HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » For those of you who supp...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:22 PM

For those of you who support gun ownership answer me this......

Can you please give me one reason why ANYONE as a private citizen needs to own Assault Weapons. Mind you I realize there are some purpose to these weapons perhaps for those who work in law enforcement or serve in the military. But for a private citizen why would anyone need to own these weapons?

149 replies, 7425 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 149 replies Author Time Post
Reply For those of you who support gun ownership answer me this...... (Original post)
LynneSin Dec 2012 OP
Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1
4 t 4 Dec 2012 #31
Walk away Dec 2012 #146
SajayHobbs Dec 2012 #2
4 t 4 Dec 2012 #32
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #108
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #3
4 t 4 Dec 2012 #33
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #71
exboyfil Dec 2012 #4
Recursion Dec 2012 #7
exboyfil Dec 2012 #12
Recursion Dec 2012 #17
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #26
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #100
4 t 4 Dec 2012 #34
Recursion Dec 2012 #44
mzmolly Dec 2012 #76
Recursion Dec 2012 #78
mzmolly Dec 2012 #79
DustyJoe Dec 2012 #81
Recursion Dec 2012 #5
exboyfil Dec 2012 #15
Recursion Dec 2012 #19
DustyJoe Dec 2012 #87
4 t 4 Dec 2012 #37
Recursion Dec 2012 #39
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #119
Berndbrett Dec 2012 #6
Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #8
Recursion Dec 2012 #10
CountAllVotes Dec 2012 #9
Recursion Dec 2012 #11
rl6214 Dec 2012 #88
union_maid Dec 2012 #13
Berndbrett Dec 2012 #16
union_maid Dec 2012 #25
robinlynne Dec 2012 #126
rl6214 Dec 2012 #91
Recursion Dec 2012 #21
Walk away Dec 2012 #27
Recursion Dec 2012 #28
Walk away Dec 2012 #59
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #120
Walk away Dec 2012 #136
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #142
Walk away Dec 2012 #143
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #147
rl6214 Dec 2012 #92
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #102
thucythucy Dec 2012 #36
Recursion Dec 2012 #38
former-republican Dec 2012 #54
rl6214 Dec 2012 #93
Kolesar Dec 2012 #112
rl6214 Dec 2012 #128
Walk away Dec 2012 #137
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #110
valerief Dec 2012 #14
Berndbrett Dec 2012 #18
Kennah Dec 2012 #20
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #42
Walk away Dec 2012 #22
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #83
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #23
Aristus Dec 2012 #24
bongbong Dec 2012 #29
Recursion Dec 2012 #30
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #40
Recursion Dec 2012 #43
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #48
Recursion Dec 2012 #50
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #63
Recursion Dec 2012 #75
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #116
Aristus Dec 2012 #127
Recursion Dec 2012 #130
Aristus Dec 2012 #138
Recursion Dec 2012 #141
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #35
Recursion Dec 2012 #41
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #46
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #117
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #55
retread Dec 2012 #45
WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #47
sendero Dec 2012 #49
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #104
NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #51
renie408 Dec 2012 #53
kelly1mm Dec 2012 #89
NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #135
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #52
renie408 Dec 2012 #56
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #57
renie408 Dec 2012 #58
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #61
renie408 Dec 2012 #65
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #60
renie408 Dec 2012 #64
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #67
renie408 Dec 2012 #68
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #70
renie408 Dec 2012 #72
Tsiyu Dec 2012 #73
lob1 Dec 2012 #115
union_maid Dec 2012 #69
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #82
renie408 Dec 2012 #86
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #95
renie408 Dec 2012 #96
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #98
renie408 Dec 2012 #103
LynneSin Dec 2012 #124
libdem4life Dec 2012 #62
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #66
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #74
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #94
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #148
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #149
earthside Dec 2012 #77
Politicub Dec 2012 #80
Kaleva Dec 2012 #84
rl6214 Dec 2012 #85
Rincewind Dec 2012 #90
kelly1mm Dec 2012 #97
Kaleva Dec 2012 #111
rdking647 Dec 2012 #99
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #113
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #101
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #122
ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #125
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #132
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #105
JoDog Dec 2012 #106
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #109
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #114
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #118
Sissyk Dec 2012 #121
TRJuan Dec 2012 #123
bossy22 Dec 2012 #129
Paladin Dec 2012 #131
renie408 Dec 2012 #139
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #144
Festivito Dec 2012 #133
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #134
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #140
Glassunion Dec 2012 #145

Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:24 PM

1. The need to protect ourselves

from the NRA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:01 PM

31. Bullshit!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4 t 4 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:49 PM

146. He probably means protect himself from the police and military.

That's the big fear of the gun nut! They have to protect themselves from the government that wants to take their guns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:27 PM

2. You are asking the wrong question

 

Why does anyone "need" to speak in public to 1,000 people about some idea they have?

Why does anyone "need" to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

It has nothing to do with what YOU think anyone may "need" or doesn't "need".

Repealing the entire 2nd Amendment is the only way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SajayHobbs (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:02 PM

32. no, shesn't!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SajayHobbs (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:08 PM

108. FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB!!!

The more the wing-nuts use the word to push their agenda the more the word makes me retch in disgust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:27 PM

3. I doubt you'll get a coherent response.

More like mumbo-jumbo about "because it's my 2A right", etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:03 PM

33. right- Non Coherent all over the place!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:36 PM

71. See reply #2 for incoherent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:28 PM

4. Kill lots of prairie dogs at one time?

You can get a 30 round magazine for the Bushmaster .223 (the gun the killer used).

I agree no conceivable reason for a magazine fed semiautomatic weapon. Here is a video on how fast a Bushmaster can be fired. It is scary.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:29 PM

7. You mean no removable magazines? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:35 PM

12. I admit I know almost nothing about guns

but I really can't see a conceivable reason for the weapon shown in the video to be in the hands of unregulated militia. Maybe I am beinig naive and missing something important.

Should such a gun be available with a 30 shot magazine off the internet? It seems to go beyond my sensibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:42 PM

17. The magazine is just a box with a spring in it

I can't think of a realistic way to have rifles with removable magazines and then keep somebody from making a magazine larger than size X. If it's any comfort, magazines larger than 10 rounds tend to not work very well; the guy who shot Rep. Giffords and the rest was subdued after his large magazine jammed. Yeah, I know that's not much comfort, but it's something.

Like I said upthread, however you feel about the rifle, it's safer and less powerful than what you might think of as a traditional hunting rifle. For various reasons, a lot of people respond very viscerally to a rifle with a pistol grip like that one, but that grip makes it significantly safer to use.

If it's the rate of fire you think shouldn't be available to civilians then... well, Houston, we have a problem, at least politically, because you're talking about banning about half of the 300 million guns in the US. Maybe we should do that, but I can't think of a way to make it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:51 PM

26. This varies by state. In MA it is illegal to buy new magazines with more than 10 round capacity.

On edit - not to say that the determined person will not be able to obtain one, but the laws are pretty stiff if you get caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:56 PM

100. Or make one

 

Especially if they have access to a 3D printer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:05 PM

34. Ha... so funny at a time like this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4 t 4 (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:18 PM

44. It's not a joke. .223s are powerful enough for groundhogs and coyotes but not much more

That's why people for the most part don't hunt with them (except people who hunt groundhogs).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:54 PM

76. Add six year olds to that

list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:56 PM

78. Unfortunately (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:01 PM

79. And six adults,

as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:07 PM

81. ummmmmmm

the .223 is almost identical to the 5.56x45 NATO
........................................................................
While the external case dimensions are very similar, the .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm differ in both maximum pressure and chamber shape. The maximum and mean pressures for some varieties of the 5.56 mm (different cartridge designations have different standards) exceed the SAAMI maxima for the .223 Remington, and the methods for measuring pressures differ between NATO and SAAMI. The 5.56 mm chamber specification has also changed over time since its adoption, as the current military loading (NATO SS-109 or US M855) uses longer, heavier bullets than the original loading did. This has resulted in a lengthening of the throat in the 5.56 mm chamber. Thus, while .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, firing 5.56 mm ammunition in a .223 Remington chamber may produce pressures in excess of even the 5.56 mm specifications due to the shorter throat.
...........................................................................
I think most vets from Vietnam forward can tell you with certainty that this projectile kills humans quite efficiently.

note. the CT shooter had a .223 in his vehicle but, it was not used in the shooting.
.
Untill they change the definition of a sporting semi-auto rifle as being equivelant to a militarized assault weapon, I don't see any regulation for sporting/hunting variants to include much more that a magazine size regulation that is in effect in some states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:28 PM

5. Because I know what "assault weapon" actually means

Assault weapons are safer and less powerful than hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:39 PM

15. It does not seem to be about the power

but about the rate of fire and available ammo in the magazine. A bolt action rifle seems alot less threatening and lethal for a mass shooting than the Bushmaster .223. I doubt we could put the genie back in the bottle on magazine fed guns (I may have the wrong term), but to have a 30 round magazine available on the internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:44 PM

19. OK, but neither of those have anything to do with something being an assault weapon

Unless you're just saying "assault weapon" to mean "semi-automatic weapon". In which case there's literally no way we're going to get rid of all of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:16 PM

87. problematic

My little .22 semi-auto rifle I have for pests around the property. Jackrabbits etc. in that instance would be considered an assault rifle.

In WWII both German (Mauser)and Japanese (type 30) standard infantry bolt action rifles I believe the rate of fire and lethality of these rifles are not disputed by anyone from that conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:11 PM

37. WHAT ??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4 t 4 (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:12 PM

39. Exactly what I wrote

Assault weapons are smaller caliber (less powerful) and have pistol grips (safer) than traditional hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:55 PM

119. Known for years.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:29 PM

6. no weapons no!

this is terrible terrible I hate it hate it very very much this is awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:29 PM

8. They'll scream 'It wasn't an assault weapon!!!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:31 PM

10. It may or may not have been, depending on whether or not it had a bayonet lug

I guess I should say, tell me what you mean by the phrase "assault weapon", and I'll tell you if I think people should be able to own them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:30 PM

9. 5th recommendation

and yes, I too would like to know why?

I never knew what a "magazine" was until an old veteran I know that was a sharp shooter in the Army told me. OMG was my reaction.

Why does a citizen in this country seem to think they "need" one of these evil guns?

WHY?

& recommend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:32 PM

11. You want to ban weapons with removable magazines?

That might be a good idea, but I just want to make it clear that's going way way way past what the assault weapons ban ever did. And bans a class of weapons that are almost never used in crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:18 PM

88. Didn't know there was a Dept of Need that had to approve these things

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:36 PM

13. OK, how's this

I know nothing about guns. Don't want to either. But I'll rephrase the question with apologies to the OP. Why does anyone need a gun that can fire so much ammunition so rapidly that a roomful of people can be mowed down by a single shooter? What legitimate purpose does that have in the general population?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:41 PM

16. no more guns! why you want more guns?!?!

it is terrible already why more needed guns? why no one say stop stop stop!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berndbrett (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:50 PM

25. Um, I don't

I wish no one had them. I would support any gun control measures that could be passed. Any and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:16 AM

126. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berndbrett (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:21 PM

91. Looks like someone is trolling the site with ridiculousness

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:46 PM

21. Media coverage of mass shootings aside, they really aren't used in crimes

That's part of the pushback on this. Gun homicides are committed with handguns. Pretty much period. In fact, homicides with guns other than handguns are so rare that they get a lot of media attention (case in point).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:51 PM

27. Let's not forget that the "non-hand gun" is the preferred gun for mass murders.

Maybe that's why they get so much attention. It's so easy to kill so many children so quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:55 PM

28. You're right. It's a horrifying...

...but miniscule part of homicides. There's a lot of weird things about mass shootings. Usually it's a shooter who goes from zero to psychopath in 30 seconds (at least in terms of his paper trail). I don't know that there's a way to legislatively prevent it. I know that sounds defeatist, but there we are.

The much more common gun homicide, where somebody shoots somebody he knows with a handgun, we can do things about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:49 PM

59. Wow! Maybe we should ban assault weapons and then those "miniscule" mass murders might be prevented

Just think, if this last mass murderer's mother didn't have a legal assault rifle and he couldn't have bought one in a neighboring state or on line or at a gun show, maybe 28 deaths could be avoided. But maybe you don't think twenty eight lives, 20 little children, are worth it. Maybe you think their deaths are so "miniscule" we should just keep our current gun laws.
We can do something right now about assault weapons. Are you willing to do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:00 PM

120. What did the VT punk use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:17 AM

136. And what does that have to do with it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #136)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:41 PM

142. Since the punk used pistols "maybe" an AWB wouldn't

have stopped 32 killed. Or do you want to ban pistols as well?

Among the many probs with prohibitions is they are a day late and a dollar short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #142)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

143. The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle.

And now I have to ignore you as I always ignore gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #143)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

147. But you ignore VT? Not very compassionate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:22 PM

92. Actually these types of guns have only been used a few times in crimes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:00 PM

102. Yep, however, handguns are responsible for the vast majority

 

or homicides in America.

Non-handgun homicides number about the same as homicide by knife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:09 PM

36. "so rare that thet get a lot of media attention (case in point)"

I tend to think this "case in point" is getting a lot of media attention because someone went into an elementary school and gunned down more twenty little children, and six adults, shooting many of them multiple times.

I think that's why this is getting attention, not because it's one of those "rare" cases where a handgun wasn't used to commit a gun crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:11 PM

38. That's true

I was thinking more mass shootings in general, which get a lot more media attention than the much larger number of single shootings that are spread out in time and space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:36 PM

54. 10 shootings in Chicago last night alone , 4 of them were teenagers shot

 

That's a fact , 10 just last night alone.
Criminal violent shootings happen almost every night in big cities "with what'? a handgun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:25 PM

93. And yet Chicago has a total gun ban

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #93)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:17 PM

112. You gloat...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #112)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:32 AM

128. Just a fact

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #93)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:19 AM

137. Too bad the country doesn't have a total gun ban...

then maybe they wouldn't be so easy to get everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:12 PM

110. So they can shoot down the UN black helicopters.

These crazies have been told again and again for over 20 years that they must defend 'Murica from the Evil UN who is going to impose a Commi-Nazi dictatorship on the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:37 PM

14. Bullets should cost $5000 apiece. Chris Rock is right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:43 PM

18. no money for guns!

this is why all started likee this and no one safe now! you can even not send your child to school and not get shooted, this is terrible terrible terrible, how can so awesome thing happen in our country??!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:46 PM

20. So we again return to the calls to ban all firearms, and hand power back over to the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:15 PM

42. Yep, that worked in 1994. Why not try it again?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:48 PM

22. It seems to me that most assault weapon aficionados have law enforcement and...

the military in mind when they cling to their guns. It seems some folks feel the need to protect themselves from our government. When someone types "I keep these guns for my protection" they usually mean to protect themselves from us...the country...the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:08 PM

83. That's not always true

Some people live in bad neighborhoods where the police tend not to be responsive, or in rural areas where the police are remote and may not get there in time. A lot of gun owners are like the ones you described but not all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:48 PM

23. Hard to explain to people who are not familiar with firearms.

So this doesn't explain why people feel the need to own them - that's very individual - but I will attempt to present some arguments why restricting assault rifles would not be an effective means of gun control.

1. The name assault rifle is kind of a canard. It's a rifle. Just any other semi-automatic rifle. It is a military "style" rifle. It looks cool and/or scary.
2. Shotguns with higher capacity magazines can do a lot more close range damage. They are not as cool looking though.
3. More "traditional" looking hunting rifles can do just as much if not more damage. Especially those designed for big game.
4. You can fire just as many rounds per second from a semi-auto pistol. Muzzle velocity is lower and the round will probably not penetrate as deeply or cause as much damage from a pistol. That is not to say pistols are not lethal, but rifles are more effective for self defense.
5. Swat teams, law enforcement departments and armies use them. They are effective weapons. If you are going to have a weapon for self defense why not use what the pro's use. The major difference is that the civilian versions are crippled by not having burst or full auto (selective fire) capability.

But I will reiterate, focusing on restricting or banning these rifles (or any firearm) is probably not going to be effective and will just waste energy and momentum. I would focus on background checks for any and every sale, mental health status requirements, firearm registration, firearm safety, legal responsibility of the owner (ie - you are culpable if your firearm is used in any kind of crime or shooting), training and more training. I think it is absurd to treat firearms like just another off the shelf commodity in this era.

Also, lately the nut bag shooters have been wearing body armor. (Then they shoot themselves - wtf is up with that?) I would suggest that the sale and purchase of body armor be restricted to law enforcement. It's bad enough the crook nutbags are armed nearly as well as law enforcement, might as well try and give the leo's a leg up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:49 PM

24. Oh Lynne, you're just asking for a long, dyspeptic dissertation

on why large capacity magazines do not make for an assault weapon. Or why semi-auto capability, where rate of fire is dictated by how fast one can pull the trigger is not considered an assault weapon. How "cosmetic" features on military-grade weaponry mean it is not an assault weapon.

The gun-crazies have a thousand reasons why assault weapons are not really assault weapons. These reasons, if valid, would disqualify everything from the category of "assault weapons" except for tanks, bombers, and nukes.

You're not dealing with rational people here...

Irrational, bad-tempered reply in 3...2...1...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:58 PM

29. Hit the nail on the head

 

The Delicate Flowers just LOVE to disparage any post that doesn't worship their Precious and all its "lovely" details just like they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:59 PM

30. Maybe we need a moratorium on that phrase. I admit my knee jerks when I see it

The 94 law was such a colossal waste of time and goodwill that I still get really twitchy when I see Democrats talking about it, particularly when it seems like it's people who have fallen for the silent implication that assault weapons are machine guns.

So, when somebody asks "why do people want assault weapons", yes, my response is usually to explain what, legally, that phrase meant in the 94 law (and, in fact, my answer is usually "people don't, and the ban didn't do what you think it did").

So let's get past the phrase: what characteristics of firearms would you like to see banned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:13 PM

40. Ok. How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines?

Or we can just sit around and argue semantics while the body count piles up?

Isn't that really what you are saying? We have failed to do anything good about gun control because of lame ass sophistry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:16 PM

43. We freak out about the definition because a horribly stupid definition became law in 1994

So if we're talking about banning things we should be very clear about what we mean.

How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines?

Thank you. Now I know what you're trying to say. Maybe it's a good idea, though I think that's a lot more weapons than you might think it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:27 PM

48. I haven't made a exhaustive study of weapons (unless you count 5 inch 54 caliber naval guns).

I'd be more than happy to have someone try to lug one of those around through a hallway.

More to the point, as a gun owner myself, it seems that every single time this discussion comes up, instead of helpful cooperation, we spend more time arguing about the minutia instead of real issue.

And really, when it comes down to it, the minutia isn't meant to be helpful, it is meant to bog the conversation down and wear one side down with trivialities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:30 PM

50. No. The minutiae are what become law

We keep bringing them up because that's what we'll end up having to pass. Well, OK, yes, there's some nerd-irritation there when I see people who really don't know anything about firearms coming up with laws about them. What other fields do we do that with? All of them, probably. Education, definitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:02 PM

63. I don't disagree with you in principle.

You can surely admit that it seems more often the purpose of the minutia is to muddy the waters to the point where one side gives up in exasperation rather than an attempt to bring clarity and agreement to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:53 PM

75. I don't know. From this side, I see *any* attempt to get people to actually be specific...

... dismissed and used as evidence that the person asking must be a gun nut (how else would they know so much about guns, after all?).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:32 PM

116. The minutia is often purposely used to muddy the waters.

Clarity is often working against the agenda of the law writers. For example, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Your post #40 is an excellent example of clearing the minutia and saying what you mean with clarity:
> How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines?

Unfortunately, too many DUers come into the Gun Forum lacking the vocabulary to talk about what they want, and instead try using the latest buzzwords that they don't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:29 AM

127. Semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines and the

capability to alter the weapon to full-auto status.

Take up the fucking bow and arrow. I'm much more likely to respect someone who uses that. That's some macho shit.

Sorry if your knee starts jerking. Listen, I only feel safe if I have a tactical nuke ready to go against anybody who fucks with me. Can I have one? And if not, why not? What are the features of a nuke that would cause you to object?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #127)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:58 AM

130. Well, some good news: altering to full auto is a complete myth

Those "conversion kits" you've heard about are just ways of separating gun owners from $50.

The magazine is separate from the gun. How do you propose to prevent a gun from accepting a magazine longer than a certain length? (Or, we could just say no detachable magazines.) IIRC, California requires that rifles have a button in the magazine well that makes you have to use a screwdriver to change magazines. That doesn't address the magazine size directly, but it does address multiple magazines, and it's a sign there might be a technical solution here.

Listen, I only feel safe if I have a tactical nuke ready to go against anybody who fucks with me. Can I have one? And if not, why not?

Legally, because of our obligations under the CBTB and NPT treaties. That said, if you're rich enough, you could buy up G.E., at which point you would "own" most of the US arsenal (though the Dept of Energy would retain custody of them).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #130)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:01 PM

138. Well, take a look at the M1 Garand rifle from World War II.

It had semi-automatic fire capability, the only practical application for which is combat. But it had an integrated, non-detachable magazine that held only eight rounds. A feature like that would reduce the likelihood of large-scale massacres by increasing the need to re-load more often, a time when the user is vulnerable to law-enforcement personnel.

Not to mention the fact that when the M1 fired the last round in the magazine, it would spit out the metal clip that held the eight rounds, a sound that made a distinctive clanging sound. This was a liability in WWII combat, because enemy soldiers, hearing that sound, would know their opponent needed to re-load. This is just the kind of liability school shooters need to be faced with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #138)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:12 PM

141. I could see requiring fixed magazines

That's worth trying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:06 PM

35. And there's always the multiple contradictions

Yeah, I've gotten that same cut-n-paste lecture.

Bolt action hunting rifles are "more deadly" than assault weapons - but they need assault weapons for protection.

So why do soldiers carry M-16s? The difference is not "Cosmetic".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:15 PM

41. The military switched to the M16 because it wounds more than it kills (among other reasons)

Also because it's lighter to carry.

The wound-rather-than-kill thing wasn't humanitarian, but because if I kill somebody I've taken just him out, but if I wound him I've taken out him and the guy next to him as he carries him back to the medic.

Rifles are horrible choices for protection, and I personally haven't seen people suggesting that's what they're used for, though the Internet is full of morons without end, so I'm sure it's been said. Most people use handguns, for the same reasons police (and criminals) prefer them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:25 PM

46. It was more about rate of fire and capacity - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:35 PM

117. And the cheaper ammo. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:37 PM

55. That's a tricky question.

Assault rifles (and their semi-automatic civilian lookalike counterparts) fire comparatively low power ammunition (compared, that is, to most hunting rifles or military battle rifles). Each individual round in a hunting rifle is "more deadly," but an assault rifle holds more rounds. Militaries made the switch to assault rifles as much for logistic reasons (a soldier can carry a lot more of the smaller, lighter ammo and this needn't be resupplied nearly as often) as anything else. In addition, conscript troops (which form the bulk of many armies, although not ours any more) tend to be mediocre shots, so one advantage of the heavier battle rifle ammo (better long-range accuracy) is wasted on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:22 PM

45. Because I don't want anyone to take

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:27 PM

47. other than food, clothing and shelter, people don't NEED much

it's about what people want and have a right to own.

Nobody needs an assault rifle. Nobody even needs a gun. People can do all their hunting with a bow and use a baseball bat or a taser for self defense.

But people want guns, because they're more convenient tools to do what they want to do with them. Even if all they want to do is just shoot targets at the range to just test their skills.

People want lots of things that are dangerous. They want fast cars, alcohol, drugs, unsafe sex, cigarettes, and yes, even guns.

Personally, I don't like guns. I've shot plenty and I'm pretty good with one - but that's because its part of my job. When I'm done with this job, I'll be done with guns.

But just because I don't like something doesn't mean I think it should be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:27 PM

49. I am what probably would pass..

... for a gun nut around here, but since I only shoot every month or two not in the gun nut world.

I have zero problem with an assault weapons ban, a high-count magazine ban. Let me be clear, IT WON'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP THIS SORT OF STUFF, but go ahead I really don't care.

Not only that, I think all private sales should be required to go through a dealer with the normal background check.

All that said - guns are like drugs - people who want them will get them and laws are NO DETERRENT AT ALL, NONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:04 PM

104. As a gun owner

 

I also would have no problem with all private sales requiring a background check. Granted, this also will do nothing to stop these mass killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:30 PM

51. The reason I keep reading here is to kill "dangerous" critters

Critters like raccoons and such. I won't be a bit surprised to find out the killer and others with that mindset enjoy torturing animals.

I have seen hundreds of raccoons here where I live over the years and never had the urge to kill one.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:36 PM

53. I know, right?

I had a friend who had a raccoon that kept getting into her garbage. Her first response? Her husband went outside and shot it.

I asked her why she didn't just bungee cord the lid down. We live in the country and that's what we do and it works fine without killing the animal. She just stared at me blankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:19 PM

89. You don't have chickens do you? Raccoons are dangerous to us chicken keepers! No, I don't

shoot them with am ar-15 (although it would do the job) but I do shoot them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:03 AM

135. Not sure why you feel the need to blast them

I raised 2 children here over the years here.

And never had a problem with raccoons acting aggressive or attacking either of them. Never had one even act like they were going to attack one of my kids.

As for how to predator proof your chicken coop read this. Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. My sister in-law has chickens and she has never lost one to a raccoon. Just have to use you imagination a little and know how to research on the Internet. That is what she told me she did. Never lost one chicken over a 20 year period or had to shoot any wildlife..

http://smallfarm.about.com/od/chickens/a/How-To-Predator-Proof-Your-Chicken-Coop.html

How to Predator Proof Your Chicken Coop

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

52. So only people in government, bush, etc, you trust?

You have bought into the whole terrorism/everyone is the enemy let me protect you thing.

Let's just let those who control drones, kill kids all over the world through wars/sanction/depleted uranium/blood diamonds/etc have everything because they, and only they, are to be trusted and you and me need them to save us all from each other.

All the while you pay taxes to kill people the world over.

Guns are not the problem, though seeing them as such may help folks through the night.

We are, our society, our desires for war and wealth, how we treat the poor, homeless, etc and so on.

No better than the RW and their cries against those evil 'islamic people' - pick an enemy, a cause for problems, and eradicate them or their tools.

All the while the person who did this, their reasons, go ignored so that we can blame a group.

9/11 all over again, except this time it is liberals blaming a group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:38 PM

56. Guns are PART of the problem.

Yes, I agree whole heartedly that simply getting rid of or limiting guns is not going to change things much. But we have to start changing the gun culture in this country that glorifies guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:39 PM

57. Why not change the cause?

How many millions own guns and don't hurt others?

That is too hard though, so let's take the easy route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:42 PM

58. No, the easy way out is reading what you want to read

instead of what is written.

I thought I said that gun control was PART of the solution. You really have a problem with that? And why is it the minute you say 'gun control' all the gun nuts hear 'ban all guns'?

Actually, I just reread what I wrote and I didn't even say anything about gun control. I said we need to change the culture of gun worship. But it looks like I infringed on your religion there, huh??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:57 PM

61. An admirable idea, but fraught with problems.

Many people are prescribed short-term or even long-term pharmaceuticals to alleviate the symptoms of psychological disorders while working on the cause of the disorder.

While working out the cause of gun violence and mass shootings, which may be a multi-generational effort, what do we do about the symptoms in the meantime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:10 PM

65. We start.

We have to start somewhere. You are right, we are not going to eliminate the problem over night. But if we don't start because it is hard or because it won't happen with one single fix, then we are NEVER going to get it figured out. And I am just naive and stupid enough to think that if we TRY we have a better chance than if we all just sit around and shrug and whine about how fucking hard it is going to be.

So, we START. Limit magazine size. Tax ammunition. Ban assault weapons. Insist on training for gun owners. Implement storage laws. Start putting out PSA's about keeping guns stored safely. Begin to broaden access to mental health programs and try to figure out a way to reduce the stigma attached to therapy. Begin some real studies by real scientists into our culture of violence and then PAY ATTENTION to what they say. Start passing around petitions to send to news outlets to change the way they report on this stuff.

Pick one. Or three. But just START.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:52 PM

60. VIOLENCE is glorified in this country, not guns.

Guns are not causing us to be violent.

We live in a violent culture. Our sports are violent. Our movies are violent. Our video games are violent. Kids are exposed to violence in the schools. Many schools are being overrun by bullies these days. Many kids are living in abusive homes. We have poverty issues, racism, homophobia... I mean I can go on and on and on with why we are so violent.

Our government is also very violent. The only other country that executes more people than we do is China. We execute more people than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea all put together. And people cheer this. If you are governor of Texas and tell people how many executions you authorized, people will cheer you.

Guns themselves are not our problem. It's our culture that is toxic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:05 PM

64. If I read one more recycling of that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' CRAP

I am going to puke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:13 PM

67. Fine, believe what you want.

We don't live in a violent society. Its all because of guns. We never had violence in our civilization before guns were invented.

Happy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:15 PM

68. Oh. My. God.

Are you really nine? Is it past your bedtime?

Because you would have to have the mental capacity of a second grader to get that straw man BULLSHIT out of what I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:21 PM

70. You just said that you are tired of hearing that 'guns dont kill people, people kill people?'

Guns are a WEAPON! They don't make a person violent. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are going to out and start mowing people down.

If you get rid of guns, a killer will go to the next weapon of choice.

A guy in China just killed 22 kids with a knife, yesterday! A KNIFE! If we ban guns and the whacko goes into a school and kills 20 kids with a kitchen knife, are you going to come in my house and take my kitchen knives away?

You can't stop killers by taking the weapons away. That's like saying you will stop potheads by passing a law that bans marijuana. Good luck with that! IT WON'T WORK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:44 PM

72. Ok. Let's pretend like I am typing really slowly here and see if you can follow along...

Yes, Guns are a WEAPON! They are a quick, easy, handy weapon that 80 million Americans have lying around where they can get to them. If you make it just a wee bit HARDER to live out their violent fantasies, it might work to reduce the number of gun deaths. Drive by KNIFE THROWINGS would probably be a lot less effective.

Now, just because I happen to think that intelligent gun control is a part of reducing the violence in our society does not mean that I do not think that violence in society is a problem. See, I can have more than ONE idea at a time. I am mentally flexible that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:44 PM

73. You just repeated complete BS


And you want people to take you seriously?


The 22 students were injured in China,not killed.



Get your facts straight.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:25 PM

115. The guy in China slashed 22 kids, but none were killed.

Who would you rather face, a guy with a gun or a guy with a knife? You really think you can do the same damage with a knife? Please! You can't outrun a bullet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:15 PM

69. +1

well said. Some guns allow people to kill lots of people very fast. That's a big part of the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:07 PM

82. The weapons you would ban have been available to US Civilians since WWI

Semi automatic pistols from before then. Up until relatively recently we did not have the current level of violence in society. To claim semi automatic firearms are a causal factor is specious. Lets look at root causes, not blame stuff that has been around for 100 years.

Now here is your sick sack...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #82)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:14 PM

86. That would sound great and all, if you were actually CORRECT.

For a Professor, you seem to be woefully ignorant of these little things called FACTS. There has actually been a DECREASE in homicide rates over the past century.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/05/02/a-crime-puzzle/

And you don't seem all that progressive, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #86)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:45 PM

95. Violence levels in society is not just measured in homicide rates

If you really believe that our society less violent than it was previously, then private firearms are not a problem.

I teach firearms mostly to GLBTs. A group more at risk than most. These are not gun nuts but individuals based on personal experience of threat and or injury who are choosing to arm themselves because they want to survive. They are not going in bad places or engaging in questionable activity, they are just being who they are. Police are never there in real time and can be part of the solution. They are also the kind of people you would disarm to face more powerful attackers.

What is progressive about disarming those who need it to face bashing? How is it not progressive to help the weaker and targeted survive?


You done with the sick sack yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #95)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:50 PM

96. The people you help are carrying assault rifles around?

Cause I am thinking that would just draw attention to them.

The only gun I have ever said should be banned was the assault rifle. I have said that we need intelligent gun control. That's all. You, like all the other gun nuts, have managed to read into that what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:54 PM

98. Of course not...they are illegal in CA



People who think we have gun nuts on DU need to get out and meet some real gun nuts. Their delicate flowers would wilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #98)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:03 PM

103. Honey, I live in South Carolina.

I will put my gun nuts up against your gun nuts any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:26 PM

124. Really? This is the typical response I expect from gun owner apologists

Just like the NRA you made up shit and assumed buried somewhere in my OP I was probably thinking it.

I mean where the hell did you get BUSH of all things from my post?

I just said that I do not think there is any need for regular folks to have assault weapons.

I mean I'm guessing you also believe the NRA bullshit that progressives just want to take away all the guns too.

Next time a post then try not to embellish your creative imagination into it before replying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:01 PM

62. Leave the guns alone...guns don't kill. Ammunition does. It worked for gold. It worked for

illegal drugs. It will work for ammo. Buy all the guns you want, but put a barcode on every bullet. Trackable bills of sale...registered with some alphabet soup federal agency. If it is discharged at a legal shooting gallery or in legal self-defense, declare it. If not...prosecute. Lots of highly trained post-military could use a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:13 PM

66. you do know that an Asssault weapon is a joke right?

I have two hunting rifles that make that guys .223 look stupid but they arent assault weopens...that is what makes this argument so useless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:45 PM

74. What makes the argument useless is one side muddying the waters with bullshit trivia.

We get it. There are people who love the study of guns and the opportunity to show off their knowledge.

How about using the knowledge to help rather than hinder?

President Kennedy didn't say he wanted to build a multistage rocket with a environment module and computers with x amount of fuel and oxygen capacity with a flag and lunar dune buggy with a return module of x technical specifications that would carry a man weighing a certain weight and height to a specific location on moon, but somehow, we managed to put a man a moon with the simple statement "before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" as the starting point.

Let me just put it out there. Is there any form of gun control legislation you think would be helpful to prevent some of these mass shootings?

If you don't, say so simply and plainly. If you do, then use your vast knowledge of weaponry to move the discussion forward. Chiding our ignorance of every iteration of gun ever made doesn't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:43 PM

94. I can tell you how to reduce the drivers of violence in this country

1. End the drug war and in fact all vice enforcement efforts and kill black markets and turf battles.

2. Start a relentless effort against poverty.

3. End the war on the middle class and restore and grow wages.

4. Cease and desist with the tearing down of public education in this country.

5. Stop stigmatizing and starving out mental health.

6. Get the "rape is a gift from Gawd", wimmen answer to the man mentality on the run.

7. Provide a meaningful safety net so a women with children doesn't feel trapped to stay with some abusive fuckwit.

8. Restore upward mobility, give people real opportunities for a better life than platitudes and one in a million success stories.

9. De-militarize and de-blue wall the police. Reduce fear from the communities they are supposed to protect and serve.

10: End homelessness, perhaps no segment is at greater risk of dealing with violence than these folks and few near as desperate either.

11. Stop stigmatizing the safety net. Desperate people don't need the conflict in their heads. Turn down the desperation.

12. Reintegrate felons into society, no second real second chance shuts down hope and increases desperation and the easy transition back into dangerous habits.

13. Reinvent our system of incarceration, we have created a crime incubation program. Too many in, conditions that serve to harden hearts and poison spirits with rape and racist gangs for survival in a harsh and hostile environment.

14. End the two Americas legal system. Punish the destroyers too and the deprivation would slow down on the systemic side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #94)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:07 PM

107. Which one of those

 

would have prevented what happened yesterday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #107)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:27 PM

148. I am not focused on anomalies. I would hope any number would contribute to an environment

where such events are less likely to occur by lowering the "thermostat" in the society.

I have no expectation of eliminating violence, I seek to reduce it fundamentally. I do not pretend it is something new or shocking. I celebrate the overall reductions and prescribe real ways of globally impacting a problem.

What is your argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #148)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:22 PM

149. I don't have an argument

 

It's just if there is a problem, I prefer to try things that might actually solve the problem.

BTW, all gun violence is an anomaly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:56 PM

77. That's easy ...

... certain guys who have sexual self-esteem issues need to own assault weapons in order to create artificial feelings of adequacy for themselves.

This also explains why they need to own many of these weapons and why they have to keep acquiring more and more of them with the decrease in their virility as they get older.

I thought everyone knew this already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:04 PM

80. If we dust off the assault weapons ban and reinstate it

And close the gun show and other retail loopholes.

Also, we need to improve and modernize the background check database.

These are reasonable things that I believe people can get behind.

But the 2nd amendment absolutists drive me nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:10 PM

84. If you are talking about high capacity magazines; I don't see the need for such.

Put a 5 round magazine on a semi-auto AK-47 and you have a gun that's quite good for white tail deer hunting and as effective as the tried and tru lever action .30-30 and no more dangerous to others then the .30-30

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:13 PM

85. It is just a rifle, labeling it an assault weapon doesn't make the bullets

 

Any more deadly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:21 PM

90. You can't legally buy

an assault weapon, by definition, and assault weapon is capable of fully automatic, or burst fire. These have been regulated since the late 1930's. What you and most people call an assault rifle is really just a look-a-like gun. It's not any more dangerous than any regular hunting rifle, that uses the same ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rincewind (Reply #90)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:51 PM

97. Sure you can legally buy a full auto assault weapon. You need a $200 transfer fee and about $20K+

for the weapon, but it is not hard if you have those two things and are not otherwise banned from owning firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rincewind (Reply #90)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:12 PM

111. The NFA of 1934 has nothing to do with assault weapons

It only regulates guns capable of auto fire and other destructive devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:54 PM

99. ill you why i own one

im jewish. my stepdad fled poland during the holocaust and lost his entire family.
I have an assault rifle in case the whack jobs take over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #99)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:19 PM

113. If the "whack jobs" take over, an assault rifle isn't going to help you.

They'll be the one's that own the tanks, body armor, fighter jets, grenades, and host of other things.

At what point during the "whack job" takeover do you think it would come in handy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:57 PM

101. I support gun ownership up to a point...

that point doesn't include assault weapons. I also have no problem with background checks and waiting periods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #101)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:14 PM

122. What is an "assault weapon?" Thanx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #122)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:57 PM

125. You do know how to Google, don't you? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohheckyeah (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:22 AM

132. Yes. What is your definition of an "assault weapon?"

How does one differ from an "assault rifle?"
How does one differ from a semi-auto hunting rifle?

If people are going to prohibit something, these are important questions when bills are drawn up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:06 PM

105. The only private citizens who should be allowed to have assault weapons are collectors.

And those collectors need to be thoroughly licensed and background checked. And those weapons should not be allowed in urban areas.

I have a rifle and a shotgun for hunting and a pistol for self-defense. I have no need for semi-automatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:07 PM

106. There is none

I am a target shooter who competes with a handgun. There is absolutely no need for assault or fully automatic weapons outside of law enforcement and the military.

They are mostly banned in my state (IL), and I completely support that. All they are good for is hunting humans and sowing terror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:12 PM

109. I am not against gun ownership,

but I am against assault weapons and those multi-round magazines. As I've said elsewhere, particularly in rural areas, many people hunt for food or need a firearm for protection against predators, but I see no reason for people in cities to build up arsenals. One weapon for protection maybe, but no need for multiple guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:20 PM

114. They're fun to own and shoot recreationally.

 

Recreational shooting can be safe and fun and is legal.

I admit, it's more of a "want" than a "need"... but in a (supposedly) free country, there is often no need required to own an item.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:50 PM

118. Tell me what you mean by "assault weapon." Thanx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:07 PM

121. Okay, this is my first gun thread.

I will answer from my perspective.

From your title: I am one of those, I support gun ownership. I own three of my own.

From your first question: I do not feel the need to own an assault weapon. I dont own one. I do not know anyone that owns an assault weapon. However, I do know two people that own two weapons that were on the now expired AWB. What is the difference? I am not sure myself. But I do know they own them legally and have never used them for harm. Need? I dont think that is why they have them. I do know they have had them at my house and the neighbors house on days we have target practice.

I was very hesitant to post this, today of all days, because I am sooooo heart broken over the loss of these babies and young adults, including the mother.

But you didn't point fingers, and you seem to honestly be asking so I thought I would answer from my point of view.

To you LynneSin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:18 PM

123. Are the DU mods tracking those who defend these child killing machines?

Seems to me we have a few on here that are a little too protective of their 30 round bullet hoses. I have serious concerns the next school shooter is on this forum. I think the mods need to report some of the above posters to the proper authorities.

At a minimum, their guns need confiscated for spouting such drivel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TRJuan (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:40 AM

129. who died and made you God?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #129)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:11 AM

131. A Week Ago DU Gun Militants Were Proclaiming Gun Control A Dead Issue.


The deaths of those 20 children and six school employees didn't make anybody God. But how is that No More Gun Control meme working for you today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #129)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:02 PM

139. Twenty kindergartners in Connecticut.

That's who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TRJuan (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:47 PM

144. Do you wear khaki army uniforms when issuing edicts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:29 AM

133. Once escalating to a gun, we then escalate to a bigger badder gun.

The first escalation is to avoid dealing with situations. The next escalation is the cost of avoiding to deal with situations.

We don't pay enough attention to our government, so we worry it will fail us and many people with guns will attack, so we want to escalate. We don't know how to deal with situations in part because we lack practice. So, now we need those guns.

Soon, we'll need rocket launchers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:00 AM

134. A semi automatic rifle is not an assault weapon

 

That term is just used as propaganda to an uneducated public. Assault rifles have full auto or burst auto capabilities for the purpose of assaulting (rushing) an enemy position.

FYI...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:04 PM

140. nope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:48 PM

145. Before I can answer, who's definition of Assault Weapon are we using?

There are so many different definitions so are we talking, CT's, NJ's, NY's, IL's, etc...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread