Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[OPC]

Agreed on the sentiment against suing companies for third-party misuse. That was the premise behind my original question on this thread. It just seems so easy for subcommittees and civil lawsuits to nickel-and-dime businesses out of existence [just in legal fees]

[44 AMP]

Tom Servo wrote: left holding the bag when Lucky Gunner counter-sued and won
I was wondering about Daniel Defense's options given the massive legal fees they will likely accrue between protecting their interests while testifying at Congressional subcommittees and responding to the civil lawsuits. It's good to know of a case where at least the civil costs were recouped.

I don't think the civil costs were actually ever recouped. I know it was ordered, by the court, but I don't think they were actually ever paid. (if someone knows they were please correct me.)

As I understand it, Sarah Brady's gun control group hired one of the people who had been at the shooting (I don't think they were shot, but being there qualified them as a "victim") and their spouse, so that the gun control group would have "standing" in the lawsuit, promising to support the couple (though apparently, not in writing...)
When the lawsuit failed, and the court awarded the gun shop not only their legal fees but also damages above that, the Brady's tossed the couple under the bus, so to speak, provided nothing to them and left them on the hook for all costs.

I did see where after that, the couple started one of the "fund me" webpages to raise money to pay those costs, as they said they had been forced into bankruptcy.

Never heard how that went, if they raised anything, or even if they paid the gunshop anything, ever. I doubt they did, despite the court ruling saying they had to. Seems to me that if they had, someone (and not the anti gun mainstream media) would have reported it. Perhaps not, perhaps they paid something, I just don't know. But because of that I wouldn't put it in the group where legal costs were proven to be recouped.

On the subcommittee hearings and civil lawsuits nickle and dime-ing businesses to death, sadly, that's the way the world works. Coldly the way the law looks at it, you don't need an attorney, until you do. Its smart (though costly) to have an attorney present (particularly to keep you from getting into other/more trouble, but you don't need one, in the technical eyes of the law, you can represent yourself. It advised against but you can do it, outside of a criminal case.

Note the wording of the "Miranda rights" warning, which says "if you need an attorney, and cannot afford one, one will be provided for you..."

Criminal matters are cases where the govt says you need an attorney.
Generally speaking.

I'm sure there are exceptions I'm not aware of, so, if I'm in error about anything factual, please correct me.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by OPC

Agreed on the sentiment against suing companies for third-party misuse. That was the premise behind my original question on this thread. It just seems so easy for subcommittees and civil lawsuits to nickel-and-dime businesses out of existence [just in legal fees]

You don't understand: to the liberals that's a feature, not a bug.

They need to find a way to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. And they need that precisely so they can harass companies that haven't broken any laws out of existence.

[cdoc42]

Raising the age to 21 sounds like a good idea until you ask yourself at what age do we expect our youths to be adults? What’s so special about 21?

My father was killed in action during an air raid to Kassel, Germany in 1944. He was a 27-year-old waist gunner, but some of the 35 aircraft that were lost in less than 10 minutes were controlled expertly by pilots who were 19-20-21 years of age. Imagine training a 19-year-old today how to be in control of a B-24 bomber and the lives of his crew in the middle of a World War.

What was lost in the generations since WWII?

Maybe we should review the average age of the criminal who finally grows to the point of recognizing he simply can’t do it anymore, for whatever reason. Identify THAT as the adult age. Put anyone in prison without parole who commits a crime with a gun until he reaches that age, then let him out. No longer can we be our brother’s keeper especially when we can’t trust him not to kill us. We’ve protected ourselves from any criminal actions and he has pissed his life away. Tough darts.

[Doc Intrepid]

Ancillary Observations & Opinions...

On the matter of Banning guns -

The fundamental logic-failure in this approach: The importation, possession, sale, and/or use of heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl has been illegal and zealously policed on both federal and state levels for decades. Yet no American who relies on heroin, cocaine, or fentanyl has difficulties procuring their narcotics. These drugs are widely available and come across the southern border in sufficient quantity to meet the year in/year out requirements of all routine American users - and have done so for decades.

If it were possible to wave a wand and vaporize every AR/AK rifle in the US, they would still be available. They would begin to be imported along the same routes and via the same modes as heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Demand will always be met by Supply.

On the matter of Additional Gun Laws -

Gun Law Advocates deliberately ignore the fact that laws only constrain those who are inclined to obey laws. Criminals do not obey laws. This is what defines them as criminals. For example, those who are committing mass shootings (or indeed any sort of shootings) disobey laws against murder.

Passing additional gun laws will only increase the number of laws violent criminals will not obey. Additional gun laws may result in more charges against offenders afterwards, but will do nothing to prevent future violent attacks. There is something deeply futile about passing laws which are clearly unlikely to accomplish their intended objective, to satisfy an inherent desire to do "something, anything" in response to mass murder by pathological predators.

To believe that passing additional gun laws will somehow constrain those who are disinclined to obey laws to begin with borders on "magical thinking".

On the matter of Enhanced Background Checks -

Two cases exist - those mass shooters who purchased their firearms legally, and many other criminals accused of gun violence who did not.

As noted, many recent mass shooters purchased their firearms legally - which included a background check. It may be the case (in several incidents) that information which should have been available to the State was not included in the appropriate database; and/or there were warning signs that fell short of a National Agency Check or other criminal records reviews. Regardless, these shooters went through the Background Check procedure and were authorized to legally purchase the weapons they used.

In the other cases, the weapons were either stolen from family members - in some cases family members who were first murdered or shot - or were purchased on the black market. Statistics from Everytown (*Bias Alert*) indicate that approximately 380,000 firearms are stolen from private gun owners annually.
https://everytownresearch.org/soluti...20every%20year.

Even allowing for statistical variance due to bias and/or specious definitional characterization, an annual theft rate of more than 350,000 firearms each year is going to fuel a vibrant secondary market in firearms available to criminals who evade Background Investigations.

Additionally, in the book "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner (2009), they discuss research suggesting organized drug gangs routinely transfer quantities of stolen or otherwise illicit guns from city to city, ...'so many months in Chicago, then transferred to New Orleans, then on to Miami,' etc. etc. as a type of 'traveling arsenal' available to members on an 'as needed' basis, not owned or retained for long by any one member, before being boxed up and shipped to some other region.

The capacity of criminals to evade gun laws, and in particular gun laws pertaining to legal purchases made via background checks at commercial FFL outlets, will ensure that - while additional 'enhancements' to background checks will surely constrain legal gun owners and others inclined to obey gun laws - they will do nothing to prevent a flourishing illegal trade in guns conducted by secondary markets throughout the US.

The fact is that with nearly 20 million guns sold in 2021 alone (per Forbes), and 16 million sold in 2020, in addition to those millions in public hands prior to 2020, and with between 350,000 and 400,000 privately-owned firearms being stolen on an annual basis, any psychopath who wishes to acquire a firearm with which to commit violent crimes will eventually be able to acquire a firearm. Preventing the acquisition of firearms by those inclined to use them illegally is probably a lost cause. That ship has sailed.

https://www.safehome.org/data/firearms-guns-statistics/

It's my contention however that if we cannot control the ability of psychopaths to obtain firearms there are still worthwhile objectives society can initiate to reduce the frequency of mass shootings. They focus far more on engineered access control to all facilities, particularly soft public targets such as schools and churches, and on policy and administrative protocols that will limit the ability of predators to conduct such attacks.

The challenge is complex and thus solutions will be complex as well – but they do involve such simple matters as ensuring doors and other obstacles are locked and functioning properly to prevent unauthorized access.

Engineered physical security solutions will certainly not stop all future attacks. But such designs will go much further to constrain future attacks than the incessant focus on "additional gun laws", which any objective analysis of recent shootings will confirm are quite likely to have little if any effect on the future ability of mass shooters to commit attacks.

[Pathfinder45]

Well anything done poorly ends up with shoddy results. The NICS system could probably work better if it were properly implemented. I don't like the idea of waiting periods...NICS is better, yet twice that system put a hold on my purchases, once for a day, another time for several days, but both times were eventually approved. I was told the holdup was likely because I have one of the most common last names in the country. If your last name is Smith, Jones, Johnson, Anderson, or Williams, there are likely half a dozen people in just your own state that have the same first and last name as you, some of which might have done some bad things. Still, I think the NICS system could be done right.

[44 AMP]

As noted, many recent mass shooters purchased their firearms legally - which included a background check.

The thing about background checks is that, essentialy the American public was "sold a bill of goods" promising much and delivering nothing real.

Now, I freely admit that when it comes to a Constitutionally enumerated right, having to get govt approval seems to me to be "guilty until proven innocent", but that's just the principle.

When you get into the details, you find that the checks don't stop anyone who really wants to harm others. The checks can fail to prevent gun purchase when they don't have accurate information, or when they do, and disqualifying information IS NOT ACTED ON. This also happens but isn't reported nearly as often.

Also, in order for the law to actually deter someone, it has to have some teeth. Look at how the govt (present and previous adminsitrations) have treated the matter of prohibited persons lying on the federal forms in order to try and buy a gun from an FFL dealer.

Lying on the form is a separate crime and carries a multi year penalty, in and of itself separate from illegally trying to buy a gun. There is no "teeth" when the govt catches these people, what nearly always happens is they deny the gun purchase, and go no further. Prosecution is not actually zero, but it is so low as to be meaningless.

The other point where background check always "fail" is when there is no disqualifying background to be found.

Its repeated endlessly (it seems) when some mass killer "bought the gun(s) legally" as if there were something wrong with that. There isn't, by definition. If they bought the guns legally, they weren't criminals. They broke no laws. They were not prohibited persons. They were, in fact the same as every other law abiding citizing in this country. And entitled to the same rights and treatment as the rest of us.

its kind of like some wacko deliberately running down several people with a car or truck...ever hear anyone remark on how horrible it was that he bought his car legally and oh gosh, even had a valid driver's license!! oh the horror!!

Many (not all, but many) of these mass killers don't have any records of any wrongdoing to check. Some have things that might be considered disturbing, but when those things don't meet the legal standard for action, NO CRIME has been committed. Kids will say a lot of creepy stuff, often just for its shock value. Millions upon millions have done this and never gone on to kill people.

But what's the proposed action when perceived threats (real or not) appear now? Red flag laws. Seize their guns now, figure out if there's a real threat later. The potential for abuse is horrendous.

Not the optimal solution as proposed (and in some places already enacted) as I see it.

Consider this, if you can somehow keep guns out of the hands of these potential killers, and if you also harden the recognized targets, you might reduce the mass shootings, some, but will you be able to reduce the violence? or will you just be causing the would be killers to choose other methods and other targets?

one of the biggest mass murders in recent times was done with gasoline, and chained shut nightclub doors.

And then there's the greatest mass murder of our modern age, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, thousands killed many more injured, and no gun was used there, at all.

Point here is if you make one tool harder to get, they will just shift to a different tool.

In order to stop these killings you have to remove the killers desire and will to do it. Fear of punishment doesn't do it, most of these killers don't leave the scene alive, or plan to. Fear of a lifetime in prison doesn't affect a death seeking nihilistic assassin. Not one bit.

And lets be honest, that's what a lot of these shooter are. They're angry, frustrated, (not to mention deluded) and are seeking to go out in a "blaze of glory" in their own minds, taking as many as they can "with them" to feed their egos. If the cops don't kill them, they often do it themselves.

Not all of them, of course. several have been taken alive, some have calmly and peacefully surrendered after their murder spree ended.

What's their punishment? prison? IF they are found mentally competent to stand trial, and get convicted. Psychiatric institutionalization if they aren't found competent to stand trial. Doesn't seem like justice, to me...

Its almost enough to consider demonic possession a valid thing....

[seanc]

44 AMP

The thing about background checks is that, essentialy the American public was "sold a bill of goods" promising much and delivering nothing real.
...
When you get into the details, you find that the checks don't stop anyone who really wants to harm others. The checks can fail to prevent gun purchase when they don't have accurate information, or when they do, and disqualifying information IS NOT ACTED ON. This also happens but isn't reported nearly as often.

^This. What's the use of new laws if they aren't using the existing laws in THE EASIEST CASES EVER to prosecute: i.e. someone lying on the form. They also are pathetic about tracking down straw purchasers too. When I lived in IL, too many times I'd read about gangbangers girlfriends buying guns, some dozens for everyone and then there's no follow-up, just more "guns are evil" shrieking from the usual folks in Crook county and Chicago.

Lastly, if they want to raise the age to purchase certain guns to 21 since 18/19/20 year olds aren't mature enough, then we need to raise the voting age to 21 as well. The ballot box is more dangerous than the cartridge box.

[Aguila Blanca]

It has been pointed out to me that the voting age is estaablished by the Constitution, so e're unlikely to change that. But the minimum age for military service is not established by the Constitution. If 18, 19, and 20-year olds aren't mature enough to buy or own firearms, then they aren't mature enough to be in the military.

(And, having spent some time there myself, I can attest that most of the 18s and 19s very much weren't mature enough.)

[44 AMP]

(And, having spent some time there myself, I can attest that most of the 18s and 19s very much weren't mature enough.)

Having been there myself back in the 70s, I completely understand, and to a point, agree.

However, there is a balancing factor, and that is that the military is a ridgidly controlled environment. Civilian life is not.

During the basic and advanced training stages, the military very tightly controls every aspect of your life. Once you get to your duty assignment, the control is less comprehensive and a bit less rigid, but still much more so than civilian life.

You ARE going to get up at a certain time, you ARE going to keep your physicial appearance and you living quarters to their standards. You ARE going to show up for work on time, etc...

And there is real punishment if you don't. Unlike the civilian world where little things, and even some bigger things don't have much in the way of consquences if you don't obey the rules, in the Military, you can wind up doing hard physical labor, loss of freedom and rank (money and social status) for doing things that have NO consequences or sometimes no counterparts in the civilian world.

It is a highly structured environment with clear rules about everything, and they are rigidly enforced.

Even the "bad actors" fall into line and comply, (if they're even slightly smart) and those who don't rapidly wind up in military jail (aka the stockade or the brig) or even Federal prison, on their way to a dishonorable discharge, after serving their sentences.

And, there's also the unofficial (and technically unsanctioned) "peer pressure". Those who have been there know exactly what I mean.

for those with no clue, look up "blanket party" and go from there...

[seanc]

Aguila Blanca

It has been pointed out to me that the voting age is estaablished by the Constitution

That was added to the Constitution as the 26th Amendment in 1971.


44 AMP

The Federal law for purchasing from an FFL dealer is 18 for long guns (rifles and shotgun) and 21 for handguns. Keep in mind that standard DID NOT EXIST until the Gun Control Act of 1968.

If it took an amendment to fix the national voting age, it should take an amendment to undo what the 2nd Amendment recognizes as our natural right. As this country has aged, we're cutting too many corners in what it takes to change the rules. The constitution is a contract.

[OPC]

44 AMP wrote: The thing about background checks is that, essentialy the American public was "sold a bill of goods" promising much and delivering nothing real.

In my opinion, it's important not to lose sight that the end goal of gun control is a total ban. All these ineffectual "common sense" laws are intended to lay the groundwork for increasing restrictions.

The dialog is always something like: As this universal background check law didn't stop a shooting, let's try this other more restrictive law. Why can't you compromise? It's common sense!

Rinse and repeat until a ban is the next "common sense" step.

At least some of the media are not subtle about it and can be referenced whenever someone denies working toward a ban: Michael Fanone, former DC Metropolitan Police Officer now CNN "Analyst"

[BarryLee]

it's important not to lose sight that the end goal of gun control is a total ban.

Yes, a few years ago I heard an interview on NPR of someone associated with the Brady Campaign. During the discussion he admitted that a gun ban was their end goal. He stated that their strategy was small incremental changes until that goal was achieved. Sorry, no citation,

[rickyrick]

Rinse and repeat until a ban is the next "common sense" step.

Can’t eat an elephant in one meal.

Not my line I stole it from someone, probably here.

[Pathfinder45]

Yeah, there's no doubt that a total ban is the end game of extremists on that extreme... on the opposite extreme we have those that advocate for private ownership of tanks, F-15's, and whatever other weapons the individual desires and can afford, without restrictions. Nukes, anyone?
Those are the extremes. There's a lot of territory between the extremes. I am not an extremist. Extremism tends to give credence to opposite view by the very nature of extremism: It has to be opposed.

[Doc Intrepid]

One of the more problematic consequences of extreme viewpoints (on both sides) is that they inhibit rational compromise between two opposing perspectives. When *ANY* compromise of one’s position is perceived as merely a step towards utter and total capitulation in the future, it tends to harden people’s willingness to consider incremental movements.

Another aspect of the same (opposing extremist) environment is that the actual introduction of what sounded good in theory doesn’t always work as expected. There are unintended consequences, deliberately downplayed or unanticipated secondary outcomes, that inhibit future trust.

Here is one example: in the State of Washington a law was passed (Initiative 1639) which was an omnibus Gun-Control Bill that included many California-initiated gun control components.

Among these were “new requirements for enhanced background checks” for purchase or transfer of semi-automatic *assault rifles* (this term was actually used in the language of the Bill). It included mental health checks. “(Changes) also include mental health checks with the Washington State Health Care Authority, such as records of individuals found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. According to the Health Care Authority, these mental health checks result in approximately 400 denials per year.” [ https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-16...20requirements ]

Complete bill can be found here: https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639

On reflection, after some consideration, people who conduct mass shootings can seldom be pronounced entirely “sane”. The general public probably has a legitimate interest in keeping guns out of the hands of Americans who have been previously documented as being mentally ill – or at least mentally ill to the point that they’ve either threatened or actually carried out violent criminal assaults against schools, churches, or the general public. Thus including mental health checks in background checks might seem to be a reasonable means of safeguarding society against demonstrably mentally ill firearms-buyers.

But first, in practice these checks were extended to handgun sales as well. Second, State access to health records review is not limited – in the paperwork accompanying the application – to a one-time examination of the purchaser’s mental health records. Indeed – they’re not limited to *mental* health records at all. In effect the language requires that the firearms purchaser give up their privacy rights to ALL their own medical records – ALL medical records – indefinitely. The state, per the language on the form, retains the right to examine your medical records on an open-ended basis. There is no duration stipulated. In other words, if – several years in the future – you suddenly develop some mental illness (or any other medical condition deemed ‘problematic’), theoretically the State could flag (i.e. ‘red flag’) your medical records to indicate that – at some point in the future – you are no longer judged to be a rational actor with respect to your firearms. One can only imagine how this might be performed, how AI-enhanced technology may impact this in the future, and what the consequence might be of such a determination by the State.

So ‘compromises’ that may initially seem logical or legitimate on their face may in practice contain unexpected or unanticipated consequences where the State took liberties with the execution of the laws to further invade the privacy and liberty of Americans who want to purchase firearms.

This sort of outcome erodes trust, and makes the discussion of bipartisan gun control extremely challenging. One cannot blame “extremists” who distrust ANY compromise as an incremental surrender of Constitutional Rights, when experience shows that Anti-Gun politicians in fact cannot be trusted.

[OPC]

Pathfinder45 wrote: Yeah, there's no doubt that a total ban is the end game of extremists on that extreme

I disagree that it's just the extremists that want a total ban, I believe that all gun control advocates want it. Some are just more circumspect about voicing their end goal.

Pathfinder45 wrote: There's a lot of territory between the extremes

Is there? I've never understood what compromises gun control advocates have made to get to where we are now and what they are giving up to get some of the proposed bills passed. To borrow from your metaphor, the territory isn't theirs to begin with.

[Ricklin]

I am no advocate for gun control, however am I the only one that takes note of what parts are easily available to effectively make an AR-15 a full auto weapon?

Triggers that allow aimed full auto fire? Sure all that is needed is 600 bucks.

Easier to conceal, put a "brace" on your AR pistol, and the aforementioned 600 dollar trigger.
Now we have a killing machine for the deranged. It's just too easy.

I hear that Glock kits are coming in via China, 10 minutes on the bench, and an extended magazine and we have a machine pistol.

Yes the kit for Glock will require a trip to the dark web. It is not difficult.

If AR's are banned, I really won't miss mine.

[Tom Servo]

On reflection, after some consideration, people who conduct mass shootings can seldom be pronounced entirely “sane”.

Actually, they CAN, and that's the scary part. Most seem to have antisocial personality disorder. We used to call them sociopaths.

The disorder is characterized by a lack of empathy. That's how these people can do horrible things that would never occur to any of us. But go further into it, and they're excellent liars and manipulators. Not only does it get them what they want, they enjoy the sport of it.

The Columbine shooters are a good example. They were in the system. They'd been arrested, diagnosed with other disorders, and remanded for counseling. In short order, they convinced their therapists, families, and law enforcement that they were perfectly healthy and they'd just made dumb mistakes.

(This is why blaming the parents is often off base. If there's one group of people they've had plenty of practice manipulating, it's their own family.)

And that's the problem. If they can convince the whole world they're sane, it's hard to spot them.

That's why background checks aren't going to do anything for this problem. We need to be thinking outside the box, and all our politicians can do is put tape on the box and call it reform.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by Ricklin

I am no advocate for gun control, however am I the only one that takes note of what parts are easily available to effectively make an AR-15 a full auto weapon?

Triggers that allow aimed full auto fire? Sure all that is needed is 600 bucks.

Easier to conceal, put a "brace" on your AR pistol, and the aforementioned 600 dollar trigger.
Now we have a killing machine for the deranged. It's just too easy.

I hear that Glock kits are coming in via China, 10 minutes on the bench, and an extended magazine and we have a machine pistol.

Yes the kit for Glock will require a trip to the dark web. It is not difficult.

If AR's are banned, I really won't miss mine.

may I point out there is already a ban on full auto unless you get a class 3 license, so no worries there as we know all gun laws are obeyed. Right? And are you also suggesting a ban on all semi auto pistols too, again not needed, we all ready have a ban on full auto if anyone would wish to modify theirs to full auto.
As you know that is sarcasm, gun laws do not work, advocating for more laws will not reduce crime. If I am wrong, show me the city with strict gun laws where the crime has gone done. Here is one question for you, why do the cities with the strictest gun laws not enforce them?

[Ricklin]

Shoot, if I had an answer for that..., you are right gun laws work only for law abiding people.
Yes the Glock kit from China can be worth a decade in Club fed yet the bangers don't seem to care about that.

My concern is the ease that one can install a binary trigger, a brace, and a 100 round drum.
The above is all "perfectly legal" at the Fed level.
I need look back but a year or two to the harvest festival in Vegas. Yet the guns the nutball brought in with him were all "perfectly legal"

It should not be so easy and simple to make up a machine gun that is "perfectly legal" on the streets.
Please, what the heck is such a gun useful for outside the military?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

Yeah, there's no doubt that a total ban is the end game of extremists on that extreme... on the opposite extreme we have those that advocate for private ownership of tanks, F-15's, and whatever other weapons the individual desires and can afford, without restrictions. Nukes, anyone?
Those are the extremes. There's a lot of territory between the extremes. I am not an extremist. Extremism tends to give credence to opposite view by the very nature of extremism: It has to be opposed.

I don't "advocate" private ownership of F-15s, but I do agree with the position that a strict interpretation of the Constitution supports the view that we should be allowed to own them if we can afford them. Same thing for tanks. I cannot accept that recognizing a right enshrined in the Constitution is in any way "extremism." At the time of the drafting of the Constitution Tench Coxe, one of the founding fathers, wrote, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans."

What is a tank or an F-15 if not an "implement of the soldier"?

How about privateers? During the war of 1812, the United States commissioned privateers -- privately owned warships, armed with cannons -- to supplement the Navy. So why can't I own a frigate?

As to extremism being dangerous, if you substitute the word "zealot" for "extremist" I might agree with you. However, I offer for your consideration what Barry Goldwater said in his 1964 speech at the Republican national convention:

... extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
...
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Ricklin

My concern is the ease that one can install a binary trigger, a brace, and a 100 round drum.
The above is all "perfectly legal" at the Fed level.
I need look back but a year or two to the harvest festival in Vegas. Yet the guns the nutball brought in with him were all "perfectly legal"

It should not be so easy and simple to make up a machine gun that is "perfectly legal" on the streets.
Please, what the heck is such a gun useful for outside the military?

I respectfully suggest that you're missing the point.

Machine guns were legal from the founding of the nation until 1935. Actually, they were still legal then, but subject to a tax. They didn't become [mostly] illegal until 1968. So was the Constitution being misinterpreted or mis-applied for 177 years? Machine guns are STILL legal to own, we're just not supposed to make new ones for private ownership.

Realistically, if wrist braces, bump stocks, binary triggers, and/or 100-round drum magazines were of any use at all to the military -- the military would be issuing them to the troops. But you don't see any of those things in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marines.

[s3779m]

Please, what the heck is such a gun useful for outside the military?

The question could be asked what good is the 2nd amendment outside of the military. One only has to look to why the 2nd was written and why it was important enough to be 2nd. The writers of the bill of rights had just liberated a country against a far greater power. The 2nd is to make sure we keep it.

[rickyrick]

I thought they redefined a machine gun so they could deal with the bumpstock already.

I know there are tanks, machine guns, fighter jets, flame throwers and stuff like that this n civilian ownership. You can buy m1 rifles and other surplus weapons there’s a bazillion former bolt action battle rifles in circulation. I own a FAL converted for civilian use. Heck, I think there’s been Mini14 style rifles used by some militaries.
The AR15 has never been a weapon of war, but some look similar and there are some common parts.
A select fire AR15, or any weapon capable of automatic fire are heavily regulated.

I’ve already mentioned this, the AR15 is one of the most common civilian firearms in the USA, it is the common use firearm of civilians. If we give any more compromises for AR15s, we will loose ALL common firearms.

If you want to keep your handguns and hunting weapons, you’ve got to keep the AR15.