This is an excellent and valid point, but one which will be studiously ignored. “Guns are designed to kill!!!1!” is much too beloved a sound byte to even consider that it is fundamentally missing the point.
The alternative sound bite appears to be “guns are just like alcohol or beans and rice!!!”
The point is that weapons are designed to kill, and that everyone not yet completely disconnected from reality recognizes that there is some cut-point along the distribution of weaponry at which the potential risks to others outweigh the benefits of individual possession. The issue is deciding where that point is.
Or perhaps I shouldn’t make such an assumption. Does anyone here contend that there should be no limits of any kind on individual ownership of weapons?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
The alternative sound bite appears to be “guns are just like alcohol or beans and rice!!!”
[/QUOTE]
Only in the land of the over the top hyperbolic strawman. 
All of society is about weighing potential risks that outweigh the benefits, Hentor. Obviously we haven’t yet crossed the threshold where society believes that the harm having weapons in the hands of it’s citizens outweighs the perceived benefit from a historical personal freedom protected by the Constitution.
Whether or not anyone here believes it, in practice that’s how it has worked since at least the 30’s and maybe before that, when the government had set limits on ownership. I see them as basically on par with limits on freedom of speech, where there are definite limits set by society (such as kiddy porn or, today, racist hate speech). I doubt that framers of the Constitution would be surprised that society puts limits on these things, since I doubt they intended them to be complete blanket protections, but instead they wanted us to be able to integrate them into our society as it evolved, as long as the essential core principals are protected to the good of the majority of society.
It only feels like a bullshit issue because you continue to focus on it. You acknowledge the key issue, the hurdle of the PLCAA without any substantive discussion of it, yet continue to address the fact that folks get the basic names of things wrong. The key issue is that this suit is frivolous and should be dismissed.
Your quote from Wiki is accurate, your assessment of it is not. The wiki quote acknowledges the name “AR-15” is trademarked, and notes other manufacturers make similar rifles under different names. The reason why this semantic nitpick has merit is because by focusing on the “AR-15” or that pattern of rifle, it continues to emphasize the focus on the appearance of the rifle. The lower receiver of an AR-15 pattern rifle can be used with many different calibers - the look or pattern of the lower receiver has little to do with the function of the rifle.
Really? XT, are you seriously asserting that there has been no limit or restriction on private ownership of weapons since the 1930s? I can think of many, many weapons that I would not legally be able to possess as a private individual. You’re just obviously wrong, here.
There is already a cut point, or points. Issues like this suit fundamentally ask whether it has been drawn in the wrong spot.
Uh huh. Um, check the post immediately before mine, from Bricker, to which I was responding, champ.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Really? XT, are you seriously asserting that there has been no limit or restriction on private ownership of weapons since the 1930s? I can think of many, many weapons that I would not legally be able to possess as a private individual. You’re just obviously wrong, here.
[/QUOTE]
Um, no…I’m saying exactly the opposite. There ARE limits, pretty obviously, and that they really started in the 30’s (there were some limits before that, but the real limits started around that time and have gone up since. And, in case you were wondering, I’m fine with limits on gun ownership, on regulations and even licensing and registration, if done sanely and without the intent to circumvent the 2nd by backdoor fiat). I have no idea how you read what I wrote as me saying there aren’t any, since I went on to say that they are similar to limits on free speech. I’m sure you just wanted to say I was wrong, since that’s what you seem to enjoy doing, but at least if I’m going to be wrong please read what I actually write, as opposed to what you think I do.
And I think that suits like this are simply frivolous and do nothing. YMMV obviously.
The issue of the AR-15 trademark name of a rifle was brought up in post #86. Did you forget about your post #87, #89, and #91 which also were about this topic, slugger?
Nope. And you know, if another gunthusiast brings it up again, I just might respond to them! Even without your leave. I’m just such a loose cannon like that.
Sooner or later we always get to this point. This is where the private ownership of nuclear weapons “trap” is “cleverly” sprung.
The lawsuit gets tossed into the trash, where it belongs. If not in the 1st court, certainly during the appeal.
Your meta level observations completely undermine my every move! You’re like a jedi in the manner in which you best me just through observation while giving not one bit of effort to actual refutation.
How can I compete with both beans and rice and Obi Wan?
There is a reasonable question whether people promoting their products as the means by which you can make people “bow down” before you have any responsibility for the consequences. That gets well beyond home defense and sport shooting.
This issue has already been settled by the passage of the PLCAA. If you, or the plaintiffs, wish to attempt to reinvent the wheel, you should remember that the current political environment does not favor more nonsensical anti-gun laws. Elected Democrat representatives can’t run far enough from this issue.
That’s true regardless of how much this is like suing alcohol producers. There’s a law specifically barring this type of lawsuits that alcohol producers do not enjoy. Analogy fail.
After I’ve seen somebody hit the same talking points in a great number of conversations on a topic, is there some reason I should not expect those same talking points to be hit again in the latest conversation on that topic? Was I wrong about where you were headed? Or were you going to switch it up a little and make it private ownership of anthrax or VX this time?
Look, there’s nothing magical about an AR-15, or similar rifles sold under other names, that makes it super-deadly. It’s not a fully automatic weapon, it can’t fire 30 rounds in a second. Heck, if Lanza had a full auto M-16 he probably would have killed a lot fewer people. If you fire a whole magazine in a second with one trigger pull you’re out of ammo in a second. Rifles used by trained soldiers are almost never used on full auto fire even if they have that capability because it’s almost never a good way to kill a bunch of people at once. You usually put a bunch of bullets in the floor and ceiling or sky and then you have to replace the magazine, and how many magazines are you carrying?
Anyway, the idea that a rifle of this sort is fucking awesome for killing people but horrible at killing deer is hard to understand. A bullet that can kill a person can easily kill a deer and vice versa. That the rifle stock is black instead of natural wood grain doesn’t change the characteristics of the bullet. Neither does a bolt action make a rifle superior for hunting compared to a semiautomatic.
It seems like this case has zero chance of moving forward. I guess the motivation was, “What if we filed a nuisance lawsuit to remind people that gun manufacturers are scumbags?”
I’m surprised that loose cannon’s haven’t been banned in your America.
The Bushmaster model in question is closer in design to the Colt M4. (Not that the LSM cares.)