HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » My Case Against Assault W...

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 10:35 PM

My Case Against Assault Weapons

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by petronius (a host of the General Discussion forum).

One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR. To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).

I originally thought that an AR-15 would make a good deer rifle, it is short, light and relative accurate over long distances. I changed my mind when I saw a demonstration of the weapon's firepower one day. The target on this occasion was a 55 gallon steel drum filled with water which was use to demonstrate the stopping power the AR-15. When the drum was hit from fifty yards, the bullet made a small hole at the entry point, but on exit it made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist. The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet propelled by a massive amount of gun powder. It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound.

Thus I determined that the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal. It was designed for one thing, killing people. With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds, the AR-15 is capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up. Can you imagine the damage this weapon did to the little children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre?

I shudder every time I am reminded that military assault weapons such as the AR-15 can be bought by just about anyone in our country and can thus easily fall in the hands of a homicidal maniacs or home grown terrorists whose objectives are to kill the maximum number of people before they are themselves shot.

Whenever there efforts to ban assault weapons, there is always talk about 2nd Amendments rights. However, there are few defenders of the 2nd Amendment who would defend the right of ordinary Americans to own fully functional M1A tanks, or bazookas, or anti-aircraft rockets. And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.

So nearly everyone concedes that even 2nd Amendments rights have their limits. The only thing that is at issue here is where do you draw the line between which weapons are allowed and which not allowed.

In my humble opinion that line should be drawn to ban assault weapons from our streets. They are not practical for hunting and offer no more protection than a standard hand gun, rifle or shotgun. Some would argue that assault weapons allow relatively unskilled shooters to defend their homes and/or lives more effectively because of their multiple shot capability. Well, first of all I don't want unskilled people handling any kind of firearms and if someone wants a ideal defensive weapon they need to buy a shotgun. It is difficult to miss with shotgun at relatively close range.

So assault weapons have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time. Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons. If you want to discuss your 2nd Amendment rights, we can also make that discussion about your right own an 68 ton M1A tank equipped a 120mm tank gun, a 50 caliber machine gun and two and second 7.62 mm machine guns. You see the 2nd Amendment isn't about providing access to any and all weapons, it's about where we draw the line.

109 replies, 6633 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 109 replies Author Time Post
Reply My Case Against Assault Weapons (Original post)
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 OP
Hoyt Jun 2015 #1
Post removed Jun 2015 #6
villager Jun 2015 #51
Kaleva Jun 2015 #2
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #7
hack89 Jun 2015 #10
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #104
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #106
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #93
DashOneBravo Jun 2015 #4
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #5
GGJohn Jun 2015 #9
DashOneBravo Jun 2015 #12
hack89 Jun 2015 #8
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #11
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #20
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #35
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #38
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #14
hack89 Jun 2015 #18
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #50
Snobblevitch Jun 2015 #32
lancer78 Jun 2015 #40
Marengo Jun 2015 #94
Travis_0004 Jun 2015 #103
Hoyt Jun 2015 #16
DashOneBravo Jun 2015 #22
Hoyt Jun 2015 #29
DashOneBravo Jun 2015 #34
sir pball Jun 2015 #45
Hoyt Jun 2015 #52
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #55
sir pball Jun 2015 #56
linuxman Jun 2015 #13
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #19
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #23
linuxman Jun 2015 #26
Duckhunter935 Jun 2015 #31
linuxman Jun 2015 #33
sir pball Jun 2015 #49
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #57
sir pball Jun 2015 #58
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #63
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #66
sarisataka Jun 2015 #15
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #21
sarisataka Jun 2015 #24
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #46
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #88
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #98
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #105
Shamash Jun 2015 #96
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #108
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #37
Adrahil Jun 2015 #43
sir pball Jun 2015 #61
aikoaiko Jun 2015 #17
DashOneBravo Jun 2015 #28
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #30
Travis_0004 Jun 2015 #39
aikoaiko Jun 2015 #44
sir pball Jun 2015 #68
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #71
sir pball Jun 2015 #73
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #75
aikoaiko Jun 2015 #97
MrScorpio Jun 2015 #25
ManiacJoe Jun 2015 #27
madville Jun 2015 #36
seveneyes Jun 2015 #41
deathrind Jun 2015 #42
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #47
deathrind Jun 2015 #48
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #53
sir pball Jun 2015 #54
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #59
sir pball Jun 2015 #60
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #65
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #62
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #64
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #67
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #69
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #70
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #74
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #76
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #77
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #78
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #79
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #81
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #83
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #87
pablo_marmol Jun 2015 #72
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #80
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #82
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #84
pablo_marmol Jun 2015 #86
pablo_marmol Jun 2015 #85
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #89
Electric Monk Jun 2015 #90
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #92
pablo_marmol Jun 2015 #101
CajunBlazer Jun 2015 #100
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2015 #107
mwrguy Jun 2015 #91
Shamash Jun 2015 #95
freshwest Jun 2015 #99
smirkymonkey Jun 2015 #102
petronius Jun 2015 #109

Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 10:41 PM

1. Sadly, the gun's ability to inflict major damage and destroy internal organs is what attracts yahoos

 

to the dang things. If not, folks could target shoot and plink with a pellet gun.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:07 AM

51. And, seemingly, the weapon's apologists, as well

 

n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 10:50 PM

2. I think you have more of an issue with barrel twist and mag capacity then with the gun itself

A 5.56mm bullet fired from an AR-15 with a 1:14 twist will be much more unstable in flight then then the same bullet fired from an AR-15 with a barrel that has a 1 to 7 twist.

I agree with you 100% on mag capacity. An AR-15 firing the .223 round and with a fixed, 5 round magazine would make an excellent hunting rifle for small to medium game. Nobody needs a rifle that can be equipped with a 20 or 30 round mag.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:09 PM

7. Yea, unfortunately....

... just saw an ad where you an buy a 60 or 100 round magazine for an AR-15 on line. If we don't manage to ban assault weapons, we should at least ban magazines capable of holding ten rounds. There is absolutely no rational for having clips capable of holding more rounds.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:11 PM

10. There are hundreds of millions of such magazines in circulation

How do plan to make them magically disappear?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:17 PM

104. It would be pretty simple really

If it proves politically impossible to band assault weapons, we should at least ban high capacity magazines and clips should limited to only 11 to 13 rounds - the number carried by many handguns. Their have already been proposed laws calling for a period or maybe 6 months where the government would buy back all high capacity magazines from gun owners. After that period of time it would be a crime punishable by a year in jail to possess unlawful magazines with nice little reward for anyone responsible for turning in law breakers.

Since we been told repeatedly for years that responsible gun owners are all law abiding Americans, surely they will turn in their oversize magazines without problems, because as conservatives are found of saying, we are a country of laws, even if we don't like all of them. Magazines with over 11 to 13 clips certainly aren't needed for hunting. Clip sizes used for hunting are already regulated in many state to even fewer rounds. Experienced gun owners replying to my post have testified that a clip containing 11 rounds should be more than adequate to defend one's home and family from intruders or the gun owners should spend more time on the range.

So were is the deprivation - I can think of only one for law abiding abiding citizens - the expensive thrill of blowing though through thirty or more rounds of ammunition at a gun range in a few seconds or less. On the positive side the law might not get all of the high capacity magazines off of the streets, but it will drastically reduce the number that could fall into the hands of lunatics and and home grown terrorists. Had such a law been in place, Adam Lanza would have probably been able to kill fewer children in Sandy Hook Elementary. If you don't think that is important, consider if the child saved was your own.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #104)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:56 PM

106. A question and some observations: First, how would you pay for them?

 

Let me remind you of part of the Fifth Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Takings_clause

In United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984)...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/24/case.html

...the Supreme Court held that

"Just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment normally is to be measured by the market value of the property at the time of the taking


As for your proposed 'forced buyback', another DUer put it well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014746335#post13


It is a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment

A government, either state or federal, can take private property for public purposes and uses. To do so there are three basic elements that must be met.

First, an identifiable public use or purpose must exist that requires the taking of the property from its owner.

Second, there has to be "due process" before the property is taken. In this case meeting this requirement would consist of: notice (by publication) of the proposed action/regulation to interested parties; public hearings and comment, council debates and a public vote by elected officials (in accord with the laws/ordinances of the governmental entity).

Third, the government must pay to the owner of the property "just compensation". The level of compensation is determined by market value, the price that would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller in the open market.

Some of the magazines regularly sell for $30 - $40, or more. It is not uncommon for many gun owners to have a dozen or more magazine per gun. It is also not unheard of for gun owners to have a hundred or more magazines stored away after getting a good price for buying larger lots.

Depending on the size and makeup of the community the turn in could cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars from already strapped communities. As the guns and legal magazines will still exist it is debatable whether there will be any noticeable effect in the vast majority of communities that take this course.


Where would the required several billion dollars come from?

As for the observations:

1) Nowhere is hunting mentioned in the Second Amendment, and

2) Several spree killers have used magazines that fit your desired specifications and
simply reloaded as necessary. You have proposed nothing that would prevent such
a thing, and thus advocate for security theater.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 10:56 PM

3. Welcome to DU :) Please feel free to repost and continue in GCRA if/when this is locked in GD

 

Gun Control Reform Activism (Group)

Statement of Purpose

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.


or, if you care to engage our resident gunthusiasts directly, there's the GC & RKBA Group, aka Fight Club. Some will try and act like it's the RKBA Group, but GC is right there in the title too.

Gun Control & RKBA (Group): About This Group

Statement of Purpose

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 08:48 AM

93. A woman once had two sons. One became a sailor, the other only posted to GCRA.

Neither was ever heard from again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 10:59 PM

4. You sound like an Air Force officer.



(That's a joke)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DashOneBravo (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:03 PM

5. Yea, I know

If I had been impressed with weapons that go bang instead of BOOM!!! I would have joined the Marines.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:10 PM

9. Welcome to DU,

and just for the record, I disagree with your post, the AR platform is a great platform for hunting rifles, it can be had in .303 which is a great caliber for hunting, and the .223 is great for small game hunting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:19 PM

12. Now hang on

Don't forget the Army. It's not just the Marines who have knuckle dragging units.

I don't agree with all your points but I'm glad you are here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:10 PM

8. If mass killings are your concern

Why aren't you advocating for a total ban on semiautomatic handguns?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:16 PM

11. You do make an interesting argument here

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:37 PM

20. Wow, you scraped and reposted a cartoon! Is there some "critical mass of ridicule"...

 

..that you hope to reach someday? Might as well go for it, as nothing else you lot
try seems to be working...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:21 AM

35. re: 'toons

 

(reposted from a previous discussion, not for your edification because I know you don't care, but for everyone else's.)
______

Political cartoons can be a particularly valuable resource for development and human rights education. They, at their best, encapsulate some very complex issues, different viewpoints and some of the contradictions which are a real part of many situations. They can make links between issues which can turn them inside out - this is one of the key strengths.

Political cartoons will often provide the stimulus to stop and think, to look sideways or look afresh at a particular issue. We hope that users of this section will find much to provide a focus for personal reflection.

more
http://www.developmenteducation.ie/teachers-and-educators/using-resources/cartoons.html


Editorial cartoons teach students to identify issues, analyze symbols, acknowledge the need for background knowledge, recognize stereotypes and caricatures, think critically, and appreciate the role of irony and humor.

http://www.dirksencenterprojects.org/cartoons/value.htm


eg.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=2398

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:31 AM

38. Well then, if you feel like you're doing something useful by reposting them...

 

...by all means, repost away

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:26 PM

14. Like I said....

...it's all about where we draw the line. I would like to think that I am a practical person and in our culture banning hand guns, even semi-automatic handguns nationwide probably would not ever be practical. Hopefully better gun control measures will help keep all firearms out of the hands kooks and terrorists.

That said, very few handguns pack the killing power of an assault rifle and I have never seen handgun yet that with a clip capable of handling more than 13 rounds. That doesn't mean a maniac or terrorist can't kill a lot of people with a semi-automatic handgun, but not as many as they can with an AR-15 with a 60 round magazine. In addition, if I were a cop trying to bring down a maniac or terrorist, I would rather face one armed with a handgun than one firing an assault rifle.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:29 PM

18. If your proposal couldn't have prevented Va Tech

Then it is security theater and makes no one safer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:05 AM

50. Culture warriors looove security theater:

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:02 AM

32. I am pretty sure there are many

semi automatic pistols which have a standard magazine capacity of more than 13 bullets.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:37 AM

40. Glocks

 

come in higher then 13 round magazines. My friend just bought a Smith & Wesson with a 16 round magazine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:52 AM

94. You've never seen a Beretta 92? 15 round magazine, factory standard. How about the Glock 17?...

 

17 rounds, factory standard. G22, G20, G31, all 15 rounders from the factory.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:56 AM

103. First off, its a magazine, not a clip

 

There are hundreds of handguns that hold more than 13 rounds.

Lets start with Glock

17,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,31,32,34,35,40,41

So 14 models, from a company that makes that makes 26 different guns.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:28 PM

16. I do. If we banned semi-autos, gun sales would all but dry up. Revolvers just don't excite gun guys.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:39 PM

22. I like revolvers

And I'm a gun guy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DashOneBravo (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:56 PM

29. Hope you aren't as fond of guns as some here.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:12 AM

34. I don't worship them

Where I live they are tools.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:53 AM

45. I'm a huge fan of bolt-actions, and revolvers.

I know we've been over this before, but you probably engage with enough posters to have forgotten me, so, fasten your seatbelts, tray tables and seatbacks up and locked..

My safes, currently in storage in an area with no $150-300 per-gun license fees (i.e. not NYC), have at last count thirty-eight firearms, out of which a whacking five are semi, and one is actually my dad's in my custody. Now, and I say this purely to encourage you to comment on what apparently sexually excites me, (hi jury! I can afford a hide, but c'mon.) I take far more mechanical pleasure in closing a well-oiled, well-machined bolt-action rifle than i ever will in cycling the tawdry plastic handle on my twenty-pound "assault rifle"...that's even more useless than my Remington 700s for anything other than stand hunting. Funny thing that, both of my 700s are much closer to "mil-spec" than my Evil Black Rifle, but explaining why would probably have less than zero interest to you - since a subtle, well-dressed, accurate, single shot rifle just can't enflame the violent humors like a cutsey little AR. (FWIW I think the "man card" marketing is both idiotic, definitely appealing to fat, tiny-dicked men, and also contradictory. A .223 is a wussy little round, touch off a .338 Ultra, prone, in a bolt with no brake and then we can talk about "man cards".)

Also, the Ruger Blackhawk wheelgun with modern loads is SO the best handgun ever made,

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:09 AM

52. Glad to see you are enjoying your Saturday night with the gunz.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:15 AM

55. As usual, time spent with gun banners is always good for a few lulz

 

Few things are funnier than the outrage of the politically ineffectual

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:21 AM

56. Nah dude, they're a thousand miles away

Unless you mean my "gun", which I did use to great effect tonight. And we'll leave it at that, lest I make a ban-worthy post.

But after teh gayz got theirs, I may have to go get them out!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:24 PM

13. Are you a deer hunter?

 

For all your issues with the effects of terminal ballistics of a 223, are you as concerned about the .222 and the 7mm? Immensely popular and far more destructive rounds used frequently in deer hunting.

There isn't a round on earth that makes a smaller exit hole than entry.

Nobody is arguing for ordnance weapons as you describe. There is no crew served machine gun lobby. We have laws and restrictions on those things. What we have never restricted from ownership (there are already thousands of laws restricting their use, posession, sale etc on the books) are long arms in common usage. Like it or not,the ar 15 is one of the most, if not the most purchased and used rifles in the country. It is a rifle that holds more rounds, is lighter, and more acurate than previous versions. If you want to restrict rifles for being more effective with the advancement of technology , you might want to go back to the1860s and closet he barn door.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:32 PM

19. I used to be a deer hunter....

... but my wife frowns on shooting Bambi, and I love my wive far more than I love dear hunting.

Perhaps then we can agree that rather than banning AR-15's and other rifles used for hunting we should ban large capacity magazines. If a deer hunter needs 30 rounds to kill a deer, I don't want to be anywhere near that sucker in the woods.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:40 PM

23. "Perhaps then we can agree that..." 'We' agree to no such thing.

 

Perhaps you should attempt your forced teaming elsewhere...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:49 PM

26. Most states don't allow anything over 5 or so rounds in a rifle while hunting, regardless.

 

Personally, I don't hunt with an ar15. A larger more humane round is more suited, such as a 308. So long as hunters are following their local hunting restrictions, capacity doesn't seem to be a problem.

For civilian usage, I only use standard capacity magazines designed for my ar15. Those come in two standard sizes: 20 and 30. I have many 30 round types, but these days i favor the 20 for default usage. I don't own any highcapacity (over 30 round) magazines. Few people that shoot ar 15s do, frankly. Either way though, I don't conflate the civilian right to own them with the hunters need to use them. They are unrelated in that regard. Afterall, the second ammendment has literally nothing to do with hunting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:58 PM

31. I do prefer the twenty round

 

version myself. I use aluminum followers like what were in the initial colt magazines and high quality springs and usually build my own from parts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:09 AM

33. Yeah, the aluminum are my favorite too.

 

Not a fan of the polymer pmags.

I find I shoot more deliberately and purposefully with the 20s. Not to mention you can get lower to the dirt or bench when shooting, giving greater stability. I doubt I'll buy 30s again, honestly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:04 AM

49. I'm actually amenable to that.

My primary general-purpose hunting rifle is an AR-10 (think M-16 but in .308 Winchester); I'm limited legally to 5 round mags in most states and regardless of the law, after 5 or 6 shots in a row the accuracy goes to hell so having a "precision" version with a long, heavy barrel, that's so unbalanced it literally can't be shot offhand, goes to waste with a big mag. All of my other hunting guns also hold less than 5 since they're bolt-action; I do get the appeal of ripping off 20, 30, 50 at once, but that's pretty much just a waste of money and barrel steel. I'd be OK with a limit of 10 rounds for rifles, and flush-fit for handguns.

And if you're so skeered that you might need more than 10 rounds in your AR, well, you sure as shit better have mastered a lot more CQB than tactical rifle reloads. 10 rifle rounds, indoors, better mean at least 6 baddies down. Otherwise, learn to damn shoot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #49)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:22 AM

57. Self-defense is not a sporting event, and imo, there is no moral duty

 

to limit ones' abilities because somebody else thinks there should be some
requirement to give the bad guys a 'gimme'...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:28 AM

58. I have two SD firearms and neither holds more than nine.

1911, and a Storm in 45. After learning to put all 7, or 9, in the ten ring, after thirty jumping jacks (mimicks as best as possible the rush of a SD situation), the next job was reloads. I haven't fired either in almost two years and I can still do it blind and breathless.

30 rounds is a crutch; if you feel like you need more than ten with no reload you either need to learn to shoot better or stop being a cartel boss.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #58)


Response to sir pball (Reply #58)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:11 AM

66. Another experinced shooter disagrees- see post #44

 

And what of the less physically able?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:27 PM

15. Once again



A 55 gallon drum is 22.5 in. across with steel sides. A milk jug is ~6 in. with plastic sides. The .223 barely penetrates 2 milk jugs. No way will it pass through the drum and leave a fist sized exit hole.



Also the .223 is used by many hunters across the US. In some areas it cannot be used to hunt deer because it is considered too weak to insure a clean kill of the animal.

Oh and you can own a tank, - though I don't believe any M1s are available yet
Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen has seen his share of court fights, what with a patent war he launched a few years ago against pretty much all of Silicon Valley, and other high-profile business battles.

But few lawsuits have been like the one filed on the billionaire's behalf Wednesday in San Mateo County Superior Court. That legal action, complete with a temporary restraining order, is not about software, but rather concerns the hardest of hardware — a 70-year-old German tank known as the Panzer IV that weighs 27.6 tons.

Allen owns a lot of things. The Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks. The NBA's Portland Trail Blazers. A chunk of the Seattle Sounders soccer franchise. He founded the Allen Institute for Brain Science. He has given away more than $1.8 billion. And there's a lot more left over.

Now, he says, he spent $2.5 million on the Panzer IV, a choice bit of history that he bought in July to add to his museum of military memorabilia housed in his Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, Wash.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-paul-allen-panzer-20140912-story.html
Interesting trivia- Mr. Allan also donated $500,000 to gun control.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:38 PM

21. I don't think you have ever seen....

... a AR-15 fired at a steel drum, filled with water. I have.

And I would be willing to bet that the tank in question has had its cannon spiked and its machine gun rendered not operable. No one will care if he rumbles around on his own property in his antique tank, but let him try to put it on a public road......

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:45 PM

24. I may not have seen one fired at a drum of water

but simple logic dictates if a round can't penetrate plastic after 12 inches of water, it will not blow a hole in a steel drum after 22 inches of water.

I have seen M-16s fired at things like wood, concrete, steel, humans. All of the evidence I have seen leads me to the conclusion your story is physically impossible.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:54 AM

46. It's the "Empathy", "Forced Justification", and "MGAFYGAE/Uncle Ruckus" ploys

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#362548

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""...

...Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

X_Digger
Response to Original message
60. How about..

Not sure if this one counts as a separate one, but the..

MGAFYGAE -- "MY guns are fine, YOUR guns are evil."

Black powder guns, revolvers, traditionally stocked shotguns, deer rifles, even 1911's- "But I {or Dad, or Granddad, or Uncle Duke} had / have one of those, so they're perfectly fine. The rest of your guns? Ban 'em."

friendly_iconoclast
Response to Reply #60
61. That's a good one. A variant is the "Uncle Ruckus"

Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:03 AM

88. You know how else the story is bullshit? The AF never used a "semi-auto AR-15"

 

They used the AR-15, all right-the fully automatic precursor to the M-16

The OP is claiming to have been "certified" on a weapon that was never used by the Air Force

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #88)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:48 AM

98. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

I don't know where you got your information, but it is wrong. The AR-15 was used by the Air Force SP's (Security Police) who guarded our SAC (Strategic Air Command) alert pad at Mather AFB, in Rancho Cordova, CA. For the uninformed, the alert pad was where our 6 nuclear armed B-52's (in our case B-52G's) on our base were parked and where their crews were temporarily housed, ready to roll down the runway in the event of an attack by Soviet nuclear armed ICBM's or aircraft.

When our repair technicians had to go out to the pad to effect repairs on the B-52's or KC-135's (also on alert), they had to be accompanied by a maintenance officer for security reasons. (We had special badges which signified that we had been cleared for the alert pad.) Such visits weren't need often because aircraft in good working order seldom developed problems just sitting on alert, but I accompanied technicians on at least a couple of occasions. The SP's who challenged us as our trucks as we approached the pad were very serious fellows armed with AR-15's. I will never forget having to rescue a fellow officer who left his security badge in his office when he drove out to the pad. When I arrived, two SP's had him spread eagle face down on the concrete with AR-15's pointed in his general direction.

Surely you don't think we would guarded the access to nuclear weapons with hand guns or hunting rifles.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #98)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:28 PM

105. I am not. The Air Force never had semi-automatic AR-15s. *All* were full-auto

 

You, personally, might have qualified on an AR-15 with the full-auto switch locked out,
but they all would have been convertible back to full auto.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:29 AM

96. It's possible

 

Using the steel-core SS109 NATO round (used to be commonly available as surplus, but I don't know about current availability). Those suckers will go through about anything, penetration is several times that of a lead-core FMJ. But that also makes them useless for hunting. I have not shot at a drum full of water with them, but I could readily believe that the shock wave upon impact with the far side of the barrel could punch a fist-sized hole. The projectile certainly would not, since it is far less than that size even if moving sideways.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #96)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:05 PM

108. Mythbusters disagrees:

 

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode34


Hiding underwater can stop bullets from hitting you.

partly confirmed

All supersonic bullets (up to .50-caliber) disintegrated in less than 3 feet (90 cm) of water, but slower velocity bullets, like pistol rounds, need up to 8 feet (2.4 metres) of water to slow to non-lethal speeds. Shotgun slugs require even more depth (the exact depth couldn’t be determined because their one test broke the rig). However, as most water-bound shots are fired from an angle, less actual depth is needed to create the necessary separation.


5.56/.223 bullets are almost all supersonic

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:23 AM

37. .223/5.56mm rounds won't penetrate a steel drum full of water while leaving a fist-sized exit hole

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:52 AM

43. What kind of cartridge?

 

There are MANY different cartridges in 5.56mm. Some are suitable for hunting. Some are not. Nothing wring with the caliber for hunting, though. Many people do it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:36 AM

61. I've fired lots of guns at 5-gallon buckets of water, for what it's worth

My two favorites are the 22-250 with a 40 grain bullet at like 4300 fps, it was an uneventful water-ball but afterwards all we found were shards about the size of my thumbnail, and the 416 Rigby "modern" +P load that just split the bucket in two, but sent water at least 100 feet in the air. .223 was downright boring in comparison.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:28 PM

17. I've seen exit wounds on deer and hogs with 62gr 5.56 and the hole is not that big


The AR15 is a fine rifle for shooting south GA hogs and deer which are generally smallish.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:55 PM

28. And coyote

We use the AR-15 platform for coyote hunting. They are really bad here and are killing livestock and pets.

They hunt in packs and when that group comes out in a field they never stand still. There'll be 10 running around. That's why we use a 30 round magazine. The distances are usually 300 yards out and the 5.56 mm round is very accurate with low recoil.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:58 PM

30. Perhaps so.....

As someone pointed out earlier, the number of twists in the barrel is a major determinate of how much a .223 round tumbles after entry. My experience was with the military version of the AR-15 which probably maximized the tumbling for greater take down power.

But I think you will agree that hunters don't need a 30 round mag to kill a deer or a hog.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:36 AM

39. What?????

 

Twist rate is used to stabalize different bullet weights.

The us military used 1/12 because it worked with 55 grain bullets

That rifle would not work well with a heavy 75 gram bullet. 1/7 or 1/9 would be a better choice.

The military wants to get the correct twist to increase accuracy. Too little and the bullet is unstable.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:53 AM

44. Maybe so for hunting, but if was faced with 2 or 3 home intruders...



...I would greatly prefer to have a 30 round mag.

And shotguns are good home defense long arms, but they still need to be aimed just as carefully as rifles at short ranges.

Right now my home defense weapon is a Springfield XDM 9mm with a standard 19 round mag. It has a pistol light/laser on the rail and I'm confident it will work as intended.

Having said that, if I ever find myself in that terrible situation where I need to shoot someone in self-defense I'd rather have a rifle.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:17 AM

68. 3 intruders, 7 rounds is fine.

A good 1911 with Crimson Trace grips, tactical sights, and 185gr +P hollowpoints is good for...well, I'd give myself the odds against 7 intruders with that gun, actually.

Needing 30 rounds for 3 guys is like needing a 600hp car on the street, you're sloppy and undertrained. You own a deadly weapon, take immense pride in being able to use it properly.

Now, body armored up dudes...that's why I carry backup mags.

ETA - it's my bedtime, and, if you're differently abled, a SAIGA-12 with 10+1 Magnum buckshot rounds will take care of the goddamned zombie apocalypse.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #68)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:27 AM

71. "I'd give myself the odds against 7 intruders with that gun, actually." Oh, please...

 

*cough*, *cough*, mall ninja, *ahem*

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #71)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:43 AM

73. More like the odds of a gang of 7 being that into me

I frankly can't imagine the heights of arrogance it takes to imagine even a trio of armed, comptetent people coming after you.

That said, a gang of seven quotidian burglars? If I invoke castle doctrine and fire at will? Yeah, I'll get out alive.

Mall ninja, says the guy who envisions thirty rifle shots in home defense Got your PSG-1 and NVG handy, too?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:58 AM

75. And what if you're sick? Or just unlucky enough to attract enough warm bodies...

 

...to outweigh your firepower? What if they don't all obligingly drop dead from expertly
placed headshots taken while one or more may be shooting at you in a less-than-well lit
room? Or you fumble a reload?
Fatal body shots have been known to take a while to work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

And BTW- I don't own a gun...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #68)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:46 AM

97. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.


I'm just glad I have the choice of magazines I wish and that you can use what you wish.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:47 PM

25. This retired Tech Sergeant agrees with you nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sat Jun 27, 2015, 11:54 PM

27. Sounds like you have a problem with the ammo.

It does not matter what shape the rifle is, ergonomic black plastic or traditional wooden stock, the ammo does what the ammo does.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:23 AM

36. ARs can be had in many different calibers

I usually use a .243 Browning BAR for deer and hog around here, sometimes my Ruger M77 in .22-250 if I'm shooting 200-300 yards. I have used my AR with a five round magazine in it for hogs, I usually do neck shots in the spine and it works, it's on the smallish side for hunting though in my opinion. Its a good ergonomic rifle for taking on the four wheeler or walking through the brush with though.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:41 AM

41. The case against ignorance

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:46 AM

42. Agree with you 100%

The AR15 was designed to do one thing and one thing only...and it does it very well. The fact that a purchase of one of these weapons as easily as it is given the destructive power it wields speaks volumes to the power private interests hold over our government. There are far more restrictions and regulations on the purchase of far less destructive items.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:57 AM

47. "The AR15 was designed to do one thing and one thing only"

 

Then all those who use them for target shooting and hunting are misusing them?

Interesting notion you've got there...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #47)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:04 AM

48. If

You need that much capacity/firepower to hit a target or kill an animal than yes you are doing it wrong.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:12 AM

53. The shooting sports sanctioning bodies and most state game departments seem to disagree

 

The AR15 is used in high powered rifle competition, and can be use for hunting in most
states, subject to caliber and magazine restrictions

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:14 AM

54. Yes! The Germans, with some of the strictest gun control in Europe, hate the AR-15 SO MUCH!

So much that they DESIGNED THEIR OWN!

Generations of hunters and target shooters have had great success with Gene Stoner's revolutionary AR-15 pattern rifles ever since the first civilian models were sold to the public in the early 1960's. German and European hunters and target shooters have, until fairly recently, had to largely rely on imported AR-15 guns from the US and Great Britain. Unfortunately, the supply of these guns often did not keep up with the demand and did not always meet the high expectations of German shooters with respect to build quality. Thus we decided to meet the demand for German-built AR-15s by building them ourselves to the very highest Teutonic quality standards, of which Hugo Schmeisser would have been proud of.


http://www.schmeisser-germany.de/en/products_civil.html

And the requirements for getting one aren't really so hard...you basically have to certify you want to shoot one "competitively" (not do well, mind you)...and then account for actually shooting it. You can have two handguns and three "assault rifles". I mean, God forbid. I own a German-built AR, and that USP45CT I've been eyeing, why would I NOT shoot them? Or I just have to be a "hunter" (which, yes, is a harder license in practice, but I know firsthand it would be trivial for me), and then it's almost ALL fair game. Even my evil, half-mile-lethal "assault rifle". Let alone my 700s, those are basically unlimited in Germany as long as I want to shoot them once a month or so..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #54)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:29 AM

59. Pretty much *anyone* can build an AR15, as they are long out of patent

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:31 AM

60. My point was Germany has no "assault weapons ban", as don't most Continental countries

FFS, Anders Brevik got his Mini-14 perfectly legally and the laws there haven't changed since. Maybe crime control shouldn't involve banning guns by some arbitrary specific features?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #60)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:07 AM

65. The Charlie Hebdo shooters got *their* weapons from the trunk of some dude's car

 

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

All these proposed magazine bans are like fighting drunk driving by restricting the sober...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:41 AM

62. So far this thread has been a pretty good example of why gun threads are usually limited to the

 

various gun Groups, instead of General Discussion. Practically a textbook example, actually. With the old and tired insults, and off-topic tangents and sub-threads about technicalities, they just keep on floating back to the top of GD's page 1 like a turd that's hard to flush. Then eventually a host locks it.

See you in GCRA

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #62)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:03 AM

64. "See you in GCRA" Why? The subject can actually be *discussed* at GC&RKBA:

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

without fear of being banned for not following dogma. I heartily recommend it to those
averse to amen choruses ...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:12 AM

67. GC&RKBA isn't a safe haven for gunthusiasts, even if you'd like it to be

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628795#post9

Notice all the banned gunhumpers accounts in that thread?

AnotherMcIntosh
PPR http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=278444&sub=trans Gun troll.

CokeMachine
PPR http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279126&sub=trans Troll

ExCop-LawStudent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304266&sub=trans RW gun troll

premium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302085&sub=trans troll

Vietnameravet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=286597 Flagged for review

rl6214
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=121292&sub=trans Troll

DWC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=252442&sub=trans Gun Troll/Sketchy comments on race.

These links prove Skinner and EarlG do ban gun trolls for being gun trolls, when they can be bothered. I wish they could be bothered more often.


Please do continue, Governor. I'll check back tomorrow, or possibly sooner.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:20 AM

69. I don't; I prefer vigorous, even heated discussion over crabbed, ever-supicious dogmatism

 

Also, the GC&RKBA hosts don't fancy themselves to be self-appointed arbiters of
DU and all things Democratic...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #69)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:24 AM

70. Thank you for helping make my point from post #62. If someone wants fight club, then GC&RKBA

 

is there for them.

If someone *doesn't* want fight club while they discuss various gun related issues (etc. see: SOP) they are welcome in GCRA

If they don't agree with the GCRA Group SOP, then they aren't welcome there anymore. It's not that difficult a concept.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #70)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:45 AM

74. Groupthink and an unwillingness to listen to those who disgaree is a recipe for failure

 

Not amongst your regulars- they will always sing the same tune; I mean
failure to achieve your stated goals in the broader polity

I refer the disinterested reader to *this* thread in GC&RKBA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172169376

which references the following subthread in GCRA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629113#post2

NutmegYankee (9,833 posts)
2. The key on a purchase permit is to ensure that it is completely fair.
People will accept such rules as long as the process is seen as just and fair without opportunity for corruption or bias. In other words, if you apply for the permit and your background check comes back clean, the permit is issued. If some discretion is allowed, there must be a board that can review an appeal to ensure the reason was truly valid. On the other hand, if the permit is left to the discretion or feelings of an officer/official without an appeal or check feature, the process will not be viewed as fair or just. This was the classic Jim Crow setup to deny minorities guns.

Connecticut for instance is effectively shall issue, but officials have some discretion on issuing permits. It has a board that handles appeals, and some of the reasons were extremely petty - One first selectman refused a permit because the other man was a coach whose team beat his child's team in a sport playoff. Another denied an appeal to the wife of a another selectman because he wanted the husband to resign his position.

Keep the system fair and the benefits of preventing the wrong people from getting guns will sell the minor inconvenience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 19, 2015, 11:38 PM

Star Member flamin lib (6,568 posts)
3. I got a better idea. You guarantee that the next gun sold won't kill an innocent person
and then we can discuss "fair". Til then just shut down all gun sales. That sounds "fair" to me.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Bullets shot from guns by people holding guns. The difference escapes me.

Reply to this post


Response to flamin lib (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 20, 2015, 08:11 AM

Star Member NutmegYankee (9,833 posts)
4. I come and discuss a completely reasonable method to reduce gun violence...
that would also get the gun owners to come on board rather than listen to the hysterics of the NRA, and you react with anger and disregard the entire thing.

Right here is why we don't have better gun laws.


If you want to run a talking-shop for gun Prohibitionists, go right ahead- but don't
insult our intelligences by pretending that it isn't one...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #74)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:59 AM

76. NutmegYankee wasn't blocked, so that's a pretty hard FAIL on your part.

 

I pretty much agree with him (on this technicality), believe it or not.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #76)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:05 AM

77. Yet no one discussed his proposal, except to piss all over it

 

De jure, GCRA is a place to
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels.


but de facto, anything less than advocacy for prohibition is tolerated, at best.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #77)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:08 AM

78. And, FWIW, I think his idea has a lot of merit and should be explored in *both* groups

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #78)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:13 AM

79. So post it in GC&RKBA. I'm not stopping you. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #79)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:30 AM

81. It was, a week ago. Discussing it there might be a little ...problematic for the GCRA crew, however

 

Because there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172169376#post7

Oh, it gets better- check this out from the article linked in the OP

http://www.guns.com/2015/06/17/nc-gun-control-wins-house-folds-on-ending-permit-to-purchase/


...Valone’s group had earlier this week released a 2014 study by the North Carolina Sheriffs Association in which the lobby group maintained the pistol permit scheme was wrought with flaws as it relies on the use of only the agency’s records and not the larger National Instant Criminal Background Check System system to clear potential gun buyers.

This, in turn, meant the sheriffs often issued permits to individuals that would be classified as prohibited possessors under federal law, which would have to be revoked.

“reports included 165 or 23 percent of permits being subject to revocation in Camden County and 35,488 or 38 percent of permits being subject to revocation in Mecklenburg County,” reads the report.


It would seem that, in their eagerness to celebrate gun owners 'getting one in the slats',
certain posters overlooked the fact that the very system that they are happy about
retaining allows disqualified persons to own and carry guns
.

And not a word was heard about maybe, possibly, someday making all North Carolina
pistol permit holders subject to the Federal IBC system...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #81)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:32 AM

83. You're asking me to trust guns.com? I'll have to sleep on that. I will get back to you.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #83)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:45 AM

87. You don't have to. Here is a link to the NCSA report:

 

http://grnc.org/documents/NCSA-PPP-Revocation-Report-2014-FINAL.pdf

From Page 4:

The NICS search generated Subject to Revocation Report numbers that were much greater than those reported by CJLEADS. The reports included 165 or 23.5% of permits being subject to revocation in Camden County and 35,488 or 38% of permits being subject to revocation in Mecklenburg County. Several counties had over 50% of their permits reported subject to revocation in the NICS report.


If the very people that are entrusted to hand out the permits say there is a problem
with how the permitting process is handled, perhaps you should listen to them...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:29 AM

72. Banning rifles based on how they *look* rather than *function* is absolutely ludicrous.

And use of the word ludicrous is extremely charitable. Good luck on banning our nation's most popular rifle based on appearance.



http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #72)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:18 AM

80. See reply #62. This part of the discussion is OLD. Been there, done that. NT

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:32 AM

82. Apparently, it needed to be repeated in order to remind certain parties

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #82)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:33 AM

84. and this is why there's the rule about Guns in GD

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #82)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:45 AM

86. Exactly so.

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Troublesome facts that a Controller can't deal with are "technicalities" to dismiss.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:43 AM

85. So I'm assuming the "content" in post #62 you were referring to was this:

".......and off-topic tangents and sub-threads about technicalities....."

Right --- defining relevant and inconvenient facts as "technicalities"......one of the innumerable dishonorable tactics of The Controllers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #85)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:15 AM

89. Facts like claiming to be 'certified' on a weapon the Air Force never used:

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026915839

One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR. To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).


Not while working for the Air Force, he didn't. Theirs were all fully automatic, and there's
no way in hell he would have been allowed to bring a personally-owned firearm
onto a SAC base on alert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#AR-15_.28Colt_Models_601_.26_602.29

AR-15 (Colt Models 601 & 602)
Main article: AR-15

Colt's first two models produced after the acquisition of the rifle from ArmaLite were the 601 and 602, and these rifles were in many ways clones of the original ArmaLite rifle (in fact, these rifles were often found stamped Colt ArmaLite AR-15, Property of the U.S. Government caliber .223, with no reference to them being M16s).[115] The 601 and 602 are easily identified by their flat lower receivers without raised surfaces around the magazine well and occasionally green or brown furniture. The 601 was adopted first of any of the rifles by the USAF, and was quickly supplemented with the XM16 (Colt Model 602) and later the M16 (Colt Model 604) as improvements were made. There was also a limited purchase of 602s, and a number of both of these rifles found their way to a number of Special Operations units then operating in South East Asia, most notably the U.S. Navy SEALs. The only major difference between the 601 and 602 is the switch from the original 1:14-inch rifling twist to the more common 1:12-inch twist. These weapons were equipped with a triangular charging handle and a bolt hold open device that lacked a raised lower engagement surface. The bolt hold open device had a slanted and serrated surface that had to be engaged with a bare thumb, index finger, or thumb nail because of the lack of this surface.

The United States Air Force continued to use the AR-15 marked rifles in various configurations into the 1990s.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #89)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:23 AM

90. With my very first read of the OP I had a feeling it might go this way sooner or later.

 

See post #62.

So predictable.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #90)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:15 AM

92. I don't regard verifiable mendacity as a 'technicality'

 

You should be glad it *wasn't* posted in GCRA. The OP got a few solid bites on his line(s) as
it is...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #90)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:49 AM

101. Yet you clearly have no rebuttal. So predictable. NT

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #89)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:12 AM

100. I am not a firearms expert...

.....by any means. All I know is that I was told by the instructor that the rifle I fired was an "AR-15". If it had an auto mode, we dang sure weren't allowed to use it. Also our Security Police who guarded our nuclear alert pad were also armed with "AR-15's". However, I would not be at all surprised if those weapons had automatic capabilities.

My time at Mather AFB was from early 1970 through late 1973, so we are probably dealing with terminology differences.

In fact, after reading you post I now think I remember that during that same demonstration where the steel drum full of water was shot, there was also a demonstration of the AR-15's automatic capability so I was probably remembering what we now call a M-16 with a AR-15 stamp.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #100)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:59 PM

107. Did you know that the military has access to armor-piercing bullets that civilians can't own?

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 05:11 AM

91. One more reason to ban guns

Add it to the pile.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:17 AM

95. I fail to see the overall logic of the post

 

So assault weapons have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time. Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons.

Here is my simple challenge to the OP and everyone else. What is the acceptable number of people that can be killed in a "very short period of time" by a civilian-owned weapon? Not "gun", but "weapon". And why did you choose that number? Remember that you will have to rationally defend this value against anyone who chose a higher or lower number. After all, if someone chooses a lower number than you, they think your number is criminally high. If they choose a number higher than you, you have to explain why their number is criminally lax. Picking an arbitrary number like 5 or 10 simply shows that you are good at picking arbitrary numbers...

If you think that "zero" is the only acceptable number, then you have a far bigger problem than guns to worry about, since there are plenty of non-gun items that are used as murder weapons. If you think that any number above zero is an acceptable number, then we have to ask a question about the value you place on human life.

We (well, most of us) don't want anyone to get murdered, but laws don't arrest people before the fact for this unless someone is out hiring a hit man or making overt threats.

To me, there are three problems of perception. The first is assuming the object is the problem rather than the person using the object. I think there are vanishingly few people in this country who "need" an alcoholic beverage, and abuse of same kills and injures lots of people, but we blame these on irresponsible users, not on alcohol itself. People are still allowed to buy "assault vodka" or beer in "high-capacity kegs" even though these have in the OP's terms "no practical purpose" . It is kind of hard to say that becoming stupid, uncoordinated and emotionally volatile serves any public good, otherwise we'd have all switched to being Republicans.

The second is assuming that weapons like the AR-15 are a serious part of the gun violence problem rather than the most publicized one. To put that into stark terms, if every "assault rifle" in the United States were to vanish overnight, the change in the firearm murder rate would be so small it would be lost in the statistical noise. It is literally the least likely type of firearm to be used in a murder in the United States. Would lives be saved? Of course. They'd be also saved by banning alcohol or reducing the speed limit to 35mph or requiring everyone to wear transparent clothing so the police could see if we were carrying weapons. But I don't think any of us would accept that, so there are clearly issues that we consider more important than we do "saving lives".

I would like to think that the issue of what we want to ban, restrict or regulate is more sophisticated than "the ban will not affect me, so go ahead", but that is the way it seems sometimes.

The third is related to the second, and is not being able to understand big numbers. There are over 300,000,000 people in the United States. That means that something with a one in one hundred million chance of a person doing it on a given day...happens three times each day. Something with a one in ten billion chance of a person doing it still happens ten times a year. If your "news horizon" only extends over a group of a million people, this one in ten billion chance only happens in your million-person world once every couple of decades and is a rare tragedy (or miracle if it is a good thing that happened). If it is an internet-connected world where everything, everywhere is news beamed into your smartphone, this one in ten billion chance becomes "OMFG it happened again!" or "yet another potato chip that looks like the Virgin Mary, it's a sign!".

Is it worth passing a preventive law that affects everyone to reduce a one in ten billion chance that one of them will do it? I guess a rational decision on that principle depends on the harm caused by that event compared to its likelihood. For instance, if we stop and frisk every young black male in NYC, is the harm done to civil rights outweighed by the harm prevented by catching criminals? I think we decided that the harm done to civil rights by deciding to treat all these people like potential criminals was not worth the benefit.

Just remember that because you hear about it on the news does not make it common, it just makes it newsworthy. And bad news sells better than good news, so you hear that more often.

CajunBlazer, I'm guessing you don't actually do much hunting? Hunters don't want bullets that leave exit wounds. They want bullets that do massive localized tissue damage to kill the animal as instantly as possible. A bullet that goes through a deer is a bullet that did not efficiently do this and this is more a function of bullet design than rifle design. I use a .308 Winchester (bolt-action, FYI) with more than twice the energy of an AR-15, and my bullets stop in the deer every time. I don't use an AR-15 for hunting because I want something more powerful and I do not need a huge magazine. If you have to shoot twice you shouldn't have shot once.

But just because I do not use something and have no need for it does not mean I think it should be banned. And Cajun, if you are that worried about losing meat, be good enough to take head shots.

P.S:
And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.

The CiC of the US armed forces is a civilian. Whether we like it or not, we trust a civilian with sole control of this nation's nuclear arsenal each and every day (the difference between possessing and controlling is negligible if your finger is on the button/trigger). From 2001-2008 there were plenty of non-government civilians I would have rather given that trust to than the one we were required to give that trust to. Even more so if a miscarriage of voting and fate had left us with a President Palin in any part of 2009-2012.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:51 AM

99. Well thought out and said. Thanks. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:50 AM

102. K&R

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:06 PM

109. Locking. Sorry, but the GD SoP has restrictions on gun posts;

see this thread for details.

Please continue the discussion in one of the two groups specified for firearms-related discussion:

Gun Control & RKBA

Gun Control Reform Activism

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink