HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NRA President: The AR-15,...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:10 AM

NRA President: The AR-15, Which Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute, Is The ‘Musket Of Today’

Are these people really this dumb or do they for some reason think this is just a politically smart thing to say?




KEENE: This nation was founded as a result of the fact, people, citizens who had a musket above their fireplace grabbed the gun when an emergency confronted them. For four million Americans, the AR-15 is the musket of today.



For reference, the AR-15 can fire between 700 to 950 rounds a minute. In contrast, the muskets that the American revolutionaries used typically fired three rounds per minute if they were used by skilled marksmen.


Read more: http://boldprogressives.org/nra-president-the-ar-15-which-can-fire-700-rounds-per-minute-is-the-musket-of-today/

214 replies, 10677 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 214 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA President: The AR-15, Which Can Fire 700 Rounds Per Minute, Is The ‘Musket Of Today’ (Original post)
Report1212 Feb 2013 OP
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #1
Chorophyll Feb 2013 #3
SQUEE Feb 2013 #9
Paladin Feb 2013 #11
SQUEE Feb 2013 #15
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #13
SQUEE Feb 2013 #14
Paladin Feb 2013 #16
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #18
EOTE Feb 2013 #32
SQUEE Feb 2013 #34
EOTE Feb 2013 #36
SQUEE Feb 2013 #38
EOTE Feb 2013 #40
SQUEE Feb 2013 #41
EOTE Feb 2013 #44
SQUEE Feb 2013 #46
EOTE Feb 2013 #47
SQUEE Feb 2013 #49
EOTE Feb 2013 #52
SQUEE Feb 2013 #60
spanone Feb 2013 #54
SQUEE Feb 2013 #58
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #74
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #72
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #57
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #174
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #177
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #179
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #180
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #185
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #187
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #189
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #191
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #194
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #188
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #193
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #195
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #196
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #198
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #199
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #132
thucythucy Feb 2013 #71
thucythucy Feb 2013 #73
SQUEE Feb 2013 #78
thucythucy Feb 2013 #87
NickB79 Feb 2013 #22
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #31
NickB79 Feb 2013 #35
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #65
SQUEE Feb 2013 #37
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #61
SQUEE Feb 2013 #62
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #64
SQUEE Feb 2013 #67
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #75
SQUEE Feb 2013 #80
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #88
SQUEE Feb 2013 #91
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #96
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #76
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #85
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #117
NickB79 Feb 2013 #23
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #63
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #82
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #93
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #110
Chorophyll Feb 2013 #19
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #66
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #144
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #212
bongbong Feb 2013 #24
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #145
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #30
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #70
Report1212 Feb 2013 #206
Recursion Feb 2013 #2
Electric Monk Feb 2013 #42
Recursion Feb 2013 #43
thucythucy Feb 2013 #79
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #84
Recursion Feb 2013 #150
JVS Feb 2013 #83
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #142
former9thward Feb 2013 #4
Animal Chin Feb 2013 #5
Report1212 Feb 2013 #152
Animal Chin Feb 2013 #154
Deep13 Feb 2013 #209
SirRevolutionary Feb 2013 #6
SayWut Feb 2013 #7
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #8
bossy22 Feb 2013 #10
Hoyt Feb 2013 #12
Bake Feb 2013 #59
Daemonaquila Feb 2013 #17
Hoyt Feb 2013 #20
sweetapogee Feb 2013 #33
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #181
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #21
bongbong Feb 2013 #26
Pholus Feb 2013 #53
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #55
Pholus Feb 2013 #69
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #81
Pholus Feb 2013 #94
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #103
Pholus Feb 2013 #112
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #126
Pholus Feb 2013 #127
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #86
Pholus Feb 2013 #98
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #104
Pholus Feb 2013 #116
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #122
Pholus Feb 2013 #123
Pholus Feb 2013 #197
krispos42 Feb 2013 #192
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #111
Pholus Feb 2013 #113
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #114
Pholus Feb 2013 #120
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #124
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #128
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #130
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #135
Recursion Feb 2013 #151
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #129
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #134
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #137
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #139
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #140
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #141
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #157
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #159
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #160
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #161
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #162
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #163
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #165
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #167
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #169
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #171
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #175
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #178
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #164
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #166
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #168
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #170
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #172
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #25
jmg257 Feb 2013 #27
AndyA Feb 2013 #28
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #146
moondust Feb 2013 #29
SpartanDem Feb 2013 #39
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #45
SQUEE Feb 2013 #48
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #50
SQUEE Feb 2013 #68
thucythucy Feb 2013 #92
SQUEE Feb 2013 #97
thucythucy Feb 2013 #101
SQUEE Feb 2013 #148
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #119
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #143
SQUEE Feb 2013 #149
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #156
JoKandice Feb 2013 #51
indepat Feb 2013 #56
Historic NY Feb 2013 #77
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #90
Historic NY Feb 2013 #95
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #100
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #105
Historic NY Feb 2013 #121
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #131
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #102
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #106
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #115
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #118
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #125
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #89
Peregrine Feb 2013 #133
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #136
hack89 Feb 2013 #158
thucythucy Feb 2013 #99
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #108
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #147
tjnite Feb 2013 #107
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #109
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #182
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #184
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #186
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #205
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #207
rdharma Feb 2013 #138
thatwhichisnt Feb 2013 #153
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #183
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #204
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #210
JackN415 Feb 2013 #155
SomethingFishy Feb 2013 #173
2on2u Feb 2013 #176
krispos42 Feb 2013 #190
Scott.K Feb 2013 #200
cyberswede Feb 2013 #201
Scott.K Feb 2013 #202
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #203
Scott.K Feb 2013 #211
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #214
Deep13 Feb 2013 #208
Scott.K Feb 2013 #213

Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:13 AM

1. And you posted using a "press?" How many pages per minute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:16 AM

3. And we can blow you to bits by posting links quickly?

Maybe you should learn the difference between a weapon and a communication device.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:35 AM

9. Amendments.. which are more important.?

and, which are just damn inconvenient to those that live in fear.

As an aside, It will be damned hard to blow anyone to bits with a 5.56/.223 round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:50 AM

11. I'm Sure Your Comments On The 5.56/.223 Will Be Of Great Comfort.....

...to the parents of those 20 dead first-graders in Connecticut. Of course, you might run the risk of them finding your words "damn inconvenient".....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:17 PM

15. I do not speak to or for those parents, even the ones that support my position

I respect their position, and grieve for their loss. But I refuse to assume to speak for anyone but myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:55 AM

13. Looks like you need to learn a few things, too...

....like what a 5.56/.223 round does when it hits a human body:

Sniper's bullet designed to do deadly damage

QUOTES:

Famous for its use in the military's M-16 rifle, the .223-caliber round is known for causing extensive tissue damage, says surgeon Ron Maier of the Northwest Regional Trauma Center at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Like all high-velocity bullets, the .223 slug passes through the body with an accompanying shock wave that whipsaws blood vessels and organ tissue that are inches away from the bullet.

The "cavitation," or cavity, caused by the high-velocity shock wave may briefly expand the diameter of the bullet hole almost 2 inches, about 10 times the width of the slug itself, before it collapses behind, tearing tissue further.


....and....

The shock wave damages soft tissue such as the brain immensely. Anyone receiving a head wound loses motor function almost immediately, says surgeon Basil Pruitt Jr. of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Soft organs such as the liver also fare badly; more elastic tissues such as the lungs or stomach survive the shock better.

Heavier bullets, such as those fired by the popular .30-06 hunting rifle, may deliver more of a punch, says rifle wound expert Vincent Di Maio, chief medical examiner of Bexar County in San Antonio. But "the .223 breaks up more than other bullets," he says. After it hits someone, the .223 round tumbles and fragments as it punches deeper into the body, multiplying the damage.


You were saying?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:15 PM

14. Hydrostatic shock doesn't blow people to bits,

No matter what movies show.. I am responding to the hyperbole.
I am well versed on wound channels as well as terminal ballistics, I went through about 500 lbs of ballistics gelatin just this last summer alone..
So an agenda based and lurid article from USA Today, I guess I will go with my own experience and that of people that actually test this stuff for a living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:25 PM

16. Thanks For Sharing. Keep Up The Valuable Work, Don't Let Anybody Hold You Back. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:09 PM

18. Sorry, but until you provide something, anything, to back up your rather interesting "opinion"....

....I'll take the word of the experts quoted in the USA article I linked in my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:05 PM

32. Ahhh, so the hyperbole is blowing a person "to bits" when all it does is kill them.

So, the bullets kill and kill very effectively, but all those damned gun grabbers make it sound like the bullets are DESIGNED to kill or something. Silly gun grabbers. Thanks for the education... or lack of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:17 PM

34. yup,

I try to be very exact and reasoned with my facts and ideas on how to deal with the idea of gun violence, and so few here will bother to look beyond the feel good bans it all or sarcastic penis imagery.. this is why nothing will be done...
I and others have posted time after time various and reasonable ideas to address these issues, ideas from a educated and technically feasible points of view.
I am fairly educated and experienced in the firearms arena, and can and do go toe to toe with just about any NRA pimp...
Gun ban extremists can keep shrieking hyperbole, impotently wringing their hands and making unreasonable demands and the blood will be on their hands as well, because Joe and Suzy Public have already made their decisions, and he is tuning out the extremists on both side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:26 PM

36. Death is death, that's not hyperbole.

If you think it makes a damned bit of difference whether those 20 KIDS were killed, maimed, blown to bits, then you're not adding a constructive voice to this conversation. You sound just like the gun nuts who say "You don't even know the difference between a mag and a clip, you obviously don't have a worthwhile voice to contribute to this argument." It's utter idiocy. The gun nuts who talk like this (which is the great bulk of them) are idiots who think semantics are more important than saving lives. They believe that stroking their precious firearms is more important than people having the right to not die. "Joe and Suzy Public" are sick of the bullshit coming from the NRA. They know the bullshit being spewed is as far from reasonable as is possible. You don't want honest debate, you want to argue utterly pointless semantics so you can make a point. Reasonable people know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:36 PM

38. I again point out I belittle no one for not being technically proficient

I try and offer education, and point out reasonable ideas..
feelings are unimportant in this debate, and should not be the basis of law and public policy.
Lurid and sensationalized arguments just make one look as perverse as those you are looking to defame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:45 PM

40. Then you should understand that it makes no difference whether a gun tears one to pieces

or merely kills them in some other horrific manner. If an NRA idiot like LaPierre tried to make a deal about that particular distinction, he'd be torn apart for it. And for good reason. If the gun nuts want to have ANY respectability in this debate, they should learn that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:55 PM

41. AND if we want to actually make a difference in the violence.

to truly save lives, children and adult. Then WE need to work together on common sense and doable changes. Adding macabre adjectives is not getting anywhere and merely turns people off to the entire thing.

At this moment status quo is winning the day, and I find that deplorable, I do believe common sense laws, universal background checks, insurance and licensing requirements are actually necessary, but the extremists on both sides are causing a pushback..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:39 PM

44. The gun nuts are NOT interested in saving lives.

They don't give a fuck, so they try to obfuscate the issues with ridiculous semantic arguments. The GUN NUTS are the ones trying to ensure that the status quo remains. I, and other reasonable people are refusing to play their games. Downplaying the deaths of innocents is not getting anyone anywhere and that's what you're attempting to do. Excuse me if I refuse to play your stupid little games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:44 PM

46. I downplay nothing, I leave my emotions out of my politics.

GUN NUTS

most of the so called Gun nuts here are not even close to that.

I see no reason to continue a monolog with the wall

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:48 PM

47. The gun nuts are the ones playing stupid semantic arguments when lives are on the line.

The ones who feign indignation when someone would say that an assault weapon rips a body to pieces when they know in actuality that the assault weapon only fucks up a body beyond recognition. It's THAT stupid semantic bullshit that makes one a gun nut. If you don't want to be considered a gun nut, how about valuing the lives of innocents more than your precious or winning a pointless semantic argument. Sadly, there are lot of them here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:53 PM

49. I am more concerned with keeping my right than

winning an argument ...
I refuse to even acknowledge your reality as valid, this is not an either or, I am sure you can understand that I can value human life and have a weapon, if not.. well damn, again monologues are boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:01 PM

52. Exactly as I thought.

Rights are not absolute. One person's rights can infringe upon another person's rights. Notice that people don't have the right to smoke wherever the fuck they feel like. Also, people don't have the right to own machine guns either. So once again this boils down to what I've been saying from the start. You, and other gun nuts don't give a damn about who is killed, they just want to be sure that they can remain able to buy any mass murdering device which is currently available to them. You DON'T value human life more than you value your weapons. You think it's fine if people continue to die en masse so long as the gun nuts can continue to buy their instruments of death with NO restrictions. You make it very clear where you stand, there's no ambiguity there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:21 PM

60. People do have a right to MGs and they are legal.

I do not claim rights are absolute, I have put forth many ideas and compromises, you have decided to cuss and fume and stomp about, because the general public has recognized my rights.. And you are mistaken, but again I reject your flawed premise, and there really is not a thing you can do to get me to even agree your are valid. Laws are there to protect me as well as you. Luckily the 2A enumerates my inherent right to defense, and in this case the individuals right is trumping societies want to "feel safe"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:15 PM

54. i hope we take away your 'right' to automatic weapons and large capacity clips....i hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:54 PM

58. Okay, I dont own any automatic weapons,

Hope all you want, but the narrative has shifted and public opinion is not what it was a month ago, sadly an opportunity for substantive dialog has been lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:17 PM

74. More corrections to Spanone, #54

There is no constitutionally guaranteed "right" to own an automatic weapons. You can under strict regulation own one, but there is no guarantee of ownership and possession. I think a limit on large capacity magazines is rather meaningless (check on how the VT murderer did his slaughter: No rifles, No "large capacity clips."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:14 PM

72. Prohibitionists should reasonably define what they are trying to prohibit.

I have heard a lot of anger and hatred toward gun-owners in these threads, but precious little about how the banners feel about the shooting in Connecticut. Seems they equate their self-righteous animosity with compassion for children. They do not equate. But they feel smug enough to question gun-owners about their "values," and term them "nuts" when they don't meet the controllers' explanations and expectations.

Again, learn to reasonably define what you seek to ban. Laws rise and fall based on definitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:52 PM

57. Uh, the anti-gun zealots aren't interesred in saving lives.

They want to ban guns that look scarey to them, despite those guns being responsible for only a fraction of gun deaths.
OTOH, they haven't shown the least bit of interest in trying to keep ALL guns out of criminal and mentally ill hands, which WOULD save a great number of lives.
What this tells me is the anti-gun zealots merely want to pick a political battle with 100 million gunowners, 99,988,000 of whom won't ever cause a gun death. To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM

174. oh give it up its the same damn post every time ^^ this one is slightly more offensive

got anything to say about #171?

any yahoo, criminal or whatever can walk into a gun show and buy some cheap uzi BS for $350?

and that has no effect on crime?

you are getting creepy.

CNN Host Destroys Supporter Of Boy Scouts Discrimination For Equating Pedophilia With Being Gay
ThinkProgress ‎- 9 hours ago
CNN's Soledad O'Brien challenged the conservative opposition to keeping gays scouts and leaders out of the Boy Scouts on Wednesday ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #174)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:53 PM

177. Its your continued stalking posts that are repetitve.

I don't mind, though, at your repeated silliness. Just further discredits your position.

"You people" = anti-gun zealots...the Democratic Party's version of the teabaggers. You employ tactics right out of their handbook. Full of moral certitude, incapable of either rational dialog or compromise, attempts to bully and silence opposition, living in a non-reality based bubble.

And as further evidence of your foolishness, a person cannot walk into a gunshow, and walk out with a $350 Uzi. First of all, there aren't all that many dealers permitted to sell automatic weapons. The license is hard to get. A dealer who manages to get one isn't going to risk it with an illegal sale to a person unlicensed to own it. Secondly, sales made inside a gun show are subject to background checks and waiting periods. The "gun show loophole" is dealers who aren't federally licensed stepping outside into the parking lot and conducting a private sale. While that is a major problem, its not what you stated in your premise. Thirdly, while I don't know the price of an Uzi either legal, or black market...I am quite sure its much more than $350. As a wild guess, I'd say its at least 10X as much, perhaps twenty. I suspect your fantasy is a result of watching too many reruns of Miami Vice. Guys running around shooting Uzis is a Hollywood script, not reality. Maybe you should check out this reality concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #177)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:03 PM

179. i'm not gonna let your creepy insinuations go unanswered.

someone has to explain in detail how twisted you are!

backing off of that 'gay' comment, are ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #179)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:21 PM

180. What "gay" comment? Are you on drugs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #180)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:13 PM

185. post #57, what does that mean, exactly?

To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #185)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:31 PM

187. Do you understand how the "reply function" works?

If you don't understand that post, which is self-explanatory, then you merely have to click on "reply" at the bottom of that post to request a clarification.
Demanding a response in one subthread to a post in another subthread is silliness rightfully ignored. Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #187)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:42 PM

189. yes, unfortunately for you. i can also copy and paste.

i did just that, and now you are self-destructing!

so you say things in one post that don't relate to other posts of yours?
why?

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:52 PM
HooptieWagon (5,862 posts)
57. Uh, the anti-gun zealots aren't interesred in saving lives...To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles.


farminator3000
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)
Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM
you are getting creepy.

CNN Host Destroys Supporter Of Boy Scouts Discrimination For Equating Pedophilia With Being Gay
ThinkProgress ‎- 9 hours ago
CNN's Soledad O'Brien challenged the conservative opposition to keeping gays scouts and leaders out of the Boy Scouts on Wednesday ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #189)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:50 PM

191. Copying it did help me find it,

Since I don't have post numbers. And I answered your question. Unfortunately for you, your insinuations are off-target, just as the rest of your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #191)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:58 PM

194. but not to explain it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #185)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:40 PM

188. Okay, I did find the post farther up.

Navigating around DU on ph isn't easy, b/c post numbers aren't shown.

As to the post...does the name Jerry Sandusky ring a bell? Do you think gays in general should painted with a broad brush that includes him and those like him? If not (and I would hope not) then how can you justify painting ALL gun-owners with the actions of a very few? Are you a hypocrite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #188)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:57 PM

193. still don't like it- here's a surprise for ya

Sandusky wasn't gay.

you are the one painting, and it ain't rainbow colors...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #193)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:01 PM

195. I don't care whether you like it.

It appears your objection is because it shows you to be a hypocrite. My work is done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #195)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:18 PM

196. didn't like that surprise, huh?? my objection is mainly your bloviating

and the questionable comment.

maybe someone else will chip in to clear up your confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #196)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:34 PM

198. You're a looney-tune.

If you questioned that post, then you should have replied to that post...not a different one. Good luck with the schizophrenic posting technique, I'm sure one of your rainbows and unicorns loving anti-gun zealot friends will answer your cry for assistance.
:rolleyes:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #198)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:42 PM

199. you aren't good at avoiding questions- i did reply to post #57, still wondering what you mean?

in post #57 you said " To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles."

i said-

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM
174. oh give it up its the same damn post every time ^^ this one is slightly more offensive
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM

got anything to say about #171?

any yahoo, criminal or whatever can walk into a gun show and buy some cheap uzi BS for $350?

and that has no effect on crime?

you are getting creepy.

CNN Host Destroys Supporter Of Boy Scouts Discrimination For Equating Pedophilia With Being Gay
ThinkProgress ‎- 9 hours ago
CNN's Soledad O'Brien challenged the conservative opposition to keeping gays scouts and leaders out of the Boy Scouts on Wednesday ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:03 PM

132. Many prohibitionists seem to have little concern about violence just a focus

on one of the nearly infinite tools to do violence.

Anything suggested that would reduce violence all around is blown off by something like "how would that have stopped the slaughter of those babies". They don't give a shit about saving the many unless it also impacts the evil totem.

Some are just plain full of it. I've seen the same folks pile on a Second Amendment supporter for "not mourning these little angels and worrying about saving your precious guns" that themselves mourned jack apple shit but rather went straight to pushing their agenda without pause or segway.

Mourning isn't exactly not letting a tragedy go to waste, not how I came up anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the strategy of striking while the iron is hot in general or even in this specific situation (even though I disagree), the best time to make a move is when issue meets situation and hardest is after the normalcy kicks in after a watershed event (see our wasted opportunity for real financial reform, dithered until weak sauce can water too many noodles). So, I don't blame folks on the other end of this than me, I do take a lot of the moral high ground with a grain of salt.

Personally, I'm a little shook by a byproduct of this "debate" (it isn't one to me, I think the whole spectrum is on an emotional and irrational tangent on this) and that is my discovery of a pretty deep division on nature of government (not role or size) that I have not been able to reconcile spotlighted by the ever increasing encroachment on all civil liberties fueled by the wars on drugs and terror and the rising security state in all of it's manifestations. I am troubled by these "free trade" agreements that surrender our self rule, which negates the power of our votes as well as multi-national capture of or government that is pure entropy.

I've always been a policy focused person but this is whole other can of worms that takes precedence for me and the divisions are so many, fragmented along so many lines that I don't have a handle on it and don't even see it accounted for in our politics yet they are dominated by these fissures in many ways, fought in proxy via infringement on individual sovereignty from both sides and especially "centrist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #38)


Response to SQUEE (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:17 PM

73. Wouldn't that depend on how large the person is?

I read an account that said some of the Newtown children were indeed "blown to bits." One child, for instance, was shot in the face, and the bullet completely severed his jaw.

Or doesn't a child's jaw being in one part of a room, and the rest of his face in another, qualify in your mind as "bits"?

Interesting too, for all your attention to detail, you seem to have no problem with the NRA equating an 18th century smooth bore musket with a 21st century semi-automatic rifle. Isn't that rather "lurid" and "agenda based"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:27 PM

78. I have often and clearly stated the NRA has no bearing on meor my views.

And I find them as FOS as the other side.
The entire argument is deflection, as is the printing press vs internet argument.
But if you insist, as long as the Constitution is an ever changing and growing basis of out system of governance, then yes what he says is true, the two are equitable in terms of usage, actually, by his argument, I should have an M4, or SAW, and the Military would have ARs. Remember the Kentucky rifle was technologically superior to the smoothbore carried by the British regulars.. So again a silly argument on it's face

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:39 PM

87. What is a "silly argument on its face"

is the notion that private US citizens in the 21st century should own and stockpile weapons for some coming revolution in which said citizens will rise up to overthrow a tyrannical US government. And who, in this incredible equation, would be the analogous to the French army and navy at Yorktown? Which foreign power would you enlist in your effort to destroy the US government?

BTW: I notice you didn't answer my question about "bits."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:51 PM

22. A 2" cavitation equals "blowing someone to bits"?

I wouldn't argue with you that 5.56mm ammo can do some horrendous damage (I've seen it myself), but "blowing someone to bits" IS hyperbole. We're not talking about high explosives here, we're talking about fragmenting high-speed bullets. Your link doesn't support this hyperbole either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:00 PM

31. We're talking about multiple wounds in 6 and 7 year old children, to include....

...one child who had a total of 11 such wounds. Additionally, what kind of wounds do you think these children had after those .223 rounds fragmented and/or tumbled through their small bodies? "Hyperbole"? Really??

So, what's YOUR definition of "blowing someone to bits" when that someone is a child?

UPDATE: CT State Medical Examiner Says Bushmaster Rifle Did The Killing

QUOTE:

The .223 round is slightly lighter than the military grade version, but reacts the same on impact and is pretty much as deadly. It's designed to bounce around inside the body once it makes contact with bone.The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M16 and has been in production since Vietnam. The caliber is the same used in the DC sniper shootings. It was also used in the Colorado shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:17 PM

35. My definition of "blowing someone to bits"

Is that they are, well, in bits afterwards. Saying multiple wound channels through a body is the equivalent of blowing a body apart into pieces IS hyperbole. Like I've said, I've seen what 5.56mm ammo can do to flesh, and I know what the results look like.

The horror in Newtown is already more than enough for any sane person to fathom. Elevating it to the point of saying the kids were blown to bits is unnecessary and inaccurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:13 PM

65. A child hit 11 times by .223 rounds producing 2-inch+ wound channels is a child...

...blown to bits in my opinion. You're welcome to whatever you want to say about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:31 PM

37. The bouncing magic 5.56 design has been debunked ad naueseum..

And without going into a lurid and unnecassary details, the wounds you are imagining didnt happen.

This guy has been quite the topic among the technical people I know by the way. your quote has 2 fallacies alone...

Small bodies? why was that necassary except to inflame emotion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:38 PM

61. Debunked? By whom? Any links? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:56 PM

62. I m serious in asking,

are you willing to go to firearm and ammo websites.
These are full of info if you stick to the technical side, but they are hideously RW outside of the technical.
NEVER go to a GD on a gunboard, you will need a scrubbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #62)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:08 PM

64. I've provided a link that included sources...where are yours? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:45 PM

67. please see IM

I would rather not clutter DU with links to firearms, and ammo sites...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:18 PM

75. I'd rather not clutter my PM inbox with stuff that can't be discussed on this board,....

....so I won't be responding to you privately.

Is there something about the links you sent me by PM that cause you to be afraid to post them in an open forum?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #75)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:29 PM

80. I gave YOU what you asked, again in respect to this board, I will not post links to firearms sites..

if you cant be bothered.. well
I feel no need to waste anymore time, the info is there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:39 PM

88. No, I'm not going to be bothered by a PM that contains info that can just as easily....

....be posted by you in this thread.

What is it about the links you sent me that you don't want anyone else to see?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:49 PM

91. done..

have a nice day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:53 PM

96. Yes, you are done. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:24 PM

76. You can read the hard copy of American Rifle, by Rose...

In which he explained the "tumbling" effect of that round was the result of the rate of rifling in some the early M-16 rifles. This was changed in subsequent lots, resulting in stable more accurate bullet flights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:37 PM

85. No thanks...I won't be buying anything that can't be linked in this thread. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #85)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:04 PM

117. Well, here is a thread to peruse (among many re: M-16/15 "tumbling" rounds):

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:56 PM

23. The jury is still out on hydrostatic shock

Dr. Fackler, one of the top ballisticians in the world, has called it a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock#Fackler.27s_contra-claim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:07 PM

63. He's welcome to his opinion, as are you, but there are plenty of others...

....who are as well-qualified as Fackler who believe hydrostatic shock is more than just a theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:31 PM

82. Hydrostatic shock is discussed in the knock-down effects of big-game rounds...

Where comparatively soft bullets (sheathed in copper or other metals) mushrooms out on contact and expands the surface area of the bullet for a better means of transmitting the foot-lbs of energy into the body of a deer, hog, etc., thus often causing a shock wave through organs (mostly fluid), often affecting the nervous system. This is supposed to result in an animal going down immediately, or running in a haphazard, slow manner. In the interim, the animal bleeds out and goes unconscious, then dies. This is advantageous for quickly locating a downed animal. I've seen what is purported to be hydrostatic shock in action with soft lead bullets, and I have had to find deer which ran fast for considerable distances. There is debate about the phenomenon, but the theory is plausible. Evidently, much depends on bullet construction and range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:52 PM

93. But, we're not talking about deer in this thread, are we? Since you and a few others insist.....

....let's throw a few number out, shall we?

The average weight for a mature whitetail deer in the US is in the range of 100-200 pounds depending on where the deer is located.

The average weight of a 6-7 year old child is in the range of 40-60 pounds depending on build.

Which of the two above do you think will suffer greater effects from an AR-15 round fired from fairly close range?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #93)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:49 PM

110. Hit once in "equivalent" places with equivalent bullets, I don't know. Deer may run further.

My post was just a contribution to the notion of hydrostatic shock.

BTW, were the rounds used by the Connecticut fuck-up FMJ or a soft-lead hunting round? Some ranges forbid the use of FMJs. And I believe the Geneva Accords forbid expanding rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:15 PM

19. Amendments. You know why there are lots of them?

Because things change. Random example, the 15th Amendment:

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


This had to be added to the Constitution because the Constitution, as it existed before this, limited the right to vote to white male landowners. That's just one of 27 amendments. We amend previous amendments when they no longer make sense for the well-being of the country.

As for people being blown to bits? Tell the parents of Sandy Hook that their children weren't blown to bits. Go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:14 PM

66. +10000. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:00 AM

144. +a million

I cannot believe people here are fucking ARGUING about whether a dead child's body was in pieces or merely had craters in it. If I had any doubt that gun nuts were fucking insane, this thread has definitely done away with those doubts. I'm also having a good laugh at them calling US 'scared'. They are the ones in a panic that their piece of metal may be taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:31 PM

212. 27 Amendments in over 200 years isn't many...

especially since the first 10 came in one fell swoop in the beginning. Tell us, when did the last one pass? Given the divided nature of the country at present, when do you think the next one will pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:02 PM

24. YES

 

> nd, which are just damn inconvenient to those that live in fear.

The Delicate Flowers, living in morbid fear 24x7, clutching their guns, constantly misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment. You've described them well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:00 AM

145. +1

should've read your reply, that was my thought exactly. Fear, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:29 PM

30. Also rather inconvenient to be counted as merely 3/5ths of a person...

Also rather inconvenient to be counted as merely 3/5ths of a person, regardless of whether they lived in fear or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:06 PM

70. Not interested in bits, but the technology in the First is far more specific than in the Second.

Maybe you can learn the difference between specificity and generality.

When you do, you may wish to consider the specificity of the "press" was because there was little on the horizon other than this form of mass communication. The "arms" of the Second, on the other hand, was put in because there was a technological curve the Founders were aware of. For example, "muskets" (smooth bore, short range, and inaccurate weapons for regular armies), were available to standing armies, but at the time of the Revolution, many Americans did not have muskets. They had RIFLES of far greater range and accuracy than muskets. Within a couple of decades after independence, there was an operating repeating air rifle of considerable power used by Lewis & Clark in their expedition, and within another hundred years, repeaters were available.

If you get past your snarkiness, you might agree that the courts have held that "press" was a term sufficient to cover all manner of communication, and "arms" was a term to describe an infantry weapon suitable for the times (another fluid concept).

You should be thankful that arms suitable for the times haven't much evolved for the last 100 years, and in any case have been "capped off" at semi-auto technology (for civilians).

The specific "press" has enjoyed a one artful renaissance after another!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:01 PM

206. If my computer becomes a threat to you let me know nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:15 AM

2. How on earth is an AR-15 going to fire 700 rounds in a minute? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:29 PM

42. Video here of an ar-15 firing 100 rounds in six seconds

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101786818


6 seconds * 10 = 60 seconds = 1 minute
100 rounds * 10 = 1000 rounds

Yes, I know it would probably melt and deform if you did that for real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:31 PM

43. Yes, we've all seen that.

1. It's a trick fire that any semi-automatic is capable of

2. We should *hope* mass shooters would start trying to do that; many fewer people would die

3. Precisely zero people have been killed by bump-firing in the past... oh... six billion years

4. Even given all that, an AR15 is incapable of firing 700 rounds in 1 minute; the barrel would break first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:28 PM

79. Well, you asked how is it possible,

and in reply you get a video showing you precisely how it is possible.

To call it a "trick" and to say nobody has ever been killed by "bump firing" seems rather a lame response.

And how could you possibly know "precisely zero" people have been killed by bump firing? Assuming the shooter isn't caught or doesn't confess, didn't film the assault or otherwise record it, and assuming the victims are dead--well, it just seems a rather wild assertion to make, that "precisely zero" people have been killed in this way.

Given how obsessive-compulsive so many gun enthusiasts seem to be about all the various and exact details of all-things-gunnery (as evidenced by this thread, i.e.: small children "blown to bits" as opposed to merely shot into multiple fragments) I'd think you'd want to avoid a seemingly impossible-to-prove assertion such as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:35 PM

84. Yeah, like the monster on Frankenstein's slab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:23 AM

150. No, it is absolutely impossible for an AR15 to fire 700 rounds in a minute

Physically impossible.

It can fire for shorter periods at a rate that, if it could sustain (which it cannot), would equal 700 rounds in one minute. But at that point the barrel would have shattered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:33 PM

83. That's kind of like saying that because someone ran a 4 minute mile, they could run a marathon...

in under 2 hours. A brief trick is not the same as regular operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:42 AM

142. The one I shoot at the range sure does not.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:18 AM

4. The headline is totally made up.

The AR-15 that you can buy in a store can't fire "700 to 950" rounds a minute. It fires one shot per trigger pull. Just made up crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:22 AM

5. "700 to 950 rounds a minute"

What?

Only if you can pull the trigger 12 times per second. Otherwise, this is not possible with an AR-15 without modifications that would render the weapon very inaccurate and ineffective (and which modification -- the "slide fire" -- should, and likely will, be illegal).

700 rounds a minute sounds very scary, but it's not realistic. Even with the slide fire modification, the rifle would shoot so fast that it would probably make it worse even for a potential mass shooter. Rather than being able to shoot 30 people once, he would be able to shoot 1 person 30 times, or maybe 2 people 15 times before needing to reload.

With semi-automatic firearms, rounds per minute is not really a relevant metric.

As for the original statement, the AR-15 is probably one of the most common rifles in the country, which I think is where the statement comes from. In other words, if someone in America is grabbing a rifle, it's probably an AR-15 (don't know about the accuracy of that statement, but I think that's what the quote is getting at).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:28 AM

152. You can get a legal attachment to make it basically automatic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Reply #152)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:20 AM

154. Yes, but as I said in my post

This modification (the "slide fire stock") has a negative effect on the accuracy and the functionality of the rifle. No one who is interested in killing lots of people (or hitting any target for that matter) would use one. It's for novelty at the range and has no practical use. It's like saying a honda accord can go 250 miles per hour if you bolt a rocket engine to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Reply #152)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:26 PM

209. Aftermarket modification.

And I have no problem banning those since they are a legal loophole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:25 AM

6. Yes and yes

Sadly, they're really that dumb and hence figure it is a politically smart thing to say. The whole concept of "The musket of today" is something that could only come from a reptilian mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:27 AM

7. And a Musket can fire 300 rounds per minute

 

when "bump fired".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:27 AM

8. The Toyota Camry, which can travel at 8,000 miles per hour...

If fired out of a giant cannon in outer space a Camry could go that fast.

But it is still what used to be called "a lie"

The claim that an AR-15 "can fire between 700 to 950 rounds a minute" is a lie, and aimed at idiots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:44 AM

10. theoretically correct

realistically impossible. Take a look at the army's manual on the M16 http://archive.org/stream/OperatorsManualForM16M16a1#page/n27/mode/2up

They state that the maximum realistic rate of fire is 200 rounds of ammunition. This is the amount the maximum rate of fire (in short durations) that the rifle can sustain without taking significant damage. the key point here is that if that rate of fire is kept up for more than 30 seconds, the rifle will start to take serious damage including barrel failures and dangerous blow-outs.

My AR-15 manual (which is a version of the Navy's manual) states that the maximum sustainable rate of fire for the weapon is only 13 rounds a second. Anything more than that and the rifle will start showing permanent signs of barrel damage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:51 AM

12. OK, it's only about 50 rounds a minute. I guess that makes it no more lethal than Daisy Red Ryder.


I guess that makes NRA Prez Keene -- whose son he trained to shoot unarmed people when in a road rage incident -- correct.



How many rounds can a semi-auto pistol shoot per minute?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SfDjvhsdQoo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:02 PM

59. One per trigger pull, so how many times can you pull the trigger?

But you knew that already, right?

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:38 PM

17. Aside from the absurd claim about the firing rate...

He's really not that wrong. Those who are getting into the details of what a musket ball will do versus a modern bullet are missing the point. These are today's scary weapons that make people uncomfortable. In its day, the musket was that weapon, but today it's a historical curiosity that nobody would find particularly useful. Similarly, longbows, then crossbows, were the terrifying weapons in their day, but by the time muskets and other guns began rolling out they were hardly a concern.

Now saying it that way... yeah, he's not smart. People who don't play with weapons of all eras and who don't know their history aren't going to understand the reference, and it'll just sound absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:44 PM

20. Absurd it is. He also forgot this is 200± years later. Most of us have become more civilized.

. . . . . . The gun culture excepted.

Kreene's murderous son is a good example of what happens if we listen to his lies and gun dogma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:11 PM

33. Personally and if given a choice

I would rather be hit with a .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO than a heavy slow moving .58 cal (civil war era) minie ball. But neither is very appealing though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:38 PM

181. Correction...

A musket was the relatively cheap, common, mass-produced weapon of its era. They had a smooth bore, and a moderate length barrel that made for a low muzzle velocity, short range, and low accuracy.

A scary "super-weapon" of the era might be the Kentucky long rifle. Longer barrel and rifling meant much greater range and accuracy. The British didn't have them. Some of the militia of the mid-Atlantic states did, and used them to great effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:47 PM

21. Can a person pull a trigger 700 times per minute?

An AR-15, like any semi-automatic rifle or handgun, only fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. The trigger must be released and pulled again for the next round to fire. This cannot be done 12 times per second. Why the continued lying on the part of the anti-gun zealots? Do they think repeating lies will sway people to their agenda? Probably not. In my case, a non-gunowner, it makes me highly suspicious of their motive, and less likely to support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:04 PM

26. LOL

 

> In my case, a non-gunowner, it makes me highly suspicious of their motive, and less likely to support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:10 PM

53. I seem to get to correct you like 99.9999% of the time.

Manufacturer claims the Slide Fire Stock manages 400 to 800 shots per minute. 700 seems to be mid-high range.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/07/22/shoot-your-ar-15-faster-than-ever-with-a-slide-fire-stock/

Seriously, you should consider just going back to emotional appeals. I have yet to see a number from you that wasn't spun or flat out made up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:21 PM

55. Let me know when one is used in a murder.

And I'll support banning it. Otherwise, its just an ad for a hokey product of limited appeal. Do you always make mountains out of molehills?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:02 PM

69. Once again, irrelevant and stop trying to weasel out on your words.

I know your attention span seems short, but stick to the ISSUE ON THE TABLE.

The OP claimed 700 rounds per minute, you denied this flatly:

"This cannot be done 12 times per second."

Now that could be considered purely ignorance of a specialty product I suppose. But my mercy is short lived given your next screed where you assure the world of your certain knowledge:

"Why the continued lying on the part of the anti-gun zealots?"

Short answer: The OP didn't lie -- where does that leave you and your credibility?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:30 PM

81. Ae you ignorant or just obstinate?

The item you linked to is not a standard AR-15 part. I have no idea if its legal, or if any have even been sold...so commenting on it is pointless.
Let me make an analogy. Somewhere, I'm sure, some guy is making a twin-turbo kit for Corvettes that ups the HP to 1500 and the top speed to 250 mph. He might even sell a dozen or so of those kits. That doesn't mean a Corvette is a 250 mph car, or that it should be banned. You are taking an exceptional case and trying to promote it as the norm... I guess intellectual dishonesty suits you people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:52 PM

94. Neither. Merely correct. Unlike you.


And you are lacking in basic logic. You made an ABSOLUTE assertion:

"This cannot be done 12 times per second."

I gave a counterexample that disproves the veracity of your statement. See, it CAN be done and here is how.

And then you start with this pathetic tapdancing. It doesn't matter how "exceptional" this part may be. I don't know and I don't care. It simply proves that the AR-15 CAN achieve the stated rate of fire. I'm right.

And of course more deliciously, you're wrong.

"Let me make an analogy." -- No thank you. Heard that MORE than enough times in the Gungeon and the result is always silly. And this is no exception.

Seriously, just think before you post next time and you won't be wasting all this time on damage control. Don't be such an amateur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:22 PM

103. Hey, please keep up your feeble arguement.

You just look sillier and sillier. Whether 99.6% or 99.999% of legal gun owners never commit a homicide...I'm over 99.5% correct. And if some wingnut advertises an aftermarket part for an AR and sells a couple dozen...thats a drop in the bucket compared to about 8,000,000 ARs sold. You keep citing ridiculously remote items and try to represent them as a norm. Anyone reading your posts can see how desparate and lame that is. Bwahahaha, sucks to be you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #103)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:52 PM

112. Yet only one of us has made verifiably false statements.


Where is your oh-so-logical counterarguments? Not there of course. Let's dissect what you just wrote:

Sentence: Purpose
1: Pointless Invective.
2. Dismissal of argument you lost. You said 99.9999% and as I showed you, you were off by SEVERAL orders of magnitude.
3. Dismissal of second argument you lost. So, where are the sales figures you're claiming? That's right. They're fictional
just like all of your numbers. I see a trend here. Strange YOU call everyone else liars but never back your own stuff up
and it fails even the most casual independent inspection.
4. Dismissal of evidence contradicting your crap as "remote." Still quite solid to what you've provided which is...errr...nothing.
5. Pointless Invective
6. Pointless Invective

Wow, you are just a master debater. I take that back. You're an amateur who can't argue out of a paper bag into which you have placed yourself.

What can you do? Well you can make shit up. You're real good at that. And you can name call. You're good at that too.

I'd tell you to stop, but honestly you're such a good poster child for gunners I think I'll just give you a hearty "thumbs up!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #112)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:47 PM

126. Haha!

Show me evidence one of those aftermarket parts has been sold. A photo of sales receipt or sales report should be sufficient. If they are rarely bought, they aren't worth worrying about, and certainly don't represent a characteristic of the eeapon as designed, manufactured, or sold. How people may modify the weapon post-sale is an entirely different matter.
And again, quibbling over whether I'm 99.6% correct or 99.999% correct merely reinforces my case and makes you look like a hair-splitting tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #126)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:53 PM

127. Whatever. Keep it up man!

Yes, now I must do your work for you or I am a "tool."

You're new at this. It's YOUR assertion, not mine. Back it up yourself or admit you're full of shit.

And, by the way, you're fully deserving of this for your representation of your peers:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:37 PM

86. well give me a 700 round magazine

And watch my rifle melt after a couple of hundred rounds. That would be the only way to get even close by bump firing. That is a theoretical number. Can never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:09 PM

98. Provide evidence or it doesn't count.

I included a link to a manufacturer who has managed to stay in business for more than two years claiming that the fire rates can be attained. Actually, several manufacturers exist. They make youtube videos as well. You should check them out.

That you might dream up an extreme pathological situation and then claim that its outcome somehow invalidates the whole rate of fire claim is irrelevant. You're arguing with the manufacturers, not me, and they have documented their claims.

You have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #98)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:23 PM

104. show me a youtube video of 700 rounds

fired in one minute, should be easy for you to find

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #104)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:04 PM

116. Oooooh, it has to be 700 or you winsies?

I love barracks lawyers.

My statement is 700 rounds per minute. I don't care if the clip can sustain a whole minute's fire or not.

And if you can't find the ads, drop a line to the link I gave you. They need to publicise it more to reach the people who can't use the google search bar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #116)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:30 PM

122. Like I said

theoretical rate of fire. Can not happen. Rate of fire for so many rounds (say 10) extrapolated for a minute. You can not physically put 700 rounds through an AR-15 without serious damage (melting barrel, bolt destruction), stoppages, and possible explosion.

same as taking a car engine, take the governor off, max the RPM's. Yep it will go real high for a very short time. Of course you would need the gas to complete the test, not just a teaspoon full.

guess you have not found the video yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #122)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:37 PM

123. You need some math homework.

We will continue talking if and when you finish all the problems. No fair asking for help.

Let's say little Johnnie's AR-15 can shoot 700 rounds per minute. Neglecting some lame argument about barrel heating, for what duration of time (in seconds) can Johnnie riddle that burglar who just broke in if his clip capacity is:

a -- A wussy 10 round clip
b -- 30 rounds
c -- 100 round drum
d -- (2) 100 round drums (careful, this math is -- to quote Malibu Barbie -- hard)
e -- A mythical 700 round drum which desperate gunners are placing their hopes on tonight.

Bonus question. Explain why a rate of fire is essentially independent from the magazine capacity other than placing a time limit on how long the gun fires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #104)


Response to Pholus (Reply #98)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:50 PM

192. Yes, the RATE can be achieved

But bullets fired equals rate times time.

You'll not get 700 shots actually fired per minute.


There's a guy out there that can shoot 8 shots out of a revolver in 1 second. His firing rate is 480 rounds per minute.

Do you actually expect him to shoot 480 bullets in 60 seconds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:49 PM

111. Cyclic rate of fire is NOT the same as effective rate of fire.

Cyclic rate is the rate the rifle would fire it it had a continous, unlimited supply of ammunition. With belt-fed machine guns, water cooled, they can actually sustaine their cyclic rate.

Effective rate of fire takes into account all the things that limit the rate of fire, such as ammunition capacity before having to reload, and heating. Sustained effective rate of fire for most rifles is about 10 to 15 rounds per minute.

Gun people well understand the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #111)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:54 PM

113. Show me first where the post I responded to made that distinction. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #113)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:00 PM

114. Gunners understand it without it being stated.

By ignoring that well known distinction and by you trying to claim that an AR-15 can do that in real life, you are making yourself look quite silly. Please show me a 700 round magazine for the AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #114)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:15 PM

120. Ooooh, I'm penetrating the secret brotherhood of the AR-15 gunner!

Sorry man, but bullshit. Your guy shot his mouth off without backing it up. You can come in and try to bail him out but we both know the real score.

And besides you're full of crap too. 700 rounds per minute doesn't have to be sustained for a full minute for the rate of fire to be 700 rounds per minute. There is a difference between a clip capacity of "n" rounds and a depletion rate of "n rounds per minute." It just says how fast the clip empties and that CERTAINLY can be a time less than a minute.

Trying to say that I fail at asserting that the rate of fire is 700 rounds per minute if I can't point out the existence of some mythical 700 round clip just says you're math illiterate and you're hoping I am too. I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:40 PM

124. a person can pull a trigger 2 to 4 times a second, probably.

but 10 times in 10 seconds is probably plenty.

there are no magazines that hold that 700- you can buy a 100 round one for $50.

that would shoot 100 bullets in 1/7th of a minute (8.57 seconds) or 25 seconds @ 4 pulls per second.

not much of a difference?

30 in 3 seconds or 30 in 7.5 seconds @ 4 pulls per second?

the main lies you are hearing are:
1. the guns aren't dangerous, the features are cosmetic.
why would the military put cosmetic features on a gun? they would not. of course they are MORE DANGEROUS
2. because 2nd amendment
not supported by current word of Supreme Court
3. criminals are coming to get you, more guns mean more safety
they are MUCH more dangerous, in a home or in public

the main source of these lies is the NRA. they are the 'suspicious' ones.

if you aren't aware of that, i'd say you are a bit suspicious yourself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #124)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:55 PM

128. why does the military

not use a 100 round drum on the M16?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #128)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:03 PM

130. Cause the enemy would die laughing?

And infantry would have bad backs from lugging a heavy weapon and spare 100 round drums around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #128)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:10 PM

135. maybe because they are TOTALLY lame?

'the military thinks they suck' is a good argument for civilians to have them??



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:25 AM

151. Because they break. All the time. The Aurora shooter had one, and that ended up saving lives

The drum broke, like they tend to. If he had had multiple smaller magazines like the shooter at Virginia Tech did, he could have killed a lot more people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #124)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:58 PM

129. More than 3 rounds fired automatically,

and accuracy goes out the window. Thats why the military has select fire. And more than a few dozen rounds fired in a single burst damages the weapon. The extra capacity magazines have a tendency to jam, as happened to both the Aurora and Columbine shooters.
Now, considering assault weapons and extra capacity magazines are used in just a fraction of homicides, and are a non factor in suicides...how much political capital should be spent banning them? You tell me. Is it worth giving up both Houses, the WH, and the SCOTUS? Goodbye Rvs.W. Goodbye unions. Goodbye SS. Is it worth it? Might that political capital be better spent on realistic GC measures that would actually have a significant effect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #129)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:08 PM

134. "And more than a few dozen rounds fired in a single burst damages the weapon."

but you really need that option, huh?

Is it worth giving up both Houses, the WH, and the SCOTUS? Goodbye Rvs.W. Goodbye unions. Goodbye SS. Is it worth it?

so the sky is really falling, wow! sounds rough in your world.

realistic GC measures that would actually have a significant effect?

executive order. 10 round max. done! next problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #134)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:20 PM

137. How many lives would a 10 round limit save?

Might have saved a few at Aurora. None at VT. Probably none at Sandy Hook. So what is being accomplished? Is your goal to make a meaningful reduction in gun deaths, or merely to piss off 100 million gun owners and lose elections?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #137)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:34 PM

139. more than zero is fine with me. but probably thousands.

might have saved a 9 year old girl in Tuscon. don't you pay attention?

i guess you didn't watch the senate hearings? why would you, as a non-gun owner, be defending the NRA if you had?



it sounds really lame when you declare that you know how things will or would have gone.

just a bunch of standard BS, all of you gun bunnies sound the same. even the non-gun owning gun lovers.

ALL of the mass murderers in the last 20 years have used big mags.

the NRA stooges all vote for NRA stooges already, what will change?

the people who will be pissed are narrow minded fools, i don't care what they 'think'

so go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:16 AM

140. Thousands? Hyperbole much?

Theres about 12,00 gun homicides a year. Over 60% are committed by previously convicted felons, committing additional crimes. By and large, they use handguns, as they're easily concealed. About 2/3 of gun related homicides are committed with handguns. Assault weapons are a small percent. I don't know how many are with extra capacity magazines, but certainly not all of them. And VT was committed with 2 handguns. The Aurora gunman' s gun jammed after a few dozen rounds, and he used handgun and shotgun. Same thing happened at Colombine. If you want to go back, the clock tower shooter used no assault weapon or extended magazine at all. And Ok City bomber used no guns whatsoever. Neither did 911 attackers.
I don't have a problem with banning extra capacity magazines, they don't have any real need...even the military doesn't use them. However, banning them isn't going to make a big differrence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #140)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:33 AM

141. i didn't give a time period. i don'r care if it happens in 10 months or 10 years, as long as it

happens. i also don't care for your 'logic'

do you have any good ideas, or just the standard rambling complaint?



from 2007-

Under the new measure — the Crime Gun Identification Act — manufacturers of semiautomatic weapons will have to equip new guns sold in California starting in 2010 with inexpensive technology known as microstamping. This process involves using lasers to create microscopic markings that record the make, model and serial number of a semiautomatic handgun onto its firing pin and other internal surfaces. These markings automatically transfer onto the bullet shell casing when a gun is fired, providing a valuable lead for police investigators when, as commonly happens, casings from the shooter’s weapon are found at a crime scene.

The new law, like any other single attempt to get America’s handgun crisis under control, is not a panacea. It will not help solve violent crimes committed with old weapons or with revolvers of any vintage. Gun casings are not always found at a crime scene, of course.

But a huge number of gun crimes are committed with the sort of semiautomatic handguns the law covers. Each new tool like this that is handed to law enforcement increases the chances of solving crimes; each tool denied them, like access to gun-sale records in other states, reduces those chances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23tue3.html
In signing the bill, Mr. Schwarzenegger stood up to united opposition from Republican state legislators and intense lobbying from the National Rifle Association to protect public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #141)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:25 PM

157. How about 5 lives/yr for 200years?

Thats also about how long rethugs would hold power...
It amazes me the delusion of the anti-gun zealots. There are ways to institute some GC that would have a meaningful impact, and could gain some bipartisan support. Yet, you stubbornly cling to a no-compromise agenda that is impractical, divisive, and will greatly harm many people affected by other issues...just like the teabaggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #157)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:27 PM

159. sounds great!

republicans can't find their ass with both hands in a hailstorm, so i couldn't care less!

and you don't read a thing i post, so, whatever! ramble on!

will greatly harm many people affected by other issues


wow, i'm worried, that sounds really vague and nonsensical. it might happen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #159)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:47 PM

160. OK, 5 lives saved per year is acceptable to you.

The last time the AWB was passed, Dems lost the House and Senate. Given that there is over 100,000,000 gun owners, and Obama received a little over 60,000,000 votes, losing the WH has to be considered a possibility. What is the blowback? SS possibly eliminated, maybe 1,000,000 elderly forced into living on the streets, digging through dumpsters for food scraps. Perhaps 1,000/yr die above current rates. Social safety net drastically reduced, resulting in another several thousznd/ yr deaths, including children dying of malnutrition. ObamaCare repealed...maybe another 10,000 deaths due to lack of medical care. Roe vs Wade overturned...maybe 1000 women dying in childbirth or due to back alley abortions. Worker safety oversight abolished...maybe another 5,000 deaths. Pollution standars lowered...perhaps another 100,000 deaths? More wars...lets say about 1000 per year casalties. More Katrina events...1500 deaths per year. So, thats nearly a 200,000 people dying per year above current rates, due to republican policies. And the republicans got elected because you want to save 5 lives per year enacting "feelgood" gun control legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #160)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:53 PM

161. sure, hypothetically. but 5 is, of course, unrealisticly low. 5,000 a year sounds good, too

?w=300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #161)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:09 PM

162. Assault weapons don't kill 5000 per year.

There are only about 12,000 homicides per year. Assault weapons are just a fraction of that total, less than a thousand. Assuming legislation similar to before, which exempted current guns and only banned certain cosmetic features of new guns, it is logical to expect the same result as before...no noticable difference.
I doubt that even a total ban on all guns, assuming the impossible is possible, would result in a 5,000 per year decline. You're living in a fantasy bubble, not the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #162)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:38 PM

163. no but guns do. why would a sane person just give assault weapons a pass+reg. the other guns?

google tec 9 and tell me what you call that?

Assuming legislation similar to before, which exempted current guns and only banned certain cosmetic features of new guns, it is logical to expect the same result as before...no noticable difference.

also, what is that? ^^^ maybe look at the new AWB, its different, b4 you start complaining, CL.

standard NRA BS, blah blah

One piece of this puzzle is the national rate of firearm-related murders, which is charted above. The United States has by far the highest per capita rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

***

from BEFORE Newtown
The nation averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control. The crime lab’s research estimates the annual cost of gun violence to society at $100 billion.


The only other real constant amid this carnage is the manner in which the gun lobby strives, with a fair amount of success, to weaken gun laws. The National Rifle Association won’t back down in the face of events like the Colorado carnage, pointing out that the weapons were apparently legally obtained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #163)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:13 PM

165. I don't need to google a Tech9,

It is a semi-automatic handgun, that functions identically to the majority of handguns sold new today. Revolvers are only a fraction of new sales. However, the Tech9 looks scary to you, so you want to ban it for cosmetic reasons. Suppose you thought wings on cars looked scary...would banning them reduce auto deaths? Of course not, thats where your logic is faulty. You people are proposing an emotion-driven, knee-jerk legislative response, to an issue that really should have a practical, data-driven legislative response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #165)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:30 PM

167. yup, you don't NEED to own one either, so melt 'em all down- plastic crap. so are you

TEC-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-9
The TEC-9 is made of inexpensive molded polymers and stamped steel parts. Magazines with 10-, 20-, 32-, 50- and upwards of 72-rounds are made.

Assault Weapons: The Case Against The TEC-9
Frank M. Pitre
Consumer Attorneys of California Annual Seminar 1996

I. Introduction

On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri used two TEC-DC9 Assault pistols, manufactured and sold by defendant NAVEGAR, INC., dba INTRATEC FIREARMS ("Intratec" or "defendant"), in a commando-style attack on the Pettit & Martin law firm and other offices in the 101 California office building in downtown San Francisco. With deadly efficiency, Ferri killed eight people and wounded six more in a matter of minutes. Plaintiff MICHELLE SCULLY was not only shot and permanently wounded during Ferri’s rampage, she was forced to suffer the even crueler fate of witnessing her husband John’s death as he tried to shield her from flying bullets.

II. The Tec-9 Is A Semi-Automatic Version Of A Military Submachinegun

The TEC-9 is a semi-automatic version of a military submachinegun. Although it has been marketed under various names -- the KG-9, the KG-99, the TEC-9, and the TEC-DC9 -- and by various companies owned and operated by the Garcia family, the basic design of the weapon has remained virtually unchanged. The company decided to manufacture the KG-9 because of the growing market for military style guns in the United States. The KG-9's manual described it as:
Combining the high capacity and controlled firepower of the military submachinegun with the legal status and light weight of a handgun.The term "assault pistol" was coined by the firearms industry to describe the KG-9 was an illegal machine gun, due to the ease with which it could be converted to fully automatic fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #167)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:49 PM

169. Ban a gun based on looks,

and after a couple cosmetic changes (easy in plastic) millions of functionally identical guns will be sold. The Tech9 is not an automatic weapon, nor can it be cheaply and legally possible to modify it into one. It functions the same way as a Glock, or any number of other 9mm handguns. These represent something like 2/3 of all new guns sold. I don't see any practical way to ban their manufacture and sales. Attempts to do so will be met with a crushing defeat...not only the GC legislation, but Dems themselves. I'm serious...it will be much worse than the republican's "legitimate rape" fiasco. You people are living in a fantasy bubble, completely oblivious to the reality outside. You people will take the blame for huge election losses, and you can say goodbye to any future GC proposals...even reasonable ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #169)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:15 PM

171. bullshit its an easily convertable 'assault pistol',and it is on the new AWB list where it should be

after a couple cosmetic changes (easy in plastic) millions of functionally identical guns will be sold.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.


All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

***
Attempts to do so will be met with a crushing defeat...not only the GC legislation, but Dems themselves. I'm serious...it will be much worse than the republican's "legitimate rape" fiasco. You people are living in a fantasy bubble, completely oblivious to the reality outside. You people will take the blame for huge election losses, and you can say goodbye to any future GC proposals...even reasonable ones.

so you ARE republican, then?



and those things sure are crap if they're that cheap.

In a 2009 report Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks
Nobody's Watching, the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of
California, Davis, noted that 11 percent of 212 gun sellers (licensed retailers and
unlicensed vendors) at gun shows in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Florida had
assault pistols for sale. No assault pistols were seen among 60 sellers at gun
shows in California, where such weapons are banned.8


http://www.vpc.org/studies/awpistols.pdf

The same month that the indictments were handed down, Tactical Weapons
magazine offered a review of the Draco AK-47 assault pistol. After detailing its
military pedigree and suitability as a PDW (Personal Defense Weapon), the article
approvingly noted that the “result is a 5.5 pound pistol with an overall length of
20.5 inches that offers full rifle power in a very compact package—A desirable
combination for many!”4 Or as one Texas gun store, Champion Firearms,
exclaimed on its website:
he Draco isn't an NFA firearm or a restricted military
weapon. This beauty happens to be a civilian legal AK 47 in pistol form.
It goes by
the name Draco, is manufactured in Romania and imported by Century Arms. This
pistol is chambered in the popular AK rifle caliber 7.62x39, takes standard AK-47
magazines/drums and shoots like a dream.
If you're interested in high capacity +
firepower on a reliable, time tested platform—then this pistol is for you.5
Champion Firearms listed the retail price of the Draco assault pistol as
$467.00 with “Our Price: $359.00. You save $108.00!”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #171)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:35 PM

175. Oh hogwash...

Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since 1934. Parts to modify a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic one are as tightly regulated as weapons themselves. Gunsmiths who are permitted to make these alterations have extensive background checks and licensing. So do their customers. Fines and prison time for doing it illegally are severe. While it may be possible to convert a Tech9 to fully automatic fire, the money and hassle to do so far outweigh the value of the gun. It would be like spending $700,000 to put a Formula 1 motor into a Ford Fiesta.

And regarding the AK-based pistol that holds a drum magazine...hahaha, good one! Do you realize how much a loaded drum magazine weighs? Especially loaded with 7.76 rounds? No one could lift it to a firing position, let alone control the aim when firing. Its a fantasy of excess, not a weapon that poses a realistic threat to be worried about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #175)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:01 PM

178. its the false versions of history that's the annoying thing

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/03/04/how-to-make-your-glock-fully-automatic/

says $280, right there ^^^. what's that fool doing with his face all over the internet if they're so ILLEGAL.

looks real fun too, he almost shot himself

i thought criminals didn't follow laws, wayne, jr.?

do you?

all weapons pose realistic threats, what kind of looney are you?

same link-
• a year ago

This is of course illegal. The only people allowed to have such a device are the criminals and ........well the criminals if you discount the patriots.
• a year ago

Full auto is not illegal and you do not need an FFL or class 3 FFL. Just fill out BATFE 4 form, get local sheriff to sign and send in your $200 machine gun tax and your legal. If you qualify to own a hand gun you can legally own a machine gun with the exception of a few states like anti freedon California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #160)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:43 PM

164. really? you are blathering about hurricanes, but not paid by the NRA to repeat such silliness?

More Katrina events...1500 deaths per year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #164)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:25 PM

166. I guess you haven't heard of climate change?

and the likelyhood of greater occurance of major hurricanes? Katrina is an example of how republicans would respond to such events. We even see it with current GOP voting against Sandy relief...and you want to enable those people to be in charge. At least 5 people were only killed with revolvers instead of scary-looking rifles, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #166)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:33 PM

168. no idea what hurricanes have to do with guns

sounds like something the head of the NRA would say in front of the senate.

what does people being killed by racist cops have to do with guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #168)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:01 PM

170. I'm sure you can find remedial reading comprehension tutors on google. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #170)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:17 PM

172. yes but they still won't be able to explain what the hurricane/gun connection is

because its some sort of evil fairytale.

i don't want to read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:02 PM

25. If your governor called up your state militia

and you're expected to show up with your own weapon -- are you bringing a musket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:07 PM

27. When my state (or Congress) codifies the need for me to show up with a weapon, and

which type they prefer, I'll worry about it. Until then, we should prefer to let the well regulated & organized Militias do their bit, as mandated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:08 PM

28. The NRA talking heads are just doing their job, representing the gun manufacturing industry

Sales are up, keep at it, NRA! Good job!!

The NRA doesn't care about gun safety, education, or anything else. They just want the gun makers to keep making huge profits, so the NRA will benefit from them.

The NRA is just a bunch of hypocrites. And the biggest example is that the NRA doesn't allow guns in their headquarters, which goes against everything they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyA (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:06 AM

146. Yep

just like Monsanto execs eating nothing but organic. Actions speak louder than words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:17 PM

29. Someone please explain to him

the difference in the kill rate of a musket vs. a semi-automatic, k?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:41 PM

39. So they prove by linking to article about the M16 and AR 15 are the same

"M16 rifle, also called Ar-15, assault rifle adopted as a standard weapon by the U.S. Army in 1967". Um.. this isn't even remotely true.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/353341/M16-rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:39 PM

45. Theoretically correct

The Kentucky long was a state of the arm military weapon.

But the tommy was state of the art too, and as of 1934 it was regulated, and wait...the NRA was all for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:49 PM

48. So ..as of late you have latched onto the

Thompson.
I AM NOT the NRA, and they do not represent me, or many other gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:57 PM

50. Are you disputing that the Thomson was state of the art?

That in 1934 it became no longer available to any Dick, Tom and Harry? Are you also disputing that the NRA was for the 1934 legislation and lobbied Congress for it's passage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:53 PM

68. Are you suggesting I give a fig for anything the NRA has to say?

Why bash them in one thread, then tout them as a paragon of civic virtue in the next.. And actually the M1928 Thompson was behind in terms of tech to many other firearms..
I just think you use it because the general pop hears Tommy gun and thinks of the "Chicago Typewriter" wielded by fedora wearing mobsters and that fits your idea of a nice scary and spooky death machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #68)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:52 PM

92. So you don't see the Thompson machine gun

as "a scary and spooky death machine?"

Really? How do you see it then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:55 PM

97. a historical relic, an iconic symbol of an era

but mostly as an inherently inaccurate platform, and a pain to clean and maintain. And a boogey gun to scare the uninformed.

I am not intimidated by inanimate objects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:12 PM

101. A relic today,

but I doubt the men lying along that wall after the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, or their families and loved ones, felt the same.

"I am not intimidated by inanimate obects."

I take it then you enjoy waltzing through mine fields.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #101)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:47 AM

148. Nope,

But I have wanted to hug a few sappers..

And healthy respect for potential is not intimidation.

Since this isn't 30's Chi-town, and I am not a bootlegger, have no connection to La Cosa Nostra and don't own a fedora....
I maintain my view.. a relic. Had I been in that era, more likely I would have been more worried by the BAR,


as an aside I have seen toe poppers work first hand, and still did my mission, any other silly points to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #97)


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #119)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:34 AM

143. Not used in WWI as it didn't yet exist. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #119)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:20 AM

149. as already posted, Not used in WWI

in fact created in response to German weapons employed in Sturm tactics.. might wanna closely review that history... " " indeed

oooh, and MILGRADE, that is a scary concept, until you are issued gear and ammo made by the lowest bidder.
MILGRADE is, of late, a silly sales gimmick that is actually aimed at the same people that Bushmaster seeks to influence with the silly man card ads.

MILGRADE is a point at which I and many start at as a lowest point, a standard to be exceded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #149)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:17 AM

156. You know what squee.

You are a gunner, have a good life. Goodbye.

I am really tired of wasting my time with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:59 PM

51. NRA Thugs Are Destroying America

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:44 PM

56. The American machine gun of WWII fired about 500 rounds per minute, if memory is correct,

far less than "the musket of today."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:25 PM

77. Wait a minute its the "nomenclature".......stupid.

if you make the AR-15 a 'muzzle loaded' weapon then it a musket. There is a difference, a big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:42 PM

90. I think a musket is smooth bore (most militia in the Rev. had rifles).

I note that the Second said "arms," which were meant to be weapons suitable for the infantry of the day; that is up to and including now.

I note also that the First says "press," a much more restrictive means of communication. Thank goodness the courts haven't hamstrung the First with various interpretations of "military/handbill versions," etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:52 PM

95. Muskets - smooth bores were the military weapon of choice.

Rifles,with rifled barrels were reserved for riflemen a very special class. Not all militia were even schooled in them because they were predominately made for hunting game. A musket was the military weapon of choice, hence the Brown Bess & The Charleyville muskets.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #95)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:11 PM

100. Yep...hunting rifles and rifle-muskets were reserved for light infantry units who ....

...usually participated as skirmishers in front of the main battle lines. Their usual targets were opposing officers, noncoms, and artillerymen, unless they were engaged with opposing skirmishers. While skirmishing, light infantry fought in pairs, so that one soldier could cover the other while loading. Line regiments fired in volleys, but skirmishers fired at will, taking careful aim at targets. They were basically the distant ancestors of modern day sniper units.

Typically, a regiment of 600-1000 men was made up of ten companies with one of those companies designated as light infantry. Light infantry units were supposed to be better trained than their line infantry counterparts, but that better training really didn't start to take place until 1800 or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #95)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:37 PM

105. I don't know about "reserved." Rifles were the chief weapon of the militia and frontiersmen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #105)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:17 PM

121. Militia were outfitted by the Colonial governor, hence the King

they didn't get rifles. The "stand of arms" belonged to the King, thats why Lexington & Concord happened. The British were marching out to reclaim those weapons, many of which were older inferior weapons from days gone by.

They are hard to load and hard to train with, they don't have bayonets. Its a misnomer that every man had a rifle. Rifles were very expensive...if your thinking Dan Morgan remember the rifleman were few not line troops which were Continentals or Militia.

Rifles play a few major roles, at Saratoga & Guilford Court house, they were useful in taking out the British officers from long distances. Rifleman were mostly employed in scouting and perimeter duties or in acquiring game.

"The flintlock musket was the most important weapon of the Revolutionary War. It represented the most advanced technological weapon of the 18th century. Muskets were smooth-bored, single-shot, muzzle-loading weapons. The standard rate of fire for infantrymen was three shots per minute. The rifle, although slower to load, was more accurate than the musket. However, riflemen were at great disadvantage in close-quarters fighting against disciplined infantry armed with muskets and bayonets. Cavalrymen and officers used pistols. Pistols were effective only at close range."

http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/revwar/guco/gucoweapons.html

"Another type of weapon was the American long rifle. Many legends surround the American long rifle in the Revolution.

The rifle was a long gun made with grooves inside its barrel which made it more accurate than a musket. It was very accurate up to 300 yards and thus was a powerful weapon in the hands of scouts and skirmishers. American riflemen were so feared that some British officers were advised to remove the gold trimmings from their coats. However, the rifle was a slow weapon to reload and did not have a bayonet. A rifleman could be overtaken quickly by dragoons—troops on horseback—or by men with bayonets. North Carolina riflemen participated in defeating the British at the Battle of Kings Mountain."

http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #121)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:03 PM

131. This assumes that all those who were in the militia got arms from the governor, not traders.

One of the things which characterized American rifles was the ability to make them far cheaper than the smiths attached to royalist/European ruling classes. Trade in firs and game was big well before the Revolution. And was generally not accomplished with smooth-bore muskets. And of course there was the gun-running in the various Indian conflicts. This source shows how wide-spread firearm ownership was in colonial times, and that in the main colonists had personal access and control over these arms (the period covered was well before the Revolution). Probably most of these were smooth bores as they were designed for self-defense and some close-in hunting.

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf

In this source, a review of American Rifle: A Biography, Rose contends that by the early l700s, Americans were increasingly armed with rifles, beginning a unique history of how this weapon made a significant contribution to the Revolutionary War, and supplanting the old Brown Bess, et al, shortly thereafter. Rose, btw, wrote the best-seller Washington's Spies. I have read American Rifle, and its scholarship is of a high order. It emphasizes the spread of rifle smithing throughout Pennsylvania well before the Revolution, and the distribution of rifles (sometimes illegally) to Indians, depending on alliances and the hunting trade.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Rifle-Biography-Alexander-Rose/dp/0553384384

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:16 PM

102. you do a lot of interpretive thinking!

I note that the Second said "arms," which were meant to be weapons suitable for the infantry of the day; that is up to and including now.

where did you find that bold part there? in your imagination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #102)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:40 PM

106. No, just in court rulings and commentary. Study away!

BTW, where do you find "musket?" Next to the "press?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #106)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:03 PM

115. i'd think you might try and post a line or two of this 'interpretation' of 'yours'

why do you think they didn't just slap the "that is up to and including now."
part in there back then?

shouldn't they have said 'the most advanced arms you can buy'

so they WERE thinking of machine guns, but NOT semi-auotmatics?

it says ARMS, not muskets. so they meant nuclear stuff, too?

maybe they meant #8 below. in fact i know they did. i say so.
rally. 1 and 2 would be redundant, 5 could mean open carry.

they meant #8- so they COULD MAKE A LIST OF WHO HAD GUNS!!! oh no!!!

i also #9- about you.

bear 1 (bâr)
v. bore (bôr, br), borne (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
v.tr.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.

5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.

8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #115)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:08 PM

118. This stuff has been here many times. Check archives. I can't understand your cryptic...

short-hand.

What do you mean with "i also #9- about you.

"9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #118)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:45 PM

125. well if you can't understand the definition of the word from the dictionary...

i guess there's no point!

#9- it is difficult to endure your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

especially without, like, a quote or link.

what about #8, there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:40 PM

89. Fat Tony says the Constitution is "dead". That means the 2nd only applies to muskets. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:04 PM

133. Fat Tony thinks the 2nd permits every person to carry what an infantryman carries

M16/M4 and
Handgrenades

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #133)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:19 PM

136. Well then, Fat Tony is inconsistent, to say the least.

He's conservative only when it suits him personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #133)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:52 PM

158. No he doesn't

I suggest you read Heller to understand what Scalia really thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:10 PM

99. To me the most disturbing part of this analogy

is the argument that the NRA (and evidently some people on this thread) are making: that private citizens need to be armed, and armed with incredibly lethal weaponry, in order to prepare for some hypothetical future in which righteous American citizens will rise up to overthrow their tyrannical government. This isn't about self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting. It's about "pulling your musket" from above your fireplace and going out to shoot people who represent your government--cops, fire fighters, soldiers -- or, in the parlance of the NRA, "jackbooted thugs."

This, to me, speaks volumes. It says these folks really have no faith in the American experiment, for all their talk about the sanctity of the Constitution (or selected parts thereof). That they agree with Mao that "power comes from the barrel of a gun." That in their heart of hearts they truly don't trust democracy to work, have already abandoned it in their hearts and minds, and therefore feel a need to stockpile armaments for the coming Armageddon.

All this other debate--about whether these weapons can "really" shoot 700 rounds per minute as opposed to "only" 50 or 60 or 100, and whether bullets from a "Bushmaster Man Card" (and in saying "man card" I'm only quoting the advertising copy of the manufacturer) can blow a child to "bits" or only sever that child's limbs from his trunk or jaw from his face -- is merely the distasteful foliage on this volcano of contempt for debate, discussion, voting, and democratic process inherent in this belief. If votes don't or won't work, we'll use our weapons against those with whom we disagree. Or to quote a popular Teabagger rant, "Next time we're bringing our guns."

Because when push comes to shove, they prefer to enter the political arena armed with the most lethal weapons available.

I would have thought American progressives, at least, would have abandoned this shit when the Weathermen blew themselves to bits (yes, to bits) in the East Village. It's sad to see it pop up here, where I would like to think that faith in democracy runs a little deeper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #99)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:46 PM

108. yes ^^^ I AGREE!

government for the people, BY the people?

not a bad idea! why would the writers of the constitution put in a...self-destruct clause?

a drunken thomas paine:
"i do declare, the common man must be given the means to revolt!..burp"

a stoned thomas jefferson (they had some GOOD hemp):
"will you please sit and contain yourself, sir!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:09 AM

147. +1. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:43 PM

107. Really?

 

A semi auto. Hmmm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjnite (Reply #107)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:48 PM

109. yep. you buy some doohickey for it for $50

and you've got a machine gun!

DOESN'T THAT SUCK?!?!?!

nice 1st post! good for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:51 PM

182. No, a $50 "doohicky" does not make an AR fire 700+ rpm.

You're just showing your ignorance. To make an AR fire automatically takes parts from an M-16 (which are as tightly regulated as M-16s are), and many hours of machining by an experienced gunsmith (who also is highly regulated and licensed). It costs roughly $6000, and of course the owner must be licensed to own an automatic weapon...which is difficult. Haven't you considered that spouting such nonsense as you have thoroughly discredits your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #182)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:06 PM

184. whatever, it costs $200-$300,you've already blown all the money on a cheesy gun, what's $2-300 more?

think of all the worship you get from your gun buddies!

Convert your AR-15 to full auto, legally

Actually it's NOT full auto but you'd never know it. It's a new, easy to install, butt-stock called 'SlideFire' for Ar-15 that does controlled bump firing. (around $350) It's apparently declared legal by the ATF. Since the trigger needs to be pulled each time by the user it technically is not full auto. However, it will empty a 30 round mag in about 3 or 4 seconds. Look at the videos you'll be amazed how it fires just like a fully auto machine gun. Gunblast does a positive review and shows how it works.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/03/04/how-to-make-your-glock-fully-automatic/

why are there all these posts on gun worship sites about how easy it is? all the gunners are lying?

or is it you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #184)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:24 PM

186. A) Its not $50.

B) It does not make an AR fully automatic.
C) Anyone firing the gun in such a manner won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn.
D) A high rate of fire in a gun not designed for it will result in a jam.
E) A high rate of fire quickly wears out the barrel.
F) For the handful of goofballs that might purchase that, having spent all their money on blowing off ammunition at a range might be a blessing for the rest of us. They'll quickly figure out that dropping $100 for several seconds of "fun" gets expensive fast. Then comes several hundred more to replace the barrel. More than likely the gun ends up shoved in the back of a closet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #186)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:01 PM

205. no, it is pointless

as you just described.

more than a handful of goofballs have them, probably more like 1 million.

so all the goofballs that want them have them, they are lame.

why make them, then? why not BAN the stupid things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #205)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:22 PM

207. Not sure what your 1 million is referencing.

There are something like 8 million AR15s out there...I don't know if that includes clones and similar types. They are currently flying off the shelves due to AWB talk.
If you were referring to the slide stock, I am quite sure there are not 1 million sold. There are not 100 million sold.
I don't have a problem with banning a device like that, but doing so will have no effect on gun deaths. So the question remains: Are you targeting gun deaths, or merely gun owners? Doing the former is likely to pass, since it will get bipartisan support, including gun owners themselves. Doing the latter will not get support, will not reduce gun deaths, and will cost Dems elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:30 PM

138. Musket vs. AR-15

 

Report1212, I don't know a lot about "muskets". But I've always rather wanted one to hang over my fireplace..... maybe one of those "Long Land pattern" Brown Bess' would look nice up there.

But I DO know quite a lot about the AR-15/M-16 family. Heck, I've shot them in competition, built several of them, carried them in the military when my life depended on it.

These are very efficient killing machines, my friend.......

I don't think that registering these arms....... just like my car...... would be an excess burden on me!

100% background checks should be required for purchases of these and ALL firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:37 AM

153. An AR-15 fires around 60-80 RPM

if you have a skilled operator pulling the trigger. Much less if you don't know how to use the firearm. Of course this assumes you want to hit a broad time of a barn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #153)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:03 PM

183. Uh, they aren't interested in facts.

All they are interested in is hysterical hyperbole of scary-looking guns spraying thousands of rounds. We're dealing with the Democratic Party's version of ignorant teabaggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #183)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:58 PM

204. "We're dealing with the Democratic Party's version of ignorant teabaggers."

drop the "dealing with"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #204)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:27 PM

210. Uh, both parties are dealing with

uncompromising hysterical sects of extremists. The party that is best able to rein in such groups will win the next several elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:28 AM

155. And megaton nuke warheads are just today trebuchet, catapult... what the big deal?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:19 PM

173. Well then maybe the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten "today".

You have a new weapon which, following logic, means you need a new 2nd Amendment. Pssssst, this is why the document was written so it could be "adjusted". Fucking moran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:46 PM

176. So by his ridiculous reasoning, the human body should be able to handle 30 or 40 shells

 

before giving it up. Makes sense to me, what a twit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:44 PM

190. The Ford Mustang GT can go from 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds

Ergo, it will:

  • break the sound barrier in 61 seconds
  • achieve Earth escape speed in 35 minutes
  • achieve Solar System escape speed in 2 hours 15 minutes
  • reach the speed of light in 1 year and 9 months.





    The time between firing pin strikes on two successive cartridges, when fired in full-auto, is 0.08 seconds, give or take. When extrapolated out, it's 750 round per minute, 45,000 rounds per hour, and 1,080,000 per day.


    The effective rate of fire is considerably lower, to avoid melting down the gun barrel, burning exposed skin, and melting down the plastic. Plus, yanno, magazine changes and such. I think it's around 40 rounds a minute.


    In order to really continuously fire for minutes at a time, you need a water-cooled belt fed machine gun like the 100-pound M1917 tripod-mounted machine gun. During Army trials, one fired 21,000 rounds without pause over the course of 48 minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:45 PM

200. Awesome-ness

 

Bah! I "own" ( 16, dad has paper work for them) 2 AR's ( attachments for AR #1 : Night vision scope, ACOG scope behind NV scope for use in daytime, forward grip that can extend into a bi-pod, 32 round mag ( plastic) non-slip pistol grip for those hot summer days, an accurized Heavy Barrel for long range shooting, and a Bump stock that allows me to fire 700 Rounds/minute without putting down 15 grand. I also own 2 Ak47's, one is from Poland with a folding stock for Paratroops, another from Russia also with a bumbstock, I also have a Saiga 12 12 gauge semi auto shotgun with chrome plated bolt handle, custom muzzle break, 30 round drum mag, and folding stock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #200)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:46 PM

201. What do you need to shoot at 700 rounds per minute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #201)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:54 PM

202. Re: 201

 

I don't "need" to shoot any thing with 700 rpm, I want to shoot targets, cans, and this awesome thing called AMFO that explodes when you shoot it. Nothing too big. It's only the size of half a stick of TNT. Besides, when you shoot, you block out all the world's problems: War, hate, discrimination, killing. When you look down those sights, the only thing in the world that you are aware of is the target, you, and your gun and thats it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #200)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:56 PM

203. that's really too bad

you should try a different hobby, sounds expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #203)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:31 PM

211. te:203

 

Expense has nothing to do with it. Learn to understand something before passing judgement. The world would be a much better place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scott.K (Reply #211)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:41 PM

214. bullets are free where you live?

Besides, when you shoot, you block out all the world's problems: War, hate, discrimination, killing. When you look down those sights, the only thing in the world that you are aware of is the target, you, and your gun and thats it.

you could say the say the same thing about playing basketball + practicing foul shots.

or a bb gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:24 PM

208. That's a lie. An AR15 cannot fire 700 or any other number of rds-per-minute.

It shoots once every time the user pulls the trigger.

Once again I state the obvious: machine guns are already illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #208)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:39 PM

213. deep13

 

There is a few loopholes: any MG made before 89 or 85 is legal. And if you fit an AR with a bump stock, it becomes auto for the price of $300. Google it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread