jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Police are immune to most lawsuits. "Qualified Immunity" is a term developed by the courts so cops can't be sued or prosecuted for most things.

Daryls Loc: Waco, TX

Apacs1,

AR-15's and similar rifles are semi-automatic; they are not automatic rifles like M-16's and AK-47's. They just look like automatic weapons! Thus, like any rifle, Americans are free to own and use them. These rifles can strike a target at distances over 300 meters; much much further and much more accurately than a handgun is capable of. Sort of like a photographer using a 300mm lens versus a 50mm lens. Does it really matter if a person "needs" that capability, or simply "wants" it, for their own personal reasons? Our Rights are not based on "need". We are, or should be, free to exercise them as long as our exercise does not interfere with another person's Rights.

Daryl

butchsphoto Loc: KENOSHA,WI.

So right

Daryls Loc: Waco, TX

Jerryc41,

“Qualified immunity,” is a legal doctrine that keeps police officers safe from civil lawsuits. It does not protect them from criminal lawsuits and the qualified immunity could be removed leaving the officer(s) open to civil lawsuits. We have witnessed police officers applying authorized procedures and then being prosecuted for violating a suspect's civil rights, the 4th Amendment, or applying authorized procedures improperly.

Currently, there are a number of state legislatures and even Congressmen who are attempting to end qualified immunity for police officers.

Daryl

Rich2236 Loc: E. Hampstead, New Hampshire

I hate to say it, but:
This is a sad commentary about our nation...The "WOKE" idiots, the do-nothings, the uninformed, the complacent, etc., are taking this country down through the seven steps of Dante's hell. And when, not if, but when we reach the bottom, it will be all over...it's been a good 274 year run for our America...

Unless we wake up!!!

pendennis

To be a bit more blunt, it's not a matter of "need" where the 2nd Amendment, or even other rights, is concerned. The basis of the 2nd Amendment goes back to English common law, and the right to protects one's "hearth and home".

One has to understand human rights in the context of the late 18th Century. People have rights, not because they're bestowed on them by others, but because they are innate to thinking humans.

The militia of the time was not the "National Guard" or any particularly organized military group, and certainly no standing army. A man was part of the "militia" simply because of his status as a free man, and part of his responsibility to his community was to be ready to protect it from outside peril.

The idea of "common sense" guidelines is a red herring. To apply that term could also apply to one's freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

Handguns, in the words of the late Jeff Cooper, were to be used until you could get to a long gun. That stated, handguns do indeed have very long-range capabilities. I own a Colt Python which is accurate long past 100 yards; and there are those who use handguns to hunt everything from rabbits, up to bears. The old wives' tales of the inaccuracy of the Colt Model 1911 have long been debunked. The Colt 1911 platform is extremely accurate in the hands of a skilled shooter.

The AR-15, and its variants, are the most popular sporting rifles extant. And their calibers are not restricted to the .223 (5.56mm) cartridge. In fact, the original "AR" (Armalite Rifle) was one with a larger receiver, and chambered in the NATO 7.62mm cartridge; it's now sold in variants of the AR-10. Armalite tried to sell it to the U.S. government, but was rebuffed by the "swamp", and Armalite was undermined in its attempts to sell the design to foreign governments, but that's another story for another day.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Amen.

Granddad Loc: UK

Only in America.

BebuLamar

I don't own a gun but if I do an AR-15 makes the most sense to me. It's small, light, easy to shoot and quite accurate. I used the military M-16 about 50 years ago. I also used the military M1911 and I couldn't hit nothing with it. Of course part of it because of my skill but the damn thing is difficult to shoot well compared to the M-16.

apacs1 Loc: Lansdale, PA

I haven't read about anyone being killed with a 300 mm lens. Nobody, other than the military, "needs" an AR-15. The fact that it's not an automatic weapon is irrelevant. It can be turned into an automatic weapon very easily and was initially designed to do maximum damage. The US is the only civilized country that has more weapons than people. If all the senseless killing of children doesn't get to you, I'm not sure what will. Concerning Need versus Want - I want to be 6'4" 220 pounds of solid muscle. Sometimes you can't have what you want.

pendennis

Again, we're not talking about "needs". The 2nd Amendment was adopted to ensure that citizens would not be subservient to a runaway government. In fact, a strict translation of the 2nd Amendment would require that all male members of the population be armed with an M-16 or M-4 for participation in the militia. I've got mine.

The AR-15 is not "easily" turned into a fully automatic version of the M-16. Since 1986, Colt's Manufacturing and all the others manufacture AR-15's which can't be turned into full automatic without extensive re-manufacturing of the entire receiver. Joe Lunchbucket can't turn one into full-automatic using a file, a hacksaw, and his drill press.

You, like other liberals, always resort "to the children", another canard. Most children are not killed with AR-15's. In fact many are killed because parents have been negligent in firearm storage.

The fact that the U.S. has more guns than population is irrelevant, and you only weaken your argument by inserting this useless statistic; it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

And, PS - You could be beaten to death with your 300mm lens. And if all the guns were magically removed, clubbing your enemy to death would become the modus operandi.

apacs1 Loc: Lansdale, PA

Your last statement says it all. For your information, I have been a Republican for almost 60 years. Because you say the fact that the US has more guns than people is irrelevant doesn't make it so. It just shows your stupidity. Don't bother answering because I won't red your response.

Stephan G

There is something called "Police procedure". It has been around for well over a century or so in the USA. One of the conditions for an arresting officer to do his job is that he has to be the witness to the crime being committed. The question then becomes as to which moment an event becomes a crime. It is not an easy decision to make.

There are several ramifications that pop up with this question. And it takes a couple of college semesters even to understand what is proper to do.

Dannj

What are the odds of a mass killing by someone with a club as opposed to someone with a rifle of any kind…single shot, semi-automatic, automatic, whatever?

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Slowing the shooting rate down always seems to be a 'woke' side issue with some. Legal ownership of all semi-auto, self loading firearms should be very tightly controlled. Not everyone qualifies for legal possession of this class of weapon. How is anyone's 2nd amendment rights being thwarted by tight controls on this class of weapon?