HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » The stupid media called t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:38 PM

The stupid media called the gun used in the Oregon Shooting Fest an "assault rifle"

It was an AR-15 - not an assault rifle.

Stupid media.

yup

199 replies, 16640 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 199 replies Author Time Post
Reply The stupid media called the gun used in the Oregon Shooting Fest an "assault rifle" (Original post)
jpak Dec 2012 OP
NMDemDist2 Dec 2012 #1
jpak Dec 2012 #2
NewEngland4Obama Dec 2012 #4
rl6214 Dec 2012 #70
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #5
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #10
jpak Dec 2012 #11
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #31
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #34
mikeysnot Dec 2012 #107
Jester Messiah Dec 2012 #133
alstephenson Dec 2012 #128
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #130
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #43
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #62
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #82
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #88
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #95
Ashgrey77 Dec 2012 #110
just us Dec 2012 #129
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #158
Ashgrey77 Dec 2012 #165
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #89
DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #105
Ashgrey77 Dec 2012 #111
DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #112
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #116
DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #117
Ashgrey77 Dec 2012 #164
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #90
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #94
jpak Dec 2012 #159
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #169
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #186
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #188
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #189
gejohnston Dec 2012 #191
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #192
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #194
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #195
gejohnston Dec 2012 #197
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #199
gejohnston Dec 2012 #196
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #198
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #14
jpak Dec 2012 #16
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #22
jpak Dec 2012 #23
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #17
gejohnston Dec 2012 #45
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #161
gejohnston Dec 2012 #162
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #163
truebrit71 Dec 2012 #3
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #6
jpak Dec 2012 #8
truebrit71 Dec 2012 #92
NewEngland4Obama Dec 2012 #7
slackmaster Dec 2012 #79
larwdem Dec 2012 #9
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #20
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #12
jpak Dec 2012 #15
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #18
jpak Dec 2012 #19
rl6214 Dec 2012 #71
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #103
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #21
jpak Dec 2012 #24
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #30
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #33
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #36
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #40
jpak Dec 2012 #48
Clames Dec 2012 #56
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #57
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #74
rl6214 Dec 2012 #72
oldbanjo Dec 2012 #76
PavePusher Dec 2012 #84
hack89 Dec 2012 #99
gejohnston Dec 2012 #100
hack89 Dec 2012 #101
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #83
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #102
Jenoch Dec 2012 #157
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #39
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #41
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #44
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #142
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #143
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #187
just us Dec 2012 #131
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #138
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #13
Arctic Dave Dec 2012 #25
jpak Dec 2012 #26
CokeMachine Dec 2012 #49
gejohnston Dec 2012 #52
CokeMachine Dec 2012 #54
msongs Dec 2012 #27
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #104
Arugula Latte Dec 2012 #127
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #28
jpak Dec 2012 #47
CokeMachine Dec 2012 #50
jpak Dec 2012 #51
CokeMachine Dec 2012 #53
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #29
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #32
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #35
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #38
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #42
PavePusher Dec 2012 #86
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #98
Straw Man Dec 2012 #113
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #124
rl6214 Dec 2012 #73
PavePusher Dec 2012 #85
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #37
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #46
spin Dec 2012 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #61
spin Dec 2012 #63
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #65
spin Dec 2012 #67
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #68
spin Dec 2012 #115
krispos42 Dec 2012 #141
mike_c Dec 2012 #55
Lint Head Dec 2012 #59
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #64
Lint Head Dec 2012 #96
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #106
spin Dec 2012 #66
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #60
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #75
rl6214 Dec 2012 #69
aquart Dec 2012 #77
PavePusher Dec 2012 #87
aquart Dec 2012 #170
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #91
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #108
aquart Dec 2012 #167
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #171
pop topcan Dec 2012 #134
aquart Dec 2012 #168
dballance Dec 2012 #78
Iggy Dec 2012 #80
ileus Dec 2012 #81
slackmaster Dec 2012 #93
gejohnston Dec 2012 #97
-..__... Dec 2012 #109
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #118
-..__... Dec 2012 #119
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #120
-..__... Dec 2012 #121
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #122
-..__... Dec 2012 #123
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #125
pop topcan Dec 2012 #135
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #139
DanTex Dec 2012 #136
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #140
rbixby Dec 2012 #114
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #137
HowHasItComeToThis Dec 2012 #126
just us Dec 2012 #132
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #144
lastlib Dec 2012 #145
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #146
lastlib Dec 2012 #147
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #148
lastlib Dec 2012 #149
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #150
lastlib Dec 2012 #151
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #154
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #172
lastlib Dec 2012 #173
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #179
lastlib Dec 2012 #180
lastlib Dec 2012 #166
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #174
lastlib Dec 2012 #176
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #177
lastlib Dec 2012 #178
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #181
lastlib Dec 2012 #182
gejohnston Dec 2012 #183
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #184
gejohnston Dec 2012 #175
doc03 Dec 2012 #152
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #153
doc03 Dec 2012 #155
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #156
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #160
Hissyspit Dec 2012 #185
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #190
Hissyspit Dec 2012 #193

Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

1. an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle??

i'm pretty sure it's not designed for quail hunting....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:44 PM

2. You will be corrected shortly

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to NewEngland4Obama (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:04 AM

70. That is not an assault rifle as defined below

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:47 PM

5. Well the internet was designed for military communications.

 

Doesn't mean that it couldn't be re-purposed. Same with the AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:56 PM

10. The AR-15 does not have selective fire.

The ability, by flipping a lever, to fire full-auto is part of what being an assault rifle is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:00 PM

11. That's what I'm talkin' about!!!111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:07 PM

31. Gee, what a huge difference

I can't just hold down the trigger and spray bullets to mass murder people, I have to actually pull the trigger repeatedly, until my 50-round clip is exhausted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:11 PM

34. The difference may be small

but it is an important part of the definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:02 PM

107. it is still a fucking gun.

easily available to any lunatic with ease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:58 PM

133. The will to kill is what makes a murderer.

A gun is just one means among many. Personally, I like that the law allows me to keep a means of defense close at hand and remain a law-abiding citizen.

Or to put it another way: Murder is already illegal. Once a person has made the decision to break that law, do you really think they'll still abide by other laws, for instance the ones involving guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:56 PM

128. Important to who???

Certainly not the people who this nut killed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alstephenson (Reply #128)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:16 PM

130. Folks interested in accurate facts?



Wrongful facts are not the same as less detailed facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:05 PM

43. Probably made a huge difference to the victims.

Many of whom aren't victims because they got an opportunity to flee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:50 AM

62. Most M-14's were issued without a selector switch to otherwise allow full-auto.

 

Some would consider an M-14 to be an assault rifle. It even has a scary bayonet lug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:06 AM

82. I realize this is off topic but I would prefer an M-14 to an M-16 NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:52 AM

88. Depends upon where I am fighting.

Lots of open territory - M-14

Close in combat - M-16

Just to have I would love to have an M-14, or rather its civilian variant M1A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:55 AM

95. My reasoning is based on my friends who are still in the Army telling me

 

that the evil, man slayer, death spewing, M16 loaded with the Satanic, 5.56 Nato ball that is designed to kill a man simply by being in the same zip code under preforms in actual combat.

FWIW I'm waiting for one of the pro controllers to revive the myth of the 5.56 round that will hit your toe and blow your head off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:49 PM

110. They are wrong. Marines in ww2 complained about the lack of stopping power of the .30-06

They thought it was a weak round. They also said it wouldn't penetrate heavy wool jackets...... LMAO. Soldiers and Marines complain about everything. 5.56 is plenty powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:08 PM

129. sorry your wrong

the round that they complained about was and is the 30caliber carbine round. The 30-06 round is used for grizzly bear and moose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #110)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:30 AM

158. you have no idea what you are talking about

I bear hunt with a .30-06

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #158)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:37 PM

165. I didn't say 30.06 isn't powerful.

I was just illustrating the point that soldiers and marines will complain about anything. And I might be wrong about them complaining about the 30.06, it might have been the .30 carbine I just remembered it wrong for some reason (I know they complained about the .30 carbine). I swear it was the 30.06, but hey we all make mistakes. I do stand by the fact that infantry in particular will complain about anything they can, and that 5.56 is plenty powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:53 AM

89. Same here. Someone who looked like me, but much younger, carried an M-14 for a while.

 

It never jammed. Not once. In some circumstances, that's something that can be important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:57 PM

105. M16s are fine unless they get damp or dirty

I lost buddies because of those worthless 'weapons'.

Might as well use them as clubs if you have to cross water or crawl in mud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:53 PM

111. Apparently my AR15 didn't get that memo. It functions fine when it's wet and muddy.

Just keep the dust cover closed and it's no problem. Take a M14, M1 Garand, or M1 Carbine with a open bolt and smear mud on top of it's action and see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:41 PM

112. Maybe they've improved in the past 40+ years

Ours jammed all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:48 PM

116. Whether they have improved or not, I think that

 

the poster at #111 is blowing smoke at you.

At #110, he said that he knew that "Marines in ww2 complained about the lack of stopping power of the .30-06." And "They thought it was a weak round. They also said it wouldn't penetrate heavy wool jackets."

Absolute bullshit.

He also claims to know that the "a M14, M1 Garand, or M1 Carbine" will commonly jam.

I used an M-14. Never had one jam. Not once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #116)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:54 PM

117. No shit

I didn't see the post, but I can attest to the stopping power of an ought-six.

As far as the M14 and the M1s, that is simply wrong. I have had all three of them (hand-me-downs) and never had one jam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:18 PM

164. Everything I said is a fact.

Go grab your M14, open the bolt and smear mud into the action, slam the bolt home and get back to me on how well if functions with a chamber full of mud. The ONLY unreliable M16 was the original "M16" that didn't have a chromed bore and chamber, not to mention the army used the wrong powder for the ammunition. This is all common knowledge stuff. If you want to blame someone for the original M16's problems blame the big green machine. The prototype that Eugene Stoner developed had a chrome line bore, chamber, bolt, and bolt carrier and used stick powder for propellant. The Army decided to remove the chrome lining and use ball powder since they had a shit load of it for the M14's and BAM there's your problem. Not to mention it has a self cleaning gas system so soldiers mistakenly thought they didn't have to clean the rifles as much as they should have. The M16A1 solved most of those problems except for the problem of shitty magazines. 90% of all failures in a magazine fed autoloader can be traced to bad or worn out magazines (Worn feed lips and bad springs). And by the way, ALL guns jam, that's why you train for malfunctions.

I like M14's and M1's. I think they are great rifles, but they are not infallible and at the same time M16's are not inherently unreliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:55 AM

90. Most guys didn't know how to handle the M-14 on full auto.

The idea is to fire two round bursts in aimed fire. Use it like a long range shotgun. If you are going to fire a long burst, loosen the sling and use the front of the sling as a handle to pull down on the muzzle as it tries to climb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:15 AM

94. With a selective-fire option, they were, of course, designed to replace the BAR. A heavier weapon

 

without the muzzle climb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:43 AM

159. So, you're in the mall with your full auto M-14 - what firing technique do you use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #159)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:06 PM

169. Set switch to semi-auto, aim at gunman, shoot.

If you are already set for full-auto and don't have time to switch aim for the gunman's lower abdomen and limit the burst to three rounds. That will stitch three holes in him, depending upon the range they could be close together or spread out in a vertical line on his body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:45 PM

186. I thought that, according to pro-gunners,

assault rifles were banned by the National Fire Arms Act of 1934. If that is the case, then how were there any "assualt rifles" left for sale to be banned by the assault weapons ban when Clinton was President? Oh, that's right, the assualt weapons ban did include all kind of guns not fitting the description of "full-auto at the flip of a switch." And apparently included the AR-15 by name.

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

Criteria of an assault weapon

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #186)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:57 AM

188. It looks like you are starting to understand the problem with the AWB.

> I thought that, according to pro-gunners, assault rifles were banned by the National Fire Arms Act of 1934.

Close. The NFA tightly regulated machine guns (and by definition assault rifles when later invented in 1944-45), but did not ban them. If your state allows them, you can jump through the legal hoops and pay the fees and buy one for $20000 or so. There have been no new machine guns allowed in civilian hands since the closing of the federal registry in 1986; the existing ones keep circulating with higher prices.

> If that is the case, then how were there any "assault rifles" left for sale to be
> banned by the assault weapons ban when Clinton was President?

The federal AWB did not address assault rifles, nor any other machine guns, in any way. That was not its intent. The AWB was about the cosmetic features of semi-auto rifles.

> Oh, that's right, the assault weapons ban did include all kind of guns not fitting the
> description of "full-auto at the flip of a switch."

Exactly. And by using the misleading term "assault weapon", the writers purposely and successfully tricked people into thinking the law way about assault rifles (machine guns).

> And apparently included the AR-15 by name.

Yup. So the manufacturers changed the cosmetics of the gun so that it looked different as required by the new law, gave it a new model number, and continued to legally sell the virtually same gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #188)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:03 AM

189. Which undermines your claim that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.

It is so, by definition in federal law, which includes not only rifles, but also handguns in the definition of assault weapon. Which you just admitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #189)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:32 AM

191. one is a technical term

the other is a political term for propaganda purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #191)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:34 AM

192. No. One is a legal definition. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #192)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:42 AM

194. You are confusing the two terms in #189.

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:16 AM - Edit history (1)

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with a precise definition.

"Assault weapon" is a legal term, which varies depending on the laws using it. By definition (and oddly they all agree on this point), it does not include any assault rifles.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it does not meet the definition of an assault rifle, mostly because it is a semi-auto rifle instead of an automatic (machine gun).

The AR-15 usually meets the various non-sense definitions of "assault weapon" because it is a semi-auto rifle with multiple cosmetic features as defined by the various versions of the definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #194)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:48 AM

195. No, I am not confusing anything.

The post said the only two choices were "technical term" and "propaganda." I said no, one was a "legal definition," which means defined in law, federal law in this case. Which means I am disputing the idea that federal law is "propaganda." You can disagree, but this does not mean I am confused. It means we disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #195)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:50 AM

197. it became a legal term after it became a

propaganda term. Either way, it is still a political term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #195)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:14 AM

199. Bad post location. That was supposed to be responding to #189.

Fixed it the best I can....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #192)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:48 AM

196. which varies, but was created as a political term

According to California law, every Olympic pistol team uses assault weapons unless the assembly fixed their mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #196)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:50 AM

198. If it is defined in law, it is a legal term, not a political term. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:04 PM

14. Actually an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle

 

An assault rifle is, by definition, capable of select fire
An AR-15 (AR stands for Armalite Rifle, the first company to make them) isn't select fire where an M-16 is.

Many gun owners, myself included, feel that the continued use of this misnomer is a deliberate attempt by many in the pro gun control community to mislead people into think that people can walk into Wal Mart and buy a machine gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:06 PM

16. There ya go - correct away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:26 PM

22. The sad part here is that you knew the correct answer

and chose not to give it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:31 PM

23. SSSsssshhhhhh

We're hunting gun bunnies.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:09 PM

17. If you have 11 minutes to spare watch this video

 




you'll learn a lot

and Jpak will be sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMDemDist2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:29 PM

45. it isn't using the real techical term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
the key term being "select fire", which makes it a machine gun.
BTW, one hunts quail with a shotgun, not a rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:46 PM

161. Went quail hunting a couple of months ago with a .177

Lot less messy than extracting all that lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #161)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:49 PM

162. especially when you break a tooth on a lead pellet

my brother did that once on some sage grouse he shot. If you can hit it while flying, you should be on the Olympic shooting team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #162)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:59 PM

163. My buddy got one at about 40 yards in flight. Clean shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:46 PM

3. Then what do the 'A' and the 'R' stand for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:48 PM

6. Armalite

 

Company that designed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:52 PM

8. Armalite Rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:03 AM

92. I did not know that..thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:49 PM

7. "To this day Colt's has a model designation whith the letters AR, which stands for "Armalite"

Simply named after the corporation it was developed for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:01 AM

79. Armalite Rifle

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:54 PM

9. ok

does it Reilly mater people are dead.... thanks to another fucking gun nut

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larwdem (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:23 PM

20. No, just thanks to another nut.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:01 PM

12. They also call the ammunition, "high powered".

For those not familiar, the 5.56 NATO round is a low powered rifle cartridge. The smaller caliber, less powder, cartridge enable to soldier to carry more shots, although the 5.56 won't reach as far, nor penetrate as much as the 7.62 NATO or the WWII 30-06 round. 30-06 means, .30 caliber, designed in 1906. In many states the 5.56 is illegal for deer hunting as it is not powerful enough to ensure a fast kill on a deer.

The media rarely gets gun facts right. Instead they reach for sensationalism most (all?) of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:04 PM

15. Yeah it's not "high powered" - just standard issue NATO military ammo

not designed to kill Bambi.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:10 PM

18. Exactly.

In combat, wounding an enemy soldier can be more effective than killing him. His comrades will have to help him, temporarily taking them out of the battle, and he will use up enemy resources on his care. A dead soldier they can leave alone.

It takes a more powerful round to get a clean kill on a deer. And you definately don't want to hunt feral hogs with a 5.56. A wounded hog can be mean and agressively vicious. You want that hog to drop dead right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

19. Yes, the Oregon Shooting Fest shooter was merciful in that respect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:07 AM

71. Tap dancing away as usual

 

Shooting fest huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:36 PM

103. He waits feverishly for these moments. But he doesn't dance away...

He prefers to stay and dance in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:26 PM

21. 5.56 mm is definitely unsuitable for deer hunting.

 

It's only barely suitable for a combat round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:33 PM

24. but it's perfect for a mall

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:06 PM

30. That would depend on your judging criteria.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:10 PM

33. Lightweight, capable of carrying at least a 50 shot magazine

There's no reason to shoot Bambi 50 times, but you can kill or wound 50 innocent shoppers.

The gun is designed for killing people, not hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:15 PM

36. Most states prohibit hunting with more than a 5-round magazine.

The gun is not designed for killing humans either given the ammo it fires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:55 PM

40. No it's designed to MAIM them. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:08 AM

48. Yes - you are limited to 3-5 rounds when hunting ducks and deer

but allowed to buy unlimited amounts of *standard military* ammo and 30-100 round magazines to hunt humans at the mall.

The logic is impeccable.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:44 AM

56. Keep whining.

 

Your ignorance is legendary.


yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:58 AM

57. You started off well, but seem to have

moved out of your depth.

"Standard military" ammo is "range" ammo, full-metal jacket; not good for much else. You might be thinking of hunting ammo. It does not matter how much you purchase as you can only carry so much on you.

100-round magazines tend to jam, as news reports keep showing us. Personally, I prefer the 20-round mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:15 AM

74. So you'd prefer the maniacs to reload, a la Virginia Tech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:08 AM

72. I have a 5 round magazine for my AR

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:17 AM

76. Correct, that's why I don't own one,

I've killed deer/hunted with all my guns, why would I want a gun that's only made for killing people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldbanjo (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:47 AM

84. Chances are, your deer rifle is a direct decendant of a former military rifle. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldbanjo (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:17 PM

99. Your deer rifle was originally designed to kill people

bolt action 30 caliber rifles killed millions in WWI and WWII.

I doubt there are any sporting arms that did not start as a military weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:20 PM

100. double barrel rifles perhaps?

only one I can think of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:24 PM

101. True. Those are fascinating weapons

designed to kill big game with really massive chunks of lead. I can't imagine what it would be like to fire one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:11 AM

83. Originally the Army issued a 20 round magazine with the M-16

 

they later went to a 30 round magazine. There are literally millions of those magazines in circulation so that is what you will normally find in an AR 15.

I know that some companies make 50 round magazines but they are generally considered novelty items; I don't think I've ever actually seen on in use

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:31 PM

102. The VT killer used a pistol and several average-sized magazines...

carried in a vest.

He killed thirty-two (32). No assault anything, no 50-whatever mags.

What would you suggest be done to prevent such shootings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:36 PM

157. Why is hunting always brought up in a discussion about guns?

The AR-15 and similar rifles are the most popular target rifle in the country. While the gun COULD be used to injure of kill, it isn't always the main reason to own or use a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:26 PM

39. I wouldn't call it perfect for anything. it has always been a cartridge full of compromises.

 

Incidentally, I'm sure there was a sign posted at the mall that prohibited carrying firearms on the premises just like at the Aurora theater. Gun control laws don't work on psycho killers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:01 PM

41. I'm not. I live in the Portland metro area, and I don't ever recall seeing such a sign at a mall.

 

(Though that is not a mall I shop at; I did see Thor at their theater, however.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:12 PM

44. Here in Ohio, none of the malls I have been in permit carrying weapons of any kind.

 

There tends to be a lot of crime and violence in the malls and the mall parking lots never the less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:47 PM

142. Here in Texas almost all stores and mall allow concealed carry.

It hasn't been a problem here.

When we go to a movie I am always armed. That way if some thugs target us when we come out of the movie and head to our car, I am ready.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #142)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:00 PM

143. looks like the portland mall was a gun free area. that worked out well.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:54 PM

187. A lot of crime and violence in malls? Really?

I love how some people see crime and violence everywhere no matter if it is there or not. I've never once seen any crime or any violence in a mall. Ever. And I grew up in the suburbs and have been to a lot of malls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:24 PM

131. thats your opinion

I have harvested four large mount buck in four years with a 223 and find it quite capable. Not one has gone more than 50 yards from shot location. But they all were within 100 yards and the shot placement was exact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to just us (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:06 PM

138. a .22 LR will kill a deer if shot placement is exact. Shot placement isn't always exact though

 

and when it isn't, that's when the inappropriateness of the .223 reveals itself over an actual hunting round. You can be significantly off with a 30/06 and still recover your deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:02 PM

13. Welcome to the dark side.

You are starting to get gun facts right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:46 PM

25. And the douchebags get offended by verbage on cue.

 

You should be a copy editor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:48 PM

26. LOL!!!!!111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #25)


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:32 AM

52. what fire is this?

please do tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:44 AM

54. Opps wrong person

 

I just checked the jury results and it wasn't the poster I responded to. Sorry Artic Dave -- I'll delete the post. Thanks for asking or I'd have gone to bed accusing the wrong person.

Take Care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:57 PM

27. not the slightest concern here for the murdered people. how nice nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:43 PM

104. I also noted that with the OP. Thanks for pointing it out.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:51 PM

127. Yep. Like the terminology makes such a huge difference.

Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:02 PM

28. Tone deaf to the point of being massively insulting.

Three dead including the gun nut, one wounded, and your concern is the technical description of a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:03 AM

47. Hit the nail on the head

irony is sometimes a subtle thing...

as is sarcasm

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:25 AM

50. Laughing at the dead??

 

It's the Jpak way. Does that blood wash off with water or do you need something stronger? Just asking. May the soothing flow of a mass killing fill your soul -- not!!

Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:28 AM

51. No - laughing at the gun nuts that apologize for these kinds of assault weapons

I guess subtlety is sometimes too subtle.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:37 AM

53. It's your story -- tell it any way you want.

 

Bathing in blood is not my thing but some people (?) seem to enjoy it -- YMMV. Clorox will take care of the red stains. I also heard peroxide is better. I don't know because I don't revel, even subtlety, in other's misery -- again, YMMV.

Have a great night -- don't forget the bath -- blood is hard to get out of the sheets.

Peace out!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:03 PM

29. An AR-15 is an assault rifle

It was designed explicitly for large scale killing of human beings

It's the semi-automatic version of an M-16, IIRC. I owned one many years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:08 PM

32. See post 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:13 PM

35. Fuck post 10 and quibbling about definitions

The only difference between this weapon and the M-16 is that it's semi-automatic. OTOH, it'll shoot as fast as you can squeeze.

As far as I'm concerned, it's close enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:17 PM

38. Words have meanings.

If you want to purposely use the wrong words, feel free to sound like you don't know what you are talking about. It's your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:04 PM

42. There's no such thing as 'close enough'. It's a boolean switch. It is either true or false.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. If you handed it to a soldier and said 'here's your new assault rifle', he or she would reply 'this one is broken'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:50 AM

86. It's a huge difference in court and with the BATFE. Ask around. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:33 AM

98. Doesn't a revolver do that as well? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:57 PM

113. Yes, it does, if it's double-action. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:08 PM

124. re: "quibbling about definitions"

Distinctions important enough to be the subject of state and federal litigation and legislation really don't qualify as "quibbling".

Disparaging the use of precise terminology certainly doesn't advance your views and thoughts. The principle focus here is discussing a proper balance of rights and restrictions regarding firearms. There is not much room for exaggeration nor for understatement. Further, your readers here may see your disrespect as hostility.

I'm here to learn and share ideas. Hostility is of no benefit. I hope and expect that posters here reference the use of firearms in violent crimes as examples for what changes they see as needed. These examples most often are from third hand accounts published by the news media. I don't need to mention how some outlets (fox, for example) color their portrayal of events, their reports of the actions of public figures and even their choice to cover (or not) various events.

Separating the media imposed connotations of certain terms (used inaccurately) in favor of an understanding that can be found by reading the law and a dictionary is action of a truth seeker. Young people today have more contact with information than was even conceived of a generation ago. When the meaning of the terms used to discuss important social issues change from one source to another, people are confused, deceived and mistrustful. If there is any legacy most important that I leave for my children it is the ability to understand the world and people around them free from confusion. To those ends the media must be held accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:12 AM

73. Definition of assault rifle

 

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

You said in your own post it's semi automatic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:50 AM

85. And if you own a lever-action .30-30, you can say exactly the same thing....

 

although you'd still be wrong about the "assault rifle" label.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:15 PM

37. Point taken. You did make the nomenclature debate look very small. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:49 PM

46. Good catch.

The first step in mastering any subject is a thorough understanding of the associated terminology. Generally the media fails at this, too interested in buzz words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:01 AM

58. One of the first reports I heard called it an automatic weapon. ...

The media loves to portray semi-auto weapons as machine guns. In order to promote their support of the gun control movement they have been more than willing to exaggerate and even lie. Often people who have little knowledge of firearms believe that the average citizen can buy a military grade assault rifle or a machine gun from Walmart or a local Mom and Pop gun store as easily as they can buy a bolt action rifle or shotgun. The media rarely does anything to discourage this misconception and instead tries to reinforce it.

Firearms are a common subject in news reports and I find it hard to excuse a reporter for failing to know basic facts about firearms. Firearm technology is NOT rocket science. Any responsible reporter who covers a news story should feel a requirement to simply report the facts and not allow his personal bias to interfere. If a reporter wishes to inject his opinion he should editorialize on the opinion page or as a commentary on his TV station.

Many people feel that the pen is mightier than the sword. In many states carrying a firearm requires a license which can be revoked if the weapon is misused. Perhaps reporters should also be licensed and required to meet factual reporting standards to continue to hold their position. In order for our system of government to work as designed, a well informed public is necessary.

I have been shooting firearms for over 50 years. The level of knowledge on the subject of firearms displayed by the media disgusts me. It has led me to distrust almost anything I read in newspapers or watch on TV on subjects that I am not as familiar with. Many other people feel the same as I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:40 AM

61. Do you ever wonder whether those in the media are being disingenuous, e.g., when they refer

 

to semi-automatics as "automatics"?

If the issue is important to those in the media, and if they have been repeated corrected, wouldn't that indicate that they are only pretending to be ignorant and stupid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:15 AM

63. Of course they have been corrected but ...

most in the media have an agenda that supports strong if not draconian gun control.

Most also live in areas of the nation with strong gun control and are unfamiliar with the gun culture that exists in most parts of our nation. They know few people who own and use firearms for target shooting or sport or who legally carry firearms.

Since they believe that they are intellectually superior to their audience and that our nation would be far better with MUCH stronger gun control laws, they are more than willing to distort facts and create misconceptions about firearms and those who own them. The end justifies the means.

They are basically a pompous group of idiots who have totally failed the responsibility they enjoy because of the First Amendment.

Of course they fail to report the truth about many issues which is why the news media is distrusted by most citizens.

September 21, 2012
U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High
Fewer Americans closely following political news now than in previous election years

by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

***snip***

Implications

Americans are clearly down on the news media this election year, with a record-high six in 10 expressing little or no trust in the mass media's ability to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. This likely reflects the continuation of the trend seen in recent years, combined with the increased negativity toward the media that election years tend to bring. This is particularly consequential at a time when Americans need to rely on the media to learn about the platforms and perspectives of the two candidates vying to lead the country for the next four years.

***snip***

On a broad level, Americans' high level of distrust in the media poses a challenge to democracy and to creating a fully engaged citizenry. Media sources must clearly do more to earn the trust of Americans, the majority of whom see the media as biased one way or the other. At the same time, there is an opportunity for others outside the "mass media" to serve as information sources that Americans do trust.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:18 AM

65. I wonder if there is a way to determine the number of CCW permits issued to those in the media.

 

I'll bet that there are many in the media, like the judges in the courtrooms, who are packing heat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:37 AM

67. Usually information on who has a carry permit is unavailable except to law enforcement ...

in most states.

I also believe that most of those in the media who have carry permits would be unwilling to admit it. Since the majority oppose laws that allow civilians to legally carry firearms they would realize that to admit that they had a carry permit would show that they are hypocrites.

Of course the few that are pro-gun are quite happy to admit that they have a permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:04 AM

68. I agree that the identities would not be available upon request to a governmental agency.

 

My curiosity relates to a broad issue. And it may be that neither of us knows the answer to it.

There are a great many governmental studies. It would not surprise me if the Federal government had commissioned a study to see a break-down of the CCW permits issued by occupation. How many CCW permits have been issued, for example, to diamond merchants?

Some broad State statistics can be found here:
http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm

For clarity, let me rephrase my original statement. I wonder, in a general way, whether a study regarding occupations exists so that the number of CCW permits issued to those in the media can be determined.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:40 PM

115. That's an interesting and informative link that you provided. ...

While my experience is limited and merely anecdotal, I know a number of profession people including doctors, lawyers, engineers and preachers who have carry permits and carry on a regular basis.

This might surprise some who live in gun unfriendly areas of our nation but I live in Florida where over 800,000 residents have concealed carry permits and probably 50% of homes have at least one firearm inside. Firearms are very common here.

When many of your friends, neighbors and co-workers have firearms you are likely to be far more accepting of these weapons and those who own them than if you live in NYC or Chicago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:12 PM

141. It's an obsolete term now

When they were new, they were described as"automatic" because they ejected the spent cartridge, cocked the hammer, and chambered a new round automatically.

The reloading process, not the firing, was automatic.

They should properly be called "auto loading".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:44 AM

55. oh well that's different....

For a moment there I thought that innocent people had been killed by yet another gun owner toting unnecessary fire power at the local mall where people were Christmas shopping. Thanks for helping me get the facts straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:08 AM

59. Regular mass killings are going on in our country and the discussion is about what type of gun was

used? I though the 'A' in AR meant automatic. As in Automatic Rifle. Correct me if I'm wrong. Still people are dead and the discussion can't get passed the type of gun used as opposed to why we let guns permeate society to the point of random killing.

Time has fogged peoples perception and the context of why the 2nd Amendment exists. Jefferson and Adams were against a standing army. They wrote about it extensively. They were of the mind that if men and their families had rifles and pistols at hand an army could be called together if there was a threat against the newly founded nation. Thus a militia. Back then there were no missiles, bombers, submarines, machine guns, drones or computers. Of course time moved on and we have a Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army. We no longer need people in their home with muskets to protect the nation from foreign countries. The idea that the people need guns in their homes to protect the nation from some dark conspiracy that could take over our country from within is something that was fomented and promoted by misinformed people who wants to do just that. I think they are wanting a theocratic corporate state. The NRA is a lobbying arm of gun manufacturers. I used to be a member back when it taught gun safety and responsibility when protecting yourself and hunting. That was decades ago. Like all things good eventually they're hijacked by people with bigoted ideas. Religion, the idea of civically responsible capitalism along with the 2nd Amendment have all been hijacked by bigoted groups and individuals with they're personal agendas. The study of civics is sadly absent from the majority our education system.

Th type of gun used is irrelevant to a dead human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:17 AM

64. Far, far less "regular" than other types of murder, actually.

Mass killings (even when it's just tow plus the killer) receive massive, near-hysterical reporting. They're huge media frenzies. But the fact is they represent only a minuscule fraction of US homicides in any given year. They should be far less significant in helping to frame public policy than those "ordinary" homicides that both the media and the general public tend to ignore. Yet they loom large.

Hell, in any given year, there are about ten times as many people killed by police as die in mass shootings (and just ask a person of color if all of them are justified...).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:11 AM

96. I agree. All murders using a gun are despiciple. The type of gun or the type of murder is irrelevant

to the dead person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:58 PM

106. Correction: All murders are despicable...

And all murderers are despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:27 AM

66. Many people feel the "A" in AR-15 stands for automatic but that is a misconception. ...


Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

***snip***

The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

***snip***

These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

***snip***

These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:16 AM

60. How quickly they turn on their own!

Jpak may have meant it as sarcasm, but after posting the truth his fellow anti-gunners quickly turned on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:30 AM

75. They don't like hearing truth that conflicts with their religious beliefs. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=333061

Response to Skittles (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:08 PM

hack89 (17,461 posts)
87. New norm = fewer shootings and less gun violence.

View profile
I understand the emotion of the moment but you are mistaken if you think things are worse now. We have reduced deaths due to murder and manslaughter by 50 % in the past 30 years. Next year you will be even safer.


...which is quite true, btw. One of the resident prohibitionists did not take this inconvenient
truth at all well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=333138



Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:54 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Chosen, and dispatched to the scene: see #87. Typical NRA bullshit being spewed

in the middle of a breaking-news tragedy on progressive discussion board. It's simply disgraceful....


HOW DARE one of "those people" post something like that in the middle of our Two Minutes'
Hate for gun owners? Don't they know there's such a thing as Higher Truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:02 AM

69. Hey, you got one right

 

Good for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:29 AM

77. Should have just said artificial dick ejaculated into crowd.

Why are men allowed to have guns? I have to sign registers and produce ID to buy Sudafed, but no one questions allowing men to have assault and/or semi-assault rifles or even revolvers.

Yet men are the ones who go nuts and kill with them.

I've never been a Meth addict but I'm not trusted with Sudafed. Why are any men trusted with guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:53 AM

87. Have penis-fallacy, will travel, eh? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #87)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:09 PM

170. Fallacy or obvious metaphor?

Wow, the denial runs deep.

What is the ratio of people with penises to people with vaginas committing gun massacres? Million to zero?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:57 AM

91. Wow

Sexism and removing civil rights, do you have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:06 PM

108. Why your obsession with the penis?

Is there something wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:58 PM

167. I have no difficulty with obvious analogies.

But my what a sensitive issue. Maybe it's true that big guns mean teeny tiny dicks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #167)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:22 PM

171. Gun-controllers always "bring it up first," so to speak

Psychologists usually lay the onus of "penis obsession" on those always talking about it. They believe this obsession stems from insecurity about their own sexuality. Surely, you are aware if this.

Put another way, he/she who first smelt it, dealt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:15 PM

134. Wow...an equal opportunity bigot.

 

I'm a gay gun owner, wanna take a swipe at me too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #134)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:05 PM

168. Nothing equal about it. This is a MALE crime.

We keep reporting "GunMAN opened fire" and ducking the obvious issue that this is a sex-linked crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:54 AM

78. And that matters how to the dead people? /eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:02 AM

80. One of the Victims.. Barely Clinging to Life Now..

 

you think he/she CARES about the technical details of exactly what sort of rifle the perp used??

Gimme a break, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:00 AM

81. The media pukes back out the same old lies and misinformation.

Everyone knows it's not an assault weapon but just a common semi-automatic rifle.

An semi-auto with several scary features.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:13 AM

93. I don't care what they call it. The weapon used is not important.

 

The behavior, and underlying untreated mental illness, are the real problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:14 AM

97. maybe it was

The news reports I read said witnesses described it as an AR-15 but the cops didn't describe as such. It could have been a stolen or black market M-16 but he didn't put it on full auto. There are reports that he aimed the rifle at a teenaged girl and missed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:31 PM

109. Honestly... I gave up on the nomenclature/terminology thing ages ago.

 

There comes a time, when it becomes pointless correcting the willfully ignorant and obtuse.

You call semi-automatic firearms whatever you want.

Words... nomenclature... terminology aren't going to win you any new legislation, or court cases.

Bottom line... you can take it to the bank that there are more than enough of us gun owners whom will block, and defeat any measure to ban "assault weapons" (and "high capacity" magazines), now or anytime in the future... count on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:59 PM

118. Except, the future isn't on your side: it's on ours. Which is why there is so much

anger, so much raw rage, in so many of the alert messages other DU'ers have forwarded me from juries they have sat on adjudicating my posts (the vast majority of them without an hideable offense anywhere in sight); that is why every time I post something about the triumph of the Democratic Party as the solid majority party for probably generations thanks to societal factors, and with that the "Blueing" of America from coast to coast, and with that a gun control future for America that looks more like Massachusetts than Texas, instead of accolades and from our "pro gun progressives"* on a Democratic discussion board I get nothing but undistilled venom, rancor, and bile - or meaningless youtube videos.

But that day is coming, my friend: neither your great-grandchildren nor mine will be able to walk into Gump's Sporting Goods and purchase anything resembling an AR-15 or a handgun, and our society will be infinitely better off for it.

To that day, I propose a toast:

Because it's coming: you can bank it.


Edit: couple of typos and a missing smiley.


*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:11 PM

119. Mm'kaay...

 



And, how long, exactly, have you been having these hallucinations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:40 PM

120. Yep, it's going to quite okay when that day arrives. And it is: bank it. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:43 PM

121. I can name that tune...

 

in one note...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #121)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:45 PM

122. Sure you can: when you have nothing substative to refute facts put to you, posting

youtube videos is always a handy tactic to evade, dodge, and flee. So, yeah: keep posting them. It's par for the course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:57 PM

123. My apologies...

 

rather than falling back on the ol'YouTube "evade, dodge, and flee" maneuver, I probably should have been more direct in response to your original "wave of the future" screed by using this instead...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #123)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:45 PM

125. Very apt! That's the reaction most people who discover the facts aren't on their side have:

Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:53 AM - Edit history (1)

close up shop, and go find something else to do rather than argue with other people on the internet who do have the facts on their side. As here.

Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:17 PM

135. In your wildest wet dreams, fella.

 

You might as well try to legislate January into a summer month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #135)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:51 PM

139. So I keep getting told. The progress of the right side of history says otherwise. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:32 PM

136. Just to add to this...

the teabaggers get very cocky when it comes to guns, convinced that with the Scalia majority on SCOTUS, several states redistricted in their favor, and even many Dems afraid of the NRA, that it doesn't matter how many people die, there will never be sane gun laws in the US. So cocky, in fact, that they don't even feel the need to try and make logical arguments.

In the 90s there were some quasi-scientific arguments in favor of guns -- some studies were published lauding the defensive benefits of guns and claiming that concealed carry laws reduced crime. And for a while, there was an legitimate debate about the topic. But then, the pro-gun studies were refuted several times over, and now, as you can see from gungeon debates, rather than attempt a logical defense, the pro-gunners have resorted to the standard denialist arguments like "peer review is flawed" and "ivory tower liberals hate guns" and "guns don't kill people" and so on. The pro-gun arguments are largely based on made-up statistics and plain falsehoods.

In the end, you are right, demographics are changing, and the pro-gun demographic -- rural, conservative, older whites -- are declining. An ideology whose intellectual base relies purely on nutty right-wing extremists, and which has given up even the pretext of basis in reality, will not last.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:58 PM

140. Exactly right, and we saw this in the last election where even with all the resources

at the Republican party's disposal in the way of money and corporate sponsorship, the majority of the country went Blue.

The GOP/NRA (I consider them a symbiotic creature) has not won a majority of the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections; the Senate is likely to stay Democratic through this decade and well into the next one; even the House of Representatives would be Democratic today were it not for gerrymandering by GOP controlled state legislatures. The day of the GOP/NRA is coming to an end, and with that inexorable decline the "RKBA" movement is going to suffer some real setbacks and shocks in our lifetimes. It'll be amusing to see what the Gungeon looks like in 2030, with these changes on the way. Probably something like this:





Great post.


Edit: typos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:33 PM

114. Not quite sure why it matters if its an assault rifle or just a specially designed human killing gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:56 PM

137. The reason

An AR-15 is among a group of rifles that some folks would like to characterize and ban as being "assault weapons". The term "assault weapons" does not address any substantially functional attributes of most any firearm. (The possible exception being the presence of a bayonet lug. While a bayonet lug could be functionally useful, there have been no criminal instances of bayonet attacks AFIK.) Most of the features determining if a firearm is an "assault weapon" are mostly related to comfort, convenience and appearance.

The media and some groups favoring greater control and a new "assault weapons" ban tend to use language for effect with less accuracy, both for different reasons. The media (if it bleeds, it leads) tends to make any story about bad news out to be as bad as possible.

It's just an all around good idea to be as precise as possible about major events.

Here is a link to a decent article describing the weapons used by James Holmes in the Aurora shooting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:35 PM

132. safety course

Most states require young hunters to take a gun safety course to get their license. Why not require first time gun buyers to take a gun safety course. That would give us a waiting period and proficiency of use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:40 PM

144. isn't that term kind of like an oxymoron? aren't all weapons either assault or defense depending on

the tactic employed by the user at any given time . . .



oxymoron is not the absolute correct term but, something like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

145. I wonder what the people he KILLED with it would call it....

a cap gun???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:01 AM

146. I would assume they had a higher level of intelligence than that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #146)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:19 AM

147. If it points at you and a bullet comes out, it's an assault weapon.

End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #147)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:24 PM

148. Thanks for playing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #148)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:42 PM

149. Happy to help you understand!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #149)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:10 PM

150. This is why folks are "paranoid" of an AWB. Behind that ban is a...

total ban.

Now you got it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #150)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:23 PM

151. We don't want a total ban--just ban the ones that kill people.

That isn't too much to ask, now, is it? The NRA boys can keep their toys and fellate their barrel every night, just like now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #151)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:35 PM

154. How very Orwellian...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #151)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:24 PM

172. More "penis" content. Is your sexuality secure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #172)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:29 PM

173. yes it's fine--I don't NEED any phallic symbols in my life. How bout you?

You seem to have some issues with it, I would suggest professional help. or are you just trying to deflect the issue because you're unable to deal with it??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #173)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:03 PM

179. No problem, here. You seem pre-occupied with penis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #179)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:17 PM

180. I never once mentioned penises. You are the one who brought it up.

Seems to me you're the one with the phallic issues here, given that you mentioned them in other posts as well. Please--Seek professional help before you go on a rampage of your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:50 PM

166. Eighteen CHILDREN killed in an elementary school--NOW can we start banning 'em???

Or do you want to wait for the next MASSACRE????


HOW FUCKING LONG DO WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS SHIT???? HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE WE GET SOME SANITY IN OUR GUN LAWS????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:32 PM

174. Do you know what gun(s) were used in order to ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #174)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:17 PM

176. At this point, I really don't care. If a bullet comes out of it, ban it.

I'm done being nicey-nice to the gun-heads!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #176)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:52 PM

177. I really don't care about your nicey-nice. Get over your animosity.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #177)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:56 PM

178. Twenty children DIED, and I'm supposed to be cheerful???

Fuck that with a fork. Good-bye and good riddance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #178)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:07 AM

181. So you just want to attack others here? Let's talk

about some constructive approaches: a Safe Schools Act (based on a Clinton approach) where grant $ is made available to schools to fund two or more security/LEOs for each school. Some may opt out, but those who don't want armed teachers or armed psychos can better secure schools to prevent, maybe mitigate casualties.

Are we serious about securing schools or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #181)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:40 AM

182. Only if we fund it with heavy annual taxes on firearms and ammunition.

If you want the toys you pay the price. And it won't come cheap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #182)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:03 PM

183. that is how a lot of environmental projects are funded

since 1937. There has been an 11 percent tax since 1919, which just went into the general fund until 1937. Although groups like the NRA supported it then, because they were pro environment, the assholes in charge now would be against it. An extra four percent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #182)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:22 PM

184. Your priorities, please: Deal with school security,

or make gun owners pay some price? Such a tax will not pass constitutional scrutiny. Impose the tax across the board will work. How 'bout it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:41 PM

175. you seriously think it only happens in the US?

Or that it doesn't happen in places with stricter laws? Hate to break it to you, just because they don't make the US news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A lot of things happen in the rest of the world that doesn't show up in US news like the spree shooting/gang shoot out at a Toronto basketball game a couple of weeks before Holmes or this one:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite

I agree with what German sociologist Wilhelm Heitmeyer said after some guy shot up a Dutch mall last year. He said basiclly that stricter gun laws would do nothing other than distract from the real issues like social isolation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:48 PM

152. Here we go tonight's flame bait from the Gun group. According to

Wikipedia newly manufactured AR-15s were banned under the AWB. It says a gun does not have to have full automatic capabilities to be considered an assault weapon under the AWB. It doesn't mean a hill of beans what you use as a definition of an assault weapon the AWB considered the AR-15 an assault weapon. As a matter of fact guns with full auto capability were already and still are regulated under the 1934 gun law.



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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #152)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:21 PM

153. You fell for the trap.

"Assault weapon" is not the same thing as "assault rifle". The nonsensical term "assault weapon" was purposely chosen to confuse people.

For any given odd-ball definition of "assault weapon" a rifle may or may not meet it. In the real world, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

On the other hand, "assault rifle" does have a single, real world definition. While the M-16 does meet that definition, no AR-15 nor any AR-15 clone meets it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #153)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:51 PM

155. What a waste of time arguing over the definition of an assault rifle or weapon

From what I read the they wanted to ban semi-auto rifles with certain characteristics like AR-15 so instead they called it a weapon because it didn't fit the definition of an assault rifle. So under the AWB the AR-15 was banned. Furthermore the AWB also included certain shotguns, pistols and magazines, calling it an (assault rifle ban) would have been incorrect so they coined an all inclusive word (weapon).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #155)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:27 PM

156. You are attributing too much logic to the name.

The banners chose the term "assault weapon" because they knew (and wanted) the general public would think folks were talking about assault rifles. The banners purposely wanted people to confuse non-machineguns with machineguns, and it worked.

There is nothing special about the AR-15 class of rifles that suggests it needs restrictions that other semi-auto carbines did not need. A semi-auto carbine is a semi-auto carbine, regardless of what it looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #155)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:29 AM

160. Re: under the AWB the AR-15 was banned

 

You may want to do a little more research because what really happened is that manufactures simply changed certain characteristics of AR platform rifles (like taking off the bayonet lugs and making the pistol grip a thumb hole stock and changing the name) and went right on selling them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:33 PM

185. It's a fucking assault weapon if you use it on a room of kids:

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:55 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101786812


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #185)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:03 AM

190. Poor Jpak.

In his misguided attempt at sarcasm, his fellow anti-gunners mistake him for a pro-gunner because he said something about guns that was 100% accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #190)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:40 AM

193. I wasn't talking about jpak.

Familiar with poster's work here. But I see the confusion in what I wrote so edited it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread