HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Instead of calling these ...

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:43 PM

Instead of calling these things "assault weapons", I propose that we call them something else...

"Militarized People Killers"



Although the Walther people may take issue with calling them "MPKs", they have their own niche cut out in the Militarized People Killer market:



The thing is that "Assault Weapon" is such a nebulous term. We should use terminology that describes what these things are made to do, allow civilians to perform the job of people killing in a way that a soldier would do it.

After all, home based people killing is where the rubber hits the road anyway, right?

97 replies, 10653 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 97 replies Author Time Post
Reply Instead of calling these things "assault weapons", I propose that we call them something else... (Original post)
MrScorpio Jan 2013 OP
jaysunb Jan 2013 #1
samsingh Jan 2013 #8
derby378 Jan 2013 #10
jaysunb Jan 2013 #13
onehandle Jan 2013 #2
trumad Jan 2013 #3
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #16
Recursion Jan 2013 #4
Scuba Jan 2013 #11
Recursion Jan 2013 #19
tblue Jan 2013 #31
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #15
Recursion Jan 2013 #20
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #5
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #6
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #7
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #9
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #12
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #18
Recursion Jan 2013 #22
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #23
Recursion Jan 2013 #26
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #29
SQUEE Jan 2013 #63
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #65
SQUEE Jan 2013 #66
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #68
SQUEE Jan 2013 #69
krispos42 Jan 2013 #72
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #74
krispos42 Jan 2013 #75
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #78
krispos42 Jan 2013 #87
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #88
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #53
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #56
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #57
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #58
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #60
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #62
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #17
rrneck Jan 2013 #14
rightsideout Jan 2013 #21
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #25
rightsideout Jan 2013 #30
derby378 Jan 2013 #28
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #33
derby378 Jan 2013 #46
Recursion Jan 2013 #49
toby jo Jan 2013 #52
Recursion Jan 2013 #34
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #36
libdem4life Jan 2013 #59
libdem4life Jan 2013 #24
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #27
libdem4life Jan 2013 #37
libdem4life Jan 2013 #39
rightsideout Jan 2013 #41
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #44
rightsideout Jan 2013 #48
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #51
-..__... Jan 2013 #32
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #35
-..__... Jan 2013 #40
libdem4life Jan 2013 #42
-..__... Jan 2013 #45
libdem4life Jan 2013 #55
-..__... Jan 2013 #61
libdem4life Jan 2013 #67
-..__... Jan 2013 #71
libdem4life Jan 2013 #80
Recursion Jan 2013 #50
libdem4life Jan 2013 #82
Recursion Jan 2013 #84
libdem4life Jan 2013 #86
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #38
Ricochet21 Jan 2013 #43
spanone Jan 2013 #47
Hekate Jan 2013 #54
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #64
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #70
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #73
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #89
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #91
-..__... Jan 2013 #76
likesmountains 52 Jan 2013 #77
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #79
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #81
DJ13 Jan 2013 #83
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #85
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #90
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #92
WillyT Jan 2013 #93
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #94
WillyT Jan 2013 #95
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #96
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #97

Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:46 PM

1. Weapons of mass destruction, is what they are. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jaysunb (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:54 PM

8. baby killers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jaysunb (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:01 PM

10. Yeah, right

Comparing a rifle with an 11-shot magazine to a vial of sarin? That's not going to fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:07 PM

13. The results are the same: dead people.

and the op never mentioned rifles or pistols....but then again, I think you knew this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:46 PM

2. Sounds good. And 'Domestic Terrorism Clips' instead of Assault Clips. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:46 PM

3. Seems to be the latest meme from the DU Gun Nuts...

Let's redefine the name.

Good post---great name BTW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:15 PM

16. Lets's start calling them RBKA extremists, it sounds more refined but is the same thing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:48 PM

4. As far as I can tell those are assault rifles, not assault weapons

and have been essentially banned since the 1930's.

There are guns that look like them, called "assault weapons" (or, in deference to your post, MPK's), but have completely different mechanisms inside. The phrase "assault weapon" was chosen so that people would think we were talking about assault rifles. It worked pretty well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:02 PM

11. Such hair splitting is part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:18 PM

19. If you think this is hair splitting, that's part of the problem

I'm not being a pedantic gun fanboy; I'm pointing out that these guns aren't what you think they are, and banning them didn't and won't do what you think it will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:36 PM

31. Sorry dude. Words are NOT the problem.

It's the freaking guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:10 PM

15. Assault rifles weren't invented until WW2 in the 40's

 

Definition

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:21 PM

20. True; the legal control predates the design

But select fire weapons have been (at least for all practical purposes) banned since the 1930s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:48 PM

5. Renew your ghoul card n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:49 PM

6. Massacre machines. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:49 PM

7. Why not just use the industry's standard terms?

Why make up another pointless term/phrase?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:58 PM

9. Because a tobacco company would never allow their product...

To be called a "cancer and lung disease stick", or Big Pharma would never call some of their most dangerous products, "poisons", even though that's exactly what they are.

It's the weapons manufacturers who are problem here, flooding the market with all of their attractive, people killing products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:07 PM

12. As true as that may be, you did not answer the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:18 PM

18. Your line of questioning allows the gun makers to dictate definitions

I don't think that it's "unneccesary" if I'm trying to take their control of the conversation away from them.

They have a vested interest in promoting their weapons of death and destruction. Hence, nomenclature is a big part of their marketing tool.

Allowing them to pretty up that monster just won't do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:23 PM

22. Let me try it this way

What about these guns is worse than guns with wood finishes and traditional grips?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:26 PM

23. One thing at a time

We'll get to the other types of people killers, militarized or otherwise eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:29 PM

26. And that's what worries gun owners

If we ban military-looking weapons that are functionally identical to traditional-looking weapons, there's very little logic to keeping the traditional looking ones. Which ultimately is fine with me but very not-fine people who own guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:34 PM

29. I just love Domino Theories

Nothing else says "paranoid" quite like them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:42 PM

63. I love honesty too,

"One thing at a time


We'll get to the other types of people killers, militarized or otherwise eventually. "
It's not paranoia if they really are trying to get you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #63)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:46 PM

65. Some people really go out of their way to cling to their guns and their religion

So afraid that the mean old black president wants to take them all away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:50 PM

66. I voted for the President

And as an atheist ..
But, yeah I do cherish my rights. so 1 for 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:52 PM

68. If you're looking of a fight, you're not going to find one here

But, you are free to keep reaching for that rainbow, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:56 PM

69. I am not, just saying I fit the party pretty well except one trait,

and down here in the South, I fit right in on that one too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:09 PM

72. How about domino facts?

In 1993, Congress created a legal definition of "assault weapon", or "Militarized People Killer" if you prefer. Title XI of H.R. 3355 did so.

You can see the entire bill here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

It's on pages 201-203.


Diane Feinstein's proposed new ban on "assault weapons", or "Militarized People Killers" if you prefer, expands the definition of "assault weapon" to include more kinds of guns. It also makes already-owned assault weapons under the new definition be grandfathered in by their owners, but it makes them treated like machine guns under federal law.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119


Here's what happened: gun-control advocates created a pejorative and arbitrary buzz term called "assault weapons". They spend a lot of time hating "assault weapons", vilifying them and the people that own them, and making sure to go on TV a lot and say things like "who needs an assault weapon to hunt Bambi?" And since then, pretty much anything that looks like an AR-15 or AK-47 is called an "assault weapon", regardless of whether or not it actually is. The rifle that Mr. Fuckstain used in Newtown was not an assault weapon; Connecticut has an exact duplicate of the '93 ban in its laws, and it never expired.

But that doesn't matter; it looked modern military, so it was an "assault weapon".


So now that the people have an emotional reaction to anything that is called or looks like an "assault weapon", the definition is now being used for political gain. And not only used, but expanded.


Remember "terrorism"? It used to be a pretty rare term, until 9/11. Then it was flogged and flogged and flogged. If you didn't support BushCo, you were a terrorist enabler, a terrorist supporter. PETA and peace activists became domestic terrorist groups. Even boycotting Chick-Fil-A for their support of straight-only marriage became "economic terrorism".



It's not paranoia if they're really coming to get you. Or if they're really expanding the definition of "assault weapon".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #72)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:13 PM

74. Is there a point to all of this? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:25 PM

75. Education.

You have a viewpoint; it was correct until the Newtown massacre. Now there are people out there who are actively pursuing a "slippery slope" or "domino theory" to restrict guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:41 PM

78. Except I didn't propose to ban the weapons that I highlighted

I merely suggested that we start calling them what they actually are, military styled weapons for civilians to approximate their military counterparts.

In the military, these weapons are used specifically to kill other people. The only reason to create a civilian counter-part is to give the civilian buyer a weapon that could perform the same function, or at least give the impression that it could perform the same function.

But hey, "restrict them"? I never said that, I've only suggested that we say what these things are, hence, Militarize People Killers.

Look, if gun enthusiasts want to buy a gun that looks like it has the same people killing capacity as a soldier in the field, well…

That's AMERICAN freedom, baby!

Tin plated soldier boy wannabes have a constitutional right to express themselves through the ownership of their Militarized People Killing capable weapons.

I'm really sorry that they're so sensitive about the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:03 PM

87. True, but others are

The language is on their side, challenging the linguistic terms they use is apparently an NRA talking point, or something. And my point was that the law that is based on the linguist term is creeping in scope. I wasn't aware if you knew this; Feinstein's proposal only came out a few days ago.


I prefer the term "tactical", myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:11 PM

88. The politicians will do what they will

But you know, as do I, they this government is practically powerless to regulate the weapons manufacturers. After all, the very same people who are flooding the streets with military styled weapons are also responsible for providing the Government with MPKs for REAL soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

If we're going to have these weapons amongst us, so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:44 PM

53. You say that like it is a bad thing.

> Your line of questioning allows the gun makers to dictate definitions.
> I don't think that it's "unnecessary" if I'm trying to take their control of the conversation away from them.
> They have a vested interest in promoting their weapons of death and
> destruction. Hence, nomenclature is a big part of their marketing tool.
> Allowing them to pretty up that monster just won't do.

Your (group you) biggest problem is that your definitions are silly at best and stupid at worst.

What is the problem with using the industry-standard definition of "semi-automatic carbine" to describe an AR-15?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:08 PM

56. Because my own military experience has taught me what they are....

Militarized People Killers for civilians.

Just the thing for when you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucker in the room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:14 PM

57. For some reason, I heard that in the voice of Samuel L. Jackson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:19 PM

58. You heard right, he was talking about an AK-47

And describing exactly what his character understood to be what the purpose of a civilian variant of an AK-47 is to be used for.

Thirty round clip, rapid rate of fire…

Other than an efficient form of people killing, there's not much use for it to do anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:24 PM

60. I'm game, which movie?

As for uses, the semi-auto AK-47 clones make good hunting rifles when outfitted with 5-round magazines. Of course, standard target shooting is always fun...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:37 PM

62. Jackie Brown

If you have one, I'm sure that nothing gets between you and your AK, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #7)


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:09 PM

14. How about "the latest spin". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:23 PM

21. General McChrystal calls them "military" weapons

Did you all catch him on Jon Stewart last night?

The General said there is no need for the public to have military weapons whose only purpose is to do as much flesh damage as possible.

So if we call them "military weapons" that doesn't use the words "semi-automatic" or "assault" which gun proponents love to confuse the issue with.

Precede it up with the clip round. Just say "30 round clip Military Weapon." Don't even mention the word "assault" or "semi-automatic." If it's a 30 round clip, it's assumed it's semi-automatic, assault or whatever but you aren't saying it is. LOL. Their heads will explode once you start talking like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:28 PM

25. Damn Skippy, I saw that interview this morning

My OP is an extension of that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:35 PM

30. And I like your idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:32 PM

28. This much I will concede...

My rifle is clearly a military-grade rifle. Those who say "But it can't be a military weapon, it's semi-automatic" should remember that our soldiers fought World War II with semi-automatic rifles - namely, the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. There were a few Thompsons and MP40s here and there, sure, but the M1 was the default GI rifle, and we won a world war with that gun in hand.

So I have no problem with calling my gun a "military weapon." And I'm on "the other side" of the current gun debate. Do I object to the term? Not one bit.

A little research might still benefit you - the TEC-9 was never a military weapon (although it was a copy of a copy of one) and is generally not sought by gun collectors any more than a Lorcin "Saturday night special." And I used to own a TEC-9, too, back when I was younger and not so wise. I got rid of it pronto and lost some money on the deal, but I'm happy to be rid of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:39 PM

33. The second pic isn't a Tec-9, it's a Walther MPK

I thought that I was clear on that. Here's the source: http://www.warboats.org/mst2Bremmer/Stoner_ord_notes/stonerhtml/Walther_MPLMPK.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:31 PM

46. You were definitely clear

I just wanted to make the distinction because there are some guns (like the TEC-9) that have been historically lumped in with more reputable firearms (like the AR-15 and AK-47) and have no business being so intertwined.

If there was to be a workable ban on certain weapons, I'd want to see it done from the "well-regulated militia" angle, which would mean that the TEC-9, not being militia-grade, could be disposed of with ease, and I wouldn't shed a tear. The AR-15, being militia-grade, would not fall under such a ban. I know that's not the sort of legislation a lot of people want, but it would put a crimp on the availability of a whole bunch of less-than-reputable guns that often wind up in the hands of gangsters and other criminal flotsam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:46 PM

49. Few soldiers get handguns

I did, but only because I was on a machine gun crew.

I think there's a much stronger constitutional argument for banning pistols than there is for rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:29 PM

52. Absolutely - the killing fields of our country are animated with pistols.

 

The rifles come out on occasion and blister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:40 PM

34. I think that's a pretty good idea

Just call them "military style weapons" if they have the same appearance as a military weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:45 PM

36. Pretty much EVERY style of gun is a military style weapon.

 

Just depends on the era of the military. Even flintlocks were, at one point, cutting edge weapons used to kill more effectively than any weapon it preceded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:22 PM

59. Well, just who does he think he is, an expert or something? (sarcasm) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:26 PM

24. Guns don't kill people, ammunition does.

OK then, forget the 300 million guns...let's just have an ammunition ban for military/war/mass people killer clips. No, we won't buy them back.

There's a "bag limit" on ammo...just like deer hunting season. Be legally responsible, insured, and liable for every time a gun lover fires his/her weapon.

Gun bans? No. Guns for protection and hunting? Yes. Gun management...taxation, registration and insurance for each weapon? Yes. Gun liability, including accidents including alcohol or drugs, as for motor vehicles? Yes. Weapons of war? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:31 PM

27. If that's the case, I say we jack up the cost of ammo to $5,000 a round

That way, people killing wouldn't occur in such a casual and callous manner.

Chris Rock had a great point when he proposed this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:46 PM

37. Sounds like a plan !!! A lot easier than the other painful discourses going on.

And the extra tax on ammo, along with federally required insurance required on every gun based on its capacity to murder, goes to the Federal Fund for Victims and Families. Your gun shoots ammo...you pay. Keep it locked up and unloaded to admire and reflect on the monetary investment every so often...don't have a problem with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:47 PM

39. ...meant to include the firearm ability to hunt for food...in season and with bag limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:49 PM

41. That would comply with the "well regulated" part of the 2A

There's nothing that says anything about the cost of arms in the 2A. Just says it needs to be well regulated. Seems like it takes more hoops to jump through to register to vote then it is to register a gun in some places.

Remember, Mayberry Deputy Barney Fife was only allowed to keep one bullet in his pocket? LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:59 PM

44. I would entertain rebates for rounds not used for people killing

It would be like itemizing one's taxes. Present proof that your rounds were used for something else like game hunting or target practice instead of people killing, you'd get a $4,998 rebate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:43 PM

48. Incentives and rebates always help

Also, if the gun was stolen or stolen and used in a robbery - no rebate. Seems like alot of guns are stolen and used for other crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:01 PM

51. That's a winner! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:38 PM

32. Sport Utilty Firearm.

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:41 PM

35. Only if one's sport is killing other people. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:49 PM

40. Then myself and millions of other Sport Utility Rifle owners must be doing it wrong.

 

Ventilated plenty of paper targets, cans, soda bottles, pumpkins, etc.

Haven't seen any bodies lying around though.

Either that or we're hiding them pretty damn good and no one has gotten any wiser about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:57 PM

42. It's a sport to shoot at garbage? Curious as to the satisfaction factor involved.

I get protection of home and family. I get hunting for food. After that, hardly seems worth the investment...especially using weapons of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:11 PM

45. Now that you mention it...

 

It would be more sporting if the garbage shot back.

And FWIW... I don't own any "weapons of war".

I only know a few people that actually do (and they shoot at paper targets, cans, soda bottles, pumpkins, etc too).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:07 PM

55. Just seems a bit odd...that's all. And if those things shot back, pretty sure the glamour would

cease pretty quick, especially with any accuracy. LOL. Just interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:35 PM

61. Interesting?... Odd?

 

Perhaps to some, I mean there are many hobby/sports/past-time related things that I can't personally relate to or fathom the appeal (Football, Golf, collecting sneakers, belt sander racing , etc).

I don't question or try to understand the appeal, fascination or interest in those activities.

If that's what floats your boat, more power to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:51 PM

67. Irrelevant and rhetorical. None involve the skill that would lead to ending a life. For all the

hoopla around "guns are for fun and frolic", it's just not true. The intention of guns is ultimately to take a life. A kid gets hold of a gun, s/he holds the power of life and death for themselves, or others ...intended or unintended.

Bows and arrows...same. Skilled Knife Throwing or the strength to stab someone...same. Footballs, golf clubs and sneakers? Not so much.

Red Herrings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:06 PM

71. But... that's not what you started out with...

 

It's a sport to shoot at garbage? Curious as to the satisfaction factor involved


If you want to throw out "Red Herrings" like "The intention of guns is ultimately to take a life", then you clearly have no understanding or knowledge of firearms related hobbies/sports/ownership/posesion/activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:43 PM

80. Let me reframe it then...guns as sport...does that mean they do not have the

ability to take a life? Can a child happen on it (not yours, but someone else's) and someone dies? Can it be stolen and used to commit a crime? Can it be used to hunt for good? et al.

And yes, it was a bit rhetorical. Guilty. But my Red State credentials are intact.

Point remains. It's not a golf club or a basketball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:49 PM

50. It reminds me of yoga

Focus, concentration, active awareness of your body and its motions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:48 PM

82. Well, that's a stretch...in a manner of speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:52 PM

84. I'm awful at yoga, but I try

My fiancée and I are moving to Mumbai soon; I'm forbidden from taking yoga with the douchebag expats around there.

That said, there is a lot of common ground, particularly about situational awareness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:00 PM

86. Well, there's some common ground. I suck at target shooting, too. Good luck in Mumbai.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:47 PM

38. Population Growth De-Accelerator (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:59 PM

43. How about machine guns

that's what they are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:36 PM

47. wmd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:47 PM

54. There ya go, Mr Scorpio. Excellent renaming and reframing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:46 PM

64. Alas, assault weapons (to the chagrin of the usual suspects)

Is the correct name. It comes from the Sturmweber, the first true modern battle rifle...yup, Sturmweber translates to assault weapon.

So the "civilian versions" don't have a selector switch. (There are a few other, mostly cosmetic features). It is functionally the same toy. The difference, serious, is one part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #64)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:03 PM

70. You are confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle".

Two different things. However, the phrase "assault weapon" was specifically chosen to cause confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:13 PM

73. Nope, I am not

But thanks.

Of course, you are confusing ignores the meat of this. The AR is a civilian version of the M-16. In fact, the AR platform was developed, under a research grant from DOD, by Armorlite in the 1950s...the M-16 was deployed by the army, replacing the M-14. The civilian version really hit the market ten years later...and one of the things people (and the army) loved, was it's modularity, which has only increased over the years.

You might try this manure with others...it's distracting, but not with everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:15 PM

89. Well, you did get the rest of it right.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:16 PM

91. Damn...whatever man

I guess General McChrysyal, who carried first an M-16 and later an M-4, was also way wrong when he said these assault riffes have no business in civilian hands, or Wes Clark a few years back.

I share with them the knowledge of what the .223 does to the human body. McChrystal also used .223 and 5.56 NATO interchangeably. I am positive you will correct him too. As well, of course, as Wes Clark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:31 PM

76. No... just confused.

 

Wise and schooled on Light Sabers and Sith trolls she is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:33 PM

77. Dead 6 year olds probably would not have cared about the semantics.

Please get over the nit picking. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to likesmountains 52 (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:42 PM

79. Worst, the nitpicking is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:44 PM

81. Overcompensators

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:49 PM

83. I vote for

Bunny Shredders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:52 PM

85. The only problem here is that soldiers don't go to war against bunnies

Even if civilians actually use them to shred bunnies, it's pretty ridiculous that they'd use a weapon that's the variant of an actual Militarized People Killer to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:16 PM

90. murder machines?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:18 PM

92. That rolls off the tongue quite well

Another name for them, as well.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:21 PM

93. I'm Thinking... "Pink Panties"... Could You Imagine The Guys At The Tavern Asking...

Each other... "How many/what kind, of pink panties do you own?"




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:26 PM

94. No, No, no, my Friend… This is a patently sexist approach

And I won't have it.

If you want to impugn the manhood of "manly" men who are impelled to purchase and own really big people killing toys for whatever reason, there's a better way to do that.

Let's leave the pink panties out of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:34 PM

95. LOL !!! - Alright Man... It's Your Thread... How About "Pop-Guns" "Pea-Shooters" "Pez Dispensers"

You caught me off-guard... I'll have to THINK before I come up with anymore shooting metaphors.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:38 PM

96. Now you're talking nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:43 PM

97. I have used pea shooter

To the admonition that I think they are toys...I can attest to effectiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread