HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "More powerful,"...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:59 PM

"More powerful," "less powerful," assault, non-assault - can all of you PLEASE take a breath?

Some of you already know this, but I've kept fairly quiet about it because I'm actually rather low-key 90% of the time, so here goes:

I own a high-powered military rifle. A member of the Kalashnikov family, to be a bit more specific. It has a pistol grip, a telescoping stock, and a muzzle brake. It accepts 30-round magazines and is capable of spitting out a bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 880 meters per second. By comparison, sound travels through air at an average speed of 343 meters per second.

It's not full-auto, partially because even in those rare instances where I could afford it, I had more pressing matters at hand than obtaining an NFA tax stamp - besides, semi-auto is sufficient for my needs. But my rifle, although it can be used for harmless plinking or for mid-duty ranch work or hunting small to mid-size game, is specifically designed for combat.

And I am perfectly comfortable with all of the statements I have just made. The Republic endures.

To my fellow DUers who support gun control: We will probably never agree, and we'll likely butt heads a few times. Just keep in mind that my wife was in your camp; why she never joined the Brady Campaign is beyond me. But the two of us were able to have civilized and rational discussions about gun ownership and gun laws. She was adamant that she didn't want any working firearms at home. I did everything I could to honor her wishes. And I miss her every single day.

To my fellow DUers who own military-grade firearms: If you're going to discuss them in public, there's no need to be coy about their abilities. Don't be overbearing, either; just be matter-of-fact and relaxed about it. We know that some gun-control activists try to define the terms of the debate to put us on the defensive, but that doesn't mean we should be defensive or evasive about the firearms we keep.

That's all I've got. No long screeds or chest-thumping or righteous indignation. I've said my peace.

47 replies, 4745 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 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply "More powerful," "less powerful," assault, non-assault - can all of you PLEASE take a breath? (Original post)
derby378 Apr 2012 OP
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #1
derby378 Apr 2012 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #13
Clames Apr 2012 #3
Clames Apr 2012 #4
oneshooter Apr 2012 #5
BiggJawn Apr 2012 #30
guitar man Apr 2012 #31
ileus Apr 2012 #6
OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #7
ileus Apr 2012 #8
belcffub Apr 2012 #9
Straw Man Apr 2012 #12
belcffub Apr 2012 #28
SeattleVet Apr 2012 #10
oneshooter Apr 2012 #11
guitar man Apr 2012 #32
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #14
ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #15
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #16
ObamaFTW2012 Apr 2012 #22
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #23
derby378 Apr 2012 #24
ObamaFTW2012 Apr 2012 #38
iverglas Apr 2012 #44
rl6214 Apr 2012 #45
iverglas Apr 2012 #46
rl6214 Apr 2012 #47
ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #25
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #26
Straw Man Apr 2012 #37
EX500rider Apr 2012 #42
ellisonz Apr 2012 #17
derby378 Apr 2012 #19
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #20
ObamaFTW2012 Apr 2012 #39
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #40
ObamaFTW2012 Apr 2012 #41
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #43
ellisonz Apr 2012 #18
derby378 Apr 2012 #21
Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #27
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #29
derby378 Apr 2012 #35
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #36
guitar man Apr 2012 #33
derby378 Apr 2012 #34

Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:21 PM

1. Just tell me...

...your AK has a thing that goes up.


Have a good evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:27 PM

2. Just the windage sight, I'm afraid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

13. maybe you could go...

...to a gun show and buy a kit... you know one that adds the thing that goes up and converts it .50 cal full auto so you can shoot down airplanes, choppers and alien spacecraft.

...You know, them aliens that's tryin' to kidnap wholesome young girls for sex...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:39 PM

3. He has the shoulder thing...

 

...that goes out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:40 PM

4. Well...

 

I own a high-powered military rifle.



...really it's merely intermediate-powered...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:00 PM

5. I own several high powered military rifles.

They date from the early 1940's, they all work and I shoot them on a regular basis.

Yes, I am talking about M1 Garands, the design of a Canadian gentleman named John Cantius Garand who worked for the US Government to design these fine rifles. It took him over 20 years to design and perfect this rifle.

http://www.m1-garand.com/JohnGarand.htm

Keep your mouse guns, this is a real BATTLE RIFLE!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:17 PM

30. I have 3

2 M91/30 Mosin Nagants (2800 FPS) 7.62X54R and one M1 Garand in .30-06.

Battle rifles! Love 'em!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:49 PM

31. I love my Garand

Dont shoot it much anymore since dad sold the farm, I'm looking for another good wide open space to shoot it. Nothing like printing nice groups at 500 yd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:10 PM

6. You're one of those baser, gunner toter impolite types aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:12 PM

7. Aren't AK's intermediate power?

 

Unless you're talking about an RPK or SVD... any 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 AK rifle would be considered intermediate power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:18 PM

8. Maybe it's a saiga 308

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:35 PM

9. really everything over a 22 is considered high power

check the high power gun matches out for instance... it is a pretty broad category

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to belcffub (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 10:49 PM

12. I have a problem with that.

If every centerfire rifle caliber is considered "high power," then the term is meaningless, IMO. I know it's used that way in competition, but that's because these events are military in origin and began when the military caliber was .30-06. The name has stuck even though the military caliber is now .223.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 12:57 PM

28. I agree...

there is a huge difference between my 5.56 and my 300 weatherby... but both are considered "high power"... not really even in the same class...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 10:16 PM

10. 2 'high-powered' military rifles.

One is a 'sporterized' 1903 Springfield (.30-06) that my father bought sometime in the early 60's. Shoots fine, but I might need to see about getting a new extractor for it, as it sometimes fails to pull the fired shell.

My other one is a large caliber, purely military killing machine - an 1871 Remington Rolling Block in .50-70 Government (New York Militia rifle). Ammunition is available, but the last time I checked a box of 20 rounds was going for right around $100. Looks like this one will spend most of its life as a wall-hanger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SeattleVet (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 10:43 PM

11. The Remmy and the 50/70 cartridge were both used by Buffalo hunters, back in the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SeattleVet (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 09:38 PM

32. I have a .45-70

Trapdoor Springfield , 1873. Haven't shot it in quite a while but it's a real blast to send that big ol slug a long way at a target

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 11:23 AM

14. I agree. I don't understand the attempt to squirm away from what these weapons are.

 

Weapons like the AK-47, and all their civilian variants, and the AR-15, and all their civilian variants, are very close copies of military infantry arms.

About the only difference is the fact that they don't fire in full-auto mode.

I don't like all the semantic wrangling over what is and what isn't an "assault rifle". That fight has been lost. To the public, if it looks like and AK-47 or an M-16, then it's an assault rifle.

And that's OK with me.

We should not be making apologies or excuses for these weapons. They are precisely the type of military-grade infantry small arm the second amendment is all about.

When you allow the debate to be formed in terms of what is and isn't an assault weapon, you miss the entire point that the second amendment is about assault weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:32 PM

15. Just to prove your point, you are confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon".

"Assault rifle" has a specific definition that includes being able to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull.

Calling an AR-15 an "assault rifle" would be just as wrong as calling it a "battle rifle", which also has a specific definition. I will forever continue to educate the ignorant when the need comes along.

"Assault weapon" has no specific definition, and in the real world the artificial classification neither useful nor used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:46 PM

16. That definition is lost.

 

"Assault rifle" has a specific definition that includes being able to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull.

This argument sounds to me just like those people who say the Confederate battle flag is not about racism.

Sorry, the symbol has been co-opted.

As far as the public is concerned, if it looks like an AK-47 or an M-16, it's an assault rifle, and I agree with them.

It may be a semi-automatic assault rifle, but it's still an assault rifle.

If you prefer, we can all refer to them as "semi-automatic assault rifles" but you're wasting your time.

Don't waste time trying to sugar-coat the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 06:26 PM

22. Interesting

 

You believe that if enough people are ignorant of proper terminology, their improper definitions somehow become legitimate. This is the same sort of thinking that has saddled America with the linguistic cancer commonly referred to as "Ebonics".

That's not unlike calling a Camaro a "Corvette", since both are RWD V8 GM cars. Um, yeah, you could say that, I suppose, but it's just as dumb as "axing" me about my AR15 "assault rifle".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 07:32 PM

23. That's right.

 

You believe that if enough people are ignorant of proper terminology, their improper definitions somehow become legitimate.

That's right. For example, the word "decimate" means to kill 1 in 10 people. But the word is commonly used now to simply mean "massive destruction".

In England, if you talk about a fag, you are talking about a cigarette. If you talk about a fanny, you are talking about a vagina.

Words do change meanings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #23)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 08:49 PM

24. So don't use or recognize the term "assault weapon" at all

Remember what George Lakoff said about thinking of an elephant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:44 PM

38. Now you're bringing slang into the discussion.

 

The use of proper terminology in a discussion of a technical nature is necessary if the discussion is to be meaningful. Slang is slang, and while it might be acceptable for casual discussion, it has no place in formal discussion. You can line up as many ignorant folks as you like and get them to agree that your improper use of a particular technical term (like "assault rifle") is OK in their opinion, but all you'll have is a group of people who are simply wrong. I can say stupid things like, "Their over they're", "Your a jerk", "Where's you're car?", etc., and I bet I can find 100 fools who can't find anything wrong with those statements, but in the end I'd be just as wrong as you are about the definition of the word "assault rifle".

Now, if you address me as "brother" when doing so, or refer to me as your "dog", I understand that both are slang terms, and that you don't really believe we are siblings nor that I am a canine. I probably won't respond well to either, as I don't hang out with people who speak like that, but I will understand it's just slang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 02:34 PM

44. enjoy that pepperoni!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 12:22 AM

45. Well aren't you special

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 10:07 AM

46. I like to think so!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 02:03 PM

47. Only in your own mind

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 11:43 PM

25. Why not educate the masses?

Words have meanings, why tolerate them being used wrongly when you know the difference?

Your AR-15 and AK clone are "semi-automatic carbines". To describe them as a "semi-auto assault rifles" is just silly since "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive terms.

I would never attempt to sugar-coat the second amendment as it needs no sugar coating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:59 AM

26. Why not tilt at windmills?

 

Like I said, it's like the "heritage not hate" thing concerning the Confederate battle flag.

The battle has been lost.

Moreover, these semi-automatic weapons are the closest thing to assault weapons that the public can generally own. If people want to call my semi-automatic AK-47 an assault rifle, I'm OK with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 19, 2012, 11:56 PM

37. Only if you let it be lost.

That definition is lost.
...

As far as the public is concerned, if it looks like an AK-47 or an M-16, it's an assault rifle, and I agree with them.

It may be a semi-automatic assault rifle, but it's still an assault rifle.

Except that from its very inception, the concept of an "assault rifle" is defined by full-auto fire. The assault rifle was meant to bridge the gap between pistol-caliber submachine guns and crew-served medium and heavy machine guns, in recognition of the fact that except for specialized sniper rifles, any personal infantry weapon that doesn't have full-auto capability is obsolete.

You can get a kit to make your 10/22 look like an MG42.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/ruger-10-22-mg-42-dress-up-kit.aspx?a=180441

That doesn't make it a machine gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:17 PM

42. OOOOHHHH!!!!!

I so want the 10/22/Mg42 make-over kit now!! lol
My 10/22 has the folding stock kit right now but that is so much cooler..
Just needs a bipod...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 03:03 PM

17. "I don't like all the semantic wrangling over what is and what isn't an "assault rifle". That fight

I was making that argument just the other day...doesn't really matter what you call it, because we all know what we're talking about here anyway. I was told by you:

The anti-gun crowd is well-known for using and abusing semantics to try and deceive people into supporting restrictions on things they do not understand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117230098#post98


Are you conceding that your argument there was absurd?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 03:11 PM

19. Actually, "we" don't...

Case in point: Sometime in 2009-2010, someone in the Washington state legislature tried to pass an "assault weapon" ban that would have designated pump-action shotguns as "assault weapons." I cannot think of any other state, including California or New Jersey, where this sort of legislation has been proposed.

This tends to support our contention that an "assault weapon" is whatever activists and sympathetic lawmakers say it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 03:17 PM

20. No, they are both examples of haggling over semantics.

 

I was making that argument just the other day...doesn't really matter what you call it, because we all know what we're talking about here anyway.

We are talking about military-grade arms appropriate for infantry use.

Semi-automatic variants of the AK-47 and AR-15 fit that bill.

Haggling over "assault rifle" or "semi-automatic assault rifle" is just semantic wrangling to me.

"The anti-gun crowd is well-known for using and abusing semantics to try and deceive people into supporting restrictions on things they do not understand. "

Are you conceding that your argument there was absurd?

No, and it wasn't even an argument, but a simple statement of fact, with a citation, which I will provide again:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

"Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

In this case the VPC wants to confuse the public about machine guns and hopes that people will think that semi-automatic variants of the AK-47 and AR-15, etc. etc. are fully automatic.

These are two different things. Joe and I are disagreeing as to whether or not civilian AK-47s and AR-15s are assault rifles or not.

The VPC is trying to make people think they are machine guns, knowing that they are not. This is using semantics for deception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:48 PM

39. "Military Grade" means something very specific

 

Unless an AR15 is built to the specs set forth in the Technical Data Package for either the M16 or M4 (or any variant thereof) written by the DoD, that rifle is not "military grade" by any means. It may look like a military rifle, but it isn't even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:11 PM

40. Tell me.

 

Tell me how my SAR-1 is technically different from a military-grade AK-47, with the exception of the fact that it is semi-automatic only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:33 PM

41. I don't know enough about the AK47 to answer that question

 

I know the AK requires a third pin to facilitate the operation of a full auto FCG, but other than that I really just don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 01:03 PM

43. It appears to me that they are otherwise identical.

 

With the exception of the FCG, it appears to be identical to me, which is why I refer to such weapons as "military grade".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 03:06 PM

18. What will happen to your gun in the long run?

How many hands will it pass through?

It's really not quite as simple as you would like to portray, a sort of rugged-individualist you leave me alone and I leave you alone. Nope. The problem is much more complex and doesn't exist in the sort of libertarian "I live in a bubble" dream as you would like to conceive. Your wife was right about the issue.

That said, I do my best to be civil when I am treated civilly. When I am not, I will defend myself with words, and not bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 04:15 PM

21. The plan is for the rifle to stay in the family

And I don't recall mentioning "rugged individualism" in the OP; this appears to be your interjection. Still, I do travel a lot along the back roads and forgotten corners of Texas where I can't count on the presence of cops, state troopers, or even cell phone reception. A little insurance policy isn't going to hurt - although you are right about civility being the first and optimum defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:20 AM

27. Given that a well-made firearm will last for centuries with proper care,

 

It's conceivable that some of my firearms have already gone through many hands, and will pass through many hands in the future.

Amusing to speculate about, but what's the significance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 06:47 PM

29. Please, that is NOT high powered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #29)

Thu Apr 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

35. It might not be 6.8 SPC, but 3x the speed of sound is nothing to sneeze at (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 19, 2012, 10:34 PM

36. It IS .30 cal, at least. I'll give it that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Apr 19, 2012, 01:06 AM

33. I understand what you're saying

About the fight being lost. I've tried to explain some things to people for years and have finally thrown up my hands , I give up.

Take this weapon for instance. Not what I'd call particularly high powered. Nice rifle for ranch work , medium range plinking, small to medium game etc etc. nice walnut stock... A real "regular" looking rifle to the uninitiated .



Now, you take that nice "regular" looking walnut stock off and dress it up in its Barbie doll clothes and you get this horrendous "high powered death dealer"



Now what I've found is, that when dealing with most people that want to rid the country of "assault weapons", is that there is no rational, civilized conversation to be had regarding the second rifle pictured.

While it is in reality the EXACT same weapon except for its appearance, there is often no way to convey that to someone who is screaming, running in circles and pissing down both legs with their hair on fire. They want it and everything that looks like it gone and no amount of logical discussion is going to convince them that it's no more powerful, no more accurate and no more deadly than what they see in the first picture.

So I just finally gave up. It's useless. Waste of time and breath ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guitar man (Reply #33)

Thu Apr 19, 2012, 08:44 PM

34. I haven't conceded a thing

Some other folks might have, but it's partially thanks to people like me that the term "assault weapon" isn't being thrown around as much as it used to. These things take time and patience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread