronomical price
http://www.onelook.com/

Perhaps you meant microscopically low. Makes more sense, sorta, nah, doesn't make sense either. Neither word is apt, illicit SA rifles converted to full auto or select fire auto exist, are rare, and are surely used more than microscopically low either in crimes or illicitly.
Ha, maybe you are indeed spot on, & they are used at an astronomically low rate!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. If there weren't a correction, it wouldn't be you

You always meet expectations.

[Blue_Warrior]

32. As I suspected you had nothing to back up your assertion.

I'm not surprised.

[ileus]

23. A 500 dollar rifle makes you rich....LOL....now that's RICH.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

"Except the ar15 can be back fitted to become full automatic"

SOME civilian AR-15's can be fitted so, made prior to 1986. SOME. With complete replacement of available parts, with M-16 parts which you cannot legally purchase or possess without NFA registration and a 200$ tax stamp, and only if the parts were made before 1986.

That means making an auto-sear, bolt, carrier, and most of the trigger group. That's almost half of the gun, from a production standpoint. So yes, if someone MAKES a fully automatic weapon, they have a fully automatic weapon. Thanks for that brilliant addition to the conversation.

"with either a common tool (ie file), or a conversion kit."

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot add metal components that are missing, with a file. If you want to manufacture a new part out of new metal with a file, that's possible, but the gun might well detonate in your hand due to poor workmanship/materials and bad timing on the cycle of the action.

'Conversion Kits' are not readily available, and simple possession of the kit without even installing it in a gun is a 10 year felony, in federal prison, do not pass go do not collect 200$.

"Doesn't matter if it's illegal, just that they can be converted to full auto, which is inter alia another criterion for defining an assault rifle. "

Only in weapons made after 1986, per the law, and BATFE. (Such weapons would be illegal)

"Are you saying that 10's of millions of AR15s are owned by americans?"

No, there are about 9 million AR-15's in circulation. There are tens of millions of center-fire rifles in circulation of the precise feature set/specifications in operation. AK-47 clones, AR-10's, well the entire AR platform really, Mini-14's, mini 30's, SCAR's, FN-FAL, yadda yadda etc.

"I challenge on this basis that 10's of millions of americans own an ar15"

Challenge rejected on the basis no one claimed that except you.

"Still about 90% of national rifle stock appears conventional rifles not assault rifles."

Lever-action center fire rifles are #1, semi-autos like the AR are #2, so not even close to 90%. You are WAAAAY off.

[jimmy the one]

43. do not employ these illegal conversion kits

atheist: 'Conversion Kits' are not readily available, and simple possession of the kit without even installing it in a gun is a 10 year felony, in federal prison, do not pass go do not collect 200$.

Did I say anywhere that conversion kits were 'readily available'? well aware of your tailing, but the fact remains that some of them including AR & AK47 can be converted to full auto or select fire auto. Which generally differentiates them from conventional rifles doesn't it?

you miss these links?: What is an ARFA Kit The ARFA Kit contains all of the materials necessary to make the parts that will convert a Bushmaster AR-15 (or other AR-15 with similar specs) from semi-auto to full-auto.
The ARFA Kit includes the following:
•Completed Bolt Carrier Group Counter Weight and detailed instructions for installing the completed part.
•Mostly completed material necessary to make a Trigger Control Group Travel Reducer and ... The instructions include a diagram and layout that can be used to determine when the part has been formed correctly. ..To make the completed part, you will need a pair of pliers. As an option for those who are concerned that the ARFA Kit may not be legal in their jurisdiction, but would still like to know how it works, we offer a RAW Materials Kit.
http://www.arfakit.com/ --- it's become a dead link, once active: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=153566

Convert a stock AR-15 to full auto and back again in seconds. The kit is legal to own and very simple to use. https://wn.com/legal_arfa_full_auto_conversion_kit

From what I understand you could convert practically any AK into it's full auto configuration with about $20 in parts and an hour or two. Highly illegal of course and I would absolutely never condone it
.... Full automatic and select fire on the AR15/M16. The M16 series ... There are several ways to legally and illegally convert a semi-auto AR15 to full auto. The legal ... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=convert+ar15+to+full+automatic
... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=convert+ak+47+to+full+auto
... http://www.savvysurvivor.com/full_auto_and_autoburst_modifica.htm
.. https://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=154167

[AtheistCrusader]

44. So, you know such a hypothetical kit would be instant felony to possess and they aren't readily avai

lable. Great. So you're arguing about a unicorn that no one can actually safely acquire.

Possession of a read-to-install ARFA kit is illegal. The whole thing is probably a BATFE dragnet. Caveat emptor.

"There are several ways to legally and illegally convert a semi-auto AR15 to full auto."

Wrong. There is ONE way to legally do it; be a licensed FFL manufacturer or repairer of fully-automatic weapons for sale to the military or law enforcement.

In the eyes of the BATFE the auto-sear itself, without even the proper fire control group, bolt, or carrier, is by itself a felony if it is not NFA registered.


You keep raising this point like it happens in the wild. It does not. It's bullshit. And you can tell, because illegally converted weapons aren't showing up having been used in crimes, in any statistically meaningful numbers. There are a few VERY high profile, but incredibly rare instances (north Hollywood shootout), and that's it.

[jimmy the one]

45. file your taxes soon, but don't file your AR

atheist: you have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot add metal components that are missing, with a file.

You obviously aren't up to speed on this: But if you get one of these so-called "conversion kits" and so much as run a file across the metal piece that renders the gun full-auto, guess what? You've just made yourself into an instant felon by.. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-against-the-law-to-modify-a-firearm-into-a-full-auto-machine-gun-without-a-special-license-like-class-III

ha, they even have a book on it for sale on amazon: Full Auto, Volume 1: AR-15 Modification Manual Paperback – March 1, 2013 The purpose of this small book is to clarify and explain the procedure and parts needed to convert a semi-automatic ar-15 assault rifle to be a selectable, full automatic weapon. Needless to say the actual conversion would be in violation of federal and various state and municipal laws and the reader is so warned. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879470615/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0879470615&linkCode=as2&tag=seamchll-20&linkId=RXYZ5DROALQN3ZLJ
___________________________________

atheist: Challenge rejected on the basis no one claimed that except you.

I challenged based upon tupper's poor wording of a sentence, & qualified my question by first asking what he was talking about: tupper: The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens,..

jimmy reply #3, asking what he was referring to: Are you saying that 10's of millions of AR15s are owned by americans? are you trying to say about 20 million and going hyper? ...
I challenge on this basis that 10's of millions of americans own an ar15, pls provide a source..

I challenged on the basis of his uncertain wording, sloppy & ambiguous, and clearly qualified my challenge tentatively on 'this basis', being his referring to the AR15, which it seemed he was.
See my reply #42, where even straw man conceded tupper's wording left his references 'in doubt'.
Then go soak your head.

atheist: Lever-action center fire rifles are #1, semi-autos like the AR are #2, so not even close to 90%. You are WAAAAY off.

So what would you peg the percentage at?

[pablo_marmol]

22. You're right of course about the lawyers.

Pretty damn nauseating if you ask me. A complete obscenity to prey on the emotions of these families.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. The whole "negligent entrustment" idea...

...can take a fast trip down a rabbit hole without some 'common sense' restrictions.

[gopiscrap]

28. welcome to DU

[gopiscrap]

31. You're welcome

[TupperHappy]

33. I didn't see the post you responded to, its been removed.

Any argument worth having, or just a bunch of nonsense?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. of course it was marketed to civilians. It's a civilian rifle.

Duh.

[wincest]

36. is your avatar

buddy Christ from the movie dogma?

dogma and clerks are my two favorite Kevin smith movies.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Good catch, yes it is.

I, too, am a huge Kevin Smith fan.

[Baconator]

52. It will cost the families dearly but the precedence benefit will prove useful...

... in addition to the mountain that already exists.