HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Average Americans don't n...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:09 AM

Average Americans don't need assault weapons

To all of you gun lovers, feel free to go buy your Glock, shotgun, hunting rifle, .22 pistol, .357 Magnum or any of the other guns at your disposal.

But you do not need an AK-47.

For some, it's too soon to discuss gun reform, a little more than one week after the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado. I disagree. Too many Americans are being killed by guns every day; this most recent heinous tragedy should not keep us from having a rational debate.

Let me be crystal clear: I do not own a gun, have no desire to get one and don't begrudge anyone for having one. Keeping a gun for safety? No problem. You're a hunter? Knock yourself out. I've fired a submachine gun once -- at the FBI Citizens Academy in Chicago -- and it did nothing for me, so please, carry on.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-29/opinion/opinion_martin-assault-weapons_1_gun-deaths-gun-culture-submachine-gun

77 replies, 9521 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 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply Average Americans don't need assault weapons (Original post)
SecularMotion Jul 2012 OP
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #1
NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #2
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #33
qb Jul 2012 #3
NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #5
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #10
lastlib Jul 2012 #55
gejohnston Jul 2012 #57
Missycim Jul 2012 #61
lastlib Aug 2012 #73
Glaug-Eldare Aug 2012 #74
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #66
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #67
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #75
hack89 Jul 2012 #7
DonP Jul 2012 #13
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #9
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #12
Dr_Scholl Jul 2012 #39
ileus Jul 2012 #43
Marinedem Jul 2012 #69
jeepnstein Jul 2012 #16
X_Digger Jul 2012 #18
lastlib Jul 2012 #56
ManiacJoe Jul 2012 #58
X_Digger Jul 2012 #59
virginia mountainman Jul 2012 #20
benEzra Jul 2012 #26
krispos42 Jul 2012 #46
Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #51
HALO141 Jul 2012 #52
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #63
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #65
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #4
jeepnstein Jul 2012 #15
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #21
HALO141 Jul 2012 #28
rrneck Jul 2012 #8
MrDiaz Jul 2012 #11
ileus Jul 2012 #14
benEzra Jul 2012 #17
ileus Jul 2012 #19
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #23
Pacafishmate Jul 2012 #44
krispos42 Jul 2012 #47
calmeco702 Jul 2012 #22
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #24
petronius Jul 2012 #25
SecularMotion Jul 2012 #35
sarisataka Jul 2012 #38
petronius Jul 2012 #40
calmeco702 Jul 2012 #45
SecularMotion Jul 2012 #48
gejohnston Jul 2012 #50
sarisataka Jul 2012 #53
Missycim Jul 2012 #62
Speaker Aug 2012 #77
gordianot Jul 2012 #27
rDigital Jul 2012 #29
slackmaster Jul 2012 #30
calmeco702 Jul 2012 #41
Glassunion Jul 2012 #31
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #32
lastlib Jul 2012 #34
PavePusher Jul 2012 #37
ileus Jul 2012 #42
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #49
virginia mountainman Jul 2012 #54
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #64
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #70
calmeco702 Jul 2012 #71
HALO141 Jul 2012 #72
guardian Jul 2012 #36
Pacafishmate Jul 2012 #60
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #68
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #76

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:17 AM

1. America does not have a Department of Needs.

I am sure that you have many things that you don't "need" but that you merely want. I don't have to justify my legal wants to anybody but my wife.

Further, more people are killed with hands and feet by being beaten and choked than are killed by all so-called assault weapons combined.

It so happens that I do want a Siaga .410 bore shotgun and when I have the money I will get one. Whether you think I need it is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:22 AM

2. The author claims to support the 2nd amendment...

yet blatantly ignores its purpose. You can have a gun for any reason, except the one the founders had in mind.

Maybe he should study up a bit and then reevaluate which amendments he supports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:35 AM

6. Arguing logic in the midst of the authors clearly emotional

 

rant is a futile exercise. It becomes quickly obvious in the article that he knows NOTHING about the guns he is advocating against. Gun grabbers should at least do themselves the favor of researching the subject, its hard to take them seriously while having to wade through so much incorrect information just to get to their point. (on a side note...when you point out to them that they will be more effective if they drop the bs and try substantive, factual arguments...well, you're just a mean 'ol NRA funded gun nut.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:44 PM

33. In high school...

a history teacher taught me that it is impossible/futile to support or oppose what you don't understand. Clearly many proponents of control understand neither the 2A nor the basic RKBA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:22 AM

3. I can't imagine a justification for any individual - average or not - owning assault weapons.

These are weapons for the military and SWAT teams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:27 AM

5. The military.

The individual American citizen was supposed to be America's version of a military. The founders feared the consequences of creating a standing army, and it seems they were very prescient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:41 AM

10. Exactly. If...just if...the primary reason for the 2A

 

is as a check against tyranny, I can't imagine ever needing guns other than ones the potential tyrants say I need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxenderwigginxx (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:52 PM

55. The real check against tyranny is your right to vote...

...and the intelligence to use it wisely. Have you taken a look at the capacity of the US military lately? Tell me really how your guns would stop that kind of firepower. If you want to prevent tyranny, don't vote it into office. your gun ain't gonna stop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 07:07 PM

57. remember 2000?

just thought I would mention it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 08:20 PM

61. I guess the shellacking

 

Insurgents in Iraq did on our Military couldn't be replicated again if a tyranny ever came about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #61)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 09:40 AM

73. if you've got IED's, the ATF's coming to your house for a "little talk wid ya......."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #73)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 10:21 AM

74. The "I" stands for "Improvised"

As in, they were created out of whatever materials are close at hand. In many cases, the raw materials (explosives) used are actually provided by enemy duds. They never sold IEDs at Iraqi Wal-Marts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:19 PM

66. Some thoughts.

 

The real check against tyranny is your right to vote and the intelligence to use it wisely.

Yes, but clearly the founders wanted a fail-safe in the Constitution in case the government stopped being responsive to the will of the people.

Over the course of the last decade, would you say that the government has become more responsive or less responsive to the will of the majority of Americans? I suggest that it is the latter.

Have you taken a look at the capacity of the US military lately? Tell me really how your guns would stop that kind of firepower. If you want to prevent tyranny, don't vote it into office. your gun ain't gonna stop it.

I'll just point out here that the United States has lost or quit every military engagement it has undertaken in the last 65 years, and that was with conflicts that did not directly erode its economic and tax base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:25 PM

67. Do you really think the US military would remain intact under a REAL insurgency?

I certainly don't...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #55)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 10:22 AM

75. Most despots have some sort of voting system

 

Kim Jong Il was elected.

No it's true, there was an election and everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:35 AM

7. They are the standard rifle for competitive target shooting

that is why I own four of them - my entire family shoots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:44 AM

13. National Matches at Camp Perry this week

Several hundred people, from 16 to 80, are shooting these so called "assault weapons" for the national championships.

The funny part is many bought them directly from the Civilian Marksmanship Program established by Congress. In fact I had them ship three "weapons of war" directly to my office, along with a thousand rounds of 30.06 military surplus ammo.

My favorite was when one of the guys I work with came into my office and asked what was in the ammo cans sitting on the window ledge the day the big white truck brought them. When I told him they had ammo in them, he just laughed so I told them to open one. "Holy crap, they actually have ammo in these ammo cans!"

But, as usual, I'm finding that the majority of these "editorials" exhibit utter and total ignorance of what they are talking about and assume that these are all machine guns or for the more edumacated "submachine guns"

Next week we ban all Chevy's that have racing stripes, bucket seats or dual exhausts. so they can't break any speeding laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:38 AM

9. I can't imagine

 

a gun control advocate ever making an actual substantive argument - average or not.

1.Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:44 AM

12. My so-called "assault weapon" works GREAT for target shooting and deer hunting.

 

It's an AR chambered in th excellent hunting/target .308 winchester caliber (a much more powerful caliber than Holmes' diminutive 5.56mm AR15). Are hunting and target shooting legitimate reasons? Left to right: .308 Winchester (my rifle), .223 Remington (Holmes' AR15), AA Battery (size reference)



My target/hunting rifle:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 02:01 PM

39. Very nice setup.

 

This is my Colt. Great target rifle.

Just picked it up in June.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #39)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:05 PM

43. Very nice Colt....thanks for sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:44 PM

69. Nice!

 

This is my target rifle. It's a Frankenstein, made out of about a dozen different companies components.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:05 AM

16. Police don't need anything not available to private citizens.

Explain to me why a police officer needs full-auto. Why do they need even a semi-auto AR15?

Do you trust them to always use them only in your best interest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:12 AM

18. Then that's a deficiency of your imagination







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:56 PM

56. If you need one of those to take down a deer, you're a pretty poor hunter....

The rest is just recreation, and I'll take people's lives over your "right" to enjoy that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #56)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 07:09 PM

58. Please explain the difference

between a semi-auto AK clone and a "traditional" semi-auto hunting rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #56)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 07:19 PM

59. When you become the Secretary of Needs, be sure to let us know.

Until then, neither you nor anyone else gets to say what one may or may not own based on 'need'.

The burden is on the government to provide a compelling reason that such should be banned, and it will likely have to pass strict scrutiny- be likely to actually do what it intends, be the least restrictive means to do so, and be narrowly tailored.

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:27 AM

20. Then why don't the military use Assault weapons??

They use Assault RIFLES...

Their is a difference, "Assault weapons" is a term coined SPECIFICALLY to confuse the issue.. Assault RIFLE is a definition.

They are two very different things. Your average soldier, would LOL and call an "Assault weapon" a toy.

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

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

If you want to restrict something, you should at least KNOW what your wanting to restrict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:59 AM

26. An "assault weapon" is a non-automatic civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out...

or a threaded muzzle, or with a stock that adjusts for length. Most are small- or intermediate-caliber (i.e. .223 Remington, or 7.62x39mm)m

The military doesn't use NFA Title 1 civilian "assault weapons"; they use NFA Title 2 restricted automatic weapons, like M16's and M4's.

I shoot competitively in local rifle matches; practically every rifle in every match is an "assault weapon" by somebody's definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:46 PM

46. What's an assault weapon?

It's a rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is semi-automatic (self-loading) in nature, is fed from a detachable magazine, and has too many items from a list of cosmetic or ergonomic features.


If you remove a cosmetic/ergonomic feature or two, it stops being an assault weapon.


So I can have an AR-15 or AK-47 semiautomatic rifle, as long as it has only a pistol grip. If it has a pistol grip and an adjustable buttstock, then it's an assault weapon.





"Assault weapon" was defined to address guns that looked menacing, tactical, police or military issue. California's written 104,000 words on the subject, and it's as confused as ever as gun makers try to satisfy the demands of gun owners with the demands of the state laws. For example, the "bullet button" for AR-15 rifles, which turns them into NOT assault weapons... maybe.

<snip>

Under California’s assault weapons law, military-style guns that have detachable magazines in combination with other features are illegal.

But under the state’s firearm regulations a bullet button makes a magazine “fixed” and, therefore, legal. Because with a bullet button you need a tool to release the magazine, and as the name implies a bullet can activate the button, and quickly detach the magazine.

And according to the state Department of Justice’s own regulations “a bullet is considered a tool.”

So which is it, legal or illegal? CBS 5 tried to get answers from Attorney General Kamala Harris for months. Finally, we were granted an interview with her press secretary Lynda Gledhill.

“If someone is found with a gun that’s assembled and the bullet button on the gun, that is an illegal gun in the state of California,” she told us. Within seconds, however, she said the opposite. “But a bullet button is legal, right?” we asked her. “Yes.”

<more>


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/california-law-enforcement-unclear-on-legality-of-bullet-button/


And now somebody has made a "bullet button" that's magnetic, so the tool used to remove the magazine can be stuck on magazine release.




It's like trying to ban pornography and legislators are writing reams of paper on how much of a nipple can be exposed, etc.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:07 PM

51. " I want one" is all the "justification" I need NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:20 PM

52. I can't imagine NEEDING to justify it.

Plenty of legitimate uses. One is competition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 08:59 PM

63. No justification is needed.

Freedom means not having to justify our choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:15 PM

65. Let me ask you this...

 

When the second amendment says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Who do you think the people will be securing free states from? Other people, right? What kind of weapon should the people use for killing other people in such a military endeavor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:25 AM

4. If you pay attention to the local officials reports

 

Holmes killed more people with his shotgun than with his "assault rifle"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxenderwigginxx (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:02 AM

15. Yeah, but lets not waste an opportunity.

In close quarters a shotgun is still king. The only thing most shotguns don't have going for them is the recoil, which is a real problem for some people.

Holmes obviously never learned how to reload his shotgun on the fly. This is a very good thing.

The AR15 is an extremely useful little rifle but it's not exactly the fearsome death spewer that some folks would have you believe it is. That's not to say it's not extremely dangerous in the hands of a mentally ill individual or a felon, but it's not the super weapon that the antis would have one believe it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:29 AM

21. Exactly

 

Btw...Phoenix Tech makes a nice stock called "Kicklite" for recoil reduction. I have one on my mossberg and it works great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:12 PM

28. But but but...

The AR is so SCARY looking!


And black!



Wait a second... Wouldn't that make banning them a racist hate crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:36 AM

8. And he got paid to write that drivel. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:42 AM

11. the 2nd amendment

 

according to the founding fathers was our (We The People) last form of defense against a tyrannical government, not for hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:01 AM

14. Another anti telling me what my needs are...imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:09 AM

17. "Assault weapon" is scare-speak for the most popular civilian rifles in the United States.

And the AR-15 platform in particular is by far the top selling centerfire rifle in the United States, and has been at or near the top of the civilian market since the late 1990's (yeah, it was never banned and has been on the civilian market since 1961; John F. Kennedy owned one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:23 AM

19. New phrasing is "near-machine gun"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:37 AM

23. Lol..near machine gun...

 

I'm going to start applying gun grabber logic in other areas of my life.
"Seriously professor, my F is near passing"
"well officer, 65 is near 40"
"why yes potential girlfriend, my ford focus is practically a Porsche. How? well they both come in red"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxenderwigginxx (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:11 PM

44. Great news! All my lead bullets are near gold.

 

On the periodic table that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxenderwigginxx (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:48 PM

47. "Welll officer, I'm nearly 21... *hic*" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:35 AM

22. Maybe I'm a little dense here

 

but what does need have to do with it?
And what do SMG's have to do with assault weapons? Can someone educate me please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:43 AM

24. This just in

 

Average Americans don't "need" computers. NJ legislators poised to act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:51 AM

25. Question for the OP: do you get the sense that this columnist believes

that "assault weapon" means machine gun? If so, is he wrong? And if he's wrong, does that error undermine his credibility or the relevance of his article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:48 PM

35. What the columnist believes is an "assault weapon" is irrelevant to the issue.

The point is, weapons that can cause great carnage in a matter of seconds should not be marketed or sold to the general public. You can argue all day over the definition of an "assault weapon", but I think we can all agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:23 PM

38. Since he titled the article "Average Americans don't need assault weapons"

I believe his definition of such is very relevant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 02:19 PM

40. The columnist is arguing that the line needs to be drawn at "assault weapons"

So, do you think he knows what an "assault weapon" is in the context of an assault weapon ban?

Do you think it's reasonable to talk about one thing while advocating a ban that describes something entirely different? (Note that this last one is a general question, not specific to guns alone.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:24 PM

45. You've just described cars, airplanes,

 

heavy equipment. Those shouldn't be sold to the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calmeco702 (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:34 PM

48. Airplanes, heavy equipment, and some trucks all require special licenses.

I'm sure you agree that there are weapons more powerful than handguns and hunting rifles that should have the same restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:55 PM

50. to operate, not own

so called "assault weapons" like the AR are often less powerful than what you think of as a hunting rifle. Since no one is talking about repealing the NFA............................................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 05:50 PM

53. Here are some power calulations

That shooting sports use to determine what categories guns should be placed in. The first is the .223 the AR uses, the second is the .30-30 that has been around since 1895

Power Factor
Input Data
Bullet Weight: 55.0 gr Caliber: 0.223 in
Muzzle Velocity: 3240.0 ft/s
Output Data
IDPA Power Factor 178200 TSA Power Factor 178200
IPSC Power Factor 178 USPSA Power Factor 178
SASS Power Factor 178.2

Power Factor
Input Data
Bullet Weight: 150.0 gr Caliber: 0.300 in
Muzzle Velocity: 2390.0 ft/s
Output Data
IDPA Power Factor 358500 TSA Power Factor 358500
IPSC Power Factor 358 USPSA Power Factor 358
SASS Power Factor 358.5

Tables calculated at http://www.jbmballistics.com/ballistics/calculators/calculators.shtml

Using 'average' bullets for each, the .30-30 is almost twice as powerful as the .223.
The .30-30 is considered to be the "entry-class" for modern deer cartridges. While it will take deer-sized and black bear-sized game, it is limited in effective range to approximately 200 yards (183 m) for that purpose. It is common to define the characteristics of similar cartridges as being in ".30-30 class" when describing their effectiveness. The .30-30 is typically loaded with bullets weighing between 150 and 170 grains (9.7–11.0 g), but lighter loads are possible. Bullets of up to 180 grains (11.7 g) can be used but the overall length restrictions of the lever action rifles used for this round limit their usefulness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-30_Winchester
far from a 'high powered' hunting rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 08:24 PM

62. I dont agree with him or you

 



I think if you pass a background check and are mentally stable you should be allowed to own semi-auto or full-auto for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 11:01 AM

77. It WAS drawn.

 

At "shall not be infringed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:03 PM

27. I keep an iron pipe in my car and that is an assault weapon it is also useful in changing a tire.

My fire arms have never been pointed at a fellow human.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:19 PM

29. I don't know what's best for other people and I'm not willing to use the .gov to enforce my views.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:32 PM

30. The average American has one testicle and one large, dollopy breast

 

I don't give a shit what someone else thinks I need or don't need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 02:29 PM

41. Thank You

 

what we need or don't need is nobody's business but our own. If I want to spend money on a semi auto rifle, no matter what it looks like, need does not come into the equation, want is my equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:33 PM

31. Good thing I'm not an average American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:34 PM

32. What makes a civilian version of a military weapon that much deadlier than a hunting rifle?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:44 PM

34. ...and don't think your precious second amendment protects

your right to own one. You're supposed to be a "well-regulated" militia; "well-regulated" means "disciplined"; under some authority that tells you how to conduct yourself. the second amendment doesn't give you a right to to cause anarchy. If the authorities tell you you can't possess an AK-47, then you damn well better suck it up and accept it. We aren't gonna play nice with you if we have any more massacres of innocent people by some sicko who thinks his right to shoot the hell up is superior to our right not to bleed to death at the hands of your fun toys. This is the end of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:19 PM

37. Shush, adults are conversing here. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 03:03 PM

42. Or vote the "authorities" out and fix their fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:54 PM

49. What "we"? Did you forget the largest gun control .org is outnumbered ca. 80-1 by the NRA?

And barely has enough money to buy a decent used car?

I don't know what the opposite of paranoia would be called ("pronoia"?), but you lot certainly show the effects of it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:45 PM

54. Most of the "authority's" as you say...Agree with us..

We gun owners helped put most of them their..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:13 PM

64. Democrats pushing gun control helps Republicans win elections. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:54 PM

70. under some authority that tells you how to conduct yourself ???? wtf ????

tyrannical much?

I know full well how to conduct myself.

you are the one that needs to "damn well better suck it up and accept it"

I believe you posted one of the most nasty, condescending posts on DU that I have ever read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:06 PM

71. This is the end of it?

 

Somehow, I think not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:42 PM

72. Lighten up, Francis.

* You don't know what you're talking about. "Well regulated" did not mean "controlled."
* Nobody is claiming any right to murder or "cause anarchy."
* The political will required to do what you're threatening does not currently exist and you sure as hell can't do it on your own so you'll forgive us as we snort derisively and go about our business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:00 PM

36. I am breathless in anticipation

 

of your next pronouncement of what I need. Maybe this Roland Martin and Mayor Bloomberg can lock up all the AK-47s with those dangerous 20 oz sodas.

So how do I get on the list of sanctimonious twits who get to decide what other people need?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 07:40 PM

60. No one NEEDS anything except food,water and shelter.

 

The type of logic you are using could just as easily be used to justify the restriction of other rights. Watch where you tread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:38 PM

68. Roland Martin can kiss my average American sweet ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 10:24 AM

76. There really needs to be a series of threads on here to debunk specific falsehoods

 

so rather than repeating the same arguments on every thread you can simply say "see thread www.dem . . . ."

For instance things like assault weapon vs assault rifle. Or assault weapon versus a normal rifle. Or the link between guns and crime. Or full versus semi-automatic. Or the notion that well-regulated militia means you have the right to join the army. And so on.


I've noticed a handful of persistent arguments that are always used and easily refuted but are effective and taking attention away from real issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread