Agree or Disagree?

[Common Sense Party]

The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don't give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses. That's bullshit because troops who carry the M-4/M-16 weapon system for combat ops outside the wire rarely utilize the select fire function when in contact with enemy combatants. The use of select fire probably isn't even 1% in combat. So in essence, the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is the same as the M-4/M-16. These do not need to be purchased as easily as walking to your local Walmart or striking the enter key on your keyboard to "add to cart". All the firearms utilized in my activities are registered to me and were legally purchased at gun stores and private party transfers. All concealable weapons (pistols) were also legally register in my name at police stations or FFL's. Unfortunately, are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times? I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR's, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I'm not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID. Shame on you, Lock n Load. NFA and ATF need new laws and policies that do not allow loopholes such as this. In the end, I hope that you will realize that the small arms I utilize should not be accessed with the ease that I obtained them. Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. "Gun control is no longer debatable, it's not a conversation, its a moral mandate."

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family. That has become cliche' and meaningless. Its time for action. Let this be your legacy that you bestow to America. Do not be swayed by obstacles, antagaonist, and naysayers. Remember the innocent children at Austin, Kent, Stockton, Fullerton, San Diego, Iowa City, Jonesboro, Columbine, Nickel Mines, Blacksburg, Springfield, Red Lake, Chardon, Aurora, and Newtown. Make sure this never happens again!!!

In my cache you will find several small arms. In the cache, Bushmaster firearms, Remington precision rifles, and AAC Suppressors (silencers). All of these small arms are manufactured by Cerberus/Freedom Group. The same company responsible for the Portland mall shooting, Webster , NY, and Sandy Hook massacre.

http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php

Crazy? Hypocrite? Or 100% correct?

[rdharma]

1. Can you explain to me what this line means?

"All of these small arms are manufactured by Cerberus/Freedom Group. The same company responsible for the Portland mall shooting, Webster , NY, and Sandy Hook massacre.

[gejohnston]

3. Bushmaster, among others,

is owned by Freedom Group. Some of the gun manufacturers were independent and old reputable companies before being sucked up by Freedom Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Group

[rdharma]

4. Oh , yes! My crazy 1%er uncle sent me a chain e-mail on them!

Claimed they were controlled by George Soros!

[gejohnston]

5. AFAIK, Soros never owned stock in it

or at least not enough to control anything, but there was an op ed that suggests what your uncle thought. I liked Marlin lever actions more than Winchester, although I heard their quality slipped after being bought you FG. Like Spin, I'm pretty old school. I would take a good lever action over an AR., But, that's me.
The rumor you uncle probably heard was based on Marlin, after being bought by Remington, moved their manufacturing from CT to New York. The idea was Soros was buying gun companies and doing the Mitt for political purposes. Since Marlin specialixed in "fudd and cowboy guns" I would think Marlin would the the last one he would do it to.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/opinion/macintosh-gun-firm-takeover

[rdharma]

7. The rumor you uncle probably heard was based on Marlin........

Yup! That was EXACTLY the what his chain e-mail BS was based on!

He also sent me a bizarre chain e-male rant claiming that the Sandy Hook murderer did not use an AR-15.

NUTZ!

[gejohnston]

8. AR IIRC, is a trademark name for Colt only,

while the one used was a Bushmaster. Most people use it as the generic term for that Eugene Stoner design. Technically true, like Kleenex vs nose tissue, but not to the degree that is relevant or anyone gives a shit. The first reports were that pistols were used and then the next cut is a shotgun being removed from the trunk. Given the quality of reporting, even on non gun parts, early one it is an easy mistake to make. It is also an easy one for someone like Alex Jones to make a buck off of.

The latest info, according to the corner, the murder weapon was a Bushmaster XM-15 modified to comply with CT's "assault weapons" ban. Until I see something different from a news source that isn't full of charlitains who prey on the weak minded, I'll go with it.

I'm guessing your uncle is an Alex Jones and Art Bell fan?

[rdharma]

11. AR-15 was the murder weapon at the Sandy Hook Massacre!

Main murder weapon in Sandy Hook was an AR-15 design (Bushmaster manufactured).

Suicide weapon was an unknown model Glock in .40 S&W or a SIG (unknown model) in 9mm.

Shotgun found in trunk appeared to me to be a Saiga-12K (Izhmash Сайга-12).

Don't give me that "it wasn't an AR-15" that was used at Sandy Hook to murder those children BS! It Was!

[gejohnston]

18. I didn't say it wasn't

you obviously did not read close enough.

[rdharma]

25. I didn't say it wasn't......

Well, then..... WHY were you nitpicking about the manufacturer of the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook masacre?

[gejohnston]

26. you meant model number and trademarks

precision is cool, and I watched an old Kleenex commercial.

[rdharma]

28. precision is cool......

And you obviously find "irrelevent nitpicking " cool as well.

[gejohnston]

30. after a few beers, I do

but that was a rare occasion. Not usually.

[rl6214]

2. Complete and total bullshit

[pipoman]

6. This is the kind of loony shit that will

almost certainly stall this process..

LOL...FFS..."moral mandate"..where have I heard that shit before..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Disagree

[Glaug-Eldare]

10. Disagree.

Nobody's ever really explained to me why modern rifles are so dangerous -- it seems that by calling them "assault weapons," it simply must be assumed that they have magical deadly properties that other low-powered semi-automatic rifles don't have.

[rdharma]

13. Nobody's ever really explained to me why modern rifles are so dangerous --

The murder weapon used at Sandy Hook Elementary to murder all those children was an AR-15 design (Bushmaster manufactured RIFLE).

Suicide weapon was an unknown model Glock in .40 S&W or a SIG (unknown model) in 9mm.

Shotgun found in trunk appeared to me to be a Saiga-12K (Izhmash Сайга-12).

And you demand an explanation WHY modern weapons are so dangerous?

Ask ME, dude! I've seen it all!

[Glaug-Eldare]

15. I note the distinct lack of an explanation.

At least, one that differentiates modern rifles from traditional rifles in any qualitative way. Outrage and fuzzy generalities do not substitute for facts and law when civil rights are on the line.

[rdharma]

27. Outrage and fuzzy generalities do not substitute for facts.......

Fuzzy generalities? You're just trying to be childishly obtuse.

Lanza and the Colorado "Batman" were/are nuts...... but they were intelligent enough to know the killing tool that was better designed for their murderous intent.

[Glaug-Eldare]

29. How so?

"Those guys used them" is not even a beginning. You obviously cannot name a single reason that these modern rifles are supposedly deadlier than their traditional counterparts, so you rely on the assumption that mass shooters selected these guns for some mythical killing advantage.

Compared to a semi-automatic hunting rifle, of which there are many:

The rates of fire are identical.
The cartridges are weaker in the "assault weapon."
Similar optics can be used on either.
Large magazines can be used in either.

[rdharma]

37. ...some mythical killing advantage

Glaug-Eldare, you are either not familiar with these types of weapons or you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Glaug-Eldare]

39. Still no answer,

and I expect none. They're being singled out because they have a frightening appearance to the uninformed.

[rdharma]

40. They're being singled out because they have a frightening appearance

Nothing to do with the "appearance". (Nice red herring).

Oh, and still no answer what century old weapon design you think can compare with the AR-15!

[Glaug-Eldare]

44. I decline to answer that question,

because I never made that assertion, and it's simply a ploy to avoid answering mine. You have no facts on your side.

[rdharma]

47. You have no facts on your side.

Riiiiiiight! Only saying what I said because they look scary, eh?

And then you demand that I explain why a weapon capable of launching projectiles at over 3,000 ft. per second with a rate of fire of over 100 rounds per minute is dangerous.

Those are just a couple of reasons that this is the weapon of choice for the schoolyard and theater shooting enthusiast.

I'm not even calling for their banning (I've got 3 of them). I'm calling for sensible regulations to make it more difficult for criminals and crazies to get their hands on these weapons.

Does that make sense?

[Glaug-Eldare]

49. That's five replies without an answer.

But I'm sure you have a very good one right around the corner!

[iiibbb]

48. Thompson submachine gun

Invented 1917

pistol grip

detachable magazine... 30 rounds

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun#section_1

Thompson Auto Rifle - 90 yrs old

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_Autorifle

Semi-auto

Detachable magazine

The SKS -- precursor to the AK47 69 years old.

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


Stg44 - 70 years old

The first "modern" assault rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44


The M1-Carbine - 72 years old

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

Arguably the original "assault rifle" is the M1 carbine, which combined detachable magazine, pistol grip, folding stock, carbine form, with an intermediate round. Because the 30 carbine round is so underpowered, people might disagree, but this really embraced all of teh virtues of the assault rifle.



Ultimately, all of the elements used in the modern AR-15 were there just under 100 years ago... certainly rounding off to a century is not a great leap. The actual modern assault rifle is 75 years old... but hardly a recent invention.

[rdharma]

51. I think I'll go out and buy a fully auto Thompson!

Should be no paperwork required for that, eh?

Or a selective-fire Stg44....... should be no paperwork required for that, eh?

And comparing any of those others with an AR-15? Oh, brother!

Keep those red herrings a-coming. I rather enjoy them.

[iiibbb]

52. The technology existed

You're saying the fact the AR-15 is different because it is semi auto?

It is mechanically neutered, but, technology is technology

Did you see that new fangled horse less carriage they just invented the Mustang V8

[rdharma]

53. Nice straw man!

"You're saying the the fact the AR-15 is different because it is semi-auto?"

You know I'm not saying that. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

And please cease with your blatant "reductio ad absurdum".

That's a slippery slope that will soon have you comparing the killing efficiency of a hammer with that of an AR.

[iiibbb]

54. You seem to have a one post memory

Review your own conversation...

[rdharma]

55. Review your own conversation...

As you think you remembered and interpreted it?

Keep diggin' and keep trying to misrepresent what I said. I find it amusing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Those "modern weapons" are no different from those a century ago

So tell us, why now is there such a call for banning. What has changed?

I am asking you as a dud who claims to have seen it all.

[rdharma]

38. So tell us, why now is there such a call for banning.

I never called for banning these weapons.

I'm calling for regulations to make it more difficult for these weapons to get into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

As for the claim that, "Those modern weapons are no different from those a century ago." That's rubbish and you know it!

Name me one century old firearm design (that could be legally owned today) that is a more efficient mass killing machine than an AR-15.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Detachable magazine semiautomatic weapons have been around since the turn of the century

BAR (M1918) and the Thompson submachine gun (1919) were gangster favorites in the 20s. They were not the first. The 1911 Colt is called that for a reason.

My point is that similar weapons have been out there for many years without the current levels of concern. What has changed?

[Eleanors38]

45. The Remington Model 8 (the first semi-auto rifle capable

Of firing large high-power rounds) was made in 1906. It was modified by the early 30s to accept 15-round mags, detachable and suspiciously shaped like a banana. This modification was for police work (used on Bonnie & Clyde) because the Model 8 was designed for hunting.

I own a 10-shot auto-loader, made in 1905.

[rdharma]

50. I'm familiar with the Remington Model 8

I've even fired one in .35 Rem. (same caliber used to kill Bonnie and Clyde).

I hope you're not saying these old rifles are capable of putting out the mass accurate firepower of an AR-15. Because that would just be plain ridiculous!

[Eleanors38]

58. Only to show that this century-plus old firearm shows the technology...

and style of use is not new, most esp. the magazine modifications. Soon after this came the Garand M1, and the M1 carbine. The rest is rather linear improvement. Frankly, civilian armament technology has reached a general stasis. The main difference in my lifetime is Americans are now choosing the semi-auto carbine as the home defense/shooting sports/hunting weapon of choice. This "shedding of the armament skin" is not new, however, except in this regard: Americans are choosing a technology that is old, but not as old as revolvers, lever-actions, and scatterguns. The ceiling has been reached.

[Ashgrey77]

56. Just 5 years shy of it's 100th birthday is the Browning BAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle

And just to up the anti, here's another one that is just 4 years shy of being a century old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Browning_machine_gun

But wait there's more. This one although rather large is well over 100 years old.

The Maxim gun was the first self-powered machine gun, invented by the American-born[1] British inventor Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim in 1884. It has been called "the weapon most associated with [British] imperial conquest".[2]

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


Considering all those guns were manufactured before 1986 they could easily be owned today if you have the money. And they are leaps and bounds more deadly than the "modern" civilian legal semi auto rifles we have today.

[rdharma]

57. Yup! Can you buy a BAR legally from a private party.........

.... without any paperwork?

No?!!!!!!

Well, lucky for you ....... schoolyard shooting enthusiasts can still buy an AR-15 in a private person-to-person transaction with no paperwork!

[Ashgrey77]

59. If it's semi auto no paperwork is required.

But you knew that right. A AR15 is just a semi automatic rifle just like a semi auto BAR no special paperwork required for a private sale, same with a semi auto Browning 1917 or 1919.

[rdharma]

63. Then it's NOT a BAR.......

It's a BSAR!

[iiibbb]

60. yes

http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/Firearms/OOWExclusiveFirearms/1918A3_SLR.rif

all have to do is find someone in my state willing to sell me theirs

[rdharma]

61. Not a real BAR!

What's the "A" in BAR stand for? Is that a BSAR?!!!!!

Keep diggin'! It's hilarious!

[iiibbb]

62. semi auto version of century old tech

[rdharma]

64. Keep Diggin'!

[iiibbb]

65. Hard to converse with someone who can't remember the claims

they've made, posts they've made, or won't pick up on other points.

It is very easy to win debates you've apparently so narrowly defined and poorly framed.

Whatever

[rdharma]

66. BTW - This "BS-AR" M1918-A3

Was the original M1918 BAR a closed bolt design?!!!

Keep diggin'!

[iiibbb]

12. Why do the police need these things?

The are in the same environment I am in.

[rdharma]

14. Why do the police need these things?

Because they're going against criminals and nutters with these easily accessed weapons.........

Herp derp!

[iiibbb]

16. they really need full auto?

It is always impressive to me how pro-authoritarian "progressives" can be.

If you can say I don't "need" X to face a criminal ; why do the police need it. And your answer is frequency? They need full auto so they can go faster or something?

Talk about herp derpy...

[rdharma]

22. Which PDs have full autos?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Any that get surplus rifles and many are buying them new

[rdharma]

33. I know of some SWAT entry teams who have MP-5s or M4s.....

.......... but I don't know of any PD that authorzes the average patroman/beat cop to carry a fully auto weapon on duty.

We are speaking of PDs in the US aren't we?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. Yes we are

The US Army was transferring M-16 variants to PDs around the US. Those were selective fire. I have seen nothing to indicate the program has ended. Also police departments are authorized to purchase selective fire weapons.

Best way to know for sure is to check with the local cop shop. I have had several members of different jurisdictions here in CA say they have selective fire rifles now. Dept policy most likely precludes use of automatic fire unless things have gotten like the NoHo event.

[rdharma]

35. The US Army was transferring M-16 variants to PDs around the US.

I STAND CORRECTED. Though not a lot of PDs do this...... it IS done.

I think you'll find this mostly in smaller PDs on a tight budget trying to furnish their officers with a patrol rifles for less money. It's far less expensive to buy a surplus fully auto M-16 from the government than purchase a semi-auto AR-15.

[iiibbb]

17. Same logic as "only prostitutes need condoms"

because they're the ones that need to worry about STDs every day

[rdharma]

23. Nice reductio ad absurdum.......

....... and strawman argument rolled into one, iiibbb

[kudzu22]

20. All of the cops chasing Dorner have 30-round magazines

How many rounds do they need to kill one guy? If DiFi is correct and the 30 round semi-autos are only good for slaughtering as many people as possible, then why do the cops have them? Are they planning to kill Dorner and the next 29 people they see?

Of course not. They have 30 rounds because DiFi is wrong. 30 rounds are useful for self-defense, as evidenced by all the cops carrying them for self-defense.

So, I vote "disagree".

[rdharma]

24. Why are you asking ME that?

Shouldn't you be asking DiFi? Because I never made any such comment about 30 round mags. Herp derb!

[oneshooter]

43. By their actions so far they will kill, or wound, 29 before they catch him.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. disagree and doesn't his actions prove contradictory to his own manifesto?

[slackmaster]

21. Dorner's screed reads like the ranting of a genuine paranoid schizophrenic.

[Common Sense Party]

36. What happened to the 50% or so of the Gungeon posters who are virulently anti-gun?

The OP excerpt could have been lifted, almost verbatim, from some threads here in the Gun Kontrol forum.

I just don't see those posters agreeing with Dorner here.

Why is that?

[slackmaster]

41. I'm not sure, but after all the years I've been on DU I'm beginning to suspect that some of them...

...might by hypocrites.

[Eleanors38]

46. And D. Klebold & his Dad thought CCW should be opposed.

the decision-making process of killers is a poor place to defend public-policy initiatives. Maybe Klebold didn't like the competition/resistance? Maybe this former cop slaughter boy thinks along the same lines?

Maybe he can't control himself, and wants sympathy.