HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The only purpose of "...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:02 PM

The only purpose of "assault" weapons is to kill people.

hunting rifles have a legitimate purpose, hunting (ducks from PETA nuts), there is no reason for a civilian to have these "military-style" fire arms with magazines with 30 or 50 rounds of ammo. Hell, I believe in many states it's ILLEGAL to hunt using such huge cartridges.

I don't think anyone should have such weapons.

And please don't give me the "BUT IT'S MY FREEDUMB!!!" nonsense.

276 replies, 15640 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 276 replies Author Time Post
Reply The only purpose of "assault" weapons is to kill people. (Original post)
Odin2005 Dec 2012 OP
WillyT Dec 2012 #1
morningfog Dec 2012 #2
flvegan Dec 2012 #3
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #9
upaloopa Dec 2012 #4
doc03 Dec 2012 #25
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #33
renie408 Dec 2012 #81
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #100
doc03 Dec 2012 #236
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #252
doc03 Dec 2012 #259
PavePusher Dec 2012 #272
doc03 Dec 2012 #273
PavePusher Dec 2012 #274
doc03 Dec 2012 #275
PavePusher Dec 2012 #276
hack89 Dec 2012 #57
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #77
hack89 Dec 2012 #123
renie408 Dec 2012 #82
hack89 Dec 2012 #120
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #65
LTX Dec 2012 #111
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #126
calimary Dec 2012 #169
PavePusher Dec 2012 #212
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #244
LTX Dec 2012 #183
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #243
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #136
PavePusher Dec 2012 #211
socialindependocrat Dec 2012 #156
LTX Dec 2012 #181
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #202
PavePusher Dec 2012 #210
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #76
PavePusher Dec 2012 #208
former-republican Dec 2012 #5
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #10
former-republican Dec 2012 #11
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #79
calimary Dec 2012 #6
shintao Dec 2012 #70
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #86
shintao Dec 2012 #105
calimary Dec 2012 #172
billh58 Dec 2012 #139
shintao Dec 2012 #142
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #161
shintao Dec 2012 #189
shintao Dec 2012 #194
billh58 Dec 2012 #102
shintao Dec 2012 #112
LTX Dec 2012 #114
billh58 Dec 2012 #115
shintao Dec 2012 #132
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #134
billh58 Dec 2012 #138
shintao Dec 2012 #144
Toronto Dec 2012 #176
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #141
calimary Dec 2012 #160
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #256
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #80
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #7
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #8
jal777 Dec 2012 #12
pipoman Dec 2012 #14
Amaril Dec 2012 #75
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #87
pipoman Dec 2012 #232
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #24
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #31
RC Dec 2012 #61
sir pball Dec 2012 #71
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #95
RC Dec 2012 #110
PavePusher Dec 2012 #216
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #88
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #92
Recursion Dec 2012 #127
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #179
PavePusher Dec 2012 #217
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #54
Recursion Dec 2012 #128
calimary Dec 2012 #175
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #13
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #15
Jenoch Dec 2012 #38
AllyCat Dec 2012 #41
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #43
hack89 Dec 2012 #59
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #72
hack89 Dec 2012 #74
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #78
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #91
hack89 Dec 2012 #108
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #113
hack89 Dec 2012 #119
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #182
hack89 Dec 2012 #191
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #204
hack89 Dec 2012 #223
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #188
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #197
Jenoch Dec 2012 #90
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #97
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #190
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #49
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #187
PavePusher Dec 2012 #220
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #239
PavePusher Dec 2012 #249
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #254
PavePusher Dec 2012 #260
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #240
PavePusher Dec 2012 #248
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #89
PavePusher Dec 2012 #219
shintao Dec 2012 #16
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #18
aardvark401 Dec 2012 #21
sofa king Dec 2012 #29
shintao Dec 2012 #27
micraphone Dec 2012 #48
hack89 Dec 2012 #60
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #66
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #69
hack89 Dec 2012 #73
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #83
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #99
shintao Dec 2012 #106
NoGOPZone Dec 2012 #145
hack89 Dec 2012 #149
NoGOPZone Dec 2012 #150
hack89 Dec 2012 #152
NoGOPZone Dec 2012 #154
hack89 Dec 2012 #163
NoGOPZone Dec 2012 #168
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #195
hack89 Dec 2012 #198
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #96
hack89 Dec 2012 #107
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #184
hack89 Dec 2012 #193
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #205
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #94
shintao Dec 2012 #125
jp76 Dec 2012 #146
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #147
jp76 Dec 2012 #155
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #162
jp76 Dec 2012 #246
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #250
barbtries Dec 2012 #53
shintao Dec 2012 #64
barbtries Dec 2012 #109
shintao Dec 2012 #130
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #135
RC Dec 2012 #63
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2012 #34
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #50
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #68
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #129
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #131
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #133
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #242
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #55
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #67
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #93
billh58 Dec 2012 #103
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #164
former_con Dec 2012 #17
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #19
Grins Dec 2012 #20
Jenoch Dec 2012 #39
Bosso 63 Dec 2012 #62
PavePusher Dec 2012 #221
Mister Ed Dec 2012 #22
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #52
Mister Ed Dec 2012 #124
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #23
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #56
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #166
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #173
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #177
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #26
krispos42 Dec 2012 #28
PavePusher Dec 2012 #222
ReRe Dec 2012 #30
1620rock Dec 2012 #32
Deep13 Dec 2012 #36
Deep13 Dec 2012 #35
Jenoch Dec 2012 #40
Deep13 Dec 2012 #47
cliffordu Dec 2012 #37
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #42
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #58
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #104
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #116
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #122
paulkienitz Dec 2012 #44
azurnoir Dec 2012 #45
PavePusher Dec 2012 #225
azurnoir Dec 2012 #229
PavePusher Dec 2012 #233
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #46
renie408 Dec 2012 #84
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #117
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #137
billh58 Dec 2012 #143
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #170
billh58 Dec 2012 #178
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #185
billh58 Dec 2012 #200
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #207
malaise Dec 2012 #51
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #238
malaise Dec 2012 #245
Ohio Joe Dec 2012 #85
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #237
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #98
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #118
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #121
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #174
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #241
PeaceNikki Dec 2012 #140
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #148
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #171
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #101
patrice Dec 2012 #157
patrice Dec 2012 #151
patrice Dec 2012 #153
typeviic Dec 2012 #158
spin Dec 2012 #159
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #186
spin Dec 2012 #199
Recursion Dec 2012 #201
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #215
Recursion Dec 2012 #218
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #224
Rex Dec 2012 #165
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #167
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #227
X_Digger Dec 2012 #180
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #192
Danang1968 Dec 2012 #196
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #214
PavePusher Dec 2012 #226
Danang1968 Dec 2012 #234
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #235
PavePusher Dec 2012 #247
Danang1968 Dec 2012 #251
PavePusher Dec 2012 #253
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #255
PavePusher Dec 2012 #261
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #262
PavePusher Dec 2012 #265
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #266
PavePusher Dec 2012 #270
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #271
Danang1968 Dec 2012 #258
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #263
Danang1968 Dec 2012 #264
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #268
spanone Dec 2012 #269
Whovian Dec 2012 #203
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #209
PavePusher Dec 2012 #206
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #228
Taverner Dec 2012 #213
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #230
Taverner Dec 2012 #231
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #257
spanone Dec 2012 #267

Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:05 PM

1. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:09 PM

3. This gun owner agrees with you.

PETA nut comment aside, lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:15 PM

9. I said I was hiding!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:11 PM

4. They are used for target shooting also.

I am not a gun enthusiast but I understand why some people like them. Having used M-16 in Vietnam, I do worry about the idea that people like these types of weapons which as you say is made for killing. I think we glamorize war way too much with all the talk of honor and glory and such. I think those who like them are the ones who glamorize war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:21 AM

25. I am curious what kind of (target) shooting do use a 30 round

magazine for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:06 AM

33. I am a woman and I shoot at regular targets

with one at the range. It is fun and a hobby just like midnight bowling for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:27 AM

81. But if your 'fun' hobby endangers society at large

then you are going to have to find another way to have fun.

I mean, I can't play Jarts any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:14 AM

100. I was only answering the posters question

and not making a comment on what should be done about the problem. It seems a lot of people here have little experience re this firearm and there are a lot of misconceptions. I hope your holidays have been wonderful. Peace. Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:32 PM

236. But why is there a need for a 30 round magazine? If you are shooting at a

target you take aim and squeeze off a round. If you need a 30 round magazine you are just
wasting ammo you aren't hitting anything. I shoot a Springfield XDM 40 cal. that has a 16 round magazine, I have never loaded more than 10 rounds in it. When I shoot at a target I only load 5 rounds. Once in a while I will empty the 10 rounds just for fun, that's $4 in like 3 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #236)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:52 PM

252. I am hitting the target. I am a good shot.

My husband makes his own ammo so the cost is minimal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #252)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:45 PM

259. There is no need for a 30 round magazine unless you want to

kill people. You don't save all that much reloading I know I have done it myself. I qualified Expert in both the M14 and M-16 in the army and I don't need 30 rounds to hit a target. Even deer hunting 3 rounds is all that is legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #259)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:27 PM

272. "There is no need for a 30 round magazine unless you want to kill people."

 

Sez you.

Seriously, why always the assertion about killing people? Based on no evidence whatsoever? There are millions of these magazines in private ownership. They are used in crimes so infrequently that you are literally more likely to choke to death while eating. If they were only used to kill people, our murder rate would be far higher than it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #272)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:39 PM

273. My suggestion sign up, suit up and go over to Afghanistan if you

want to live out your gun fantasies. 20 6 years olds murdered so you can play army grow the f up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #273)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:45 PM

274. Been in the USAF for 22+ years.

 

Went to Iraq 4 times, Afghanistan 2 times.

I have some idea of what I'm talking about. You... do not. Have a real nice day, O.K.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #274)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:54 PM

275. Go back over play out your fantasies. You are another one those people that

hides out waiting for a gun thread then come out to recite you talking points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #275)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:00 AM

276. Thanks for the rational conversation. Good night. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:35 AM

57. High Power Rifle is a specific format of competitive shooting

where AR-15s are very popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:20 AM

77. why do you need 30 rounds to shoot target?

is there a time limit? don't you just shoot one at a time?

i've seen speed shooter exhibitons, but is there something where you have a certain amt of time to hit the target 5 times or something?

why 30? why 10?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:49 PM

123. We could make do with 10 round mags

just keep the big ones at home. It the gun that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:30 AM

82. Well then, those folks are going to have to find another way to compete.

Bummer.

Just because they have found a way to 'have fun' and 'compete' with a WEAPON designed to KILL PEOPLE that really does not outweigh the society's right to protect itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:29 PM

120. No - Senator Feinstein's AWB is not retroactive

nothing will change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:29 AM

65. Legitimate sport use can be easily accommodated.

Your sport weapon could be kept at a licensed facility under their control. What we as a society need to get rid of is the ridiculous proliferation of these weapons. They need to be controlled, as it has become quite obvious that we have too many out of control people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:25 PM

111. Why on earth is shooting a gun at a target considered a "sport"?

 

It's about as "sporting" as sitting on the couch and playing your standard issue shoot-em-up video game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

126. Like all other sports,

it is a physical activity with rules and a scoring system to determine a winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:37 PM

169. And who is determined as the winner in Newtown Connecticut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #169)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:44 PM

212. And you win the Inappropriately Inaccurate Insinuation Analogy Award for the day.

 

Well played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #169)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:38 PM

244. Shame on you for thinking the Newtown murders are games....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

183. So playing a game of Monopoly is a sport? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #183)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:32 PM

243. A board game? You know better than that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:11 PM

136. It isnt a sport nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:43 PM

211. Reality seems to rebut you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:44 PM

156. There is also a Zen mind aspect to shoot that people have failed to mention.

Just saying there is a meditative aspect to shooting.

Read "Zen and the Art of Archery"

Similar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #156)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:13 PM

181. Zen and the art of mass murder -

 

Yes indeed, zen is the perfect analogy. There is a kind of meditative and soul-satisfying oneness with the universe when you blow a kid's head off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:19 PM

202. Archery, discuss throw, javelin, fencing, boomerang...

A whole lot of sports started out either military or hunting-related. Even horse dressage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTX (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:42 PM

210. You obviously don't know anything about it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:14 AM

76. well said

I think we glamorize war way too much with all the talk of honor and glory and such. I think those who like them are the ones who glamorize war.

or are in love with it, and the media/gun lobby does the glamorizing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:40 PM

208. My Yugoslavian Mauser was "made for killing (in war)".

 

My AR-15 was not. But it is great for hunting (in approriate calibers), good for target shooting/competition and some self-defense scenarios.

I've been in the USAF for 22 years, seen people killed and helped pick up bodies. I do not glamorize war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:11 PM

5. Why don't you like ducks?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:15 PM

10. I like roasted duck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:17 PM

11. yikes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:11 PM

6. AGREED. I don't want to hear about your freedom-freedom being taken away

just because you're denied access to your very own personal weapon of mass destruction.

Tough shit. Nobody's advocating taking your handguns away. You're not being dis-armed.

And I reserve the right to MY freedom not to be mowed down by some unhinged asshole or wackadoodle John Wayne wannabe with a hand-held overcompensation machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:45 AM

70. The concept is much bigger than your thinking

 

Anytime you take away someone's else's freedom, you have just limited your own.

You want to take away other people's freedoms for some false sense of insecurity you are experiencing. You are willing to destroy the constitution one article at a time until you have lost all the rights maintained by the sacrifices of Americans for over two hundred years. The problem with this spoiled generation is the notion that freedom is free, that you don't have to sacrifice to have it, you don't have to die or feel pain or discomfort to have it. Well your wrong. Arlington is full of patriotic brothers of mine that paid the ultimate price for your freedoms that you would give away so nonchalantly and carelessly. Do you think 20 children is a reason to destroy 200 years of American history and millions of Americans sacrificed their lives over? Perhaps if you had stood on a bloody battlefied like I have, and held my brothers as life slipped away from, or talked to their parents about their last dying words, perhaps then you would understand the sacrifice America makes for freedom. If you do nothing else in your life, go down to your local VA hospital and see whats left of combat veterans that have paid the price for freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:35 AM

86. no

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072202

not a freedom a PRIVILEGE

your comment about the 20 children offends me- everybody respects veterans, and this has nothing to do with war at all.

you are saying we fought all those wars to protect guns.

not true- its a much bigger concept. you fought to protect america- thank you. i am american, also, and my opinion counts exactly as much as yours does.

americans are entitled to be in public, without fear of being shot.
cops have a right to have the biggest guns- they fight criminals
freedom requires responsibility
why don't you go to a SCHOOL KIDS FUNERAL and see the price they paid for YOUR PERSONAL freedom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:43 AM

105. Guess you can't wrap you head around it.

 

A privilege is something you can take away, like a drivers license. A freedom is something that is static, and guess what the 2nd says, shall not be infringed. Know what infringed means?

I didn't say we fought the wars to only protect guns. We fought it to preserve the freedoms you want to throw away.

I already told you it is a much bigger concept, and I know what I fought for, why don't you know what I fought for?

You are welcome to an opinion, not to destroying the constitution on a emtional whim. Opine away! Protest!

Being in public is protected by the 1st Amendment. Show me where you can be in public without fear? That is not a freedom or a priviledged right. Cops have no more right to bigger guns than I have. If I had the money I can buy an assault track, a jet, a battleship, a cannon, a tank, or whatever. Go look up militay sales and sin no more. We have people in this country sending rockets into space, and you think I can't be armed as well as cop on the street?? LOL!

Yes, freedom does require responsibility and it is time you become responsible for freedom. Because everytime you give away someone else's freedoms, you have just limited your own.

Yes, those kids paid a price for freedom that you as an adult are afraid to make. Those that cannot protect freedom, don't deserve to have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

172. "Yes, freedom does require responsibility and it is time you become responsible for freedom."

AHHHH! GREAT quote, my friend!

However, it appears from your writing that you would have that go only one way. What about the responsibility that owning firearms should bring with it? Your arguments suggest that gun owners have no responsibility. They just have their "rights." From the behavior I've witnessed, that certainly seems true. The right to own and use any goddamn kind of goddamn gun anybody feels like owning - trumps anyone else's right not to be mowed down by them.

I am NOT afraid to protect MY freedom to live safely from YOUR so-called "freedom" to have the means to blow me away with war-weapons that have NO place in civilian hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:31 PM

139. Don't let this pretender "patriot"

get to you. He doesn't realize how laughable he really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #139)


Response to billh58 (Reply #139)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:16 PM

161. i salute you, billh58!

he also doesn't know I know how laughable he is.

too bad he isn't funny! and how are you supposed to argue with this-

what is wrong with having a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people? As to whatever reason you have, is of little reason to me.

sounds like, um, that red guy that lives down below!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #161)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:29 PM

189. Only a Fool

 

There are a lot panty waisted people that think a rifle is to mix pancake dough, and they laugh about using it to make bisquits for breakfast, like most fools who don't know a rifle has one purpose and that is to kill. I would be interested in what you think it is for, bisquits or something else, so I can a good laugh myself. Come on laughing boy, cough us out a reason.

Anyone that would that would salute a Swiftboating piece of dung is a fool as well. LOL!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #139)


Response to shintao (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:23 AM

102. The 2nd Amendment

is NOT a fucking right to own any weapon of choice, nor to carry it any fucking where you want. I was in the military as well -- Vietnam -- and I saw many of my friends "pay the ultimate price." You do not have a lock on patriotism, and you certainly do not speak for all veterans. Using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to allow the unchecked proliferation of lethal weapons places you squarely in the camp of the neoconservative, right-wing, Republican fucking NRA.

America does NOT have 200 fucking years of history of civilians owning assault weapons. No rational American is asking for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or wants to take away your precious gun. What we want is sane and reasonable regulation of who gets to own a fucking gun, and to make gun owners responsible and accountable for the fucking things.

Before you preach to other combat vets about patriotism, examine whether or not "20 children" plus the 30,000 fellow Americans (roughly 85 per day, every day) who die each year are worth the price of unfettered gun ownership. That is three times (in just one year) the number of total American combat deaths in Iraq AND Afghanistan in 10 fucking years of war.

The chances of an American being killed by a gun on any given day is several times more than any other developed country in the WORLD. Is that really what we risked our lives and fought for? Not me, and not what my friends died for either. You may think that patriotism means allowing every asshat who wants a gun to have one, but then again thinking like that is what allowed the fucking NRA to help kill more Americans in one year than the Taliban has in 10 years.

To answer your question about whether or not the lives of 20 precious, innocent children is a "reason to destroy 200 years of American history," the answer is not only yes, but hell yes! We have "destroyed" American history by outlawing slavery and supporting the civil rights of ALL Americans. We have "destroyed" American history by allowing gay people to love each other openly. We have "destroyed" American history in many ways which have been a part of this country growing up and at least attempting to cure its own ills.

Now go wrap yourself in your flag and think really hard about why the rest of us chose to serve our country, AND our fellow citizens. You may just find that your thinking is in a distinct minority of American military vets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #102)


Response to shintao (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:31 PM

114. The current "interpretations" of the 2nd Amendment

 

are the product of NRA political influence, and date from the 1970's. If you would like to learn about the history of 2nd Amendment interpretation, you may want to read this:

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_Heller-HLRev.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #112)


Response to billh58 (Reply #115)


Response to shintao (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:54 PM

134. You know, this is a nice personal attack

You are in luck though, I don't alert. I prefer this bilge to be there for all to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:29 PM

138. Thanks, and I also

prefer to let this stand as typical NRA talking point garbage, and be seen for what it really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:00 PM

144. Thanks for sound advice

 

I deleted my posts, so thanks for the sound advice. I on the other hand find his posts offensive and will alert. Thks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:46 PM

176. What about the declaration of independence

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that Life is the first inalienable right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:38 PM

141. Sounds like you wandered over from Freeperville

 

You've got all the usual cliches and false equivalencies down pat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:10 PM

160. We have actually done that many times (visiting the local VA hospital and the combat veterans

especially those who still suffer from PTSD).

I am in no way demeaning your service or sacrifice, or those of your brothers in arms. The ridiculous mis-read of the "right" to bear arms needs VERY BADLY to be revisited and rewritten. YES. And I think perhaps YOU should go visit the grieving moms and dads and siblings of those 20 children whose deaths you so cavalierly shrug off, and explain to them why this nutcase who killed their babies had the "freedom" to mow them down just as pretty as he pleased, because his "right" to have those mow-down machines is so damned sacrosanct and untouchable. Because heaven forbid, we're not allowed to try to keep extreme death-machines out of his cold dead hands, either, can we? YEAH. DAMN RIGHT I want to see that changed.

As I write this, I've got CNN on, and they're reporting about YET ANOTHER gun-crazy who took out a couple of volunteer firefighters TRYING TO FIGHT A HOUSE FIRE, as well as his sister, in upstate New York. And he finally relieved us of his own miserable self, too. The guy had another one of those bushmaster dream machines that you seem so adamant about any nutcase having. Without any background checks. Hell, his MOTHER owned the guns. She was a law-abiding citizen. Look how well that worked out for her.

And truly, I have to ask - have even you not had enough of this by now? You don't think this is an utter abomination? A complete abominable misread and misinterpretation and utter reckless abuse of the "right" to bear arms? I'm seriously not so sure that this would have translated from the original, or that the Founders of this country had in mind the "right" to mow down innocent people, NON-combatants, when the Second Amendment was crafted, and intended for the ability to resist an invading army from another country. Were those 20 children and their teachers some invading army from another country??????? And even if so, to follow the strictest interpretation of the Second Amendment, we'd all have to be using muskets - for all those self-titled "originalists" out there who think all things surrounding the Constitution should be interpreted and acted upon - with an 18th-Century mindset. Last time I looked, it was the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.

I recognize the sacrifice the rest of us are being forced to make, against our will and at great threat of bodily harm or death, for the freedom others feel they simply MUST have, to possess personal weapons of mass destruction. AS I'VE SAID in an earlier post - nobody's trying to take your handguns away. It's the assault rifles - instruments designed SOLELY AND SPECIFICALLY for mowing down large quantities of people, not just one enemy at a time. YES I'm against that.

And you and your fellows fought and sacrified, and indeed some of them died - for MY right to express my outrage about these needless crimes and senseless deaths, and to try to do something to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:37 PM

256. If you're in this thread arguing in favor of assault weapons, you're my enemy

Really. We just had lots of children murdered by your jackoff fantasy. Take it somewhere else. I'll take my lock now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:24 AM

80. pro gun control arguments - always more equolent

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

***

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourteenth+Amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:13 PM

7. Your rationality is irrational

Only two acceptable opinions these days:

1. The crazy opinion.
2. 80% of the crazy opinion.

See? No room for making sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:14 PM

8. Why another top-level me-too thread?

On the plus side, this OP does do well for playing buzz-word bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:23 PM

12. The 223 round...

is not legal in some states for hunting deer sized game because it it's not big/powerful enough to bring deer down if precise shots aren't taken. Please inform yourself before making statements like "I believe in many states it's ILLEGAL to hunt using such huge cartridges". It just brings down your whole ideology in the eyes of the well informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jal777 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:34 PM

14. Yep, it is as blatent

lack of understanding as stating "hunting rifles have a legitimate purpose, hunting (ducks from PETA nuts)"..of coarse hunting ducks with a rifle is a federal crime..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:09 AM

75. Ummmmm...........

The OP wasn't talking about hunting ducks with a rifle. He was saying that the legitimate purpose of rifles is hunting and that he was ducking (i.e. hiding) for cover from any passionate PETA supporters that might be reading his OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:40 AM

87. he didn't even mention .223

so what are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:29 PM

232. What do you think he's talking about

given the context of the past couple of weeks....which is why this conversation is going on in GD in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jal777 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:19 AM

24. Dead Is Dead Well Informed Or Not - As A Citizen I Can Work to Criminalize Gun Ownership

Without having to stoop to learning all the lurid jargon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:05 AM

31. Yes, heaven forfend you should actually know what you were attempting to criminalize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:13 AM

61. Trying to criminalize the tools of mass murder in peace time.

 

All one needs to know about using weapons, is how to point the killing machine in the general direction of the target and how to pull the trigger. How many mass murders can site the statistics on hundreds of types of guns and ammo? They don't need that information to kill people and neither do the saner among us that want to ban military weapons and their knock-offs in civilian hands.
What is so hard to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:48 AM

71. I hunt with an authentic military weapon, not even a knockoff

Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle. Also issued by the US Army as the M24 Sniper Weapons System.

Mine has a heavy barrel, scope, bipod and is even (gasp) BLACK...at a glance it's hard to tell it from the genuine military article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:10 AM

95. It's simple, really.

Mass murderers also aren't the one's who will be writing the laws designed to try to reduce the number of these atrocities. What they might or might not know about the objects being potentially regulated is utterly irrelevant. For those who will write these laws, however, familiarity is important. Without it, you end up with a laughable sham like the first AWB. If some effort is going to be made to ban or severely regulate paramilitary firearms, then it behooves the legislators and those who make proposals to them to know what they're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:14 PM

110. You can be absolutely sure that the NRA will be there to let them know everything they need to know.

 

And not a binary bit more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:49 PM

216. I've hunted with a Yugoslavian Mauser bolt-action rifle...

 

an actual "military weapon". I've also hunted with my AR-15, which is not a military weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:42 AM

88. its called a gun

guns have murdered 200 people in the last week

sounds pretty criminal to me, the details aren't important.

there are going to be laws made, you are wasting your time nitpicking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:01 AM

92. "the details aren't important."

If you actually believe that, then I suspect there's no point whatsoever in attempting any dialogue here, but what the hell. It's a discussion forum. Might as well give it a try.

"there are going to be laws made, you are wasting your time nitpicking "


"Nitpicking," as you call it, is precisely what making laws should be about. That's because precisely what happens after a law is enacted: the legal system nitpicks it to the point of absurdity. If a law is not to have horrible unintended consequences, if it is not to end up making things worse, then it has to be nitpicked just as finely before it is made as it inevitably will be after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

127. And there's the problem in 4 words

the details aren't important.

If only that were true...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:02 PM

179. here are your details. i am not interested in your opinion of them so don't reply, please

3 guns 20 bullets total no MAGAZINE over 8 ROUNDS- any GUN you want

anything else you need a federal license, background, and insurance

there's the details. i repeat, if you ask me another ? i won't answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #179)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:50 PM

217. So, not actually here for rational discussion, got it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jal777 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:29 AM

54. The ammo I buy for hunting deer doesn't come in 30-round magazines

That's more relevant than the size of the bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:16 PM

128. I don't know anywhere that sells ammo in magazines

Sounds convenient and expensive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jal777 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:45 PM

175. Welcome to DU, jal777!

Glad you're here. As you can see - lots of passions aflame about this issue. Mine included!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:33 PM

13. I wish I had this cartoon

The cartoon is a panel that shows various tools.

It shows a chainsaw, then says
Use: cutting wood

It shows a Kitchen Knife
Use: cooking

It shows a baseball bat
Use: sports

It shows a hammer
use: construction

It then shows an ak-47
Use: killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:35 PM

15. Furthemore

as the relative of people that bowhunt, I have to say this.

If you need an ak-47 to shoot deer, you are WEAK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:15 AM

38. While an AK-47

uses a cartridge that is roughly .30 caliber, it is a shorter round (less powder) than most cartridges used for hunting deer. I guess you don't understand how to make your own point.

Most assault weapons use much smaller rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:26 AM

41. Here we go splitting hairs again to show how

a less than complete understanding of the workings of a particular killing gun makes a whole argument against guns killing somehow nonsensical. You know darn well what the poster means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:32 AM

43. An AK may be "shorter round, less powder"...

...but it was enough to blow away half my jaw and teeth in Vietnam. I spent 18 months in the hospital having my jaw reconstructed.

Tell me again how these weapons are so benign...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:36 AM

59. You were lucky you were not shot with a full power round

you would be dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:53 AM

72. I don't even know what "full power" means in this context

It was only thanks to a nurse at the evac hosp who noticed when I stopped breathing and got me trached that I survived.

The entry wound, midway between my nose and upper lip, required only one or two stitches. The exit wound (after the round blew away half my jaw and teeth and put a baseball-sized hole in my shoulder) was huge.

Yeah, I was lucky. But not thanks to the round. It was only thanks to the medical professionals who cared for me--and my own determination--that I survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:08 AM

74. I was thinking of a standard 30 caliber round

that was the standard military round before the advent of the smaller, lower powered rounds that were developed for automatic assault rifles. A 30-06 would be a perfect example. It would have hit you with almost three times the energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:21 AM

78. Pardon me if I have a hard time understanding how you take such a clinical view

"It would have hit you with almost three times the energy." Do you even listen to what the fuck you are saying???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:47 AM

91. the man was shot in the face

have some respect. do you think he really cares what size bullet it was?

the point is if you can kill a deer with a arrow, needing a AK47 is kinda weak and unsportsmanlike, get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:00 PM

108. So you would ban all hunting rifles? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:29 PM

113. i would do this

you get-

3 gun limit. 20 bullet limit.

two 6 shooters and and 8 round rifle

2 10 round pistols

2 8 round pistols and a 4 round rifle

anything over 8 rounds is a federal license, background, license, INSURANCE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #113)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:28 PM

119. So you would do nothing to stop another VT shooting?

got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:14 PM

182. i would do something so you can't get any shiny black gun you want

like i said. you said nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #182)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:30 PM

191. Your "solution" would not have stopped VT

think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #191)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:29 PM

204. that's because VT is in the past

the solution is in the future. please go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #204)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:07 PM

223. It won't stop future VT shootings . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:28 PM

188. Man, only on the internet

Would somebody argue with a vietnam vet who talked about getting his jaw shot out, and then say "well it was still less powerful than such and such."

Pinboy, kudos to you and others who try to educate people and what assault weapons really do. You are the sort of person many of these suburban rambos want to be, and never will be, no matter how many gun they have locked away (or unlocked waiting for their teenage son to use.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #188)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:50 PM

197. Thanks, Don...

Hell, I didn't even mention how my bone graft had to be re-done (twice) when it failed 7 years later.

The original, experimental graft by my Army docs used bone marrow from my hip. When it failed 7 years later, Navy docs re-did it, first by taking one of my ribs for the graft, and when that failed they went into my other hip for bone to reconstruct my jaw.

Fuck those internet Rambos. They don't have a fucking clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:47 AM

90. Where did I say anything about benign?

The poster was implying an AK 47 is much too powerful for deer hunting. I was simply providing correct information.

Why is it ok for someone who knows little about guns to post (incorrect) particulars about guns, but it is not ok for someone knowledgeable about guns to post corrections

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:11 AM

97. BS

You used a talking point that minimized the lethality of the weapon and its ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:30 PM

190. I will take pinboy's expertise

over yours, frankly, as he shot people and was shot by people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:39 AM

49. It has about the same ballistics as the .30-30 round.

Pretty good for white-tail deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

187. actually the point stands

Psycho with Hunting rifle:
Bang
Bang

has to reload, gets tackled, off to jail.

Psycho with AK-47 or AR-15
bang bang bang bangbang bang bang
quick reload..
bang bang bang

In short, hunting rifles are seafer because they have a much large and easier reloaded magazine. They are meant for firefights, not deer hunts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #187)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:59 PM

220. Semi-autos have been used for hunting for over 100 years.

 

When used in hunting, they have exactly the same magazine restrictions as any other hunting rifles, usually 5 rounds or less, depending on state. (Oddly, in California, you can use 10 round magazines.... )

In short, hunting rifles are seafer because they have a much large and easier reloaded magazine. They are meant for firefights, not deer hunts.

That made no sense at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #220)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:08 PM

239. I meant lower

My typo aside, the idea is, hunting rifles will never pack the massive magazine that combat rifles do, and that is because, well, they are not built for firefights. Why someone would need anything with more than a dozen rounds to short deer is ridiculous, especially since Deer have been hinted with Bow and Arrow (and still are.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #239)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:55 AM

249. All of the below are excellent hunting weapons:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishapore_2A1_rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Mauser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin_nagant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_Garand

I have several varieties of the top three. Every one was originally built for "firefights". So was the Winchester .30-30. Every common hunting rifle in existance is derived directly from a military rifle.

And, as stated, you can't generally hunt with "more than a dozen rounds", by law.

We moved on from the bow, for the most part, for many reasons, including efficiency. By that standard, we should still be restricted to hand-powered printing presses and horse-transportation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #249)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:32 PM

254. Then kindly tell

what happens to an Adam lanza or any numerous ones when these weapons, which are not equipped with easy, clip on magazines with more then 12 shots, run out of ammo?

The heavy clip, easy reloaded weapons are meant so that any fool can spray into a bunch (like the trenches the Tommy Gun was originally meant for) or where someone can keep shooting without reloading, because even these psychotic shooters know that once they have to reload, they go from Superman to a mortal man.

These assault weapons were built to carry more ammo, because in warfare, soldiers could not take time to reload.split seconds, as any veteran can tell you, can make the difference between going home and going into a body bag. The key word is, in warfare. No hunter has to worry about reloading in a split second because the Deer in front of him is firing an AK-47.

Heaven knows that if Deer could just drive down I-75 to a Florida "Gun Show", there would be no shortage of merchants selling them ammo, turning Bambi into Rambo. Actually, that won't happen, the merchants merely stick to ex-cons jacked up on anti-depressant medications, or his good buddy, who will sell it to him.

OH, and about the full auto conversion question you had in the other reply: (no one could really convert these into full auto)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090606132933AAhTf7I
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-359034.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x463417

Granted, I will bet half of these can get you killed, maimed, or worse) but, keep in mind, we asre dealign with people who do nto intened to survive their killing sprees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #254)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:18 PM

260. So, everything I said was accurate? Huh.

 

I see you're not really here for a rational discussion, so have a great day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #220)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

240. well, 5 shots

can make a murder, but are not as likely to be used in shooting sprees. Also, many gun "enthusiasts" brag about how easy it is to change a semi auto into an auto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #240)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:46 AM

248. "Also, many gun "enthusiasts" brag about how easy it is to change a semi auto into an auto."

 

Well, it's nowhere as "easy" as some people claim. (And I'd like to see a citation to such.) Such conversions are also generally quite dangerous to the user, as the fire-control mechanisms are usually very failure-prone. (At least the ones I've actually heard of.) Oddly, we don't hear about such items used frequently, or even infrequently, in crimes. If you know of any, please present them.

As an aside, if you have the tools and training to convert a semi-auto to a full-auto, you're equiped to make a full-auto from scratch.

Regardless of all that, just having the parts available is a Federal crime. Hell, they put people in jail for have a firearm malfunction to full auto due to wear or breakage. They don't sell "kits" at gun shows, or through the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:43 AM

89. nice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:55 PM

219. Typical AK ammunition is ballistically very similar to the venerable .30-30 lever-action round.

 

Which has been used for deer-hunting for over a century. It's at the lower-power end of the deer-hunting calibers. If you use it for hunting deer, it's actually rather challenging becaus you need to be fairly close, and a good shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:40 PM

16. Really?

 

Well I must ask you, what is wrong with having a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people? As to whatever reason you have, is of little reason to me. The 2nd clearly states, "shall not be infringed," and there is only one reason why the founders used that language. So that people like you will not infringe on people like me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:59 PM

18. Sure, in a well-regulated militia. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:10 AM

21. If the

 

words "the right of the people" in the second amendment only refer to a militia then when those same words are used in the 1st and 4th amendments who gets to decide what group they are referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aardvark401 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:02 AM

29. "The militia" might just be all citizens.

Depending on what era in which one looks, "the militia" bore a very, very strong resemblance to the levee en masse invoked by revolutionary France at about the same time. For the French, that meant everyone including women, children and old men, were conscripted to defend France for the duration of their emergency.

In 1792, Congress defined the militia as "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years." Service in the militia was directly tied to citizenship--at least for those who fell within the proper age, gender and status of servitude brackets.

Congress can and has changed the exact definition over time, but the bottom line is that the people are responsible for "the common defense," and you can bet your ass that the framers at the time considered the government they were creating as one of the entities from which the people needed to defend themselves.

I would argue that the last time the prospect of "the people" exercising their right to a common defense was the most important thing--perhaps the only thing--that prevented the Bush cabal from extending their stay in Washington indefinitely. Think about what they did: they entered by virtual coup d'etat, broke every law and convention of decency they felt like breaking, ruled by fear under the veil of wartime secrecy--a war they created out of thin air, I might add--and then just walked away when the Constitution they trampled every fucking day told them it was time to go.

So why did they follow the Constitution on that day, the day they had to leave? I think it is because millions of undocumented firearms in the United States would have pointed squarely at them if they had dared to try to stay. It was a line that even they dared not cross.

So, there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:39 AM

27. sorry, you got the wrong the 2nd Amendment

 

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It doesn't say, A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No, no, it does say, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is because the 2nd Addresses the militia and the people, which form the balance of power between government and citizens.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:13 AM

48. "well regulated"

REGULATIONS!

What part of that bit is not clear?

edit: sp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to micraphone (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:38 AM

60. Lets use the correct definition of regulated, shall we?

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:33 AM

66. For purposes of a well regulated militia.

So, by your own reading, the 2A tells government to keep their hands off the arms of well-regulated militias.

As to whether said militias can have nukes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:36 AM

69. Clearly if only the Feds have nukes it is a tyranny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:04 AM

73. It is pretty clear what the framers of the Constitution meant

the militia was the people as a whole, not a government organization. The right belonged to the people, like every right in the Bill of Rights. There is not a single collective right or government power enumerated in the the BOR. Militia service was one reason for an armed populace but not the only one. The militia clause is certainly not a limiting clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:32 AM

83. Why did the framers add that clause then?

Can you point to any similar bits in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which comment (rather randomly, if you're correct) rather than limit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:12 AM

99. that is a preposterous statement



It is pretty clear what the framers of the Constitution meant

you should probably let the supreme court know about that, it will be a big relief to them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:54 AM

106. Not so

 

The militia was ordinary Americans, that would be called to duty by the government. Like the National Guard, civilians go and do a duty practice for the government each month. While there they are government, when they leave thay are civilian. And while they are there as government, it is the armed populace of citizens that strikes the balance of power to protect themselves from the militia (NG).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:01 PM

145. The Militia is also mentioned in Amendement V

In that context, would you say it refers to the people as a whole or a government organization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoGOPZone (Reply #145)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:14 PM

149. All free men were automatically enrolled in the militia

it encompassed what it meant to be a citizen.

Which is how the unorganized militia is still defined by law today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #149)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:20 PM

150. So you're saying that the milita referred to in Amendment V

refers to the people as a whole and not a goverment organization? If you're not saying this, then my question remains unanswered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoGOPZone (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:36 PM

152. It refers to the militia after being called to federal service

it had no application beyond that. The militia was the body of armed citizens from which the federal government could call on in times of emergency. However the militias were not by definition Federal military organizations.

Owning a gun was a civic responsibility protected by a civil liberty. And don't forget that there are two kinds of militia recognized in US law - the organized militia and the unorganized militia. You are a member of the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #152)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:40 PM

154. still not answering the question

Maybe the text of the Fifth will help. I had assumed familiarilty, now i'm not so sure.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

emphasis not in the original.

This militia refers to the people as a whole and not a government organization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoGOPZone (Reply #154)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:17 PM

163. US law recognizes two militias

the unorganized militia and the organized militia.

The unorganized militia is the people as a whole (actually all free men). From that large group a smaller group can be trained as military units and taken into federal service - they are the organized militia mentioned in the 5A.

You are a member of the unorganized militia but you are still able to enjoy your 5th Amendment rights because the militia clause only applies to the organized militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:32 PM

168. Therefore, in the context of the 5th,

'Militia' refers to a goverment organization. In your post to which I initially replied, you stated that "the framers of the Constitution meant the militia was the people as a whole, not a government organization". So, this statement is not as self evident as you'd like it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:35 PM

195. So, under this unorganized Militia concept

Would the Ku Klux Klan be considered an unorganized Militia? Would their killing of black people be considered a strike by said militia. I ask this because I actually had a Klans person from Mississippi use your same talking point to say JUST that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #195)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

198. No. Unorganized mean unorganized

it says nothing about unofficial militias kind the plan.

US law simple says that all men are part of the unofficial militia. That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:10 AM

96. well, there is more than one, but yours makes no sense at all in context

regulated past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

so by your (pasted) logic, the militia is a machine?

or the 2nd amendment is about nutrition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:56 AM

107. A well functioning militia is how it should be interperated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

184. interpret this-

the militia was supposed to protect the country as a back up for the army.

the still do, ever heard of the national guard?

and don't post any crap about the definition of a militia, i just told you. i don't care a whit if you disgree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #184)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:32 PM

193. Read the federal code

you will most likely find that you are a member of a militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #193)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:30 PM

205. you read it

great. i have 1 gun. i'm all set. go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:05 AM

94. no, you got the 2nd amendment wrong


That is because the 2nd Addresses the militia and the people, which form the balance of power between government and citizens.

on what planet?

the militia was supposed to help fight the brits. now it is the national guard.

it doesn't say 'make up your own version of the 2nd" anywhere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:09 PM

125. Where you stand nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:05 PM

146. Federalist Papers?

Everyone always argues about what the Framers meant...what do the Federalist Papers say? Those were articles written by the primary authors of the Constitution to explain things to the common person in plain language, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jp76 (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:06 PM

147. 29 mentions the individual zero times to be exact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #147)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:44 PM

155. I was thinking of #46.

The last couple of sections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jp76 (Reply #155)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:17 PM

162. Hamilton believed in. Strong federal government

His vision came to be after the civil war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #162)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:08 AM

246. Madison did not.

And the two were still friends!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jp76 (Reply #246)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:33 PM

250. Yup, American history trivia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:56 AM

53. yes

whatever happened to the well regulated part of the 2nd amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:28 AM

64. still regulated

 

Here is a lil history on how the states militias proceded and eventually changed into the National Guard of each state we have today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:01 PM

109. except that the NRA

refuses any regulations even on assault rifles, high volume clips or whatever they're called. how does that square with the 2nd amendment.

since we have a national guard, not to mention a standing army, navy, air force and the marines, there is no reason that every citizen needs to be armed. especially not with certain weapons for which there is no good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:25 PM

130. Who is the NRA?

 

I am no fan of the NRA Mouse Club, so whatever they think or do is no concern to me. I refuse any regulations on the 2nd because it clearly states, Shall Not Be Infringed.

It is because you have those mentioned military that citizens have a right to bare arms. Balance of power means I can protect my family from my own government.

And while you might think there is no good reason, why don't I come over and tell you what you don't need at your place for any good reason. I will start in your closet of clothes, throw out the make-up, get rid of the lamp shades, and dig out your front lawn. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:58 PM

135. I love creative ignorance of dependent clauses and 18th history

Concepts.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:17 AM

63. Why do the gun lovers use a Sharpie on that part of the 2nd Amendment?

 

Or when pressed, maintain that means anyone with a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:08 AM

34. Do you feel it is "infringement"....

....to prevent private citizens from acquiring a bazooka?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:41 AM

50. Bazookas are legal to own.

You may have trouble getting the rockets...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:35 AM

68. Ok, you can buy the tube.

So you would be fine with prohibitive regulation of ammunition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:19 PM

129. Ammo for guns, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #129)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:28 PM

131. How is it any different?

If the government can regulate any small arms ammunition it can regulate all small arms ammunition, for example the .233 bullets used in AR-15 style weapons could simply be prohibited for civilian use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:50 PM

133. Bazooka rockets are not "small arms ammo".

Rockets and other explosives are destructive devices. As indiscriminate weapons, they serve no legitimate purpose in the hands on civilians due to them causing death/damage to things other than your target.

What about the .223/5.56 ammo used in non-AR-15-style rifles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #133)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:08 PM

242. Splitting hairs. They are SALW and most certainly would be part of the

"Arms" a modern militia would have to keep. But it was you who started in with bazookas being ok for purchase. Changed your mind maybe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:31 AM

55. FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:34 AM

67. An RKBA absolutist.

The original intent was for standard military grade weapons kept by civilians as part of a citizen militia. Lets leave the militia part out, are you seriously proposing that all military small arms should be available for purchase and possession by all citizens?

RPGs, hand held SAMs, hand held atw, full auto assault rifles, machine guns, mortars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:02 AM

93. former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of



fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072202

please open your mind a little

Well I must ask you, what is wrong with having a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people?

geez! its against the law to kill people.
if that is the guns only purpose, you can't shoot it until your life is threatened-which will probably never happen

what's the point of having a gun you can't shoot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:26 AM

103. Go back to

the Gungeon where people who think like you will not laugh at you. You are out of your depth here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:22 PM

164. i salute you again!

i'd buy you a beer if i could!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)


Response to former_con (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:02 AM

19. So you'll agree that people born into wealth are undeserving

And inheritance should either be heavily taxed or simply burned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:04 AM

20. I'll go one step further...

I was in the Army in 1969, and on the 45 pistol range. Range officer was a Major who I can still see in my head. Super serious guy.

During the range safety briefing he went out of his way to say the ONLY reason anyone wold have a pistol is to kill someone.

He did think it o.k. For a legitimate hunter to have a pistol for the coup d'grace on a animal they had wounded, but also said they should have been better marksmen to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grins (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:19 AM

39. Not that it matters in regards to the 2nd Amendment,

but I have two brothers who have hunted deer with handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grins (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:17 AM

62. it happens,

A friend of mine in Montana had to use his .45 to kill a deer a few weeks ago. His neighbor hit the deer on the road out to his place, and the deer's pelvis was shattered, but was still alive. He said "It just sucked". But yea, generally pistols are made to kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grins (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:04 PM

221. I've been USAF for 22 years.

 

I take anything an officer offers a pronouncement on with a barrel of salt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:11 AM

22. But if I don't have an arsenal of high-powered weapons...

...then how can I possibly fight off the Government when they come to confiscate my arsenal of high-powered weapons?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mister Ed (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:44 AM

52. Try something lower powered like an AR-15?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:50 PM

124. Thanks, excellent suggestion! I think I'll get an AR-15...

...so's I can fight off the Government when they come to confiscate my AR-15.

Thanks again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:15 AM

23. Sometimes, killing people is a legitimate solution to a dire situation.

 

Your OP states the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people. Aside from the fact that it's not the ONLY reason to own one (hunt, target, competition, etc.) it presumes that killing people is never acceptable. That's incorrect.

What about self-defense? While the odds of actually needing to use deadly force are extremely slim, such unavoidable situations do arise occasionally. And not only is the killing of others never not acceptable, it even has a legal precedent known as justified homicide (ie: self-defense).

While your emotionally-charged buzz-word word-salad sound great and stuff; it ignores the standing fact that sometimes people need killed. If you had to shingle a house with nails, would you rather use a hammer or air-powered clip-fed automatic nailer? So if the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people, and you have one such situation on your hands... might as well use the better tool for the job, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:34 AM

56. Then get a pistol.

The idiots who buy these Bushmaster rifles are getting them so they can "defend themselves" from UN Black Helicopters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:24 PM

166. i didn't even read your post

just tell me, how many times do you mean by 'sometimes'? it doesn't sound like very many!

Sometimes, killing people is a legitimate solution to a dire situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #166)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:45 PM

173. I didn't read your response either.

 

Gee, this game is fun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #173)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:47 PM

177. bullshit

nope. not fun. easy enough to win, but not fun in the least!

edit: you didn't answer this question. you don't know the answer. there isn't one.

sometimes? how many times?

so what you really said was- KILLING PEOPLE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOLUTION

i'll agree with you then, if that's what you meant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:21 AM

26. Sometimes the only way to stop someone from hurting you is to use lethal force.



Its true that an AR15 is not the only firearm that work well in that type of situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:56 AM

28. Yup.

Ignoring the fact that "assault weapon"'s definition is a failed attempt to draw a line between "legitimate sporting" and illegitimate weapons of terror", yeah, the weapons that fall under the arbitrary definition are generally intended for killing people.

Of course, in states that have assault weapons bans, there are tons of weapons that are not assault weapons but are as close as the law allows, and they are ALSO optimized for killing people. That's what was used in Newtown, by the way.

And, finally, there are tons of weapons that are not close to being assault weapons, but are also optimized and intended for killing people. They're called handguns.



I'm continually mystified that people that surprised that a weapon that is optimized for self-defense is also optimized for offense. I'm also continually mystified that people don't realize that there's generally not that much difference between a rifle optimized for self-defense and those optimized for hunting, sport shooting, and target shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:06 PM

222. Stop posting facts!

 

You'll get no respect for that here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:05 AM

30. Agreed

K&R 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:06 AM

32. PETA nuts?? Makes you sound like a moran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1620rock (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:11 AM

36. Not it doesn't. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:11 AM

35. Well, the cartridges are under-powered for hunting.

AR-15s usually shoot an anemic 5.56mm round which is too small for many kinds of hunting (deer). There are special hunting AR15s chambered in larger calibers, but they typically don't have large capacity magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:22 AM

40. Deer are not the only

game that are hunted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:10 AM

47. I know. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:14 AM

37. Um.. The .223 is a very small cartridge....for the record.

And that is the one that is primarily found in the 30 or 50 round magazines.

And I know of no states that have banned that cartridge for hunting.


PLEASE, if you're going to advocate for banning rifles or pistols get familiar with the nomenclature before you rant.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:27 AM

42. The 30.06 is larger

The problem with the NATO round is the other things that it does when it hits..see cavitation...

But the round is all but that large for a rifle round.

All the wonderful things one learns when trying not to get hit at shootouts...

Also the 30.06 has a greater effective range than the NATO round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:36 AM

58. Yeah, but my 30.06 doesn't use 30-round magazines, Nadine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:29 AM

104. It can

Some of the rifles in question are 30.06

Little knowledge goes a long way. Some AR type weapons are chambered for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:17 PM

116. I guess I never really looked...

...because here in Minnesota using such large magazines for hunting is illegal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #116)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:47 PM

122. You mean nobody uses an M1 Garand in Minnesota

To hunt deer?

Or for that matter any other 30.06 chambered deer rifle?

What is illegal for hunting is, like California, the extended magazine. States have actually put a limit how many rounds you carry on you when you go hunting. The Garand is very much hunting legal.

What is illegal is the 30 round magazine.

(For the record, the Garand does not use detachable magazines either)

As I said, a little knowledge. Not because the gunnies will not go crazy if you call a clip a magazine and vice versa, they have and will continue to do such.

But seriously, both rounds are hunting legal across the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:33 AM

44. It's worse than that: the only purpose of assault weapons is to kill people IN GROUPS.

Submachine guns likewise.

Almost any realistic self-defense need can be met by a pistol or shotgun. The only people who need assault rifles for defense are those who expect to be attacked by a gang or a mob or an army. So unless the Chinese invade, or the illuminati bring out the One World Government, or there's a universal class/race war, or the zombies rise...

I have relatives who like to list lots of cases where a crime or a crazy killer was stopped by a good guy who was armed. But I've never heard a story where the moral was "Thank goodness this brave samaritan had an assault rifle and plenty of clips, instead of just a revolver or something."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:35 AM

45. with all do respect according to Minnesota hunting laws duck hunters can only have 12 shells

on their person so your scenario would be illegal in any event

eta your allowed to load 4 times thats1 shell in the chamber and 2 in the magazine * 4
the type of gun you are speaking of here is also illegal to hunt ducks with a rifle would make no sense anyway there'd be nothing left of the duck, it is shotgun only

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:10 PM

225. Ummm, citation for that 12-rounds, please?

 

Never heard that one before.

3-rounds-in-the-gun limit is a Federal law for hunting migratory birds.

One could hunt water-fowl with an AR, but I'd want a scope good enough to do head shots... and you can't shoot them sitting on the water anyway, so moot point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #225)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:26 PM

229. here from the mn dnr

Hunting Restrictions
• Hunters are limited to 12 shells per trip in possession.
• Within one hour of hunt completion, each party must return their entry
permit to the check station and report number of geese harvested.
• Waterfowl and small game hunters must have guns unloaded and cased
except within 10 feet of assigned hunting stations.
• Hunters are limited to one trip to the blinds before noon, and one trip after
noon, per day

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2012/waterfowl.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #229)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:36 PM

233. Wow, that's restrictive. Thanks for the info. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:51 AM

46. Yet they're one of the least used guns in crime.

 

In 2011, only 323 people were murdered with rifles. That's all rifles combined, not just "assault" weapons. By comparison, 496 people were murdered with blunt objects, 728 by bare hands, and 1,694 with knives.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:32 AM

84. They are the most used weapon in mass shootings of innocent people.

I cannot believe this is even a debate. As another poster showed, you can't buy a game of JARTS in this country because a couple of kids in the history of Jart throwing managed to get killed. But we have this HUGE argument about whether or not we should regulate a weapon that has little or no practical use and is used to kill dozens of people every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:20 PM

117. The number of mass shooting are on the rise, even though...

...the rates of violent crime more generally have been going down since 1994. That's because having guns with 30-round magazines makes it much easier to kill large number of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:26 PM

137. Magazine capacity makes little difference in mass killings.

 

Remember Virginia Tech? Cho killed 32 people, and he didn't use an assault rifle, 30 round magazines or even 20 round magazines. He had 2 ordinary pistols with 15 round and 10 round magazines. Google Patrick Sherrill. He shot and killed 14 coworkers and wounded 6 others. You know what he used? 2 .45 pistols that hold 7 rounds each.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #137)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:53 PM

143. Another Gungeoneer spouting

pointless statistics. What in the hell difference does it make to those who are dead what kind of a fucking gun killed them? 85 Americans die every fucking day from guns. Homicide, or suicide, assault rifle, or .22 single shot -- it makes no difference because the fucking NRA and people like you enabled and assisted with these unnecessary deaths. Americans are dying because of guns every day, and gun deaths are on pace to outnumber automobile deaths. But you want to have a discussion about which weapons are more efficient at killing?

Statistically speaking, Americans are more likely to die from guns than citizens from any other country in the fucking world! Are you NRA puppets proud of that fact as you hide behind the 2nd Amendment and twist its meaning? We hold the world record for gun deaths, and you people are proud of that? Statistically speaking, the NRA bought and paid for politicians who support gun manufacturers and their fucking "right" to spread death and misery all across this country.

Keep using meaningless statistics to support your NRA-directed positions, and watch as the American people begin to dismantle your stranglehold on our communities. Recent polls show that you are, at long last, losing the battle for your fight to place a gun in every hand, and for any reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:40 PM

170. don't hold back, dude

Magazine capacity makes little difference in mass killings.

just a suggestion, could you post your eloquent answer here? maybe minus the gungeoneer part(first sentence)?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022074455

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #170)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:58 PM

178. Cleaned up and done...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:19 PM

185. awesome!

very cool, bill. what are your interests? besides the truth? i'm a farmer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #185)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:13 PM

200. At age 72, my main

interests are pretty much getting up every morning...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #200)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:39 PM

207. and a sense of humor, too!



rock on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:43 AM

51. Yep but the gun manufacturers have to mek money

so who cares who dies???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to farminator3000 (Reply #238)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:09 AM

245. Thanks

You should post this article as a separate thread - it is must read!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:33 AM

85. I agree completely

The whole freedom non-sense is exactly that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:39 PM

237. the last two paragraphs here sum it up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:12 AM

98. If this is the case why do we not then take them from the police and government?

 

Or are government and police only allowed to commit mass murder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:22 PM

118. In many European countries, the beat cops don't have guns...

...because they don't need them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:29 PM

121. England is the only place I've seen that.

 

What others have you seen?

I've worked in England, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Turkey, Portugal and Greece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #121)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:45 PM

174. why do you have to 'see' it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #174)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:26 PM

241. Geography101

 

Japan is not in Europe.

Japanese police also carry the Nambu .38 pistol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:32 PM

140. Using that logic, I should have the goddamn RIGHT to nuclear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #140)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:08 PM

148. Think of neighborhood superiority

Through a suitcase nuke though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:43 PM

171. those aren't questions

they protect us.

they aren't. they have, but they aren't ALLOWED. NOBODY IS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:17 AM

101. Fair enough...

 

Don't purchase one then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:45 PM

157. No, no, no. You're purchase of an assault weapon compels me to do likewise because they are ASSAULT

weapons. You and your weapons, intentionally or accidentally, can become involved in events, which by virtue of the fact that those events include ASSAULT weapons, makes it necessary for me to consider the necessity that I own an assault weapon too.

Were we talking about other types of guns, non-assault weaponry, the increased possibilities that I might need those kinds of guns is qualitatively different, probabilities of my unsought involvement. are significantly much lower. If this wasn't true, there would be no such thing as assault weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:26 PM

151. I was just thinking about this. Trying to sort through the various assault scenarios & I came up

with the fact that a trait that can be called ASSAULT capable is inherently RECIPROCATING, ergo, regardless of causes and other effects, public resources are entailed without our consent and that violates the "security of a free State" clause in the 2nd Amendment.

Here's how I tried to parse out the various assault scenarios:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022074031#post49

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:38 PM

153. What are the public grounds for being concerned about private assault capabilities, latent or

manifest? As long as they aren't used, why should we be concerned about assault weapons?

I was just sorting through the types of scenarios in which the private ownership of assault weapons could become an assault upon the public and I happened to remember that states that have high Koch involvement against unions lately happen somewhy/somehow to border the Great Lakes, i.e. lots of fresh water. What are water rights like in that region?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:55 PM

158. You are right.....

 

"Assault weapons" and "military style" weapons can only be purchased by law enforcement and the military. The reason is because they are FULLY AUTOMATIC capable.
However, the AR 15 rifle is not an "assault" weapon. It is semi-auto ONLY.
So if you want to ban semi auto weapons, like the AR 15, then so be it. Just trying to correct the misnomers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:56 PM

159. Hunters do use black rifles and they are definitely gaining in popularity with hunters. ...

Most if not all states limit the magazine capacity of any semi-auto center fire rifle used while hunting game such as deer. Florida's limit is 5 rounds. I believe that Florida does allow a hunter to use a higher capacity magazine while hunting feral hog which are considered a pest as they are not native to Florida and do considerable damage to the environment.


F&S Picks the 25 Best AR-Style Rifles

Photo Gallery by Michael O. Humphries. Uploaded on May 13, 2009

An Intro to the AR-Style Rifle

Black guns often get a bum rap. They can look a bit menacing, and their configuration and controls are radically different than those found on traditional sporting firearms. But the hunter who automatically dismisses AR-style rifles as legitimate sporting guns would be doing himself a major disservice. Why? Because the AR is one of the most capable, adaptable, and appealing firearm platforms on the market today. And these characteristics are helping it gain traction in the civilian market in its semi-automatic-only form.

***snip***

Over the past 50 years manufacturers have taken advantage of the gun’s modularity to attach optics and accessories, add new operating systems, allow larger chamberings, and even create civilian-legal semi-automatic-only versions. These guns have proved capable and popular with shooters of all stripes, especially varmint hunters. And recent developments have expanded the platform to big-game hunters as well.

This is because the qualities that make AR rifles so successful as a military design also make them highly capable as hunting firearms. Many models boast sub-MOA accuracy right out of the box, with some variants featuring performance that rivals that of custom target rifles.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles




The AR-15 is also used for competitive target shooting.

Basics of High Power Competition
Rules, Equipment, and Course of Fire
The most popular form of organized rifle-only competitive shooting in the United States is NRA High Power Competition. There are more High Power matches held across the country than benchrest matches by a huge margin. High Power Competition encompasses primarily Service Rifle and Match Rifle, with the lesser subdiscipline of Sporting Rifle. If you think F-Class* or Benchrest shooting is tough, High Power presents another level of challenge altogether. Apart from a sling, there are no mechanical crutches in High Power--your arms and body must support the full weight of the rifle as you engage the target from a variety of positions. The vast majority of High Power matches are iron sights only**. These factors place a premium on good eyesight, training, and overall fitness.



***snip***

The rifles currently defined as "Service Rifles" include the M1, M14, M16 and their commercial equivalents


http://www.6mmbr.com/highpowerbasics.html


Of course these facts are rarely mentioned by the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #159)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

186. black wasn't mentioned in the title of the post

so your post is truly nonsense.

have you ever heard of sportsmanship? i doubt it.

do you need a black gun to shoot targets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #186)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:02 PM

199. I personally use the term "black rifle" or "assault style rifle" to refer to AR type ...

rifles such as the AR-10 or AR-15 and similar rifles. The terminology is confusing. I could call them "assault weapons" but there is considerable confusion about the meaning of that term.

Assault weapon

This article is about the American politico-legal term. You may be looking for Assault rifle, or for FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon), M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon), or Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon.

Assault weapon is a classification of semi-automatic firearm utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge and is frequently conflated with assault rifle, a firearm with full-automatic (that is, machine gun) capability. Unlike the firearms related term "assault rifle", however, the term 'assault weapon' has no consistent or specific definition across all legal jurisdictions in the United States, and is, therefore, subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that can include military firearms in some states. In the United States, there are several statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes described as military-style cosmetic features. Using lists of cosmetic features or lists of specific firearms in defining semi-automatic assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

***snip***

Nonetheless, assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. For example, some pistols are also classified as assault weapons, despite clearly not possessing the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, under both state and Federal laws. Another definition is any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. The reason is that since the definition of assault weapon is only defined by cosmetic features, both semi-automatic firearms that possess these cosmetics, as well as full-auto firearms that possess these same cosmetic features, irrespective of the presence or absence of the operational functions of assault rifles, is enough in some states to cause a firearm to be classified by the term assault weapon. Federal Laws, however, clearly make the distinction that assault weapons that possess both the cosmetic and operational features of assault rifles are Title II weapons, not assault weapons, and Title II weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, passed in response to infamous Prohibition Era use of machine guns. Some state laws, however, make no such distinction, classifying all firearms with either the cosmetic features or the actual operational features of "assault rifles" as "assault weapons". Hence, some state definitions of assault weapon explicitly include assault rifles. For example, in the State of Connecticut, an assault weapon is legally defined as "any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user".. Only seven states have such state-level assault-weapons bans in place; in all other states, assault weapons are considered semi-automatic only, per prior definitions established by Federal law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon


You have every right to call my post "nonsense" as that is your opinion. You might note that I did not ridicule the original post when I replied to it. I merely pointed out that it was factually wrong.

Are you suggesting that hunters who use a traditional style semi-auto rifle are better sportsmen than those who chose to use a more modern AR style rifle with a five round magazine? Perhaps you feel that a true sportsman would use a single shot rifle or a bolt action rifle to hunt. If so I will point out that the one of the most popular hunting rifles for deer in our nation is the 30-30 lever action rifle which holds 5 or six rounds and one in the chamber.

No you don't need a "black gun" to target shoot. I enjoy target shooting revolvers and while some of mine are black, others are stainless steel or nickle plated.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #186)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:15 PM

201. "black rifle" is shorthand for "military-looking rifle"

At least to a lot of people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #201)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:48 PM

215. black wasn't mentioned in the title of the post


so your post is truly nonsense.

have you ever heard of sportsmanship? i doubt it.

do you need a black gun to shoot targets? please go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #215)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:51 PM

218. I know. I'm saying it's a fairly commonly used synonym for military-style rifles

I don't understand why you care so much that he used that word?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #218)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:10 PM

224. i don't care

because he replied to the OP, and the word black does not appear in the title. perhaps his words are meaningless, therefore a wate of my time.
thanks for asking
now go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

165. Yep and look at the hornets nest you stirred up!

They cannot invalidate your comment, so the propaganda is all that is left for them to use. Wayne LePew would be proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #165)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:27 PM

167. Wayne LePew

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #165)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:23 PM

227. "Wayne LePew" LMAO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:12 PM

180. Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment, again?

Like 80% of gun owners, I don't hunt.

Why should I care, and what relevance does it have, what hunters do or don't use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:31 PM

192. um

Odin-
The only purpose of "assault" weapons is to kill people.

hunting rifles have a legitimate purpose, hunting (ducks from PETA nuts), there is no reason for a civilian to have these "military-style" fire arms with magazines with 30 or 50 rounds of ammo. Hell, I believe in many states it's ILLEGAL to hunt using such huge cartridges.


spin () to ODIN
159. Hunters do use black rifles and they are definitely gaining in popularity with hunters. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:36 PM

196. High capacity magazines

I'm not sure why i was in viet nam. Besides almost dying in a rocket attack about all i saw was corruption on a massive scale and people who would do anything to get out of the field. This is just what i experienced, i dont pretend to speak for anyone else. Well, that was another lifetime and fortunately one that is growing dimmer for me every passing year.

i used to go target shooting on a regular basis but had to give it up because of the cost. I always wonder where some people get the money to buy these incredibly overpriced weapons and the stacks of ammo to service them.

Personally, i see no need for a 30 or 50 or 100 round magazine for a civilian. I certainly dont feel my 2nd amend. Rights are being violated if i cant buy one.

We need to do something to stop these mass killings. I really dont want to feel i or my granddaughter need a gun to go to the grocery store.

Just the thoughts of a tired old man who cant believe my country has gotten so violent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #196)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:46 PM

214. thank you, that was beautiful!

i actually shed a tear, keep it up. don't let any jerks on here argue with you. ignore them.

please send exactly what you wrote to Joe Biden as soon as possible. Please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #196)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:15 PM

226. Actually, violent crime is at an over-20-year low. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #226)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:55 PM

234. Violent crime

Im really glad that violent crime is at its lowest point in 20 years. Who wouldnt be happy about that?

However, when we have firemen being shot and killed and first graders being executed in their classroom, plus the daily barage of gun deaths every day i believe we live in a violent society.

Like i said, this is only my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #234)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:18 PM

235. well played!

those are the guys to avoid!

I agree with you. There is no question really. If violence happens every day, well, geez...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #234)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:38 AM

247. I don't disagree entirely, and there are many things we can do to help fix the problem.

 

But trying to restrict access to objects does squat to fix the causes of the violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #247)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:43 PM

251. lower gun deaths

I'm not certain of all the things that need to be done to lower gun violence.

Since you don't want to restrict objects, what exactly would you propose to lower gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #251)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:28 PM

253. Education, jobs, health care (including mental health), end Prohibition II....

 

stop over-jailing non-violent criminals, balance the Federal budget and pay off the national debt so we can pay for all the above.

Actually, ending Prohibition II will make us money. Less wasted on useless "law enforcement", more collected in taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #253)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:36 PM

255. his right to be safe @ the grocery is more important to a majority of people than your right to own

a big gun.

leave the man alone, he has more important things to do than argue with you. like buy groceries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #255)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:23 PM

261. I open carry at Fry's grocery here in in Arizona and get complemented by the staff.

 

But then, they know such action is quite safe. They're in far more danger trying to drive home, given the crap parking lot exits and the traffic density on the main road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #261)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:40 PM

262. why don't you ask ex-congresswoman Giffords what she thinks about that? prob not so nice

go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #262)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:30 PM

265. I carried to one of her events several years ago.

 

You seem to be projecting. I don't know why you want to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #265)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:07 PM

266. BS

go away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #266)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:36 PM

270. Trying to "shut down the conversation"?

 

Have a great day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #270)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:48 PM

271. no, i said you are spouting nonsense, multiple times

and leave the guy alone. he obviously knows you are full of crap.

have a great time with the new gun laws!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #253)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:40 PM

258. lower gun deaths

I agree with all your proposals. They are noble ideas. However, I can't imagine when this will ever happen with our current political climate. Congress can't even agree to keep our taxes from going up or to raise the debt ceiling without us looking like a 3rd world country.

Also, we will have to agree to disagree on restricting objects. I guess I just have a hard time with a civilian owning a magazine that holds more ammo than mine did when I was in Viet Nam. I'm probably just getting old or perhaps my PTSD is acting up again.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #258)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:58 PM

263. you can certainly take care of yourself...well played again

you'd think these people would have some respect!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #263)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:24 PM

264. Kind thoughts

Many thanks for your kind thoughts. It means a lot to an old broken down geezer like me.

However, my ptsd is kicking in and i think i will give this blog a rest. I really dont want to do another all nighter.

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #264)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:16 PM

268. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Danang1968 (Reply #196)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:17 PM

269. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:20 PM

203. Careful my friend.

 

The gungeon has observed their perceived moment of mourning and will now continue to attack posts and posters again in a method that if not paid for is simply driven by hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #203)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:41 PM

209. both money and hate

what a combo! sounds yummy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:36 PM

206. Your OP made no sense whatsoever.

 

Please review and revise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #206)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:24 PM

228. If you can't understand it that is YOUR problem, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:44 PM

213. Freedumb. Best way to put it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #213)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:26 PM

230. I have come to cringe when somebody starts yakking about "freedom"

Because it is almost the case that it is associated with RW talking points.

When did we let the wing-nuts monopolize the word?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #230)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:28 PM

231. Where do they monopolize "pro-life"?

 

Goo is not a life

Some guy who broke into your home and is trying to run is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:38 PM

257. just a bump so people will read post #196 in this thread. it might make you cry, careful

pretty much says it all!

count up 16 spots from this one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:13 PM

267. nope. i was educated by a du'er that he & pals play games & have matches with theirs.

therefore we'll never outlaw him.....i swear it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread