Dear pedantic shits saying it's a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15, and not an assault rifle: FUCK YOU

[Bucky]

Someone in another web forum got preachy with me when I referred to the Orlando killer's weapon as an assault weapon. Apparently there are some technical specs that distinguish this high volume murder machine from the the high volume murder machines that earn the designation "assault rifle". But please let me point out, Fuck you, over 100 people were fucking assaulted by a guy using that weapon and half of them are dead.

On Mediaite, a news-review website, there's a lengthy article taking the NY Times and WaPo to task for reporting the rifle used was an AR-15, not the "similar looking but significantly different" Sig Sauer MCX. And then, when they finally corrected their stories, they didn't really detail the differences in the operations of the two different non-assault rifles. But please, allow me to point out, fuck you, 49 innocent people are dead and either weapon could have been used to commit this horror.

And last time our country went through this insane ritual discussion, my gun nut friend and I got into it and I was saying--these guns are dangerous. These guns aren't for hunting and they aren't for defense. They should be illegal--and my gun nut friend like your gun nut friends do too went into some technical mumbo jumbo about how these are rifles not guns and these are not technically "high capacity" because of some feature being there or not there in the manufacture and how are you going to legally regulate and distinguish... blah blah blah...

and excuse me, but I'm not a gun expert. I don't have to be. People are being killed in record numbers by these mass shooting incidents. If a hit-and-run victim gets wheeled into an ER, the doctors are not going to sit around arguing about whether it was a Ford or a Chevy that plowed down this pedestrian. So please allow me to point out, fuck you, I want these kinds of guns off the market, these non-assault rifles that assault innocent people by the goddamn dozens, whether or not they meet the legal definition of "assault-like firearm", whether or not they meet the definition of "high capacity", whether or not the second fucking comma in the 2nd Amendment is a punctuation error because it separates the noun from the verb. Fuck you.

Look at the floor of the Orlando night club, the office park in San Bernardino, the schoolhouse in Newtown CT. Look at the pictures of the bodies and the puddles of blood until you understand what assault really means. The weapons that can do that, that can cover those floors with dead people, any weapon that can do that needs to be off the market. And as much as I love the Bill of Rights, every fucking firearm that can do that in the country needs to be pulled out of circulation, out of inventory, out of reach of second hand weapons expos and burned down to slag.

You can keep your 223 Remingtons and your back-of-the-closet handguns and your birding shotguns and anything else that your toddler is going to use to shoot your neighbor's toddler in the eye with by accident--I'm not so naive as to think we're going to ever have a gun free society. Accidents are always going to happen, from the easily preventable to the Act of God freak occurrence. I'm just saying 9 is less than 49 and if this Omar Marteen bastard had had only the option of charging into Pulse nightclub in his psychotic anger and gunning down 9 innocent people instead then an additional 40 families would not be mourning this week. Maybe you don't call that progress. If you can't then fuck you, you care enough about people.

And I know this one little reform isn't going to cure Islamic militarism or homophobia or mental illness or the glorification of violence or toxic masculinity that are behind all of these senseless slaughterfests. I get that. You're right. But we don't wait to cure alcoholism before we start passing drunk driving laws. You take the toys away from the boys. You stop the bleeding. If we can't cure it all, we can at least reduce the size of the problem. That's progress. And it needs to happen starting literally last week.

[baldguy]

1. K&R

Small-minded, pedantic little shit stains.

[lunatica]

2. Thank you Bucky

I am so in your corner on this. If that murderer had gotten what he wanted there would be 100 people dead.

I simply can't believe anyone would ignore what this man did because they fear losing their guns.

[uppityperson]

3. As I wrote, but you put it more bluntly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027913559

[gopiscrap]

4. I add my fuck you also

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. You beat me to it... and a "fuck you" from me too!

[Canoe52]

190. Let me third that and add my Fuck You also

How many rounds did that asshole get off anyway?
100 were hit, some three times, plus he must of missed some times, I'm guessing 300, 400 rounds in what space of time? How big was his effing magazine? What kind of gun do you call it then? A wimpy gun? A pea shooter gun? Fuck you!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

271. All excellent points.

[bjobotts]

232. Could he have used RPGs instead.Just where do we draw the line?

[AtheistCrusader]

234. I just pictured someone hitting someone else with a copy of Settlers of Catan

[cynzke]

255. GO TO YOUTUBE, SEARCH OUT VIDEOS.

THESE PEOPLE ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE WEAPONS. They go ballistic IF you make the mistake of getting a technical detail wrong. There is a serious addiction problem in this country over these weapons. These addicts refuse to see ANY PROBLEMS including recognizing that some of their buddies are walking time bombs and never should have access to these kinds of weapons. When you see these videos, does anyone think these assholes are only interested in a friendly hunting trip. When they look through the sites of those weapons, do you think they imagine a squirrel?

[librarylu]

5. Bravo!

I've read comments from people seriously saying they need their guns to overthrow the government. Presumably the government is just going to stand idly by and let them do that.

Why else would they need an assault weapon or a semi-assault weapon or whatever you want to call it? Such weapons aren't good for hunting or target practice, are they? They're great for mowing down young people and kids.

[Stonepounder]

29. The idea of people having guns to protect themselves from the government

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

always causes me to laugh. We have the biggest and arguably best-trained military in the world. We've got the capability to put a drone through your window without ruffling the curtains. We've got thousands upon thousands of men and women who train constantly on the use of their weapons. We've got planes that can put a missile onto a dime, fired from so far away you can't even see the plane.

And they think that because that they take their buddies go out to the range on Saturday and shoot off some rounds that they are going to take on the massed military might of the US? The military that took out Saddam Hussein in barely three weeks?

They really have drunk the kool-aid haven't they?



(Edited to remove use of rhetorical 'you' in second paragraph.)

[librarylu]

36. Excuse me?

I think you need to read my post again. I said I have read comments like that. There was one on You Tube recently. Someone said it sounded to him like the government needs to be overthrown and I replied it sounds like he's advocating treason.

If you'll read some of my other posts you may learn that I am vehemently anti-guns. I would never go anywhere near a range and I will never be a "buddie" with anyone who owns a gun.

I have an impressive scar from a .357 Magnum if you'd like to see it sometime. Bring your reading glasses if you're having trouble with your eyesight. I hope it's better than your reading comprehension.

[nilram]

47. I think he got on a rant and stopped talking to you part way through.

Happens sometimes. Natural causes.

[librarylu]

52. I sure hope so.

I remember my mother making Kool-Aid when I was a kid but that was long before Jonestown.

I preferred raspberry.

[kentauros]

81. Stonepounder is using a rhetorical 'you',

not you, librarylu

[Bettie]

178. I think he switched to the general you

halfway thorough.

I know I've done that at times and never even realized how it looked.

I doubt he meant you personally.

[librarylu]

189. It would have been good

if he'd made that clear. It wasn't the first time yesterday someone laced into me for saying something I didn't say.

I was ready to go look at kitteh .gifs - on some other site.

[Bettie]

324. Yeah I get that

I know I sometimes don't read what I wrote as if I didn't know exactly what I meant and miss things like that when I'm really ranty.

It happens and I'm sorry it was upsetting. Written language can be difficult because we don't have all the non-verbal cues that we have in interpersonal communication.

[Stonepounder]

191. Apologies.

Yes, I did switch from third to second person in the second paragraph without realizing it. I have edited the post so that it is more clearly addressed to the nut-jobs who think their 'militia' of 10 or 50 or 100 are going to use their guns to 'protect themselves from the tyranny of the government'.

It was not in any way meant to be addressed directly to librarylu, but was meant to be in absolute agreement with him. (And my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you, I just didn't proofread my comment as well as I should have.)

[librarylu]

195. Apology accepted.

Thank you. The first part of your post was just fine. I'm a "her" by the way. I did get a chuckle out of trying to imagine myself in a group of beer-swigging "buddies" planning an insurrection.

I think the Yeehawdists in Oregon showed just how effective a civilian overthrow attempt would be. Did the agents even have to bring drones?

[Glaisne]

210. "Yeehawdists" I love it!

I hope you don't mind if I use it in the future.

[librarylu]

212. Go right ahead.

I'm not sure I coined it, actually; I may have seen it somewhere with a different spelling.

I don't normally approve of name-calling, but when it comes to birds and sanctuaries, well........

[The Green Manalishi]

247. "Yeehawdists"= most brilliant thing I've read today

[Buzz cook]

59. I hate that argument.

Not because the military can blow up these anti-patriots.

But because historically no revolution was decided by private ownership of weapons.
The greatest revolutionary period in history was the end of the Warsaw Pact. In not one of those countries was private ownership of firearms a common thing. The greatest revolution of the 18th century was the French revolution and it's laughable to think French peasants owned firearms.

Even the American revolution all these goofs point at didn't have much in the way of private firearms after it started and even before. The British marched on Lexington to seize militia weapons and supplies.
And it was French muskets that colonials used at Yorktown.

But you can say the same thing over and over rinse and repeat, still you get the guns protect us from govamint as if they reset over night.

[rhett o rick]

220. After Katrina the government went door to door collecting guns. No one thought

to start a gun fight. The government can take away people's guns any time they want. They will run into some trouble but nowhere near what the crazies think. I remember Ruby Ridge. I don't support what happened there but it's a good example of what will happen when the government comes for you.

[bvar22]

306. I started to slam your post.

I was in New Orleans immediately after Katrina, and remember NO door to door search for weapons, and no order to seize all weapons.
Of course, communication at that time was limited to one channel on the FM radio (WWL IIRC). Word of mouth was that guns being carried by "looters" and "suspected looters" (meaning black people) were being confiscated. (I was not in that area until later.)

I checked Wikipedia, and was stunned to find out that you are correct. Over 1000 guns were confiscated from civilians.

Confiscation of civilian firearms

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."

Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58‑year‑old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

I never knew!

[rhett o rick]

313. I saw it at the time and couldn't believe that more of an issue wasn't made of it.

If I remember correctly the Konie lady was dragged from her home by her feet. I saw the footage. Here is a youtube that might be the same lady.

My point is that those people, like my two brothers-in-law that think by having guns they will be safe from the government. Not so. Read about Ruby Ridge.

[mercuryblues]

113. oh god. yes

If people think these types of guns are going to protect them from the government, they are stupid. And I mean stupid.

As for protection. If you can't hit what you are aiming for in 5 shots, you don't deserve a gun.

[Ikonoklast]

122. The AR platform and variants are one of the most common rifles owned.

They are used for target practice and hunting by millions.




They are actually extremely seldom used in crimes of any kind, statistics gathered by the FBI and the DoJ put all crimes committed by rifles *of any kind* as less than 3% of all homicides.


Homicides committed using fists or feet kill more people than any type of semi-automatic rifle.


Knives kill five times as many people than any semi-automatic rifle.

No one wants to ban knives, although any person has a far greater chance of being killed by one than by any rifle.

[MyNameGoesHere]

130. Identify, processing, data output :

NRA apologist

[Ikonoklast]

134. I don't watch professional basketball.

And if you searched my posting history, you would will find yourself embarrassed.


I support facts. I support every right of the people under the Constitution, not just those I agree with.


If one of those basic rights goes away, the ones you hold dear will be next.

We are already living in an era where the 4th and 14th are under a huge assault, and no one here seems to care one bit about that.


Fact: Knives kill more people every year than any semi-automatic rifle. By a large margin.

Fact: Fists and feet kill more people every year, by a huge percentage.


No one wants to ban either. And knives aren't even constitutionally protected weapons.

[MyNameGoesHere]

141. New Android phone, I have trained it to my interests yet

I took care of it although I am sure you got it. So this killer in Orlando, did he come in swinging his fists, feet, or Johnson to club people to death? I am confused because it was not mentioned anywhere that he went jujitsu on everyone there. Some people did mention a couple weapons. Is that correct or are we going to forget about that little detail?

[Ikonoklast]

145. This is why your rights under the 4th and the 14th are being eroded right now.

If one person does something illegal, criminal, and murderous, should you lose your rights under law because of it?


Your right to privacy and search and seizure are rapidly going away, because of the actions of a minute number of individuals.

We are told to "watch what we say" now.


Yet no one cares about that.

They will when a right they hold dear to them suddenly is curtailed.

[Glaisne]

211. Ahh we should do nothing to prevent massacres

because 2nd Amendment. Gotcha.

[Bettie]

327. It's all just collateral damage

the price we pay for living in the world of gunz.

We should be super, duper happy when a guy with a gun comes in and kills a bunch of people, because it highlights our freedumbs.

[AtheistCrusader]

205. Perspective.

I understand why you are taking this approach. There are multiple to every issue. In context, these weapons are a very, very small footnote of an issue. But in context of this particular attack, it's devastating.

How to balance raw numbers with human loss? Now you're running into differences in how people process risk, how they process grief, all of that colors how we analyze what the bigger problem is. Of guns, pistols are the biggest problem, despite the horror of this particular attack and the apparent aggressiveness and limited utility of the weapon used.

No, if the weapon wasn't available, the shitbag murderer in this case wouldn't have ninjitsu'd everyone to death. Might have pulled a Boston Marathon and built a bomb though. Any number of terrible, murderous options still on the table, most requiring a little more effort, but given this particular monster's level of rage and hate, nothing is off the table.

If we restore from backup and re-run the last ten years of the world, that monster might still have slaughtered dozens even if we took those weapons out of circulation entirely. Most likely he'd have used a homemade bomb.

[Saviolo]

168. False equivalency

If a chef's knife is used as intended and designed, it does not kill anyone.

If a gun is used as intended and designed, it kills someone.

Also, if we remove the ability for civilians to have weapons that can unload 40 rounds/minute, the 2nd amendment is not going away. People will still be able to have as many guns as they want, just not necessarily the type they want.

Just like the right to assembly. You have the right to peaceful assembly, but you do not have the right to assemble anywhere you like. If it is someplace dangerous or disruptive, you will face charges.

You want to have guns? Sure, have guns. But I think it's unreasonable to expect you can have any type of gun you want.

[Glaisne]

214. Well said,

Too bad many do not get this.

[Elmergantry]

227. I have used a firearm

many times as designed, that is shooting a projectile at high velocity, strange, no one was killed or harmed. Must be defective

[Saviolo]

229. So, what you mean to say is

That the invention of the firearm had nothing to do with killing people. That guns of any stripe were originally invented to hit non-human targets for recreation. That when the first practical hand-held gunpowder/shrapnel delivery devices were not designed as weapons of war to be used against other humans.

I think that I would have to consider that disingenuous in the extreme.

I'm a fencer. I fenced epee for 15 years competitively. The roots of today's sport fencing are based in classical swordplay that was designed for killing other humans. Swords are unique in that they really have no other purpose other than hurting other humans, but modern sports swords (while they can hurt!) have been engineered in such a way as to be as non-lethal as possible. Very rarely a foil or sabre will break and a sharp edge will cause a terrible injury or death, but more people die golfing every year.

And yes, I get it, guns _can_ be used for sport. For shooting targets. For hunting, too. But if you're going to pretend that firearms were not invented for armed human conflict, I think you need to rethink a little. The people who want to carry their AR-10's into Chipotle don't care about that, either. If your main concern is sport shooting, then why not keep it in a secure gun locker at the range?

[EX500rider]

308. "If a gun is used as intended and designed, it kills someone" Nonsense.

A gun is designed to do one thing only and that is propel a bullet down the barrel at X ft per sec. That is all.
And since 99% of guns are used in target practice it would would seem that would be their main use.

[Saviolo]

315. Please.

Please see my response to the earlier poster who made the same point.

You're saying that the invention of the firearm had nothing to do with killing people. That guns of any stripe were originally invented to hit non-human targets for recreation. That when the first practical hand-held gunpowder/shrapnel delivery devices were not designed as weapons of war to be used against other humans.

I think that I would have to consider that disingenuous in the extreme.

Firearms were not invented and designed for recreational target shooting. Are they used that way? Yes, lots. But let's not kid ourselves about what guns were originally designed and intended for.

[EX500rider]

331. So do you thing 80 million American gun owners are using them wrong then?

[Saviolo]

332. I admit in my post

That lots of people use firearms recreationally. In my two posts above:

And yes, I get it, guns _can_ be used for sport. For shooting targets. For hunting, too.

Firearms were not invented and designed for recreational target shooting. Are they used that way? Yes, lots.

I don't have a problem with target shooting, I've done it myself. But firearms were invented as weapons of war for humans to use against humans. Do you agree with that or not? I'd be super happy if firearms were just used to shoot paper plates and empty cans, but sometimes, people use them to shoot and kill other people, and because they are designed and engineered to do that, it turns out, they do it pretty well.

If 80 million American gun owners want to use their guns for target practice and target practice only, awesome, let them leave their guns at the range in a secure lockup. Then they won't be slung over shoulders at Chipotle and Starbucks making everyone there wonder, "Hmm, is this a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?"

[vkkv]

242. Huh? Wha?

"" Fact: Knives kill more people every year than any semi-automatic rifle. By a large margin.

Fact: Fists and feet kill more people every year, by a huge percentage. """""

Where on earth are you getting these numbers?

Listen, if you think that you need a firearm to protect yourself from a tyrannical gub'mnt, then you are not mentally FIT to own a firearm.

[Calista241]

245. Anyone that uses the non word "gub'mnt" as a substitute for "government"

Is not fit to post on an Internet message board.

[vkkv]

250. You've got too much time on your hands.

[Straw Man]

264. Numbers?

Where on earth are you getting these numbers?

From the FBI. Latest data (2014) lists homicide toll from:

Rifles: 248
Hands, fists, and feet: 660
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,567

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

[vkkv]

274. That's a pretty funny interpretation!

Yah, you'd have to include the total of "Firearms Non Stated" with bolt or lever-action "rifles".

What else did you think "Firearms Non Stated" was?


Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Murder Victims

by Weapon, 2010–2014

Weapons 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Handguns 6,115 6,251 6,404 5,782 5,562
Rifles 367 332 298 285 248
Shotguns 366 362 310 308 262
Other guns 93 97 116 123 93
Firearms, type not stated 1,933 1,611 1,769 1,956 1,959


https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

[Straw Man]

276. Funny?

Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Yah, you'd have to include the total of "Firearms Non Stated" with bolt or lever-action "rifles".

You would? Why?

What else did you think "Firearms Non Stated" was?

It means that the type was unknown, probably due to insufficient forensic evidence. There's no reason to believe it was predominantly rifles, especially given the vast numbers of handgun killings. Or did you miss that?

If you're privy to some secret information, please let us know.

[Nitram]

169. The diffference, Ikonoklast, is that with hands and feet no single person...

...could kill 49 people and injure another 5 with their hands and feet.

[R.A. Ganoush]

326. Chuck Norris could

nt

[RiverNoord]

231. I've got a friend who is very liberal in every respect except...

that he's a gun nut. He recognizes the dissonance (he just likes working on guns - he's a physics guy who is really intrigued by the physics of guns...), but he does argue the same point - 'someday might need to protect ourselves from a government that's become tyrannical.'

The Constitutional basis for the right to bear arms is not something like 'to maintain the potential for an armed rebellion against a government entity within the United States.' That would be absurd - possibly the most significant event leading to the Constitution (as compared to the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation) was the experience of 'Shay's Rebellion.' It brought about the near-collapse of several New England States in 1786 and 1787.

Here's General George Washington's take on it (he would later state that his primary basis for attending the Constitution Convention was the experience of Shay's Rebellion):

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious."

Samuel Adams had this to say:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

And the one opinion of the near-civil war at the time that finds its way into gun-nut publications and discourse? Thomas Jefferson:

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

(Of course, the thing about rebellions is that their success usually results in a collapse of the existing government and its replacement by the successful rebels. His take on Shay's rebellion would logically lead to the end of the United States of America as a result of insurrection at some point - so... not a model for the nation that came into being with the adoption of his (with a few edits) Declaration of Independence.)

Instead, the basis for the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is stated as a 'well-regulated militia,' which is the complete opposite. Literally. Here's one of the powers of Congress declared in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

So militias are for stopping rebellions, not starting them.

And... Article 2, Section 2's 'commander in chief' clause contains this:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

The Constitution is very clear about the right to bear arms not providing for defense against a tyrannical government, but rather a means for defending against insurrections against the government and having local defenses against potential foreign invasion.

The argument that the right to bear arms is necessary to facilitate protection against a government become tyrannical actually represents a complete scorn for the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

[Bucky]

323. They can snoop your email, audit your taxes, file a dozen court cases on you... AR15s won't help

People who resist the government do so through the press, through PR, through political involvement, through petitioning and lobbying the government, and through the ballot box. People who resist the government with bullets end up dead or in jail.

I'm so tired of the resist-a-tyrant bullshit. It's the chatter of people who hate America.

[tallahasseedem]

6. +1 Fuck You

Semantics are bullshit on this issue.

[Dem2]

7. Thank you! And yes, FUCK the gun-nuts who indirectly support mass-slaughter

...just so they can have their little macho-looking boy-toys.

Small hands indeed.

[spanone]

8. a killing machine by any other name.....

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Please add my Fuck You to your Fuck You.

A deadly fucking gun is a deadly fucking gun no matter how much they wish to marginally differentiate.nThat is just pure deflective obfuscation.

[Agschmid]

156. +1

[Arazi]

10. Oh yes this ^^^^^^^

[3catwoman3]

11. "High volume murder machine" seems...

...sufficiently unambiguous to me.

I, too, have no patience with the obfuscatory parsing of technical terminology. What those who are knowledgeable about all the mechanical details and specs of various guns say is no doubt true, but is it relevant? I think not. We all know what we are talking about. A rose by any other name, so to speak.

Whatever one wishes to call them, such weapons are just what you said, high volume murder machines, and everybody knows it.

[RAFisher]

12. Who the hell watches their ad and thinks "nope, not an assault rife"

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7iuA/sig-sauer-mcx-new-era

[ManiacJoe]

65. Anyone who knows what an assault rifle actually is.

But then those people also know that no more machine guns can be added to the civilian market as of 1986.
(Assault rifles are classified as machine guns in the civilian world.)

[pnwmom]

104. Who in his right mind cares about the semantic distinction when a non-assault rifle

can kill or injure 100 people in less time than is required to take a shit?

[ManiacJoe]

105. Ask RAFisher. He brought it up.

[pnwmom]

108. But you seemed to think it important to add that machine guns haven't been sold

to civilians since 1986.

Who cares, when these weapons ARE freely available and accomplish the same thing?

[ManiacJoe]

109. You are a member of the group

who think there is something special about AR-15 style rifles that cause them to need more restrictions than other rifles.
Everyone in that group is very wrong; functionally there is nothing special about AR-15 style rifles. Functionally they are the same as all the other semi-auto carbines. Same ammo, same rate of file, same lethality. The only thing special about AR-15s are their non-traditional looks; and their looks are completely irrelevant to any and all these conversations. Unfortunately far too many in that group take pride in their ignorance about guns instead of choosing to educate themselves.

If there is a reason to ban AR-15s, then logically you want to ban all semi-auto carbines since logically you want to ban the objects based on their functionality, not on their looks.

[pnwmom]

111. Yes, I'm of the group that wants to ban these weapons on the basis of functionality.

I don't care what label you slap on them. We shouldn't sell any guns to civilians that allows dozens of people to be mowed down in a minute.

That's why machine guns are no longer sold to civilians, and that's why these weapons shouldn't be, either.

[AtheistCrusader]

207. Most modern firearms have this functionality.

It fires as fast as you pull the trigger, and has a detachable magazine. Those two functional indicators apply to over 100 million firearms in the united states, and they ALL have this functionality. They could ALL be used in this manner, to this devastating effect.

So when proposing they shouldn't be available, that impacts how much support you are going to get, because democrats own weapons with this functionality too. There's only a 20% delta in gun ownership rates between D's and R's.

My own informal survey of my friends indicates D's are more likely to own very 'mild' looking firearms, wood stocks, not terribly aggressive, but they function the same.

[rhett o rick]

230. There is a reason that certain firearms are chosen for these terrorists acts.

We need to outlaw those firearms. If they move to "mild" looking guns, then we will deal with that. But more importantly to me is the magazines. Outlaw immediately magazines or whatever their real name is, to under 6 cartridges. Guns like the AR-15 type that use the bullets that tumble and were designed to kill humans, should be outlawed. We have a problem and we need to start somewhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

233. There is no distinguishing difference between that AR-15 and XYZ semi-auto rifle with a detachable

mag. Nothing that you could legislate upon, other than the name.

Why are they chosen? I suspect it is little more than falling for the marketing hype. Ooorah-high speed, low drag tacticool marketing. Nothing more.

This might suggest an avenue for legislative intervention. Think; how we regulated the cigarette industry to stop appealing to children.

I agree, we do have to start somewhere.

[rhett o rick]

236. Let's start with magazines and bullet types. Rifles designed to kill humans like tumbling bullets.

Like I said, the terrorists choose these certain guns for a reason. Figure out that reason and eliminate it. There are hunting looking guns and assault looking guns.

[ManiacJoe]

251. .223 ammo does not use "tumbling" bullets.

If bullets actually tumbled, their trajectory would be completely random and useless. Rifling was added to the barrels back in the 1800s so that the bullets would fly as straight as possible.

Yes, lots of "looking" guns. And the looks of a gun mean exactly zero to the functional abilities of the gun.

[rhett o rick]

279. You only address the functionality of the hardware. The looks of guns are that way for a purpose,

to attract buyers. Maybe, just maybe we can save a single life if rifles available to the public had to look like a hunting rifle in lieu of an assault weapon.

[ManiacJoe]

284. Shape and materials.

The shape and add-ons are all about ergonomics. Better safety and better accuracy.

Materials: Plastic is more weather proof than wood and lighter than wood. And for the fashion conscious, you can get just about any color plastic you want.

From the looks department, the modern semi-auto carbines are just damn ugly. The traditional wood stocks tend to be quite beautiful.

If you think it is the looks of the gun that makes it attractive to users, you don't know what you are talking about. Fortunately, that is easy to fix, if it is the case.

[AtheistCrusader]

253. Civilian ammo is not designed to tumble.

You disqualify yourself as a contributor to this conversation right out the gate with an urban legend.

'Terrorists' overseas use weapons that look much more like your traditional hunting rifle than the weapon used in Orlando. The only time you see weapons that look like ours in their hands, is when they are here and acquired them here, or they are there, and acquired them from a political entity that we supplied with them.

Then it's a question of 'availability' not 'seek it out'.

[rhett o rick]

278. This conversation is about trying to solve the problem of mass terrorist shootings.

I don't have to be a firearms expert to participate. I have a vote in this society and my vote is to get the favorite guns of terrorists off the market and made illegal. We don't need magazines that hold over 6 rounds if that many. If the Orlando shooter had to load more often, there would be less dead and injured.

[AtheistCrusader]

329. I appreciate the goal, but not the tactics you employ to get there.

[Eleanors38]

272. A tumbling bullet is a defective bullet.

[rhett o rick]

277. Wrong. The AR-15 was designed so that the bullet becomes unstable in flight and starts to

tumble. That causes is to damage more human tissue.

[Eleanors38]

280. Incorrect, as usual. Consult Rose's "American Rifle:. A Biography" to confirm the myth

you seem to believe. A combination of poorly manufactured cartridges, and a rate-of-twist miscalculation led to unstable projectile flight, gross "key holeing," and failure to cycle. These problems in manufacture and design caused the M-16 to get a poor reputation (the "M" was renamed "Matell" by disgruntled soldiers). The rifle has now improved greatly, and is considered one of the best battle rifles in the world.

[ManiacJoe]

285. Rhett, you have been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Movies and TV are not good places to get technical knowledge. You should know that already.

[Just reading posts]

289. Myth. If the bullet was unstable in flight, it wouldn't be accurate past 50 feet.

[Waldorf]

294. That would be incorrect. They do not tumble in flight. That totally throws off their accuracy.

[Duckhunter935]

298. incorrect sir

that was caused by the improper twist rate in early models. This has been corrected. A tumbling bullet is not accurate at all and these weapons are now accurate to 500 meters.

[rhett o rick]

316. It wasn't designed for accuracy at 500 meters. It was designed to kill humans.

[Duckhunter935]

317. And you would be wrong again

It was designed for medium range accuracy, lightweight, and a smaller round so the infantryman could carry more ammunition. Of course that was its military cousin. The civilian version used most of the same parts but was not capable of full auto operation.

[rhett o rick]

318. You seem to get off on telling me I am wrong but not proving it. Medium range isn't 500 yds.

I've been around a long time and I remember when the AR-15 was developed and will continue to look for the data to prove that it was originally designed for the bullet to tumble.

I did find this on wikipedia:

In October 1961, William Godel, a senior man at the Advanced Research Projects Agency, sent 10 AR-15s to South Vietnam. The reception was enthusiastic, and in 1962, another 1,000 AR-15s were sent.[45] United States Army Special Forces personnel filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping-power of the 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption.[35]

The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[35][44]

[Waldorf]

290. It doesn't use special ammo. The ammo that I shoot thru my AR-15's is the exact same thing

that can be fired thru my bolt action rifles.

[Atticus]

158. You are a member of the group

who knows more than others about firearms. So am I, and you, sir, are a bullshit merchant of the first order.

To say that an AR-15, or similar weapon, is "the same as all other semi-auto carbines" is, to be blunt, intentionally deceptive. Is the AR simply a "civilian" version of the M-16, specifically designed as a battlefield weapon of maximum lethality? YES. Can it be easily converted to "full auto"---ie, a machine gun---in less than an hour by the average person with common tools for about $300? YES.
Are magazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds readily available? YES.

This is not a 10-22 and you damn well know it. No one "needs" one of these, but many "need" the instant power, the instant "masculinity" which they provide. Making excuses for these cripples is pathetic.

[disillusioned73]

184. We need more..

"gun knowledgeable" folks like you Atticus..

Sometimes I feel that there are talking points put out by the NRA and the like to muddle the waters on logical conversation when it comes to these weapons.. your contribution to this conversation is much needed..

[ManiacJoe]

223. Coming from you, I will take that as a complement.

In the interest of not getting the post hidden, I will stop here.

Thank you for trying to spread your knowledge. Hopefully you will do a better job.

[beevul]

238. Don't go accusing others of being bullshit merchants, then post that.

To say that an AR-15, or similar weapon, is "the same as all other semi-auto carbines" is, to be blunt, intentionally deceptive.

Not nearly as deceptive as calling it a 'weapon of war'.

Is the AR simply a "civilian" version of the M-16, specifically designed as a battlefield weapon of maximum lethality? YES.

Actually, NO. In m-16 trim using a 5.56 x 45 round, the rifle is designed to WOUND. Look it up. "Maximum lethality".

The civilian semi-auto version is designed and sold in 1000 different flavors - caliber, barrel, barrel twist, etc, so it isn't as simple as lumping them all together and pretending they're all the same. They aren't.

Can it be easily converted to "full auto"---ie, a machine gun---in less than an hour by the average person with common tools for about $300? YES.

This is completely, hilariously, false. Any firearm that can be 'easily converted' is already considered a machine gun and regulated as such by ATF.

And if you're referring to 'conversion kits', they're considered a machine gun too.

Federal law.

[Atticus]

249. So, is it difficult to breathe with your head WAY up there?

I won't waste my time responding to all your twaddle, but you might want to check out "bump stock" or "slide stock" before you call my statement about conversion to full auto "completely, hilariously false."

If your erection lasts more than 4 hours, put the rifle away.

[Duckhunter935]

287. That is still not full auto

That is holding the weapon very loosely so the weapon will cycle in an imitation of full auto. Not to mention you can not aim with these stocks . You can do the same with a rubber band.

[Atticus]

291. Uh-huh. A rubber band, huh? Cool story, dude. nt

[ManiacJoe]

295. You must have missed that story,

which included the letter from the ATF.

[Duckhunter935]

296. Yep, saw that one

[Duckhunter935]

297. Beware "rubber band and an AR-15 type weapon

[beevul]

309. No, the air is fine here.

I won't waste my time responding to all your twaddle, but you might want to check out "bump stock" or "slide stock" before you call my statement about conversion to full auto "completely, hilariously false."

That isn't a full auto conversion.

If your erection lasts more than 4 hours, put the rifle away.

Since I don't own one of them, nor have any desire to, maybe you should get your internet gunz detector crystal ball recalibrated.

"Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

[Thor_MN]

322. Could you point me towards any training that is designed to teach how to WOUND?

The human silhouette targets have the highest points in non-lethal areas, correct?

[beevul]

330. Training?

Military doctrine spells out quite clearly, that a wounded opponent is better, from a warfare perspective, than a dead opponent.

This is because wounded soldiers require dedicated resources that dead soldiers do not.

Of course, since we aren't talking about an actual military weapon, nor are we talking about a weapon that fires the 5.45 round in a way that actually tumbles, its academic anyway.

[Thor_MN]

336. Yes, arm chairs warriors are quick to point out how wounding is better,

but not a single one seems to be able to explain why there is no training to wound, only kill. Center of mass is what is trained. And the difference is that the military version of the same weapon allows automatic and/or three round bursts in addition to semi-automatic single fire.

The AR-15 design is made to put as many holes as possible into humans and the training is to kill, not wound.

[beevul]

338. Where is this training given on the ar-15 design?

The AR-15 design is made to put as many holes as possible into humans and the training is to kill, not wound.

This is, of course, a nonsensical statement. The ar-15, is designed to accurately fire a projectile at a target of the users choosing, one projectile at a time, just like any other rifle that isn't fully automatic.

Where is this training given on the ar-15 design, and by whom is it given?

Oh, it isn't.

[Thor_MN]

340. I asked you a question. Where is the military or any shooting training that teaches to wound.

That is directly from your inane statement that the AR-15 is designed to wound.

Any training is around hitting the center of the target, i.e. to kill.

You can try to hide behind the fact that the AR-15 design is not fully automatic, but that's a bullshit statement and you know it. The AR-15 design was created to maim and wound as efficiently possibly. It has no uses in hunting, it's not a defensive weapon. It's only purpose, besides it's fetish purposes, is to wound and kill.

[beevul]

342. A meaningless question.

I asked you a question. Where is the military or any shooting training that teaches to wound.

A meaningless question.

You can try to hide behind the fact that the AR-15 design is not fully automatic, but that's a bullshit statement and you know it.

Because Thor_MN says so? Pfft.

The AR-15 design was created to maim and wound as efficiently possibly.

The AR-15 design you refer to, and the AR-15 which are civilian legal, are two different designs.

I get that none of you anti-gunners want to admit that, as it would interfere with the equivocation y'all prefer engage in, but tough.

It has no uses in hunting, it's not a defensive weapon.

That's simply your not unbiased opinion. Lots of people hunt with the AR platform, and self defense with one is not unheard of.

[Thor_MN]

343. Well, that's just, like your opinion, man.

Your opinion counts no more than mine. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

The AR-15 and the civilian version derived from it, is a machine designed to maim and kill. The civilian one, is as you know, not fully automatic. It can only fire as fast as one can pull the trigger. There are no civilian needs to fire 30 rounds in less tha 30 seconds.

[beevul]

344. Fortunately most of America agrees with my opinion.

Anti-gunners, not so much.

[Thor_MN]

345. You are not correct. Most of America favors increased firearm regulation.

Gun humpers, like conservatives, severely overestimate their influence. They think they are "normal", but they are the extreme fringes.

[AtheistCrusader]

206. Because people keep talking about banning machine guns in response.

Which makes no fucking sense.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. Two reasons.

One, an actual assault rifle would have probably been WORSE in that environment.
Two, if you know how actual assault rifles are controlled, it would probably help you understand how to legally proceed to control semi-autos.

[HuckleB]

256. Derp.

[Monk06]

282. AR variants are not less lethal than a full auto assault rifle They are in fact more accurate,

conserve ammo giving them a higher kill rate per round

That's why the latest Russian AK 78 variant has no continuous fire mode Full auto has been displaced by three round bursts per trigger pull That is standard tactical practice for the military BTW

Next the NRA will be demanding that the three round burst is a second amendment right because muskets can be loaded with more than one ball

Anyone who defends the civilian possession of these weapons has a high tolerance for old style wild west lawlessness and violent solution to every argument

If you want to go back to the 1860s where people got shot over insults and card games then be my guest

Not speaking to you particularily, I'm using you globally

[ManiacJoe]

286. True about comparing semi-auto and full-auto rifles in human hands.

Was my post the one you intended to reply to?

[Monk06]

293. You brought up the distinction between 'Assault rifles' and the semi auto AR so I figured make

the comment about the new AK78 variant

When the new Russian design hits the market it will be the weapon of choice for mass murderers

Accuracy and ammunition conservation What's not to love if maximum body count in a club or theater is your aim

Hell you can bump shoot a 9 mill if you want rapid fire If mayhem is your goal than semi auto carbine is the choice of the discerning mass murderer

[AtheistCrusader]

198. Nobody, because the ad doesn't claim it's an assault rifle.

Because people in the firearms industry know what the fuck an assault rifle is.

[HuckleB]

257. Marketing schmarketing.

FFS.

[AtheistCrusader]

261. Please don't dismiss it so readily.

I mentioned elsewhere in the thread the limitations imposed on the cigarette industry marketing to children.

Perception informs reality. I think regulating firearms marketing is a valid avenue worth exploring, that will have real-world results.
It's part of the puzzle.

[RAFisher]

283. LOL. It's always funny when gun lovers act like "assault rife" is some scientific term

Their ambiguity to the term. The ad seems to be showing a man on a battlefield killing targets. Last I checked the military, not civilians, are on battlefields.

[ManiacJoe]

288. Not scientific, but standardized.

"Assault rifle" has a single, standardized definition.

"Assault weapon" has no standard and lots of variations. It is also meaningless in the real world due to the rifles it tries to define already having accurate, standardized definitions.

Ask questions and you shall learn. Knowledge is power.

[AtheistCrusader]

328. It's called Military Nomenclature.

Assault Rifle is a select-fire weapon of intermediate caliber between a sub-machine gun, and a battle rifle.


I agree the marketing hype is bullshit, ridiculous, and unhelpful. I suggest that is a point that can be regulated, as I mentioned elsewhere in comparison to cigarette advertising and how they were soft-marketing to children.

They resisted at first. MUH FREE SPEECH. Courts saw through their shit.

[southmost]

13. mass murder weapons shouldn't be available

for public use

[IronLionZion]

14. People hunt in Australia, Ireland, and other gun control countries

what they don't have is a problem of mass shootings nearly as widespread as America's. They have shootings, but it is very few and far between.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#National_Firearms_Agreement

Aussies have clear provisions for farmers and sport shooters and other types to have the guns that are used for those activities. The military style weapons are also available for police and military and similar occupations.

Collectors can even purchase ridiculous military weapons as long as they are rendered inoperable.

Their laws were written with an eye towards preventing mass murder.

[MisterP]

15. they're "whackers": they sit around the basement hoard and the gun range talking about the minutiae

of each make and model, performance stats, and bandy about stories about millions of biker gangs and burglars and mass shooters scared off with a big enough piece

bringing reality and consequences into the conversation is the worst faux pas you can commit

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whacker

"I coulda taken 'im!"

[jberryhill]

16. Well put

[fleabiscuit]

17. +1 Fucking A

[63splitwindow]

18. K & R

[wysi]

19. I'd like to join you in saying...

A very big FUCK YOU to all the sophists and gun huggers out there.

[retrowire]

20. lol yeah

I mean... we could just call it a gun and not give a fuck what it's actually called.

People are bastards.

[KT2000]

21. YES !!!

you said it well indeed.
I figured out they read the same literature, discuss it when they are with other gun nuts and repeat over and over again to suggest those against such weapons are ignorant.
This is the same methods the RW uses to spread their simplified talking points - repetition of deflecting device.

When President Obama prepares for his 17th address to the nation concerning the next carnage with these "non-assault weapons" I am not responsible. The people who block legislation that would save lives of innocents are responsible even when they try to parse their way out of it.

[bearssoapbox]

22. 100% agree, Bucky

Well said!

[ReRe]

23. Absofuckinglutely!

No, starting years ago, before the babies were taken.

Sick MFing NRA psychopaths.

[TygrBright]

24. Please allow me to add my voice to this ringing "FUCK YOU" n/t

[postatomic]

25. Much Awesomeness

Hey, I know words. Lots of words.

This is really well written. Thanks for posting.

[villager]

26. It's an example of how soul-sick they all are

They play with the precise sequence of letters and numbers for a given sub-model, while the blood congeals on the floor...

[ImLiberalNotLeftist]

27. Hi, Central FL gay man here.

I happen to own two different AR-15 rifles. Are people suggesting that I should have my property taken from me or for them to be rendered useless through market control of parts/ammo? I don't know what I would have done to warrant that sort of treatment.

[uppityperson]

35. how does limiting the number of bullets in a cartridge/container, make your gun useless?

[jmg257]

37. Some are. At the least, have them rendered a bit less effective via mag limits.

Not your fault, but a small percentage ruins it for the rest...sucks, but there it is.

[Demit]

60. What makes your two AR-15 rifles different?

[ImLiberalNotLeftist]

89. Different manufacturers

and configurations.

[JustAnotherGen]

103. What do you use them for?

[Travis_0004]

133. I'm just taking a wild guess

But I would assume he takes them to the shooting range.

[Duckhunter935]

138. Probably a good guess

[JustAnotherGen]

165. Ahh

We don't own this type of fire arm.

My husband was a tactical sharp shooter in the Italian military (late 80's and early 90's) so he is a million times better a shot than most people who don't have his skill set with a Beretta or .38 or shot gun.

I can see how someone who has never killed another person in combat with this type of weapon . . . as he has -

Would feel they need to practice practice practice and use two at the same time.


My husband was wondering about this - this morning. His guess was the guy has never been in a combat zone and has no idea the true power of just one of this type of gun.

[Travis_0004]

221. who said anything about two at the same time?

Perhaps one is a .22 so its cheap to shoot.

perhaps one is configured for 9mm, which is useful at ranges where .223 is not allowed. Maybe one has a scope and one doesnt.

How the hell would I know.

Your husband may be a great shot. Good for him, but the only way he became a good shot is with practice.

[JustAnotherGen]

226. The guy above said he had TWO guns - same type Travis

So I'm asking the question because when he wrote that - my mind went to this:






Look ma! No hands!

[Travis_0004]

240. Unlikely

Ita designed to use two hands. I doubt he is using 2 at the same time.

Why do people own multiple watches, purses, cars etc?

For variety.

If I told you I had two cars, Im guessing you would not assume Im driving both at the same time.

[JustAnotherGen]

241. Only if you are being literal

Now if you are literal - then I'm wondering how I can do that too - drive two cars at once.

He COULD have super human powers though and yes indeedy - use both at the same time.


It's possible. He could be like - Superman. Only instead of being able to fly - he can shoot those guns at the same time. That would be cool.

[paleotn]

125. Yes.

...as I've said before, responsible gun owners are responsible until they're not. I don't know you, and thus don't know your propensity to go off the deep end and start shooting, so can the responsible gun owner shtick. Your right to own that level of fire power does not trump innocent people's right to live.

[MyNameGoesHere]

131. Oh heavens no I would never suggest the markets control you

I believe it should be done through the repealing of the 2nd amendment.

[MyNameGoesHere]

321. Possessions. Now you're getting into the founders spirit

it was all about possessions. Good for you.

[MadDAsHell]

28. How about getting rid of ALL guns?

Tens of thousands more die each year from handguns.

[Just reading posts]

92. How? Details, please.

[ncjustice80]

119. Pass a new ban on "military" style weapons and ammunition.

Classify a military style weapon as one capable of firing more than a single shot before being reloaded by hand or greater than a certain caliber. Military style ammunition is anything other than normal ball ammunition.

Allow a grace period for people to voluntarily hand those items over. Offer a small tax break for doing so. Anyone caught with a banned weapon after that faces severe criminal penalties.

[Duckhunter935]

127. So my 1926 bolt action mosin

Would be banned and confiscated?

[Just reading posts]

181. And if you don't turn it in, you'll face "severe" criminal penalties!

[TampaAnimusVortex]

192. Of course you'll need lots of guns to disarm everyone

So your very much pro-gun, you just want them monopolized in the hands of an elite few politically favored groups. What could possibly go wrong there?! If only history had some examples of where that might have went horribly wrong...

[ncjustice80]

215. Like Australia!

[TampaAnimusVortex]

254. Not quite...

At the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea that Australia’s gun ban must be the reason for its decline in gun crime.

[ncjustice80]

216. Likely, yes.

Though not from door to door searches obviously. You would hand it over.

[Just reading posts]

179. So a double barreled shotgun or lever action rifle would both be illegal.

Military style ammunition is anything other than normal ball ammunition.

You just outlawed all hunting ammo....

Allow a grace period for people to voluntarily hand those items over. Offer a small tax break for doing so. Anyone caught with a banned weapon after that faces severe criminal penalties.

Who is going to put into jail the tens of millions who will surely be defying this law?

[MadDAsHell]

185. But why are you only trying to limit those guns, when handguns kill so many more each year?

[SwankyXomb]

30. Add one more big Fuck You

to all the gun murder lovers and apologists that consistently derail any conversation on this site about gun control with their minutiae.

[Aristus]

31. Gun-humpers have been twisting themselves into knots for years trying to downplay the

meaning of the term 'assault rifle'.

They can go on for hours and hours over barrel-length, type of grip, trigger pull, magazine capacity, semi-automatic capability, etc, etc, and argue you into the ground over how if a unicorn didn't breath on it as the last step in the manufacturing process, it's not an 'assault rifle'. Or if you can't snarl convincingly like Sylvester Stallone while brandishing it, it's not really an 'assault rifle'.

Because, apparantly, they want a fast, dangerous, devastating, accurate, and murderously effective kill machine for home defense. But they don't want it to have a name that sounds mean, because then everyone will want to ban it.

[passiveporcupine]

40. And most of them have never had a need for a gun for self protection in the first place

I really think that's just an excuse. They just want their toys.

[Hoyt]

32. You have a knack with titles. Excellent post too. Every gun yahoo should read this.

[Aristus]

175. Or have it read to them...

[Hoyt]

194. +1. Back in the day, to get our first drivers license we had to watch this horrible film of

people killed in auto accidents, burned drivers, maimed corpses, etc. I'd like to see the same thing with gunz -- and not produced by the NRA as many gun training courses are.

And, if gunners have no reaction or smile during the film of gun tragedies -- they are denied right to own guns.

[geardaddy]

273. Yep, I remember those. *Warning - Disturbing Images*

"Signal 30" and "Wheels of Tragedy"

[beergood]

346. and they're

about as effective as those anti drug ads.

i watched Reefer Madness and laughed my ass off.

[Bucky]

347. Damn, that's sobering. We should regulate how safe those things can be & where they're allowed

Oh damn, I forgot the 11th Amendment says we have a right to ride carriages. Nevermind.

[Marie Marie]

33. ...

Shove those semantics up their ASSault weapon!

[SunSeeker]

38. How is an assault rifle with a folding stock for ease of smuggling into a crowded space even legal?

[Recursion]

41. Because the law sets a minimum length for rifles

If, folded, it's still over that length, it's legal.

[SunSeeker]

43. But WHY? Why allow rifles with folding fucking stocks?

That is how that miscreat was able to sneak an assault rifle past the front door. And since that creep apparently had been thinking of shooting up Pulse for some time, I am sure the folding stock of that particular model was a big selling point, as it would be for any wannabe mass murderer dreaming of shooting up a crowded public area.

[Recursion]

44. Because the law prevents rifles from being short enough to be concealable?

If it meets that minimum requirement and can also expand I'm not sure what banning that accomplishes?

If the limit is too short we need to fix that, not worry about rifles that can be multiple lengths.

[SunSeeker]

49. If the law prevents concealable rifles, why are folding rifle stocks legal?

There is no legitimate reason we should allow such things, considering the obvious way it enables criminals and does nothing to help someone kill a deer.

[Recursion]

56. Because their folded length is long enough it's not concealable

They can, also, fold out to longer than that already-non-concealable length.

[Just reading posts]

63. There you go, bringing facts into the discussion.

[SunSeeker]

66. What "facts"? The fucking thing WAS CONCEALED.

That is how that miscreant got past the front door.

[ManiacJoe]

69. Yes, some people are big enough to conceal a rifle under their coat.

Complain to God about the varying sizes of humans?

[Recursion]

72. No, he got confronted and shot at at the front door by an armed guard

Which is a pretty good argument against the "good guy with a gun" crowd.

[SunSeeker]

75. Rachel Maddow did a whole segment about that gun and how the killer managed to get it in the club.

She explained that it had a folding stock and that is how he got it in the club.

[Recursion]

77. If that's true and the AP is wrong, then we need to increase the minimum gun length

The folding is neither here nor there: if a legal rifle is small enough to be concealed, we need to increase that length, not worry about its ability to fold.

[ManiacJoe]

80. Being tall has its advantages for both

legal and illegal activities.

[SunSeeker]

84. Yes, minimum rifle length needs to be increased. AND we need an AWB.

As long as assault weapons are legal, they definitely should not have folding stocks. What the fuck was that gun manufacturer thinking? How fucking negligent and craven can you get? That's how it got snuck in. The bouncer did not notice until the guy was already in the club and was shooting. That is when the security guard returned fire:

According to law enforcement descriptions, Mateen first began shooting inside the club a little after 2 a.m. He was quickly engaged in a gun battle with an armed security guard, who was an off-duty police officer. Other officers soon join the gunfight, forcing Mateen to retreat with hostages.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-orlando-shooter-enter-pulse-club-2016-6

[Just reading posts]

86. Right now it's 26". What do you propose?

AND we need an AWB.

Given that passing the last one didn't accomplish anything but electing Republicans....why?

[SunSeeker]

95. The AWB did not give us a Republican president. SCOTUS did.

With a little help from Ralph Nader.

[Just reading posts]

96. Had guns not been an issue in 2000, Gore would have won.

The Democratic Party needs to embrace gun rights.

[Recursion]

94. No we do not. It's a stupid law that does no good. It keeps the gun he used legal

It is a stupid law and we need to come up with one that, I don't know... actually bans the fucking gun he used rather than changing its grip shape. Seriously, are you sick? Sadistic? Why are you proposing a law that keeps that gun legal but requires a different handgrip for it????

And don't go on about "loopholes" you can "tighten". Read the damn law and you'll understand why it's just a fundamentally broken and stupid idea. Rather than banning guns that can fire a lot of bullets it keeps them legal and regulates what they can look like (which is all the loopholes and barrel shrouds and other Pokemon bullshit that keeps coming up here).

How in God's name can anyone think that's a good idea?

[Ikonoklast]

115. The FBI concluded that the AWB had little to no effect on gun crime.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf


As so few gun crimes involve long guns of any kind to begin with, banning them does nothing overall.

[SunSeeker]

213. That report says right on the first page it does not reflect the views of the Department of Justice.

That 2004 Koper study was inconclusive, noting mass shootings are rare. Sadly, since this report was prepared and the Assault Weapons Ban was lifted, mass shootings have become anything but "rare." They occur about once a day.

[PoliticAverse]

218. And that's not surprising if only because the AWB allowed manufacturers to continue selling

the same type of guns with only minor changes (flash suppressor, bayonet lug, folding stock).

[pnwmom]

262. The law can be written to not allow them to be foldable if they are sold

to the general public.

[Recursion]

305. I agree, and that's entirely within Congress's authority to do. It's also completely backwards.

If a legal rifle can fold down to a length where it's concealable a legal rifle can also simply be that short (and so be concealable) to begin with. That is what we need to fix, not the fact that the stock can fold.

[ManiacJoe]

67. They are legal because

easy storage and ergonomics are common to the legal users of the rifles.

[SunSeeker]

68. Gotta love that "easy storage" under your jacket!

[ManiacJoe]

71. Your use of "storage" would be non-standard.

[SunSeeker]

76. Stop with the inane pedantics the OP is talking about.

[ManiacJoe]

78. Use the correct words and we will stop correcting your mistakes.

[SunSeeker]

87. We're not the ones making mistakes. nt

[ManiacJoe]

91. OK then.

[Just reading posts]

88. +A lot.

[Just reading posts]

50. Here's the law regarding the minimum length of a rifle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-barreled_rifle

Short-barreled rifle (SBR) is a legal designation in the United States, referring to a shoulder-fired, rifled firearm with a barrel length of less than 16 in (41 cm) or overall length of less than 26 in (66 cm).

The rifle he used is not, under the law, an SBR. It has an overall length of 26 1/2 inches folded, and has a barrel that's 16" long.

And in any case, even folded up it's not exactly something you can tuck under your belt.

[SunSeeker]

53. A man can (and did) conceal it in his jacket. It should be illegal. nt

[Just reading posts]

54. Well, it's not. Nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future.

[SunSeeker]

55. I don't have to accept that. Neither do you.

Nor do we have to read "Ammoland" and post gun porn pics.

[Just reading posts]

57. Well...unless you have the power to change it, in point of fact you do.

Nor do we have to read "Ammoland" and post gun porn pics.

It was simply the best image I could find on a Google picture search, and as for being "porn" it was relevant to the subject at hand, yes?

[SunSeeker]

58. Of course we have the power to change it.

Fuck that defeatist shit.

And yes, you were posting gun porn. It was not relevant to show or not show how the Sig got snuck into Pulse. No one said he tucked it in his "waistband." Yours was was a silly comment, just the sort of inanity the OP is talking about.

[Just reading posts]

62. Not this year. And in any case, I've never seen a single serious proposal to change the defintiion

of an SBR.

It was not relevant to show or not show how the Sig got snuck into Pulse.

Um....you brought the subject up when you complained about the rifle stock's capability of being folded. It was wholly relevant.

[SunSeeker]

64. You posted it to support your implication that folding stocks don't make it concealable.

That is bullshit.

Posting a picture of that death machine without any frame of reference in the picture to show how big it is, compared to a grown man wearing a jacket, was a pointless endeavor. Unless your endeavor was to post gun porn to troll an anti-assault weapon thread.

I am so fucking sick of this shit. You are not fooling anyone.

[Just reading posts]

82. The size of the rifle is obvious. It's not a handgun, for pete's sake.

Posting a picture of that death machine without any frame of reference in the picture to show how big it is, compared to a grown man wearing a jacket, was a pointless endeavor.

Sigh. Here you go. Remember, you asked for it.

[SunSeeker]

85. No, I didn't "ask for it." Neither do gun humpers' victims. nt

[Just reading posts]

93. "Gun humpers"? Way to elevate the conversation. What is this, 6th grade?

[Feeling the Bern]

300. Typical. Gun humper gets called a gun humper by posting NRA drivel and gun porn

And then instantly gets self-righteously butthurt.

Your name is "Just Reading Posts." Please just start doing that again instead of posting this gun porn drivel. Some of us value human life over murder enablers.

[Just reading posts]

307. So....the answer to my question is "yes". Good to know.

Thank you, I appreciate the information.

[longship]

100. Even yet more gun porn.

Why do you do it?
Just why?

And BTW, who is that guy shooting? (Not what!!!!)

[Just reading posts]

101. It's hardly "porn". The other poster expressed concern that the first picture didn't have the

context to show its size. Thus the new one.

And BTW, who is that guy shooting?

I don't know his name, I just did a google picture search for an appropriate picture.

[longship]

107. In other words... Gun porn. Twice in this thread.

You have a lot to confess to here.

[Feeling the Bern]

320. Don't you get sick of the predictable, thin skinned path gun huggers take each time someone dares

question murder enablers?

I honestly thought DU was for progressive ideas, but when a mass shooting happens, low post gun humpers come out of the woodwork to post gun porn, NRA talking points and all sort of pro gun nonsense while saying gun control doesn't work.

I've lived in five countries with universal gun control. Not one mass shooting in any of them. I wonder why.

[Feeling the Bern]

299. I see we can use that to hunt squirrels and small game.

What a great murder device to own. Gun humpers must be going nuts looking at that murder enabler and saying "I want one so I can go hunting for ducks and geese."

[Just reading posts]

304. While it's overpowered for squirrels, the .223 cartridge is considered a small game round.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

The .223/5.56 quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber.

So, yes. Cosmetics aside, it's a perfectly good small game rifle.

Gun humpers must be going nuts looking at that murder enabler and saying "I want one so I can go hunting for ducks and geese."

You're not allowed to hunt ducks and geese with a rifle.

[Feeling the Bern]

319. Thanks, gun hugger. I really don't care about murder enablers.

See, unlike gun humpers, I value human life more.

[passiveporcupine]

39. Thank you!

And let me add a hearty FUCK YOU too!

That felt good!

[tosh]

42. Thank you Bucky!!!

This is what I've been trying to say, like forever!!

Please allow me to add my " FUCK YOU, I want these guns off the market!"

[Francis Booth]

45. Well spoken, sir. Get all of these things out of circulation, or limit the magazine

capacity to 5 rounds. Get caught with a 20 or 30 round mag, go to jail.

Of course, this won't happen, this time around, either. Maybe when the high score hits 200?

[Just reading posts]

51. How do you propose to get them out of circulation? Voluntary buyback, or confiscation?

[Francis Booth]

123. The government would have to compensate for the value of the magazine, but they

aren't worth very much - maybe $20 or so.

I don't buy that this is an unsolvable problem.

[Just reading posts]

187. The magazines in and of themselves, perhaps there are a billion or so in circulation. But if you add

in the cost of compensating owners for the value of their "assault" weapons, you're talking somewhere in the ballpark of half a trillion to a trillion dollars. Much more if you also play it fair and compensate them for the value of their ammunition and accessories. Many of the scopes and optical aids for these weapons are worth as much the the weapons itself or more.

That's doesn't even begin to factor in the cost of running such a program.

I could see the cost of this running in to multiple trillions of dollars, easily.

[potone]

46. The only thing that might work to ge them banned...

is if there was a march on Washington by everyone who has lost a family member to gun violence. I'd like to see the face of our Congress critters if they had to face an enormous crowd of people whose lives have been permanently damaged because of our craven unwillingness to stand up to the gun lobby and their neurotic supporters.

[Feeling the Bern]

301. No. . .maybe if someone important to these gun humpers like LaPierre and the jerks in Congress died

they would care. But until then, it's just little people that get killed and who cares about little people except to pander to them on election day.

[King_Klonopin]

48. I love on-the-spot rants like this !

Straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel, I always say.

I love your analogy referring to alcoholism and drunk driving laws !!

I lost my shit with someone at work yesterday. She seemed disappointed
when the motive behind the shooting was revealed to be psychological in
nature and something other than "Muslim". She has been brainwashed into
believing "Muslim" causes the motive to mass-murder.

Muslim or not, you have to be pretty fucking disturbed to do what he and
all the other mass-murderers have done. You pointed to the root of the problem
quite succinctly.

Whether it is done in the name of "Radical Islam" or the burning cross of the KKK,
it's all done by the same animal: a hate-filled murderer.
Whether you call it an assault rifle or a high-capacity weapon, it is all the same
animal: a death-machine.
The labels in and of themselves mean nothing and change nothing, and they are
meant to distract from the real issues.

If you are an Islamic militarist, or a Klansman, or a homophobe, or an antisocial,
psychopathic, angry, violent, man with a toxic sense of masculinity who glorifies
violence, then it is a short walk from having murderous thoughts to acting-out your
murderous fantasies, here in the U.S. -- too short of a walk.

It is also clear to see that the term "Radical Islam" demonizes an entire group
(of about 9 billion, no less), and this fits the very definition of bigotry.
Republicans have been trying to bully Obama into saying "Radical Islam" because,
as I see it, they want to force him to condemn and "turn on his own kind", which
is racially motivated. And to scapegoat the bad, brown people in order to take
the focus off of the pernicious culture of gun-worship.

Just say that all the brown, Islamic people are bad, Obama !

[HuckleB]

61. Exactly.

[aikoaiko]

70. It's actually SIG not Sig - acronym for Schweizerische Industriegesellschaft

I'm just teasing. It's true, but I couldn't help myself.

In truth sometimes the words and meanings matter when discussing firearms and laws. Like the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firing.

Whether or not you use all caps in SIG is not important.

[are.you.sure]

73. Paradigm shift in gun control?

Guns generally require ammunition to be fired from them in order for them to be used to hurt and kill.

A simple solution to the void of accountability in existing gun laws is to focus on the ammunition.

Federal laws can be passed to simply require manufacturers of ammunition to micro-stamp the interior of each shell of ammunition and to create a chain of custody and accountability stretching from these manufacturers to end users of ammunition by way of a federally overseen 50 state digital, real-time database (and a foreign nation digital, real-time database for exports) for each shell, box, case, crate, pallet, and load of ammunition (each with a serial #).

By legislating the responsibility of marking of each unit of ammunition and record-keeping of the who, what, when, where, and why for this ammunition, the federal government could unify and make far more effective gun control for all 50 states (and throughout foreign nations, for US exports).

The manufacturer, dealers, and end users who buy, sell, and own ammunition would then be held legally responsible for registering and record-keeping in this federally overseen 50 state digital, real-time database of ammunition for every change of ownership or depletion of ammunition as a condition of their federal and state licenses.

Further, federal legislation could include subjecting use of or storage of ammunition to regular and random inspections and audits by federal agents in each of the 50 states and ensure complete accountability for buyers, sellers, and owners of ammunition to criminal laws for crimes committed with ammunition registered to them.

Additionally, the materials used to manufacture ammunition are already regulated, but could be further regulated by including them in the database too, so those who have an affinity for manufacturing their own ammunition could not easily evade the federally overseen 50 state digital, real-time database for ammunition.

The technology exists.

The will to solve the problem of ensuring the right to bear arms while also balancing the need to hold those who choose to exercise that right accountable for their actions should exist as well.

The federal government could include in the legislation an initial investment voucher or grant to all licensed ammunition manufacturers to reimburse them for the initial cost of retooling their manufacturing and record-keeping processes to fall in-line with the new federal laws.

Gun owners keep on getting to own guns, they just become accountable for the USE of ammunition in those guns.

Those gun owners who lack the technological skills to personally register their purchase, storage, and depletion of ammunition could be afforded the ability to do so at the establishments of ammunition sellers, gun clubs, and shooting galleries - wherever ammunition is legally sold or used.

How would this stop mass shootings?

It won't, but it certainly will give the FBI and state and local law enforcement the ability to track large or sudden movements of or to detect stockpiling of ammunition so they know where the ammunition is and where it is being used.

It also will render most criminal, yet non-mass, shootings more difficult to commit without fear or likelihood of being caught because the ammunition must be registered to and linked to an owner and that owner will be held accountable by law for any criminal use of the ammunition registered to them.

This is not an infringement on the right to bear arms, it is merely a federally overseen 50 state licensing requirement - the individual states still will administer their own gun ownership laws and rules.

***

Note: This is a crude concept and proposal, not a final bill being submitted for federal legislation, so anyone wishing to take this idea and make it more simple, yet effective, go ahead, and anyone intending to knock the idea, please go ahead as well!

Still don't have enough posts to start a new discussion, and once again this message was written on and submitted on my smart phone.

[Just reading posts]

97. No. Nothing will come of this in regards to legislation.

[TheMightyFavog]

102. And what about people who handload their own ammunition?

How would that be handled?

[vkkv]

244. Terrible idea. Just get rid of firearms that will fire over one round in a few seconds and no

magazines that hold more than five rounds.

And background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks, background checks.

[TexasBushwhacker]

281. Most of the mass shooters didn't care if they got caught

or even died. So accountability would be a deterant.

[Rex]

74. Yeah been trying not to say anything about that.

People telling me, 'oh who cares it is just a 22 round' REALLY? er okay so you don't mind getting shot? They always defeat themselves by getting off on the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon and the size of the round.

Keyboard Rambos are immune to 22 caliber bullets, I guess.

[Just reading posts]

98. While most rifles of this particular model are .22 caliber (.223 to be exact), they're also

chambered for 7.62x39 and .300 Blackout....so it might not have been a .22.

[Rex]

99. I want someone to look the dead victims families in the eye and tell them that. If they

have the guts. The dead don't care, they are full of holes.

[yourpaljoey]

201. O oh...you listed the RED ROUND (Russian Round)!!!

Thus opening a whole different can of fish.
The Putin haters will be here shortly with..... friendly questions.

[Just reading posts]

202. I prefer 5.45x39, myself. That what my AKs are chambered for.

[yourpaljoey]

204. Whew... close call

Just don't fire that 5.56 ammo in a .223 chamber and you will be OK.

[Just reading posts]

209. No danger of that. I don't have any .223 ARs, only NATO Spec 5.56.

[RandySF]

79. Thank you

I'm tired of gun nuts trying to dismiss anyone who is not a firearms to distract form the real issue: Human lives.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

83. From "Pedantic shits", to "Take the toys away from the boys",

A masterpiece of the Righteous Rant.

[MFM008]

90. look most of us here I think

don't care whats its called, or the brand or whatever.
They should be BANNED
Using a regular pistol should get you practice for skeet or target
even home protection. If its not good enough
there's a problem and perhaps you should take up coloring or something.

[bighart]

162. FBI Stats on Homicide from 2009 to 2013

Total Homicides 64,852
Total Gun Homicides 44,047 67.9% of all homicides
Total Hand Gun Homicides 31,053 47.9% of all homicides
Total Rifle Homicides 1,633 2.5% of all homicides (assault rifles is a subset of this and not called out separately)
Total Knives or Cutting Instruments 8,378 12.9% of all homicides

Your proposal to use a regular pistol leaves the gun homicide rate substantially as is.
Do the people killed with hand guns not mater as much as those killed with rifles?

[MFM008]

248. of course

but that would mean a ban on all guns and that is not ever going to happen.
A 5 shot .357 is better than an assault rifle.
Every life saved works.
If you think politicians will ban all guns, I believe Mr. Sanders
doesn't even support that.

[bighart]

252. Rifle homicides

are less than 3% of the total and the FACT is an assault rifle ban alone will have negligible impact on anything truly meaningful in the broader picture.
These kinds of discussions are a starting point but with emotions running high on both sides they sidetrack the bigger issue and cause gridlock and result in no action or no MEANINGFUL action being taken.

As a nation we have to move past emotion to a logical and rational discussion of what is driving the overall homicide rate, which is clearly in decline so we are moving in the right direction.

I personally am not now nor have I ever been a gun owner, I don't need them, and I get really pissed off at both sides because both sides are responsible for the current situation. Neither wants to listen to the other or have a meaningful discussion about this.
Given that the status quo is a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms there has to be a space in between the extremes on both sides that the majority, including gun owners and gun banners, can somehow agree on and will make a real difference.

I don't support full gun bans and I don't support people arming up to the nth degree just because they want to.
I support more reasonable control, close the background check loophole, place a mandatory 3 day delay on any new purchase of semiautomatic firearm (long gun or hand gun).

[MFM008]

325. I am a gun owner

i cant describe the circumstances of WHY.....
I just have one.
Not around or have access to any kids.
I have had professional shooting instruction
worked for a PD many years ago but I agree and voted for gun restrictions here in WA state.

[ManiacJoe]

335. The important question is:

Did you know/understand the restrictions as they were written into the bill?
Or did you just allow yourself to be mislead about the bill by the gun control orgs backing the bill?

[MFM008]

337. yes

and no.
Understand? really?

[pnwmom]

106. Someone else already said it, so I'll just be the echo.

This really is a masterpiece. Thank you, Bucky.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

110. +1000 nt

[brer cat]

112. Most excellent rant, Bucky. nt

[Ilsa]

114. Anyone who protests "but they are fun to shoot" should have

to look at the pictures of bodies at Pulse, Newtown, etc in bright print before they get their license. Or maybe they should just join the Army if they want to shoot things.

I'm glad you went off on these people that try to make an issue about these technical details. Let's just get those guns banned. There is no use for them, except for killing people. I don't care that they are "fun to shoot".

[myrna minx]

116. Than you K&R

[yardwork]

118. Right there with you, buddy.

[DetlefK]

120. When a bomb goes off, it's important to discern what kinds of chemicals the bomb used.

Was it home-made gunpowder?
Home-made ammonium-nitrate?
An ignition-bomb made from phosphor?
An ignition-bomb made from styrofoam?

It's very, very important to keep it accurate what kind of bomb killed those 50 people.

[Squinch]

302. And the argument they follow with is "which one of those types of guns do you want to

make inaccessible to random individuals?"

ALL of them, fuckheads!!!!!

Then they come back with, "but that's a lot of guns."

That's the damn point!!!!

[maindawg]

124. Strong measures are overdue

We must ban any and all military style weapons period. A class action lawsuit ,along with RICO violation charges that will bring stiff prison sentences has to be brought against the NRA and the criminal conspirators who have conspired to push weapons on Americans. Gun pushers are terrorists. Let's go after the real bad guys.

[marble falls]

126. A-fucking-men. These guns are not used to hunt or defend. They are used with alcohol around ....

bonfires "target shooting" and comparing penis length. And killing people. They're bought with the intention of industrially killing people and when they get used anywhere else beside drunken penis rituals, they kill people.

[Duckhunter935]

129. Must be millions killed by these rifles then, tight?

[marble falls]

135. So why do you own one?

[Duckhunter935]

136. Not to kill people

Never have, must be broken

[marble falls]

137. So why do you own one?

[Duckhunter935]

139. Shoot at paper plates

A lawful activity as far as I know. Do I have to have your permission?

[marble falls]

140. Ever hear of a bb gun? Absolute hell on a paperplate. Quit buying armored paper plates.

[Duckhunter935]

142. Not accurate

[marble falls]

144. How accurate do need to be with a paper plate? I'ne never needed a second round to put one one ....

down. There are extremely accurate air and CO2 guns with enough stopping power bring down varmints as well as those rogue paper plates around your range. My pump Crossman hits as hard as a .22short, with .177 lead.

So why do you really own one?

[Duckhunter935]

147. To shoot paper plates

[marble falls]

148. So you really don't know or you feel embarressed about your reason? ....

Why do you own one? Fear of zombie paper plates?

[Duckhunter935]

149. I know, yes

To shoot paper plates

[marble falls]

151. Do you use Stingers to hunt duck?

[Duckhunter935]

152. I don't hunt

I shoot paper plates.

[marble falls]

153. Why do you own one?

[Duckhunter935]

155. To shoot paper plates

[marble falls]

163. If that's the best you can do ....

but while your "reason" was strong enough in the fifties, the proliferation of these weapons have become a nation health and public safety issue. They all need to be confiscated: even the paper plate killers and the wall hangers. If you don't know somewhere in your heart that even just one of those shot dead by a guy who spent long hours honing his skills on range shooting paper trumps your right to own one then maybe your paper palate killer needs to be taken in the first go around.

Just so you know: I own and I use fire arms, but I can tell you exactly why I use and own each piece. I'd never match a $2-3G SigSauer version AR-15 to a paper plate. I don't hunt any more and my fire arms ownership reflects it. The Marlin is gone, the M1 carbine is in my son's gunsafe, I still have the old 410 Remington for coyotes and the old cap and ball .44 kit revolver I built in high school. I still plink with the Crossman and the old Winchester 190 my dad used as a kid. And I am absolute hell on a paper plate, even the Zombie ones. As well as the occasional ground hog.

[Duckhunter935]

166. You asked, I answered

I do not own a 2-3K to use for this. Mine are under 1K. I tend to use my antique bolt actions just as much if not more.

[Logical]

224. You are one nutty gun owner, but we knew that before. Nt

[Duckhunter935]

225. Why thank you for the insult

[uncle ray]

128. hear hear!

[paleotn]

132. Very well said! +1000

...I'm tired of the semantic game played by the merchants and apologists for death. The issue isn't what someone considers an assault rifles vs. non-assault rifles, what's high capacity and what's not. The issue at hand is firepower. The number or rounds a weapon can send downrange in a specific amount of time. In countries with stricter gun laws and far, far fewer gun deaths than us, semi-auto is banned, period, end of story. If they want a gun in the US, fine; bolt action rifles, single and double action revolvers, pump shotguns and that's it. If someone has a problem with that, they need to take a long look at themselves, because they are part of the fucking problem.

[Act_of_Reparation]

143. This is a time-honored gun-fondler strategy

Whenever their obsession comes under the proverbial fire, they try to drown critics in a deluge of technobabbly minutia that, in the grand scheme of things, is completely fucking irrelevant.

I don't give a fuck if it is a magazine, not a clip. I don't give a fuck if it is open bolt, so it can't be "locked and loaded". I don't give a fuck if a .223 battle rifle has the same bore diameter as a .22 LR plinker.



It is not my job to define the term "assault rifle" for the purposes of constructing legislation. That's what we pay lawyers and politicians for. If you're concerned new firearms regulations might infringe upon your right to trick out a Remington 10-22 with a 1000-round Hello Kitty-themed detachable drum magazine, then take it up with them. I've got my own fucking obsessions to think about.

[Squinch]

303. Straight out of the NRA handbook titled, "How to Lose Your Humanity So You Can

Enable and Defend the Massacre Industry."

[Nay]

146. Bucky, this is a righteous rant for the ages. I had to deal with these sorts of

pedantic assholes and it's no picnic. NO ONE CARES about the minutiae, you parsing fuckheads. We want any fucking piece of machinery that can shoot people this fast BANNED. Is that technical enough for you, the fuckheads???

[tavernier]

150. Bravo!!!!

I got the same crap when I posted on the subject after the slaughter.

The fact is, they are not muskets, the weapon that our forefathers insisted that our citizens had the right to own, as they might be called to be part of a militia against the English.

The NRA would have no qualms selling nuclear missiles to six year olds if they could get away with it using the second amendment for justification. Money is their only bottom line, not constitutional rights.

[liberal N proud]

154. That is the tactic, get you trapped into arguments about petty details

Completely ignoring the real problem.

The NRA has taught them well.

[Darb]

157. I got some advice for you.......

you cannot get through the neanderthal skull of a gun humper. It is just too thick. Save yourself the effort. Keep it short and simple. They don't read and many are here to spew the NRA line like mindless parrots anyway.

Just as you cannot reason with a two-year old regarding his toys, you cannot reason with a humper regarding theirs. They are not able to think on a level that allows them to see how dangerous their delusions are to our society.

Good try though.

[Javaman]

159. I completely agree!

the gun nuts go into the semantics of this type to purposely muddy the water on the discussion of banning assault rifles.

fuck them!

[rock]

160. Yep

[enough]

161. Thank you Bucky. (nt)

[MynameisBlarney]

164. Agreed!

They think that kind of bullshit will stop the debate.

[Nitram]

167. The problem is that it is very hard to ban assault rifles because

of the fine details that would have to go into the legislation. Like designer drugs, manufacturers can make one small change and it is suddenly not covered by the law. The pedantry is actually justified because the difficulty of effectively outlawing assault rifles is in the details.

[Bucky]

196. Sigh, I know. I would okay with less tecky language in the law that bans "too many" guns

Of course then you get into 2nd Amendment gray areas. That said, decent lawyers can come up with language that keeps the slaughter machines out of the churches in a way that doesn't keep anyone from having home protection. I just don't think it's impossible to have laws that prohibit guns as described by their effects instead of their attributes.

[Paladin]

170. Right on, Bucky. Beautifully put.

I know plenty about firearms, and I see these maneuvers by the pro-gunners for what they are: a means of taking attention away from the basic problem we're facing with a massive over-supply of guns in this country. If it's a military-styled semi-auto long gun, just refer to it as an "assault rifle" and enjoy the other side's whining about it.

[raven mad]

171. So true; one does NOT need an auto for hunting moose.

It ruins the meat, and no, I won't tell you how I know - but these weapons are not only unnecessary, they were designed to kill one "game animal". Humans.

[Just reading posts]

182. He didn't use an "auto"....it was an ordinary semiautomatic rifle.

It ruins the meat

The meat doesn't know whether the bullets that hits it was fired by a semiauto, bolt action, lever action, or single shot.

[raven mad]

186. You're quite correct.

I did not mean it offensively. But I confess, I once used a shotgun to take out a wild raspberry............... (lol, the entire bush, because it was invading my garden, and yes, I saved the berries and the seeds).

[Just reading posts]

188. Always use enough gun.

[malaise]

172. Wish I could rec this 1,000 times

Assault is the word and slaughter as well

[Dem2]

173. You don't know pedantic until you try to argue with a gun-nut

Their tiny brains are filled up with NRA talking points, they rarely hear anything you say - they see words and it triggers another talking point, relevant or not.

[Initech]

174. 50 people murdered in 20 minutes. There's zero justification for this, gun nuts. Zero.

And the more you try to justify this, the more you are just flat out not helping your case.

[Just reading posts]

183. I haven't seen a single post justifying these murders.

[disillusioned73]

176. Bigtime, FUCK YOU's..

I don't get these people either.. they are disturbed in their own special little way..

[billh58]

180. Truth!

The designed purpose of any gun is to kill. Some are more efficient at that purpose than others.

[TRoN33]

193. It happened to me too.

When I lashed out against AR-15 as assault and machine gun after Sandy Hook. The ammosexusls got zesty and told me I'm being wrong with the label of the types of guns.

I told them to... Fuck off too.

[AtheistCrusader]

197. Assault weapon is correct. Assault rifle is not. You mix the terms in your first paragraph.

Somewhere in your life, there's a term in some subject, that vexes you. I guarantee it. You're just not thinking of it at the moment, but it will come to you.

As far as proposing legislation that controls these, the distinction is actually important, because all Assault Rifles were required to be registered with full background checks, and taxed at 200$ per weapon, starting in 1934. As of 1986, they aren't sold anymore. So when you say 'ban assault rifles', you're talking about something that's already tightly controlled.

That's why it's annoying. That's why people keep pointing it out. Assault weapon is a legislative classification. Assault Rifle is a military nomenclature and a subset of assault weapon.

Assault Rifle is DONE guys. DONE. No new ones since 1986. All registered going back to 1934. All can be inspected by the BATFE with no notice. All contributed 200$ to the budget that tracks and maintains those records. It's DONE.

Not only is it fucking done, if you were playing attention to firearm laws even SLIGHTLY, but it's done and it provides a USEFUL TEMPLATE THAT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE AND CAN BE APPLIED TO ALL SEMI-AUTOS AS WELL.

Want something that can actually stem the tide of guns into the wrong hands? Repeat what was done with semi-autos, as they actually did on fully automatic weapons. Because FA/Burst, actual Assault Rifles, is FUCKING DONE ALREADY OK?

[Bucky]

200. Thank you for the clarification. I'm a total definition geek, you're right.

I just don't like having that discussion when people are being riddled with bullets in churches, nightclubs, and schools.

We're going to have at least two more Sandy Hook sized slaughters in this country before the election, all but guaranteed. It'll be a playground or a mallcourt or a bus station or some other place we haven't thought of yet. I'm just tired of being told to suck it up because the citizens of the country are powerless against the NRA. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around deranged lunatics.

[AtheistCrusader]

203. I do try. I try.

When someone is talking about the emotional aspect of these attacks, I bite my tongue. I really try. I get that it's not productive to bring it up.

When the discussion is about laws or what should or should not be banned, then I usually bring it up. But I do try to be nicer than I was a few years ago. Drop some of the frustration that the terms aren't well understood.


I also try to keep in mind, there ARE some trolls that derail conversations by specifically and energetically attacking that issue, just to channel it away from bans or registration, and that's why I'm here, and not elsewhere, because I'm ok with registration and some limits.

[Scurrilous]

208. A big @#$% you to the gun huggers and their moist chit chat about @#$% no one else cares about.

[pauldp]

217. America's gun problem explained

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america

[Gidney N Cloyd]

219. Well done!

[RiverNoord]

222. Damn straight.

[Bonx]

228. You sure post 'FUCK YOU' a lot. Feel better ? Need a nap ?

[Logical]

237. Nope, he is sick of gun nut bullshit. Proper language! Nt

[Bonx]

243. I guess it's an option to tell people 'FUCK YOU!" when you don't have your own facts straight

It lets them know you aren't going to stand for any of their attempts at discourse using reason.

[Just reading posts]

259. It does seem extraordinarily childish. Just sayin'.

[Logical]

292. Whine some more. I'll listen. nt

[emmadoggy]

235. .

[bbmykel]

239. Perfect response

Thank you Bucky!

[LanternWaste]

246. There will always exist the half-wit who pretends that nothing can be done

There will always exist the half-wit who pretends that nothing can be done to better validate their tin gods, and is afraid of the mere conversation taking place. Hearing the petulant phrase 'gun-grabber' is a leading indicator of this half-witted and irrational timidity.

[HuckleB]

258. Aren't most of your posts about how nothing can be done about most things?

Hmmm.

[Squinch]

260. Kick. Good post!

[63splitwindow]

263. There is one EXCELLENT reason to get the weapon right IN THIS CASE...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027919756

[Straw Man]

265. The Ron White School of Rhetoric

Strange to see so many adherents here ...

[Bucky]

268. now look, I'm a Texas boy. If you hear Ron White in my prose, I'm honored. But...

Ron White is different from me in one major respect. His signature slogan is "You can't fix stupid."

I just plain old disagree with that. You can fix stupid: it's called education. We just ain't doing it right.


[font size="1" color="#707070"](note: in my case "boy" runs up to the age of 52)[/font]

[etherealtruth]

266. I LOVE that this has 315 RECs

[Bucky]

269. (me too)

I'm gonna cry a little when it rolls off the Greatest Threads list on the home page

[zappaman]

267. Kick and rec!

[Iggo]

270. Every single one of them!

[Arugula Latte]

275. I'll echo this. FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCKWADS!

[The Wizard]

312. M-16

military assault weapon

[ManiacJoe]

314. You almost got it right.

It is a military assault rifle.

No full-auto rifles are included in any of the various artificial "assault weapon" definitions.

[The Wizard]

333. The newer 16s only shoot in three shot bursts.

The one I used shot at a rate of 900 rounds a minute. It was one of the reasons for jamming, the other being dirty ammo. I understand they can be altered to fire full auto, but once altered they cannot go back to single shot.

[ManiacJoe]

334. Correct on the mechanical updates to the M-16 and M-4.

Burst mode is still puts the rifle in the machine gun category by the civilian legislation.

Yes, they are still assault rifles. Assault rifles are not "assault weapons" by any of the multiple, silly definitions of "assault weapon".

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

339. Preach It Brother Bucky!

Amen!

[sakabatou]

341. I'm also sick of the "hero with the gun argument"

And "gun-free zones are awful" for some kind of BS one way or another.