Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MichaelHarris

(10,017 posts)
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:03 PM Apr 2012

assault rifles gettting some more play time. Been a busy two years!

Man people are dropping like flies around people with assault rifles. You know, the guns that look like military weapons but are only just for plinking and the occasional deer assault. Not meant to do harm to people or law enforcement for that matter. These last two years been pretty bloody though. Here's a new one for "rifles that don't assault" people.

"The suspected killer of a sheriff's deputy and a locksmith during an eviction had a gas mask and was armed with several weapons, including a high-powered assault rifle,...Investigators also found that the man was wearing a ballistic vest which strongly suggests that the man barricaded himself in the apartment and was preparing himself for an armed confrontation with police" http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/police-shooting-suspect-was-1416646.html

But we all know they are really meant just for fun, good times right.

110 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
assault rifles gettting some more play time. Been a busy two years! (Original Post) MichaelHarris Apr 2012 OP
wally-world had 7 AR variants on the shelf today. ileus Apr 2012 #1
My friend bought one of those .22 AR's. LAGC Apr 2012 #14
The Locksmith who was murdered was a close family friend of one of my the guys he works with. Ecumenist Apr 2012 #2
Blah, blah, blah, anti-gun zealot talking points. rl6214 Apr 2012 #6
but the 5.56 and 7.62x39 are super high powered when in a pistol grip rifle. ileus Apr 2012 #7
Actually, genuis, my husband is a GUN COLLECTOR and has a number of them Ecumenist Apr 2012 #30
Well here's a pot... Clames Apr 2012 #42
A wasted mind is an awful thing to behold.....You make as much sense as a mud window but Ecumenist Apr 2012 #54
My suspicion is that Clames will be around here a lot longer than a potty mouthed rl6214 Apr 2012 #105
And that really dosen't mean he knows squat about guns rl6214 Apr 2012 #77
And you know what? you would do yourself a HUGE favor by taking a bit of your own fucking advice- Ecumenist Apr 2012 #78
"I don't assume anything about anyone " rl6214 Apr 2012 #80
Noticed you didn't add anything of substance but that's what I expected. Once again, talk is cheap Ecumenist Apr 2012 #94
Yeah, talk is cheap and I don't feel the need to try to boost my credibility by posting rl6214 Apr 2012 #104
You lot do tend to act out a lot when pressed, don't you? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #81
And if i gave a fuck, it would matter to me. Ecumenist Apr 2012 #91
This gun is a weapon of war: Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #8
Very sorry to hear about your/their loss. Straw Man Apr 2012 #12
Isn't that a pretty obvious obfuscation? DirkGently Apr 2012 #18
nice rant gejohnston Apr 2012 #19
What does the "AR" in AR-15 stand for? DirkGently Apr 2012 #24
AR? sarisataka Apr 2012 #27
Hey, I knew that. Did you know it has always been called an "Assault Rifle?" DirkGently Apr 2012 #85
Funny... sarisataka Apr 2012 #86
Armalite nt hack89 Apr 2012 #44
Simple Google search... Clames Apr 2012 #45
Any response to the substance of the post? DirkGently Apr 2012 #83
I will... Clames Apr 2012 #109
Not really when you look at their abilities sarisataka Apr 2012 #20
If that were true, there'd be no market for the combat weapon. DirkGently Apr 2012 #23
Several reasons sarisataka Apr 2012 #28
Problem is gun enthusiasts often stop at "Well, technically, that's not the case" DirkGently Apr 2012 #87
The history of the debate... sarisataka Apr 2012 #90
My perception of the history of the debate is that regulation is conflated with "ban" & dismissed. DirkGently Apr 2012 #92
Agreed, in principle sarisataka Apr 2012 #95
I'd like to see the educated, gun-savvy proposal for sensible restrictions. DirkGently Apr 2012 #100
you won't see one dominated by the VPC or Brady. gejohnston Apr 2012 #103
There is a level of ergonomics more suitable for tactical situations than others krispos42 Apr 2012 #41
The question is simply whether, on balance, it's reasonable to restrict people-killing design. DirkGently Apr 2012 #89
SMGs are innaccurate. gejohnston Apr 2012 #93
Well, that's the rub krispos42 Apr 2012 #107
These are people trying to legislate morality. To them, good ergonomics are evil. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #108
Answer below Travis_0004 Apr 2012 #25
I didn't call for a ban of anything. But the idea that only the ignorant would, is ignorant. DirkGently Apr 2012 #98
The second amendment is about weapons of war. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #65
Refreshing to hear someone admit that. Now ... DirkGently Apr 2012 #84
project much? gejohnston Apr 2012 #88
I'm curious.. what 'design elements' are neither sporting, nor military and.. X_Digger Apr 2012 #96
There's no right to military weapons. Nice try. DirkGently Apr 2012 #99
have to correct something gejohnston Apr 2012 #101
It's your concept, own it. X_Digger Apr 2012 #102
Answers. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #106
No. Straw Man Apr 2012 #75
A phillips-head screwdriver is an excellent tool for rotating a petronius Apr 2012 #97
Of course they are for war. The second amendment is ABOUT war. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #63
Thank you Atypical Liberal. I have a problem with people who try to expand the 2nd amendment Ecumenist Apr 2012 #66
I have a problem with people who have no clue gejohnston Apr 2012 #67
There is something I really would LOVE to say to something as ignorant as this post but my mother Ecumenist Apr 2012 #68
my aren't we pissed off gejohnston Apr 2012 #69
You know, don't care what you think and as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. I believe Ecumenist Apr 2012 #70
I believe what I believe gejohnston Apr 2012 #71
That much is true BUT you came at me with a viciousness and assumption that went far beyond the Ecumenist Apr 2012 #72
apology and clarification gejohnston Apr 2012 #73
I'm sorry too. I didn't mean the name Billy Bob as a disrespect to southerners. My husband Ecumenist Apr 2012 #76
The second amendment does not preclude self-defense. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #74
still does not change the fact that gejohnston Apr 2012 #3
May I have a hard and fast definition of what makes a rifle "high powered", please? Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #4
I have $5 that says you won't get an answer. PavePusher Apr 2012 #9
I don't think I'll take that bet. Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #13
I think we need to go higher than that.... PavePusher Apr 2012 #17
My own bias is in terms of North American hunting, Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #43
I wish I had one too. Unfortunately, I aquired the taste and desire... PavePusher Apr 2012 #48
Send me $100 and I'll tell you the winning numbers shadowrider Apr 2012 #50
I'll get right on that. PavePusher Apr 2012 #55
I suppose you'll send me $1000 by mistake and I have shadowrider Apr 2012 #57
Ah, you've done this before. PavePusher Apr 2012 #58
Smartass shadowrider Apr 2012 #61
The most powerful gun currently in my collection is a Browning BAR in .300 Win Mag. Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #53
More "NRA Talking Points"! DonP Apr 2012 #15
Don't forget shadowrider Apr 2012 #31
Anything not powered by a spring.... ileus Apr 2012 #37
Until it's posted exactly what type of weapon he had, that article is rl6214 Apr 2012 #5
Please list, by name and/or model... PavePusher Apr 2012 #10
I've only ever target shot with my high powered AR and no one around me had "dropped like flies"... OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #11
So, uh, how much do you want for it? Dr_Scholl Apr 2012 #22
.308? Callisto32 Apr 2012 #35
LR-308C with Floated quadrail. OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #47
chewy 308 goodness....what bi-pod is that? ileus Apr 2012 #38
VLTOR ModPod OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #46
Gun permit was revoked yamihere Apr 2012 #16
Blame lazy cops... jenwilson Apr 2012 #21
No Callisto32 Apr 2012 #34
No...it's the guns fault...blame the guns. ileus Apr 2012 #39
While a Catch 22, I think anyone who wants to purchase such weapons should be banned from owning Hoyt Apr 2012 #26
Hmmm. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #33
Please define... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #49
See your tribute thread to "assault weapons." Hoyt Apr 2012 #52
No appearances here... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #59
What if they're not used as weapons? ileus Apr 2012 #56
Ya know, if you want to be taken seriously... eqfan592 Apr 2012 #29
Depends on one's perspective. I think it's a serious OP. Lots of people do. Hoyt Apr 2012 #40
Harvy Strawman, Attorney at Law.. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #32
By definition, an assault rifle is chambered for an intermediate caliber. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #36
I have yet to read... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #51
"high-powered"... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #60
Oh look, more 'stats by nooz reports'. X_Digger Apr 2012 #62
Or anyone carrying an AK-47 in Moscow, Idaho? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #82
All rifles combined only kill about 300 people each year. Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #64
do you always put gejohnston Apr 2012 #79
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #110

ileus

(15,396 posts)
1. wally-world had 7 AR variants on the shelf today.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:33 PM
Apr 2012

I took a look at two of the 22 versions. I'm thinking about getting one for the kids...

My AR's are meant for plinking and family fun. I'm building one to hunt with now, I can't wait to get it in the field with the kids this fall hopefully I can get both of them on a deer or two.

My wife want's to upgrade the scope on her AR to something nicer like what I have on the match 22 she shoots.

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
14. My friend bought one of those .22 AR's.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:15 PM
Apr 2012

I like how small the magazines are. You can carry a whole bunch of them in your pockets, hunt around all day and never run out of ammo.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
2. The Locksmith who was murdered was a close family friend of one of my the guys he works with.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:41 PM
Apr 2012

He called DH yesterday morning and asked him to cover for him on a project because Mike had to go to Glen's home after he heard about the killing. It's a damn shame and I don't care what people say-those guns are for WAR. The only way you need them to hunt is if your quarry is God-flipping-zilla. Good grief.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
6. Blah, blah, blah, anti-gun zealot talking points.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:54 PM
Apr 2012

Those guns aren't any more for WAR (oh no, how evil) than your grandpa's shotgun. You really don't know anything about guns, do you?

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
30. Actually, genuis, my husband is a GUN COLLECTOR and has a number of them
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:28 AM
Apr 2012

He's also EX-MILITARY and is disgusted by people who have mindsets like you. You really should try to think before you make assinine comments about something and someone you know NOTHING about. Even though he has guns, he thinks for himself and dropped the NRA YEARS ago when they made the maniacal turn they've continued on their path to become the Bedlam Asylum of America.

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
42. Well here's a pot...
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:17 AM
Apr 2012

...calling the kettle black...


You really should try to think before you make assinine comments about something and someone you know NOTHING about.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
54. A wasted mind is an awful thing to behold.....You make as much sense as a mud window but
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:10 PM
Apr 2012

cheer up. I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't have to try to keep up with DU long....Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay and enjoy that coming pizza, dear...

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
105. My suspicion is that Clames will be around here a lot longer than a potty mouthed
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:40 PM
Apr 2012

blowhard like you.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
77. And that really dosen't mean he knows squat about guns
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:26 AM
Apr 2012

Cops carry guns all day long every day but that dosen't mean they know much about guns. I have taught a number of them how to shoot and helped them pass their qualifications but I shoot much better than they do. Just because a gun is the same caliber as one that is an actual military gun, that dosen't mean it IS a military gun. Most every gun is based upon something the military used at one time, that does not make it a WAR gun. So YOU should really try thinking before you spout off about something YOU know nothing about.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
78. And you know what? you would do yourself a HUGE favor by taking a bit of your own fucking advice-
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 02:42 AM
Apr 2012

not that I asked for it. He doesn't know anything about guns, huh? You just keep thinking that. You're opening your mouth and spouting off idiotic opinions about people and things YOU HAVE NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF. Just because you have a pop gun or two don't mean you know shit about anything you CLAIM to . Talk is cheap and I know what he's trained in, what with serving in an actual military and getting real training for more than a day or two, (this is where you would have actually had to put your big boy's pants on), something I doubt you have any real knowledge of either.

You remind me of the bellicose, belligerent NRA wished-he-was's who go around spouting sound bites about how much they know, all the time aware that there's no danger of them having to prove anything other than the trash talking they do. Really? Isn't it funny that REAL VETS who have actually had E.X.T.E.N.S.I.V.E training in firearms and armaments of all sorts NEVER GO AROUND TALKING THE crap "men" like you do? Guess what, rl6214, Rambo was a movie character, not a template for what you wish, hope and pray people see you as.

Do you honestly think I give a flying fart what you think? I'm sure it'll be difficult for you to comprehend and unlike you, I don't assume anything about anyone BUT I've seen the outcome of uncontrolled but "peaceful" ownership of "non-war" firearms and it is neither pretty, peaceful nor pleasant. Before you embarrass yourself once again with your unrequested and pointless bullet points, I HAVE NEVER LIVED IN THE "GHETTO", belonged to a gang, sold drugs, used them or hung out with violent and psychotic people. UNFORTUNATELY, I have lost many people over the years who just happened to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time around what you so politely term, guns that are not related to war. They are dead....PERIOD. Don't give me that rubbish about how guns don't kill people because it's funny how EVERY.BLOODY.TIME people get shot and wounded or killed, these guns JUST HAPPEN to be in the immediate vicinity. Strange, isn't it?

Were these people innocent by-standers? If being an innocent bystander means not using or even having a gun, then you damn skippy they were. A couple of them got wrapped up in the cocaine explosion of the 80's the rest were taken in the internecine gang wars that REALLY exploded in the wake of the cocaine epidemic of the 80's. They were black, white, brown and yellow. In the end, I really don't give a damn what you think because I know what I know and I don't need some twisted, greedy and sociopathic organisation headed by the most whacked out idiot to ever grace American soil to give me my opinions.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
80. "I don't assume anything about anyone "
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 04:45 PM
Apr 2012

And in spite of that you did an awefull lot of whining, bitching, moaning complaining, name calling accusations about something you know nothing about.

"I really don't give a damn what you think"

You sure did get your knickers in a twist for someone that really "don't give a damn"

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
94. Noticed you didn't add anything of substance but that's what I expected. Once again, talk is cheap
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:21 PM
Apr 2012

and easy to spout. Figures...

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
104. Yeah, talk is cheap and I don't feel the need to try to boost my credibility by posting
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:37 PM
Apr 2012

My military service or how many guns I own all over the internet but Hey, if that's what you've got to do, more power to you

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
81. You lot do tend to act out a lot when pressed, don't you?
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 05:07 PM
Apr 2012

When you're ready to quit moralizing and arguing from authority, we'll be here...

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
8. This gun is a weapon of war:
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:10 PM
Apr 2012

Brown Bess



This one is not:

Mini 14



Do you really want to base gun laws on whether or not a gun is a weapon of war?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
12. Very sorry to hear about your/their loss.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:44 PM
Apr 2012
It's a damn shame and I don't care what people say-those guns are for WAR. The only way you need them to hunt is if your quarry is God-flipping-zilla. Good grief.


I can understand the source of your emotional reaction, but the fact remains that this ...


... is more powerful than this:

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
18. Isn't that a pretty obvious obfuscation?
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:32 AM
Apr 2012

To what should we attribute the design differences in weapons like those? Would someone looking to kill a large number of people in a short time, in a small area, not have a preference, unless they had a lot of silly ideas about what some keep calling "cosmetic" features of weapons?

Why does the pro-gun side of the "assault weapons" argument pretend that there isn't a people-killing design element to weapons the firearms industry first started calling "assault weapons?" Why do they deliberately avoid the basic point some weapons -- which we keep hearing are "tools" are, like all tools, function specific. You don't bring a phillips-head screwdriver to pound a nail. Are we actually all supposed to pretend all weapons are the same?

"Assault weapon" is not an "anti" term, right? It's a marketing term. Are the gun manufacturers lying when they suggest that certain design components make a gun a better choice for combat than hunting?

The depth to which these silly rhetorical notions have been ingrained in some people is confounding. It's "irrational" and shows "ignorance of firearms" to note that certain weapons have design components focused on killing, vs. hunting, or even simple defense? If that's the case, why don't cops carry .22 target pistols? Why don't soldiers carry single-shot hunting rifles (anymore)?

The basic discussion is as simple as this: Does the public have a legitimate interest in regulating types of weapons on the basis of their design application? Do we have the right to be more concerned about someone stocking up on weapons with a combat focus vs. hunting, target-shooting, etc.?

Either point of view may be legitimate. But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
19. nice rant
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:54 AM
Apr 2012
To what should we attribute the design differences in weapons like those? Would someone looking to kill a large number of people in a short time, in a small area, not have a preference, unless they had a lot of silly ideas about what some keep calling "cosmetic" features of weapons?

Because they don't. That is the reality

Why does the pro-gun side of the "assault weapons" argument pretend that there isn't a people-killing design element to weapons the firearms industry first started calling "assault weapons?" Why do they deliberately avoid the basic point some weapons -- which we keep hearing are "tools" are, like all tools, function specific. You don't bring a phillips-head screwdriver to pound a nail. Are we actually all supposed to pretend all weapons are the same?

No, the industry did not start using the term. Antis did hence "assault weapon" instead of assault weapon.

"Assault weapon" is not an "anti" term, right? It's a marketing term. Are the gun manufacturers lying when they suggest that certain design components make a gun a better choice for combat than hunting?

It is an "anti" propaganda buzz term created by Josh Sugarmann. His exact quote:
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."


The depth to which these silly rhetorical notions have been ingrained in some people is confounding. It's "irrational" and shows "ignorance of firearms" to note that certain weapons have design components focused on killing, vs. hunting, or even simple defense? If that's the case, why don't cops carry .22 target pistols? Why don't soldiers carry single-shot hunting rifles (anymore)?

Actually, no. It is simply a progression from "tactical to practical". Functionally, there is no difference between an AR and a semi automatic rifle with a wooden stock or a semi automatic skeet gun. Since your knowledge of guns etc seems to be nonexistent, you have no business telling me what "I need".

The basic discussion is as simple as this: Does the public have a legitimate interest in regulating types of weapons on the basis of their design application? Do we have the right to be more concerned about someone stocking up on weapons with a combat focus vs. hunting, target-shooting, etc.?

We have been regulating firearms, on the federal level, based on their design application since 1934. No, you can not buy machine guns at gun shows or Wal Mart. A leading Criminologist put it best when he said "the issue is not how many guns, the issue is who has them." Someone "stocking up" legally is not the danger to society. Most murderers have criminal records. Google "myth of virgin killer"

Either point of view may be legitimate. But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.

And semi auto rifles based on ARs that are designed for hunting? They exist. Regardless, the more important discussion is how they are used. These rifles are rarely used in violent crime. Much less than bare hands. It is more important to deal with real issues and causes instead of wasting time and energy on theater.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
24. What does the "AR" in AR-15 stand for?
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 02:35 AM
Apr 2012

Same rhetoric, but with no better support. No one know anything about gun except enthusiasts, who are understandably fascinated by the technical differences in weaponry, but then turn around say it doesn't mean anything when we talk about regulation.

What's funny is that this premise is designed by the gun lobby to support gun manufacturers, who profit by selling weaponry with excruciatingly highly developed design, which of course would be pointless if it was true that design and features don't matter.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
27. AR?
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 03:05 AM
Apr 2012

The original builder was Armalite. The AR designation has carried on even as the manufactures have changed.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
86. Funny...
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 06:58 PM
Apr 2012

AR could mean both of those things. I wonder which they were going after.

If they changed it to BG-15 (Black Gun-15) would it then be exempt from any assault rifle ban since it is self-identified ...

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
45. Simple Google search...
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:26 AM
Apr 2012

...could have answered that question if you could bother yourself to do it. I know that would cut into time spent on snarky, biased rhetoric but at least you'd have some actual facts to work with. Armalite Rifle, Model 15 = AR-15

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
109. I will...
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 08:45 PM
Apr 2012

...when you post something of substance worth responding to. Start by at least obtaining some technical understanding of the subject.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
20. Not really when you look at their abilities
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:07 AM
Apr 2012

The Winchester 1894 .30-30 was not popular with the military because as a lever action it is difficult to use from the prone position.

Ammo capacity- 1894- 7-13 rounds
AR-15 10, 20 or 30 rounds

Rate of fire
1894- 2 rnd/sec according to Winchester
AR-15 45-60 rnd/min

Ballistics-
http://www.federalpremium.com/products/print/compare/rifle_compare.aspx?compare=6%2c56%2c28
(for comparison I included the 7.62x39 cartridge of the AK-47)

for those who don't want to follow the link, the 30-30 has more energy than the 5.56 by 580 ft/lbs at the muzzle, narrowing to a 45 ft/lb advantage at 500 yds

so to summarize, the 118 year old Winchester lever action can hold its own against an AR-15 in most situations. The quicker reload capability of the AR would give it an advantage in an extended battle.
An AR-15 is not an M-16, which would also have a burst or full auto advantage.

It is irrelevant if assault rifle is a made up term, marketing or whatever. It is easier to define what a high performance car is than an assault rifle.

It is the 'anti' side that wants these 'high-powered assault rifle' /bullet hoses banned. facts do not back up their claims

But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.

That is the slippery slope. We ban 'assault rifles' because their purpose is to kill people; although they are excellent hunting weapons for more reasons than the larger magazines. Then do we look at hunting rifles that also are pretty good at killing people e.g. the Ruger Mini-14, an up dated version of the M-14, which was derived from the WW2 M1. The Mini-14 was designed for small game hunting, ranchers and law enforcement. The VPC now calls it "the Poor Man's Assault Rifle.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
23. If that were true, there'd be no market for the combat weapon.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 02:27 AM
Apr 2012

Of course design matters. There's no way around that. Saying that you can use a weapon design for killing people for hunting is like saying you can use a bowling ball to roll flour. You could, but no one actually believes that's what it's for. Power, weight, capacity, range, conceal-ability, accuracy. These are all factors gun enthusiasts themselves ponder endlessly, BECAUSE it matters.

So all this patronizing, arch dismissal of these concerns as being founded on ignorance is a smokescreen. Everyone thinks weapons should be designed differently for killing people versus other uses.

A logical pro-gun position would be that killing people is a legitimate purpose. Not a great position, but at least logical. Pretending everything that gun manufacturers, military and police forces, and enthusiasts themselves put such great stock in when choosing their weapons doesn't actually mean anything is not logical.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
28. Several reasons
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 03:20 AM
Apr 2012

-how many people buy NEW AND IMPROVED even though there is no real difference from the last product
-American rifle ownership has always mirrored the current military weapon to a great degree
-there is an entire generation of vets trained on the M-16 which is ergonomically identical. Their marksmanship training is 100% transferable

Saying that you can use a weapon design for killing people for hunting is like saying you can use a bowling ball to roll flour.

You can but not efficiently. You could use an AR-15 to hunt moose... you can I sure the hell wouldn't. Just as I wouldn't use a .300 magnum to hunt squirrels. A better analogy would be golf clubs; they all can hit the ball but some are better in certain situations than others.

Everyone thinks weapons should be designed differently for killing people versus other uses.

Only VPC, Brady...

A logical pro-gun position would be that killing people is a legitimate purpose.

True if the purpose is self defense

Pretending everything that gun manufacturers, military and police forces, and enthusiasts themselves put such great stock in when choosing their weapons doesn't actually mean anything is not logical.

See the golf analogy.
The problem is the control groups who do not have the knowledge, or deliberately refuse to use it, making these broad statements about 'high-powered' and 'automatic' weapons whose only purpose is " laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone" to a public that does not know the difference. Then they get upset when they are corrected by people with those pesky facts.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
87. Problem is gun enthusiasts often stop at "Well, technically, that's not the case"
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:03 PM
Apr 2012

and ignore the rest of the argument. Which is that there is a public interest in limiting the ability of members of the public to kill large numbers of their fellow citizens in a short period of time.

The gun lobby, and its range of arguments, don't even countenance the possibility of discussing regulating based on weapon type. Rather than clarify the discussion, they seek to end it.

Rather than say, "No, it's not overall 'power' that makes a weapon a better people killer it's ..." they stop at this dismissive, "be gone, clueless gun hater" line of attack, dripping with this sanctimonious air of superiority, but substance-free.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
90. The history of the debate...
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:15 PM
Apr 2012

has shown that the terms 'for public safety', 'restriction', 'regulate' and 'reasonable' are synonyms for 'ban'.


It is the imprecise terminology of the GCs groups (arguably intentionally so) that becomes the issue. If you ban an intermediate powered devise, calling it 'high-powered' what then happens when someone discovers those that are high-powered. My money says a non-gun enthusiast in favor of restricting and regulating will suddenly be able to read a ballistic table and understand force calculations.


I cannot accept any law that says it is illegal... when we see it and we will know when we see it. On guns or any other item or action.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
92. My perception of the history of the debate is that regulation is conflated with "ban" & dismissed.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:20 PM
Apr 2012


Which is not to say that bans aren't appropriate. We ban lots of weapons. Nothing in the Second Amendments suggests we can't ban types of guns for personal use.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
95. Agreed, in principle
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:30 PM
Apr 2012

We do and should ban some weapon types.

When it comes to this sticky wicket however, there has been way more emotion than sense thrown in. The '94 ban was a poorly written feel good measure that even those who supported it say it had no real effect.
They miss that it hardened gun-enthusiast perceptions that total bans for any reason are the ultimate goal of GC. I do not own any assault style weapons. I do miss shooting them but have better uses for $1000+ than getting a civilian version of something for nostalgia.

If a GC group would come forth with a well thought out law showing a beneficial restriction, while codifying and acknowledging legitimate firearms ownership, including self-defense, the more moderate gun owners would give it a fair listen. IMO

As long as false, inflammatory terminology is used it will continue to drive the sides farther apart. Ironically strengthening the NRA and its influence. Also IMO

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
100. I'd like to see the educated, gun-savvy proposal for sensible restrictions.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:43 PM
Apr 2012

There must be one, somewhere. But we won't see it while the debate is dominated by the gun lobby.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
103. you won't see one dominated by the VPC or Brady.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:55 PM
Apr 2012

I think current federal regulations are quite reasonable.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
41. There is a level of ergonomics more suitable for tactical situations than others
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:08 AM
Apr 2012

That is very true. However, these things are attached onto the basic rifle mechanism, which is the focus of defining what an "assault rifle" is.

Yeah, the non-glare black finish is tactical-looking... but it's also desirable to have a non-glare finish when hunting. And considering how elements-proof those finishes typically are, it's also a good practical thing regardless of intended use. A rifle proof against dew, rain, powder residue, fingerprints, and human sweat is a pretty good idea.

Yeah, the pistol grip is non-traditional... but as soon as rifle stocks stopped carved from a single long piece of wood, they began added pistol grips. It's more comfortable, I guess, although I prefer traditional grips for some reason.

Yeah, flashlights and lasers are tactical... but it's generally considered a good think to be able to aim well and see what you're shooting at. Hunters generally can't uses flashlights and lasers for hunting, but if you're engaged in self-defense, with human lives on the line, being able to see clearly and shoot straight is a good, important thing. And what is the law going to do, outlaw the attachment points for lasers and lights?

Telescoping/folding stocks... born from military use, telescoping stocks allow hunters and shooters to maintain the same shooting position regardless of the layers of clothing worn or the size of the person shooting the rifle. Even fixed-stock rifles and shotguns sold nowadays usually have a mechanism to adjust the length-of-pull of the gun by adding shims to the recoil pad. And folding stocks make storage easier, although people often don't like them because they don't have the recoil absorption that a fixed stock does.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
89. The question is simply whether, on balance, it's reasonable to restrict people-killing design.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:11 PM
Apr 2012

Ted Nugent wants to go quail hunting with a MAC-10. Great. Might work. Does the Second Amendment require we let him, or at some point do we decide that the people-killing efficiency overbalances the theoretical non-homicidal application?

I also don't think aesthetics are out-of-bounds. Not for regulation, per se, but for discussion. Because the heart of the gun problem we have in America is the fetishization of the power of firearms as an extension of the ego.

You don't have to look very far to find Americans who's fascination with weaponry starts and ends with how badass it looks, feels, and potentially kills. That's not an attitude you can regulate, but it should be criticized in a world where every spree killer makes a YouTube video posing with his gun collection.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
93. SMGs are innaccurate.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:20 PM
Apr 2012
Ted Nugent wants to go quail hunting with a MAC-10. Great. Might work. Does the Second Amendment require we let him, or at some point do we decide that the people-killing efficiency overbalances the theoretical non-homicidal application?

Game regulations have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Even if the MAC 10 is legal, most states have a problem with it. Wyoming for example does not allow machine guns in the wild. That said, given that it is easier to hit a quail with a shotgun than a sub machine gun, the PETA side of me says let him. If he does it Wyoming, I hope the game warden likes country and has a young daughter.

the rest of the stuff is pop psychology and not worth the effort.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
107. Well, that's the rub
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 10:21 PM
Apr 2012

What is a people-killing design? Something akin to the Republican definition of pornography? "I know it when I see it?"

Besides, murder by rifle in this country is pretty rare. It's well in single-digit percentages of the total. About 3%, if memory serves, and that includes hunting rifles and .22s and everything. So it is worthwhile to pursue this issue to such a political extent for such a tiny potential ROI?

Because what wound up happening was that so much attention was paid to "those kinds" of rifles that they went from fringe to mainstream.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
108. These are people trying to legislate morality. To them, good ergonomics are evil.
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:46 AM
Apr 2012

They are trying to "save" society from assault weapons, and the fact that rifles are rarely used in crime is almost irrelevant to them.

They are no different than the right-wingers that are fixated on mandating "abstinence-only" sex education- the slight detail that the backwaters
that do indulge in that particular idiocy have higher teen pregnancy rates than more evolved places escapes them. Likewise, the notable
decrease in crime since 2004 seems to be studiously ignored by the "scary black guns frighten me crowd"

They want the 'bad' things banned, and that's all that matters to them...

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
25. Answer below
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 02:38 AM
Apr 2012

First off, the assault weapon bans do ban many cosmetic features. For example, some things that assult weapon bans have baned were pistol grips, bayonet lugs, adjustable butt stocks, and flash suppressors.

Changing those things don't make the gun any safer. When was the last time you herd of somebody getting stabbed with a bayonet. I'll admit that the buttstock makes it slightly smaller, many guns like the AR-15, some apart in 2 pieces in a few seconds. No tools required.

The term assault rifle refers to a gun capable of FULL AUTO fire. Assault weapon is almost exclusively used by people who are anti gun, or perhaps not familiar with the terminology. I've never seen the term assault weapon used by a gun company.

I'll admit that some guns are better at different things. AR-15's are lightweight, they have low recoil and they are accurate. This makes them great guns for shooting competitions. Go to a 3 gun competition, and I would bet a lot of people (80+ percent) have an AR-15. Its a hobby, or for a few people a career. I see nothing wrong with that.

You claim that some guns should be banned, because they can't be used for hunting, my first response would be that many 'assault rifles' (to use your term, I would not describe an AR-15 as such), make great hunting guns.

I think the only people who show ignorance to firearms are people who are against them, and never look into them. I think its funny when people want all magazines capped at 10 rounds, and they claim high round magazines are a newer invention, then they don't believe you when you tell them that 15 rounds magazines were available in 1873. (not removal magazines, but you could fire 15 shots without reloading).

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
65. The second amendment is about weapons of war.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 05:14 PM
Apr 2012
Why does the pro-gun side of the "assault weapons" argument pretend that there isn't a people-killing design element to weapons the firearms industry first started calling "assault weapons?" Why do they deliberately avoid the basic point some weapons -- which we keep hearing are "tools" are, like all tools, function specific. You don't bring a phillips-head screwdriver to pound a nail. Are we actually all supposed to pretend all weapons are the same?

You won't find me making that argument.

The second amendment is not about hunting, nor even particularly about personal self-defense. The second amendment is about killing people who threaten the security of free states. It is about putting military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of the people.

Arms like the AR-15 and the AK-47 are exactly the kinds of arms the people are supposed to be bearing, and they are for killing people, not hunting or self-defense.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
84. Refreshing to hear someone admit that. Now ...
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 06:53 PM
Apr 2012

the question remains -- is there a legitimate public policy interest in regulating and restricting weapons designed for killing people?

For example, if you take the "well-regulated militia" point of view, would it be reasonable to limit everyone to one, militarily-viable long gun, to be kept in the home under lock and key?

Or, are there design elements which are neither sporting, nor military viable, but which are well-suited to illegal purposes?

If it wasn't for the cult-like rhetoric of the gun lobby, you'd think gun enthusiasts would participate in a discussion like that, but instead you get this extremely hostile, hardline approach, with an odd dollop of intellectual snobbery, droning on about how no one but gun rights supporters knows a clip from magazine, etc. etc. / yawn.

I'm glad you don't subscribe, but I'm sure you're familiar hardline about how those silly anti-gun weenies are just afraid flash suppressors, when in reality a target .22 is no more or less inherently dangerous than ... take your pick.

It's silly nonsense, and of course I know better than to engage, but every once in a while, it's hard not to dip a toe in just in amazement at the combination of illogic and arrogance that defines the litany of dishonest gun rights memes that inevitably derail all these conversations.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
88. project much?
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:10 PM
Apr 2012
the question remains -- is there a legitimate public policy interest in regulating and restricting weapons designed for killing people?

Guns are regulated on federal and state levels.

For example, if you take the "well-regulated militia" point of view, would it be reasonable to limit everyone to one, militarily-viable long gun, to be kept in the home under lock and key?

No. I would prefer a military system like Switzerland to replace the empire. The full auto rifle or handgun (officers, military police, medics etc are issued pistols) are government property. Once you leave the military, your rifle is converted to semi automatic and is yours to keep. It is kept next to your privately owned guns.

Or, are there design elements which are neither sporting, nor military viable, but which are well-suited to illegal purposes?

no.

If it wasn't for the cult-like rhetoric of the gun lobby, you'd think gun enthusiasts would participate in a discussion like that, but instead you get this extremely hostile, hardline approach, with an odd dollop of intellectual snobbery, droning on about how no one but gun rights supporters knows a clip from magazine, etc. etc. / yawn.

That sounds kind of anti intellectual. If you are going to regulate something, it is important that you know what you are talking about and have a logical and rational reason for restricting it.

I'm glad you don't subscribe, but I'm sure you're familiar hardline about how those silly anti-gun weenies are just afraid flash suppressors, when in reality a target .22 is no more or less inherently dangerous than ... take your pick.

say what?

It's silly nonsense, and of course I know better than to engage, but every once in a while, it's hard not to dip a toe in just in amazement at the combination of illogic and arrogance that defines the litany of dishonest gun rights memes that inevitably derail all these conversations.

I never ceased to be amazed that the level of dishonesty, illogic, arrogance, projection, and just plain absurdity that comes from "antis".

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
96. I'm curious.. what 'design elements' are neither sporting, nor military and..
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 07:38 PM
Apr 2012

are well-suited to illegal purposes?!?


DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
99. There's no right to military weapons. Nice try.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:42 PM
Apr 2012

The popcorn smiley kind of tells the whole story here. The super fun game / rhetorical dodge is to have a rhetorical answer for any regulatory proposal, without any logical response. The thread's already peppered with the usual nonsense. Capacity doesn't matter because ... you can reload! Compact design doesn't matter because ... uh ... thick clothing?

It's not honest argument. People don't collect militarized weapons because they're readying to fight the British. It's part of a fantasy culture of militia and the convenient myth that everyone needs to be armed and dangerous because ... everyone's armed and dangerous. Because we have the gun laws of your typical leaderless African nation.



gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
101. have to correct something
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:53 PM
Apr 2012

couple of things actually.

There's no right to military weapons. Nice try.

Says who? The NFA was not a ban because the supporters thought a ban on machine guns etc. would be struck down.

It's not honest argument. People don't collect militarized weapons because they're readying to fight the British. It's part of a fantasy culture of militia and the convenient myth that everyone needs to be armed and dangerous because ... everyone's armed and dangerous. Because we have the gun laws of your typical leaderless African nation.

Somalia actually has strict gun laws, on the books. A total ban on the average person because of economics. Most of the people who collect militarized weapons are well, curio and relic collectors. What's the deal with the fucking British? Their empire is dead. Hopefully there will be an independent Scotland soon.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
102. It's your concept, own it.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:54 PM
Apr 2012

Care to answer?

Of course, I think the idea is bullshit, but I'd like you to actually answer.

What are 'militarized weapons'? Any weapon ever used by a military anywhere?

What feature is only useful in crime?

Is it only guns with rust and scratch resistant finishes? Or those that are ergonomic to shoot? Or those with adjustable stocks?

Buck up and own it.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
106. Answers.
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:48 PM
Apr 2012
Refreshing to hear someone admit that. Now the question remains -- is there a legitimate public policy interest in regulating and restricting weapons designed for killing people?

In a word, no. All rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides annually. This is half as many as are killed by hands and feet.

The reason is simple: Rifles are not conducive to crime because they are not concealable.

If you want to regulate firearms, the only firearm that really could use regulation are handguns. But this makes the militia arms angle moot. And of course we don't want to regulate handguns, because they are the most portable, easy to use way to resist violence that current technology produces.

For example, if you take the "well-regulated militia" point of view, would it be reasonable to limit everyone to one, militarily-viable long gun, to be kept in the home under lock and key?

Here's the thing: If you own one, you are no more dangerous if you own 10. You can only use one rifle at a time. So there is no harm if I own a dozen. So why regulate it?

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the "lock them up" argument. When I had children, I bought a cheap-o $150 "gun safe", which, while it meets the requirements of the California Department of Justice for storing firearms, is really little more than a lockable filing cabinet. I bought it to keep my kids away from the guns. It is probably not much for protection against theft. Anyone with a crowbar could break into it.

If you want true UL-rated theft protection, such as a safe that is rated to protect against 15 or 30 minutes of dedicated attack, you are looking at many thousands of dollars.

Before I had kids, I did not lock up my firearms.

I think it is responsible to lock up your firearms, but there is also a penalty in time-to-access for doing so. If I lived someplace dangerous, I might be less willing to lock up my self-defense firearm. However, advances in quick-access gun safes may make this problem irrelevant.

My personal opinion is that if you have kids, or kids will ever be visiting your house, you should lock up your firearms.

Or, are there design elements which are neither sporting, nor military viable, but which are well-suited to illegal purposes?

I can't think of one. The number-one trait of a firearm that makes is well-suited to illegal purposes is concealability, at which the handgun excels. Unfortunately, the handgun is also the premier portable self-defense weapon.

That said, if I ever absolutely had to choose a firearm class to outlaw, it would be handguns. You don't need them in a military context (a pistol is a weapon you use to fight your way back to a rifle) and as long as people were armed with military-grade rifles you could easily defend your home and uphold the intent of the second amendment.

Unfortunately it will mean that every victim of violent crime will have no way to fight back short of engaging in a physical fight with their attacker.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
75. No.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:10 PM
Apr 2012
Either point of view may be legitimate. But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.

The response was to someone who proposed that an "assault weapon" would only be appropriate for hunting if one were hunting "God-flipping-zilla." I would choose the Marlin lever action over the AR-15 for any large game. The fact is that the .223 round of the AR-15 is banned as a deer-hunting round in many states because it is considered underpowered for that task. As a hunting round, it is more appropriate for varmints such as coyotes, prairie dogs, etc.

The battlefield role of the modern assault rifle (not "assault weapon," which is a legal rather than technical designation) is to produce a large volume of suppressive fire using its full-auto capabilities. The civilian version, the AR-15, does not have full-auto capability, rendering it simply a small-to-intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifle, albeit one with a decidedly military appearance.

I might be called Straw Man, but please resist the temptation to put words in my mouth. I never said that "all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless." However, I will suggest that I know a good deal more about that particular subject than you do -- feel free to educate me if you believe otherwise. I know that most of the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" is unfounded, based mostly on the misconception, deliberately fostered by the VPC et al, that these rifles are (a) extremely powerful and (b) fully automatic. Neither one is true.

I also believe firmly that if all the AR and AK variants were to magically disappear tomorrow, other semi-auto firearms would take their place as the focus of the anti-gun movement's ire. Were those to disappear in turn, then it would be repeaters of all varieties: lever-action, pump-action, bolt-action. Then would come single-shot breech-loaders, and finally muzzle-loaders. Every type of firearm has been a weapon of war in its day, and every type of firearm has been used in crime at some point.

OK, your turn.


petronius

(26,581 posts)
97. A phillips-head screwdriver is an excellent tool for rotating a
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 08:12 PM
Apr 2012

phillips head screw, whether you're building a gallows or an orphanage. There are plenty of attributes that might make that screwdriver good or bad, but few if any have a bearing on the structure you're (dis)assembling.

Likewise with firearms - there are few if any features that make a rifle a 'people-killer' in particular, in contrast to being a killer of coyotes, bowling pins, chupacabras, or paper targets. Many aspects might make a firearm attractive to a particular user, but none of them determine the appropriate target.

When it comes to so-called 'assault weapons', if you can specify a feature that is particularly relevant to killing humans (in the undesirable, criminal way) without being related even more strongly to regular use then there'd be something to talk about regulating. Put another way, if there was a way to make firearms more difficult to use criminally without having detrimental impacts on the vaster amount of regular use it would be worth talking about.

But, most if not all of the definitions of 'assault weapons' address features that have nothing to do with lethality or criminal use in any specific way, or determine what the gun's target is supposed to be. Rather, they target cosmetic aspects, or features that are desirable for all users. As used in a policy sense, "assault weapon" seems to be more about misinformation: creating the illusion that there are guns good for killing people and nothing else, or that they're military weapons - machine guns - As Seen On TV. I can see why gun control advocates might wish to foster that confusion, but it's not good for policy.

(As for the marketing angle, if it appeals to the badass sensibilities of the weekend Rambos that may be silly, but it's not harmful in a policy sense...)

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
63. Of course they are for war. The second amendment is ABOUT war.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 05:03 PM
Apr 2012
It's a damn shame and I don't care what people say-those guns are for WAR. The only way you need them to hunt is if your quarry is God-flipping-zilla. Good grief.

Of course they are for war. They are near-copies of military weapons, with the exception that they don't fire in fully-automatic mode.

This is they kind of weapons the second amendment protects. The second amendment is not about hunting, it's about killing people who threaten the security of free states.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
66. Thank you Atypical Liberal. I have a problem with people who try to expand the 2nd amendment
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 05:32 PM
Apr 2012

to cover EVERYTHING that can conceivably use a firearm. This amendment was meant to make sure that we could defend our country against enemies from within and without, not every Billie Jo Bob to blast his neighbor because they made him nervous. Damn, DH was telling me that in Texas, they ACTUALLY legalised SILENCERS for HUNTING??!! Why? So someone can POACH more easily without having their gunshots heard? Really?/ RIDICULOUS. You know they're going to be used for all the wrong reasons. As in MURDERS, etc.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
67. I have a problem with people who have no clue
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:08 PM
Apr 2012

to cover EVERYTHING that can conceivably use a firearm.

This amendment was meant to make sure that we could defend our country against enemies from within and without, not every Billie Jo Bob to blast his neighbor because they made him nervous.

How about reading the actual self defense laws and not parrot talk radio bullshit. Billie Jo Bob? Got that anti rural working bigotry going? Gee, that will get us votes just like the Republicans get rich and Evangelical African American votes.

Damn, DH was telling me that in Texas, they ACTUALLY legalised SILENCERS for HUNTING??!!

They do in Europe, even mandatory in Finland and France.

Why? So someone can POACH more easily without having their gunshots heard? Really?/ RIDICULOUS. You know they're going to be used for all the wrong reasons. As in MURDERS, etc.

You have been watching too many 1970s cop and PI shows. They are not that silent. Oh yeah, to get a legal silencer, you are still talking about a several months long background check, registration, and a $200 transference tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
68. There is something I really would LOVE to say to something as ignorant as this post but my mother
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:23 PM
Apr 2012

taught me better. Primarily. What the fuck do you know about black folks? I AM ONE WHO LIVES IN A RURAL AREA, Einstein. I don't compromise myself just to get someone's vote, sorry if you do. You don't know SHIT about churchgoing black folks, so back the fuck up on that one. I DON'T WATCH COP SHOWS, dear, so you strike out there too.. I SPEAK MIND MIND AND IF YOU DO LIKE IT, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOU, right?!!

And as far as those background checks go, we all know how well they've worked out, don't we?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
69. my aren't we pissed off
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:32 PM
Apr 2012

I grew up in a rural area and still live in one.
Just from the ones I worked with, went to war with, went to church with, not much. Many are Evangelicals.
You can say anything you want.

And as far as those background checks go, we all know how well they've worked out, don't we?

NFA is not a NICS phone call that works only as well as states keep their shit together.
read further.
All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.

Corporations are exempt from the CLEO signature.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
70. You know, don't care what you think and as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. I believe
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:40 PM
Apr 2012

what I believe and that's that. You don't know shit about me or people. Don't play that game because it'll never work. and BTW, I grew up with and will end this life black, how about you?. Right, didn't think so..

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
72. That much is true BUT you came at me with a viciousness and assumption that went far beyond the
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:56 PM
Apr 2012

pale. I will believe as I will believe based on my experience and people I have lost due to guns, black, white, brown, yellow and red. There's nothing wrong with guns theoretically but when people start extending having and using them with infinite iterations, whether they make sense or not pisses me off. NOT all evangelical, let alone BLACK ones agree with this lie it's stupid to try to say they do.

I ATTENDED Christian schools until I was in high school. I know what's I'm talking about and these boxes that people are forcing others into to try to justify their believes,. no matter how radical is getting old. BTW, NOT ALL RURAL people are in love with guns. so stop it. It's not true. AND it's not just because I'm in California. DH is Texan. and although he has guns, he's is disgusted by the likes of Wayne La Pierre, the NRA in it's current form and it's attempt to paint this country with it's radical agenda.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
73. apology and clarification
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 07:20 PM
Apr 2012
BUT you came at me with a viciousness and assumption that went far beyond the

for that I humbly apologize,
I detest faux liberals who are bigots like Bill Maher. I mistook you for one. My bad. Again I humbly apologize

I will believe as I will believe based on my experience and people I have lost due to guns, black, white, brown, yellow and red. There's nothing wrong with guns theoretically but when people start extending having and using them with infinite iterations, whether they make sense or not pisses me off. NOT all evangelical, let alone BLACK ones agree with this lie it's stupid to try to say they do.

I don't believe I said that. I was referring to some progressives that are viewed as snobbish urbanites who deride rural working class. That is, in my opinion, part of the reason why the party lost those folks since the 1970s.

I ATTENDED Christian schools until I was in high school. I know what's I'm talking about and these boxes that people are forcing others into to try to justify their believes,. no matter how radical is getting old. BTW, NOT ALL RURAL people are in love with guns. so stop it. It's not true. AND it's not just because I'm in California. DH is Texan. and although he has guns, he's is disgusted by the likes of Wayne La Pierre, the NRA in it's current form and it's attempt to paint this country with it's radical agenda.

I don't like Wayne La Pierre nor the NRA in its current form anymore than you do. I never assumed all rural people like guns or hunting. My point was entirely different. My point was more about faux liberals that refer to all working class people as yahoo, Billy Bob, trailer trash, etc.
Had nothing to do with race or religion, other than what seems like a parallel to me.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
76. I'm sorry too. I didn't mean the name Billy Bob as a disrespect to southerners. My husband
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:11 PM
Apr 2012

is a white southerner (Texan), of Bohemian Czech descent. I agree with your point of FAUX liberals who have come out of the woodwork since the Trayvon Martin tragedy has been made known. I have been astounded to find that there are so many undercover bigots here and so many "so-called Christians" who've turned out to be sunday morning Christians.

I don't believe in trailer trash any more than I believe in calling people any other derogatory names. I have a temper which I am working on but the one thing I believe in is treating everyone with fairness and equity. I don't understand people who talk trash when in my face and saying something else behind my back. This is the one thing that has come forward since Obama's election.

The one thing I have to disagree wholeheartedly is this: We are NEVER going to convince republicans to vote for us, no matter what we do, UNLESS they've decided ON their own that our view of America and Her people is one they believe in. MANY of them have come around on their own and have said that they're HORRIFIED by what they see in the extremism that is becoming more and more apparent.

I will NEVER compromise my beliefs to try to pull people into the tent who really don't want to be there and you shouldn't either.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
74. The second amendment does not preclude self-defense.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:09 PM
Apr 2012

>This amendment was meant to make sure that we could defend our country against enemies from within and without, not every Billie Jo Bob to blast his neighbor because they made him nervous.

Of course people are not allowed to "blast his neighbor because they made him nervous". However, the second amendment does not preclude personal security. Self-defense is quite legitimate.

>Damn, DH was telling me that in Texas, they ACTUALLY legalised SILENCERS for HUNTING??!! Why? So someone can POACH more easily without having their gunshots heard? Really?/ RIDICULOUS. You know they're going to be used for all the wrong reasons. As in MURDERS, etc.

Hopefully you understand that silencers do not work like you see in the movies, where a BANG is turned into a "ffft".

Here is a gun shooting subsonic ammunition with a silencer. This is about as quiet as it gets:

&feature=fvwrel

When you shoot with standard-velocity ammunition it's even louder. All these things really are is safety equipment for the shooter. You still have to wear hearing protection, but it's not as loud. It's also a courtesy for those around you.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. still does not change the fact that
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:44 PM
Apr 2012

twice as many people are murdered with bare hands than all long guns combined. Oh yeah, might want to check your calender. It is not 1933.

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

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
9. I have $5 that says you won't get an answer.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:39 PM
Apr 2012

If you do, I'll go double-or-nothing on a dodge, and no addresing of the question.

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
13. I don't think I'll take that bet.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:04 PM
Apr 2012

How's this for a definition, though? A high-powered rifle is one chambered for a cartridge with a muzzle energy in excess of 3,000 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, thus making it appropriate for dangerous game.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
17. I think we need to go higher than that....
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:06 AM
Apr 2012

but my opinion may be somewhat biased. Due to being raised for three years in Central Africa, I tend to think of .375 H&H Magnum as a nice, low-recoil load at short-to-medium ranges for medium-sized game.

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
43. My own bias is in terms of North American hunting,
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:22 AM
Apr 2012

so I think of "high-powered" as loads sufficient for grizzly; .338 Win Mag and higher.

I would *love* to have a .375 H&H sometime, as well as a good excuse (i.e., a safari) to use it!

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
48. I wish I had one too. Unfortunately, I aquired the taste and desire...
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:58 AM
Apr 2012

without the accompanying financial means. So currently, the largest rifle I own is in 8mm Mauser. Nothing to look down on, certainly. But I do like me some large-bore single and double rifles.

I just wish one of the prognosticateurs around here would tell me the next winning Lotto numbers...

shadowrider

(4,941 posts)
50. Send me $100 and I'll tell you the winning numbers
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:01 PM
Apr 2012

to some lottery somewhere to be held in the future.

Deal?

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
55. I'll get right on that.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:11 PM
Apr 2012

The check is drawn on the National Credit Institute Bank of Nigeria and may take 5-7 months to clear. I hope that won't be a problem...?

shadowrider

(4,941 posts)
57. I suppose you'll send me $1000 by mistake and I have
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:32 PM
Apr 2012

to send you $900 out of my bank account immediately before I find the check doesn't clear, is that about right?

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
58. Ah, you've done this before.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 02:00 PM
Apr 2012

Good, I won't have to explain the procedure....

"This will only hurt for a second..."

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
53. The most powerful gun currently in my collection is a Browning BAR in .300 Win Mag.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:10 PM
Apr 2012

A bit light for grizzly, but enough for anything else in North America.

I have toyed with the idea of getting a .50 Beowulf upper for my AR-15, though...

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
15. More "NRA Talking Points"!
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:27 PM
Apr 2012

That's the response I usually get when I ask a question.

Any attempt to get facts into the discussion, by stating them or asking for them, sends them off howling about "NRA talking points", and "Right wing nuts on DU claiming to be Dems" etc.

Apparently ignorance is a highly prized value for people proposing more gun control legislation. I wonder how they feel about "that shoulder thing that goes up" as a threat to the children?

shadowrider

(4,941 posts)
31. Don't forget
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:35 AM
Apr 2012

Plastic and heat-seeking bullets. Put those in a weapon that has a shoulder thing that goes up and you truly have the most advanced weapon ever invented.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
5. Until it's posted exactly what type of weapon he had, that article is
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:52 PM
Apr 2012

about as worthless as your post.

Took ya two years to find something about the evil assault weapons?

 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
11. I've only ever target shot with my high powered AR and no one around me had "dropped like flies"...
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:42 PM
Apr 2012

I gues my rifle must be broken.
Shoots around 3/4moa when feeding it 168gr A-Max

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
46. VLTOR ModPod
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:40 AM
Apr 2012

Used as a bipod the Harris and Atlas bipods swivel and are more stable. This doesn't swivel. But I got this because as an AR, the rifle doesn't always get used from a rest or prone. I had a Harris on another rifle and disliked how it got in the way when not in use... just kind of made the rifle seem bulky and odd when folded up and shooting offhand. So I got this because it folds up and out of the way of my sling and front arm

If you are planning to use a rifle as a bench only or taget only I'd recommend a harris or Atlas... for a field or utility rifle the ModPod (or even Grip Pods) are pretty nice.

 

yamihere

(10 posts)
16. Gun permit was revoked
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:33 PM
Apr 2012

[link:http://www.onenewsnow.com/AP/Search/US/Default.aspx?id=1577802|
"State online records show Ferrario's security guard registration and firearms permit were canceled in 2009 with no disciplinary action indicated."
OK, let me see if I got this right.

He lived in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and his firearms permit was revoked over 2 years ago. Yet, he still was able to open fire and kill people.

Now maybe, just maybe, all these "reasonable" gun laws are just there to make people that have an irrational fear of firearms or a weak mind feel good because apparently people who are bat shit crazy and want to kill people don't really care if the tool they are using to commit the crime with is illegal.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
26. While a Catch 22, I think anyone who wants to purchase such weapons should be banned from owning
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 02:41 AM
Apr 2012

lethal weapons.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
56. What if they're not used as weapons?
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 01:29 PM
Apr 2012

Very few people use their firearms as weapons....so why ban something benign?

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
29. Ya know, if you want to be taken seriously...
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 03:34 AM
Apr 2012

...maybe you should drop the BS and just stick to the facts. Oh wait, if you did that, you'd have no case. Ok, never mind then.

Callisto32

(2,997 posts)
36. By definition, an assault rifle is chambered for an intermediate caliber.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 07:48 AM
Apr 2012

If it were "High Power" it would fall into the category of "battle rifle."

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
51. I have yet to read...
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:05 PM
Apr 2012

...that any "assault rifles" were actually recovered from the scene of this event. Anyone find anything anywhere identifying an assault rifle?

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
62. Oh look, more 'stats by nooz reports'.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 02:59 PM
Apr 2012

Seen any change in the FBI UCR, MichaelHarris?

Seen any (black) white supremacists lately?

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
64. All rifles combined only kill about 300 people each year.
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 05:04 PM
Apr 2012

According to the FBI UCR, all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, only kill about 300 people a year. This is half as man as are killed with hands and feet.

Given the millions upon millions of these weapons in circulation, there is virtually no crime problem with rifles in the United States.

Response to gejohnston (Reply #79)

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»assault rifles gettting s...