HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » NRA: We will oppose semi-...

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:19 PM

 

NRA: We will oppose semi-automatic weapons ban

Source: CBS News

Though alleged shooter Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle when he murdered 20 young children and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school - not five months after the same type of gun was used to kill 12 at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater - the National Rifle Association "will continue to oppose a ban on semiautomatic weapons," the organization's president David Keene said today on "Face the Nation."




Arguing Bob Schieffer's point that if high-capacity weapons were banned or restricted, a baseball bat used instead would produce far fewer casualties, Keene tried to make the case that shooters - not the guns - are the problem. Asked how many rounds an AR-15 - the most popular rifle in the country - or another weapon in the semiautomatic family can discharge in five seconds, Keene said, "Well, they fire when you pull the trigger... they don't keep firing. That's a fully automatic weapon."




"These aren't military weapons," Keene continued. "If we equipped our army with the AR-15, we'd be beaten by every Third World - you know, every Third World dictatorship in the country. Military weapons are fully automatic weapons, and that's illegal. You don't get those. That's not what we're talking about."


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57560649/nra-we-will-oppose-semi-automatic-weapons-ban/

114 replies, 14595 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA: We will oppose semi-automatic weapons ban (Original post)
michigandem58 Dec 2012 OP
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #1
cbrer Dec 2012 #27
lastlib Dec 2012 #29
Deep13 Dec 2012 #32
Hoyt Dec 2012 #2
agorist Dec 2012 #5
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #7
Hoyt Dec 2012 #11
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #41
paleotn Dec 2012 #55
Deep13 Dec 2012 #34
Hoyt Dec 2012 #37
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #65
Hoyt Dec 2012 #86
agorist Dec 2012 #3
elleng Dec 2012 #10
agorist Dec 2012 #15
elleng Dec 2012 #18
beac Dec 2012 #22
former9thward Jan 2013 #106
beac Jan 2013 #110
former9thward Jan 2013 #111
beac Jan 2013 #114
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #105
elleng Jan 2013 #109
beac Dec 2012 #14
agorist Dec 2012 #16
elleng Dec 2012 #19
NickB79 Dec 2012 #59
Robb Dec 2012 #63
NickB79 Dec 2012 #67
elleng Dec 2012 #71
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #85
PaulaFarrell Dec 2012 #95
elleng Dec 2012 #68
NickB79 Dec 2012 #72
beac Dec 2012 #20
Jenoch Dec 2012 #48
beac Dec 2012 #70
NickB79 Dec 2012 #75
beac Dec 2012 #79
NickB79 Dec 2012 #82
beac Dec 2012 #94
Jenoch Dec 2012 #90
beac Dec 2012 #93
atreides1 Dec 2012 #25
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #31
NickB79 Dec 2012 #60
beac Dec 2012 #73
NickB79 Dec 2012 #77
beac Dec 2012 #81
NickB79 Dec 2012 #84
atreides1 Jan 2013 #101
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #28
RantinRavin Dec 2012 #40
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #42
RantinRavin Dec 2012 #44
beac Dec 2012 #76
JoeyT Dec 2012 #58
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #66
NickB79 Dec 2012 #69
hack89 Jan 2013 #102
bamacrat Jan 2013 #103
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #104
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #4
elleng Dec 2012 #6
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #100
elleng Jan 2013 #107
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #108
beac Dec 2012 #8
Panasonic Dec 2012 #9
The Green Manalishi Dec 2012 #12
Jenoch Dec 2012 #49
CanonRay Dec 2012 #13
SoapBox Dec 2012 #17
Evasporque Dec 2012 #21
NickB79 Dec 2012 #36
Jenoch Dec 2012 #50
qkvhj Dec 2012 #87
Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #23
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #24
graham4anything Dec 2012 #26
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #33
graham4anything Dec 2012 #62
blackspade Dec 2012 #30
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #35
NickB79 Dec 2012 #39
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #46
NickB79 Dec 2012 #56
NickB79 Dec 2012 #38
jonesgirl Dec 2012 #43
wordpix Dec 2012 #45
Deep13 Dec 2012 #47
patrice Dec 2012 #51
Jenoch Dec 2012 #52
PDJane Dec 2012 #53
billh58 Dec 2012 #54
Robb Dec 2012 #57
JoeyT Dec 2012 #61
NickB79 Dec 2012 #64
JoeyT Dec 2012 #74
NickB79 Dec 2012 #80
hack89 Dec 2012 #91
spankster1958 Jan 2013 #99
Jenoch Dec 2012 #92
mr_liberal Dec 2012 #78
onehandle Dec 2012 #83
Ter Dec 2012 #88
caseymoz Dec 2012 #89
jmowreader Dec 2012 #96
obama2terms Dec 2012 #97
marshall Dec 2012 #98
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #112
Katorama Jan 2013 #113

Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:23 PM

1. "Every Third World dictatorship in the country."

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Sounds sweaty. And self-referential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:23 PM

27. We've armed 99% of the "3rd World" Dictatorships.

 

And thanks to GB & Company, given practical demonstrations on torture techniques.

Our complicity in global misery cannot be tempered by false technical comparisons.

Fucking PERIOD!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:42 PM

29. I'm guessing that refers to Arizona (esp. Maricopa County)....

...and maybe Mississippi & Texas.....

(we need a smilie for :scratchhead.....)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:56 PM

32. Yeah, that's a pretty bizarre thing to say...

...but his point about auto military vs. semi-auto civilian is true enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:23 PM

2. Fact AR-15 is most popular gun, is reason enough to restrict them.

Masses of white guys lined up yesterday at a gun show here, to acquire another friggin lethal assault weapons. It's past time to help these lovers find a legitimate "hobby."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

5. and?

 

were these white guys using their guns against anybody? did any of them use force or violence to injure anybody or damage anyones private property?

if not, and everyone was acting peaceful and morally, what is the crime?

youre condeming peaceful action. you would make people into criminals because they possess an object, i would only make people into criminals because they used an object with agression and/or violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:34 PM

7. Nice try, troll...

 

"Agorism is a revolutionary libertarian political philosophy that advocates the goal of the bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges."

This is not "Agorist Underground"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

11. I'm condemning bigoted gun lovers who think more guns is a good response to Sandy Hook.

Enjoy your guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:23 PM

41. should it be legal for people to build and sell bombs and accessories, even if they've never blown

anything up? Just keep them around the house for playing with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:54 PM

55. By your reasoning....

why shouldn't I be able to peacefully purchase a fully outfitted Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Hey, I'm a law abiding, white guy, after all. The squad sized carrying capacity would be great for the family. And I'd be the envy of my gun club with the Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. Now, if I can only decide on which option package to choose. Should I go with the original TOW package, or maybe the Javelin system. But for air threats, you can't beat the Stinger package. Now if my kid accidentally fires off a few 7.62 rounds into the neighbors house, killing his wife? Oooops. Accident! It's not the weapon's fault. It's just one of those things. And for those assholes who cut me off in traffic? How about a TOW up the tailpipe! Road rage situation. Sorry about that! And if it gets stolen, I am in no way responsible for any of the mayhem caused by my lack of responsibility and good judgment.

Just a simple, modest proposal, from a peaceful, law abiding, white guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:58 PM

34. how do you figure?

How does popularity = need to restrict?

And it isn't the most popular gun, the Ruger 10/22 in .22 rimfire is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:13 PM

37. The fact gun lovers are attracted to them. They are produced and marketed to appeal to gun culture'

baser instincts. Go in just about any gun store and a few yahoos will be drooling over them. If only gun lovers were satisfied with a .22. But they aren't lethal enough for yahoos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:01 PM

65. Would it have mattered if they weren't white? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:20 PM

86. That's just it, where I live the folks arming up are bigots afraid minorities are going to get them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:30 PM

3. my problem with the awb and magazine ban

 

he is mostly right, people who use force or violence against others are always wrong and always criminal, not people who just own an object peacefully.

theres nothing unpeaceful or morally wrong with owning a 30rd clip or a semi auto ar-15. its actions that are wrong, not property.

i'm against nonviolent victimless crimes (which owning a 30rd mag would be if they were banned), expanding the police state, expanding the prison system, decreasing civil liberties, etc. so i'm conflicted.

peaceful actions are not criminal actions. there's nothing criminal about owning an ar-15 with a 30rd mag and shooting it at paper at the firing range, why make such an individual into a legal criminal? or demand that he surrender his property to the state though he has done no wrong with it, and use force and violence to coerce him to do so?

as a principled liberal, i'm conflicted on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:37 PM

10. You should be conflicted,

because there is NO legitimate reason to possess these items, NONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #10)


Response to agorist (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:51 PM

18. Owning such anti-social implements are not 'peaceful actions,'

as we can see from Lantz's mother's ownership.
Sorry if you disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:02 PM

22. No one is trying to take away all your guns!

But yes, we are trying to take away SOME kinds guns and accessories that make MASS KILLINGS possible.

Do you think your peaceful, nonviolent heart could have a TINY care for the safety of your fellow man and just give up blazing bullets target practice, or are you really THAT selfish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:00 PM

106. You must not read all the posts in these gun threads.

There are plenty of posters who wish to take away ALL guns. That is exactly what they say. They want to eliminate the 2nd amendment from the Constitution. But although I oppose that I applaud them for at least being honest about what they really want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:44 PM

110. Gee, you are tiresome.

"No one WITH ANY POWER TO DO SO is trying to take away all your guns!"

Though I think you know perfectly well what I meant.

And now you can go back to trolling nearly month-old posts to dig up something to respond to with righteous indignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #110)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:03 PM

111. Month old?

It was in the top half of my page one of LBN or else I never would have seen it. Righteous indignation? Hardly. As I said I applaud people who are open and honest about what they want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #111)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:42 AM

114. The OP was made on 12/23. My post was made on 12/23. You replied on January 21.

That fits my definition of "month old" quite well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:50 AM

105. The Supreme Court and

state legislatures around the country disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:13 PM

109. The Second Amendment right

is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

Heller v DC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:43 PM

14. So, your need to shoot multiple bullets a minute into a target trumps society's need to be safe from

mass shootings??

I would think ANY good peaceful citizen would be willing to give up rapid-fire target practice if it would save the life of even ONE other person, but what do I know??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:47 PM

16. thats a stupid argument

 

how does the right to own an object if its used peacefully trump somebody elses right to live? it doesn't.

both people have the right to breathe or own property so long as they dont use force or violence against another, no one has the right to do that regardless of what property or objects they own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:52 PM

19. These objects CANNOT be used peacefully,

and MUST not be confused with the right to breathe or own property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:46 PM

59. There are 300 million guns in the US

And approximately 4 billion rounds of ammunition are sold every year for those firearms. The very fact there's anyone left alive in the US with so many firearms in circulation pretty clearly illustrates they CAN and ARE used peacefully by the vast majority of responsible gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:59 PM

63. So 10,000 gun homicides a year is a reasonable number?

You think that number's something we can be proud of?

Are you kidding??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:07 PM

67. No, it's not reasonable at all

And it's also not reasonable to say "These objects CANNOT be used peacefully", as the previous poster I responded to stated, when 299,900,000 out of 300,000,000 guns ARE used peacefully every year. That was the intent of my post, not to state that I think gun violence is sufficiently low. It can and should be reduced through a variety of means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:16 PM

71. As I've said, 'these objects' refer to 'the awb and magazine ban' referred to by poster.

Again, these objects CANNOT be used peacefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:19 PM

85. Funny. None of mine have ever hurt anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:15 AM

95. yet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:13 PM

68. I was referring to poster's 'awb and magazine ban,'

not at all the same as ordinary rounds sold to responsible gun owners, of whom there are many, I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:16 PM

72. Well, there are tens of millions of AR-15's and AK-47 clones in the US

And literally hundreds of millions of high-capacity magazines for those guns. They've become so common, they have become the "new" ordinary in the shooting community.

And yes, they fire the exact same rounds as many ordinary hunting rifles. There is nothing special about the ammo those guns fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:57 PM

20. Right back at you buddy.

How STUPID do you have to be to think that allowing citizens to own weapons designed for mass killing won't eventually lead to MASS KILLINGS?

Everyone doesn't have to be allowed to own every- and anything they want just b/c they want it. We don't allow citizens to keep tigers in their back yards. We regulate prescription drugs. We have speed limits on the highway. Why? Because sometimes the greater good trumps one man's wants.

No one NEEDS a semi-automatic weapon so not owning one can NEVER be claimed as some kind of hardship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:29 PM

48. None of the stuff

you mentioned is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:15 PM

70. But a "well-regulated militia" is. How many gun owners belong to a

"well-regulated militia"??


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:19 PM

75. Apparently all of them

If you follow the US Legal Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #75)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:30 PM

79. "the unorganized militia" So, you are claiming "unorganized" is now a synonym for "well-regulated"?




(And pssssstttt.... your crap argument also leaves out all male gun owners over 44 and all women not in the NG. Double Fail.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:43 PM

82. I never said I agree with it, just that's what the law says

Though I would note that this conflict was brought up before the Supreme Court recently, and they found it not an issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.

Under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment. This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.

The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."


So basically, you are "well-regulated" if you allow yourself to be properly disciplined and trained if so called upon by the government in time of need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #82)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:03 AM

94. Why would you use an example to support your argument that you don't agree with?

In any case, your example didn't support your argument, period, whether or not you agreed with it.

Supreme Court's "one of many" excuse stinks to high heaven, especially in light of the Gun Owners of America prez's assertion that they need guns to be able to fight AGAINST the government. Not exactly the types to likely answer their nation's call, certainly not "disciplined" and a positive proof against the premise of the idiotic SC rulings.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:38 PM

90. Haven't you heard?

The USSC ruled on that issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:00 AM

93. Yes, and

someday, Scalia and his cronies will go down in history as the most corrupt, inept and unqualified clowns ever to disgrace the Supreme Court. In the meantime, if we need to write an amendment banning semi-automatics and high-capacity magazines in language so clear that even Nino and his band of merry idiots can understand it, so be it.

Enough is enough. Some weapons DO NOT belong in the hands of civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:20 PM

25. Really?

Explain how an AR-15 can be used "peacefully"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:54 PM

31. At a firing range?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:52 PM

60. Target practice, hunting, home defense

I've mostly used mine for target practice, just shooting paper targets at the range.

I've hunted some small game at my dad's farm with it, mostly woodchucks and jackrabbits that were tearing up the orchard and pastures. It is legal here in MN to hunt deer with, but I haven't used it for that yet. My uncle uses his AR-15 for shooting prairie dogs in South Dakota, and coyotes here in MN. Further south, I know that it's a very popular gun for shooting feral hogs and nutria.

While I keep mine locked up and unloaded at home, I know that many people feel the AR-15 is a very good gun for home defense if needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:19 PM

73. "Home defense" falls into your definition of "peaceful" use????

And all the other uses you mention DO NOT require semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. (One could also argue that hunting is not "peaceful" for the animals being killed, but that's a topic for another day.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #73)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:25 PM

77. Yes, it does

Not so peaceful for the aggressor, but certainly more peaceful for the defendant than being beaten, stabbed, or otherwise injured or killed.

And yes, you're right that these activities don't REQUIRE a semi-automatic rifle or one with high-capacity mags. It's just that they're so much better than bolt-action, pump or lever-action guns that they're now the most popular guns on the market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:33 PM

81. a) We're gonna have to disagree on "peaceful" and b) just because something is "popular"

doesn't make it right. People might have to give up their "popular" gun to save lives. Pardon me if I cannot gin up a single tear for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:46 PM

84. I'm cool with that

Have a good night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:48 AM

101. Peacefully is not the right description

You cannot use a gun the same way you use a spatula or your backyard! The correct wording is use legally!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agorist (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:27 PM

28. Why would anyone want a semi-automtic weapon?

I really think that's the heart of the issue. They are not used for hunting wildlife, and they are really not needed for self defense. So what darkness lies buried in the heart or head of someone who wants to own a gun that is used primarily to hunt people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:19 PM

40. Ineresting

I just looked at my Benelli shotgun I use for hunting, it's a semi-automatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RantinRavin (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:37 PM

42. And what do you hunt with a semi automatic?

Doesn't seem very sportsmanlike. Not to mention what it says about you skill. I have uncles and cousins who have hunted for decades...none feel they need a semi-automatic to bring down their prey. Several of them go bow hunting as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:47 PM

44. Duck, Dove, Deer, and Turkey

And it's easy to bring down deer with one shot when it's standing still feeding. Try doing it when the deer is moving at 30 mph in front of a pack of walker hounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RantinRavin (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:24 PM

76. So? With a ban, hunting might be a WEE bit harder

(seems fair, since the deer's speed is it's ONLY advantage in the "sport") and mass killings will be a whole LOT harder. Seems like a more than reasonable trade-off to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:44 PM

58. Virtually every hunter

uses a semi-automatic gun for hunting. I don't know a single one that doesn't. I'd guess the majority of guns are actually semi-auto.

I'm not worried about a semi-auto ban because I know it won't happen.

Edited to add: Hunters use a semi-auto so they can shoot again if they only wound an animal instead of killing it. I'm not a hunter, and I've never seen the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:07 PM

66. No, virtually every hunter does not....

while they are now a majority of hunters, many still prefer the accuracy of the bolt action rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:13 PM

69. You'd be surprised at how far semi-autos have come, accuracy-wise

With the advent of good ammo and quality barrels, a semi-auto can hang with the best bolt actions on the market today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #66)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:18 AM

102. AR-15s are extremely accurate

that is why they are the standard for competitive target shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:31 AM

103. The use of the word weapon is the wrong way to go at this.

Weapon implies all guns. Handguns are almost all semi-auto, even revolvers. I do completely understand the concern with semi-auto rifles, but the media and therefore a lot of people equate semi-auto weapons with assault rifles and they are not the same. Piers Morgan berated this guy over the fact that the Bushmaster can shoot three rounds a second, and said semi-auto rifles should be banned. They guy couldn't get a word in but Morgan was wrong a fully auto rifle can shoot three to five rounds a second and has no place in society for any reason. Semi-auto only shoots one time when you pull the trigger, full auto shoots continuously until you release the trigger. One a second maybe two for a really small caliber gun with little kick. Big difference.

I am fully against full-auto anything, high capacity magazines, free for all gun shows etc.. But I like to shoot guns for fun, I don't hunt, never really could bring myself to kill something even if I was going to eat it. I can go buy it and since I am from Alabama I have many friends who have deer meat on the regular if I get a hankering for deer. Not that I ever really do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bamacrat (Reply #103)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:26 AM

104. All guns are weapons...

Sorry, just look at any definition of the word weapon. I have no problem with the semi-automatic weapons...as long as it is registered, a background check was completed before it changed hands and someone must stop to reload after 7 shots. Who resurrcted this old post, I wonder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:30 PM

4. The NRA, Gun Apologists And DU Sympathizers Should Be Ashamed, Shamed And Shunned

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

6. Its CLEAR they represent gun MAKERS, not gun users,

silly even to discuss. NRA CAN'T discuss social issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:25 AM

100. Why is that clear?

 

Do you think that if you polled gun users that they would be in favor of the ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:03 PM

107. What ban, instruments of war? Yes, they would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #107)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:08 PM

108. I think you are living in a bubble

 

But there is no way to prove that except to see what happens.

Most gun owners would disagree that those are instruments of war, seeing as no army fields them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:35 PM

8. So, water still wet and the NRA still the nationwide marketing arm of weapons manufacturers.


Gun prostitutes. That's what the NRA's leaders are. Whoring out murder weapons for money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:36 PM

9. NRA just turned from responsible gun safety education to ME ME ME MINE MINE I'LL BLAST YOU AWAY!

 

NRA needs to have its tax exempt status revoked, and fined 200 million PER gun.

And liens will be filed all over NRA for payments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

12. Actually semi auto is deadlier

full auto is pretty much impossible to control unless you have the firearm mounted. The only thing full auto handheld has ever been used for is forcing the other side to keep their head own whilst mounting an assault or the like. "Spray and Pray" ends up putting rounds in the ceiling or up in trees.

There are reasons for large capacity magazines (loading up magazines in the cold or at an by the hour range is a bitch), and I don't thing it's really going to solve anything (only addressing the mental health issues is going to do anything long term, I think guns are a symptom not the problem; that doesn't mean you don't also address the symptom). But the NRA is in denial and as long as there isn't full scale confiscation there won't be the backlash they are counting on.

Just my .02 as a lifelong progressive Democrat and a gun owner; living in California I don't really have a dog in this fight as we can't get that sort of rifle here anyway, and I have no need for anything beyond my revolver- if I can't defend myself with 6 shots then it's time for Darwin to take me away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Green Manalishi (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:36 PM

49. The small arms automatic weapons

used by the military today, M16 and M4 fo example, are select fire. That means either semi-auto or full-auto, but only in three round bursts. The days of emptying a 30 round magazine with a single pull of the trigge have been gone for a while now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

13. Big f'ing surprise there.

If they had their way, we'd all own Stinger missles. You know, to hunt deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:49 PM

17. WELL of course you would oppose it!

...because you are ENABLERS of killers and murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

21. bump firing slider stock...essentially makes AR-15 fully automatic...

google it...NRA is full of shit. AR-15s are 100% capable of firing like an automatic by bump firing or replacing parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:04 PM

36. You don't need new laws to outlaw that stock

The ATF actually reviewed a pre-production model of that very stock, and sent the manufacturers a letter of approval!

They would have been well within the law to simply say "nope, you can't make it", and the manufacturer would have had no legal options to appeal against them.

But, the ATF let the ball drop on that one, badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:38 PM

50. Bump firing is incredbly inaccurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:27 PM

87. not by replacing parts

 

You are wrong. You can not just change out the sear and convert an AR15 to an M16. The pins that go through the sears are actually located in a different place on an AR lower than they are on am M16 lower.
Sorry but it does not work like that. You would have to fill in the holes on the AR lower, re drill the slightly bigger holes in a different location, toss out all the AR parts and start over again. All of the M16 parts are now controlled so you are going to have to find an other than legal source for them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:06 PM

23. Shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:08 PM

24. Well now that's a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:22 PM

26. Keene sounds like a racist. Oh, he is the NRA person...yup, he is a racist.

 

The NRA is a terror org, yet they are given time on Sunday's shows.

Why?

Would they allow AlQQueda on the show?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:57 PM

33. Just curious...

 

Where do you get that he's racist from the article?

I understand a lot people's posts calling him an enabler of violence, and I agree.

But racist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:56 PM

62. the part about the third world dictatorships

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:46 PM

30. Of course they will. They work for merchants of death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:59 PM

35. and of course new boy couldn't answer the question

why do you need a weapon for any other purpose than to kill. I'm sick of you gun nuts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:16 PM

39. Killing is a sufficient purpose, I would say

When you have to kill that which needs to be killed, such as someone threatening your family, or when you want to go hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:21 PM

46. If you need 30 round clips to kill you are a lousey shot, period. You don't need that kind of weapon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:23 PM

56. I'm perfectly fine with 10-rd magazines

It only takes me about 5-10 seconds to swap magazines in my rifle and chamber a new round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:14 PM

38. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would go far beyond AR-15's

That would ban many (maybe even most) popular guns used for hunting and target practice, as well as the vast majority of handguns purchased by people for self-defense.

While the majority of gun owners don't own assault rifles, the majority of them DO own semi-automatic firearms of some other variation. A semi-auto deer rifle. A semi-auto duck gun. A 9mm handgun. A .22 squirrel rifle. The last major piece of gun legislation passed in 1994 because most gun owners weren't effected by it, since most didn't own any of those types of weapons. The responsible, level-headed hunters, target shooters, and homeowners with handguns gave their approval because they knew it didn't impact them. Millions of them disagreed with the NRA on their stand then. Even with that splintered support, the NRA helped to get numerous Democrats voted out of office in the infamous 1994 election, which gave the Republicans control of the House and Senate.

I'd be very worried that something similar, or worse, would happen again if you give the NRA such a juicy recruiting and fundraising opportunity as banning all semi-automatic firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:40 PM

43. I'm surprised Rhiannon 12866 hasn't blocked this article yet...

She blocked my discussion about the article on CEO of the NRA. She stated it wasn't "breaking news" and that it should be in the general discussion forum. ??? Maybe it's her day off today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:09 PM

45. this from an org that shields criminals by opposing background checks, not surprised. PUKE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:21 PM

47. Semiautomatic is a far broader category than AR15s.

The quote makes it seem like they are synonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:45 PM

51. Dayum, I sure do want to know who AL was gaming with!! What if we're looking at an NRA conspiracy to

start Civil War II?

How far will assault weapons owners go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:48 PM

52. The Smith & Wesson rifle

that the shooter had in Aurora was not used to kill 12 victims. It jammed after just a few rounds. A pump shotgun was used for most of the deaths and injuries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:53 PM

53. Splitting hairs over the type of guns they REALLY are,

And what kind of magazines should go with them, and how they fire and why it might be necessary, hypothetically, is useless. It's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether the electorate is ignorant or stupid.........it's not going to get you anywhere useful.

The truth of it is, plain and simple, that the more guns you have, the likelier it is that some damn fool will get his hands on them, or a criminal, or that someone will lose their way and shoot their family or themselves.

The US hasn't had a well-regulated militia for 200 years, you won't be able to protect yourself against your government with whatever arsenal you've managed to collect, and there are few people fast enough and careful enough to use them to 'protect themselves.' It's bloody nonsense, and these circular arguments are just proving that there is no point in the NRA/GOP/ALEX lexicon that will allow a sane starting point for the discussion.

In fact, in the threads that I've seen on this board since the shooting in Sandy Hook, there isn't much sense about gun ownership at all. It's nonsense. All this discussion of rounds, caps, barrels, trigger rates....is avoiding the topic, which is that guns DO kill people, and there is no way of knowing who is going to snap and who isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:54 PM

54. Just made a rare visit to

the Gungeon, and they are spouting the same bullshit over there -- still. They believe that if they stay with technical jargon and false equivalency talking points they can convince everyone that gunz are good, and people are bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:23 PM

57. God, that's really the thing, isn't it?

They believe that if they stay with technical jargon and false equivalency talking points they can convince everyone that gunz are good, and people are bad.


That was said so well it bore repeating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:55 PM

61. Technical jargon is important,

up to a point. As long as everyone understands what's being talked about, it doesn't really matter. Everyone has a pretty good idea of what an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" is, no matter how much they insist they don't. Everyone knows what clip means in common usage. Everyone knows if someone says "machine gun" they're talking about a full auto gun. Those are the three most common ones I've seen people get snotty about.

It's when people use "machine gun" to refer to a semi-auto or something similar that communication starts to break down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:00 PM

64. Everyone knows what an assault rifle is?

Everyone has a pretty good idea of what an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" is,


Could you define what exactly an assault weapon is for us? Because politicians tried in 1994 and failed spectacularly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:19 PM

74. When someone says "assault rifle"

they typically mean a semi-automatic rifle that has a large (12+ round) magazine. There may be some outliers that use it to mean "Any gun", but for the most part a large magazine on a semi-auto rifle is what people mean. Generally assault weapon is used the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:32 PM

80. So, if a person only uses 10-rd magazines in an AR-15

Is it no longer an assault rifle? Or is it simply the availability of those magazines that then makes it one, even if the owner never buys any? Would it be possible to simply ban all high-capacity magazines instead and require a government-sponsored buyback to take them out of circulation? I'd actually be fine with that; I don't need more than 10 rounds anyway in anything I own.

At least your definition makes more sense than the 1994 AWB or the call by many to ban all semi-automatic weapons, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:44 PM

91. Legally the gun used at Sandy Hook was not an assault rifle

CT has an AWB - that rifle was legal.

Do you see how it is not as clear as one would think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:59 AM

99. gun culture

what is definition of "gun culture"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:53 PM

92. Any reference to a semi-auto rifle

as an assault rifle is inaccurate. By definition, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire (this includes three round bursts). Using the correct terminology is important. How can a law be written without correct terms? The term 'assault weapon' is political term, not a term previously used in the firearms industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:46 PM

83. It's not up to the NRA anymore.

Like the Klan, their time has passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:32 PM

88. Well duh, they should, they're a pro-gun group

 

Kinda like Planned Parenthood saying they'll oppose an abortion ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:38 PM

89. No wonder he was absent for 7 days.


He was water-boarding his conscience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:27 AM

96. Then how about this?

The cyclic rate of fire of an M-16 rifle - how fast it shoots if you were to put it on AUTO (assuming you have an M-16A1 lower and not an A2 which only does three-round bursts - is 600 to 750 rounds per minute. At the very slowest rate, you will put ten rounds downrange every second.

Here is my challenge: Let you, Mr. NRA president, and I go to a gun store and purchase, with the NRA's money, ten AR-15 rifles, twenty magazines and three thousand rounds of commercial ammo. We will then get 100 non-NRA members who have never handled an AR-15 before. They will be given instruction in loading and ejecting a magazine. They'll practice this skill. Then they will be given a Test: a rifle with the bolt locked to the rear and a full magazine will be placed on the table in front of them. When a whistle blows, they are to pick up the rifle, load it and fire all 30 rounds as fast as they can. The exercise ends when the mag is ejected and the rifle is back on the table.

If 100 non-shooters can drain a 30-round mag in 15 seconds or less, a bill banning civilian ownership of any weapon with a semiautomatic action and a detachable magazine will be entered. Its working title will be Wayne's Law.

The NRA will never go for it because anyone with a working trigger finger could do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:40 AM

97. I hope they keep talking

The more the NRA speaks the more annoyed people seem to get. Let them keep on talking so everyone can see how crazy they are!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:26 PM

98. Then why not send them all to third world countries?

If we'd equip Mexican thugs with these instead of what we sent, there would be far less bloodshed south of the border. And peace at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:13 PM

112. NRA: We will oppose logical reasoning, common sense, and any semblance of morality

That's the motto of those ignorant fuckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:48 AM

113. What a bunch of complete fuckwits.

 

Unbelievable stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread