It seems natural, to me, that in the wake of tragedies like the Colorado shootings, that folks turn their attention to gun control.

It's a complicated issue for me, and I don't claim to have any brilliant answers.

First, I like the notion that we respect the constitution. And I really don't like the prospect of ignoring parts of the constitution that we don't happen to like.

Along those lines, I believe that law-abiding folks ahould have reasonable access to guns for hunting, target shooting, and/or protection.

But I don't get the availability of assault rifles. Now, I do have an assault rifle in my house that I kept from my days in the USMC. However, I tinkered with it so that it doesn't fire, and would be just about impossible to fix. I do look at it sometimes, usually on Memorial Day, when I'm feeling nostalgic. I don't keep it because it makes me feel tough, I keep it for deep sentimental reasons.

But I guess I'm not sure I see any rational reasons for anyone owning these weapons. I'd love to see them banned from public availability. They are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as short a time as possible. Only law enforcement and the military are legitimately in need of that ability. Seems to me that most people buy them to feel like a tough guy.

It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.

We can agree on this one to a T.
why did the AZ guy need the extended magazines for his Glocks?
why did CO shooter need the drum mag (I don't care if it jammed, he still had it)

Because people 'need' them?

As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....

We can agree on this one to a T.
why did the AZ guy need the extended magazines for his Glocks?
why did CO shooter need the drum mag (I don't care if it jammed, he still had it)

Because people 'need' them?

As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....

It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In some cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.

It's difficult to speculate on whether or not these rare mass-killings would be less deadly if it weren't for these weapons. But it seems like common sense to me.

I mean, lots of people get killed in car accidents, but no rational person is suggesting that we outlaw cars. Because collectively, wwe agree that the utility and freedom that the automobile provides, are worth the cost.

However, I don't see a big benefit to society, thanks to the availability of these guns.

It's difficult to speculate on whether or not these rare mass-killings would be less deadly if it weren't for these weapons. But it seems like common sense to me.

Obviously, we can't make bad things not happen, but we can limit the tools used to do these bad things (within reason)

I feel like I wrote the original post (with the exception of the USMC part).

The constitution states that the people should have the right to bear arms for an important reason.. Our founding fathers wanted a small efficient government, and they wanted the masses to have the firepower to stand up to take down the government by force if needed when and if the government became large, out of control and was oppressing the people. I'm all for the ownership of assault weapons... I think every non felon should own one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is like some kind of Bizarro world I've wandered into....:huh:

:hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chris Rock on Gun Control - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II)

In all seriousness, I agree with this post. I grew up with long guns, hunting was a big part of my earlier years... But I never understood the fascination with automatic weapons, and to an extent handguns. A gun is a tool for hunting, IMHO. And while I respect the right of people to carry concealed weapons for personal protection, if handguns were illegal the need for said protection would be far less.

(But let's not go off on a tangent... I understand that if handguns were illegal, criminals would still find a way to obtain them anyway. I'm not advocating outlawing handguns)

What's extremely disconcerting to me is that Holmes was able to purchase so much unregulated ammunition (appx. $15,000) in a few months without someone taking notice. In this day and age most people are paranoid that a google search for "how to make a pipe bomb" or "jihaad" will put them on a federal watch list. While I don't know if those examples are true or not, it seems clear to me that there should be regulations on the purchase of ammunition, and if an individual is purchasing such a great quantity in a short period of time (along with body armor, knives, mag holders, etc...) it should raise some red flags.

Im gonna cause some ruckus here but can't help myself.
Im torn on the issue, but my gut tells me its about freedom. I get labeled and sometimes label myself as a conservative but in reality Im a libertarian. I dont like being limited and other people monitoring me. 20 million people will drink some beer tonight, 2 will get killed or kill someone in an accident. Do we punish everyone? I can guarantee you if you ban alcohol, hundreds of lives will be saved. More that die in 10 yrs from automatic weapons. One wacko killed a lot of innocent people. I dont know if the solution is to ban the weapons he used. I understand the response, but dont know if its appropriate. I know you wont agree, but to me, its the same senitment as banning large sodas in NYC.

It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In most cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.
Fixed.

I mean, lots of people get killed in car accidents, but no rational person is suggesting that we outlaw cars. Because collectively, wwe agree that the utility and freedom that the automobile provides, are worth the cost.
I think the difference is that cars are very rarely used as an offensive weapon, if they were you might see more concern. With DUI's for instance the vehicle is really an unintended weapon, but there's a stiff penalty for irresponsibility.

Which brings up the issue of responsibility. People aren't allowed some weapons not just because they don't need them but there's the risk of irresponsible use or care. Hence gun safety requirements or a clean record to own a firearm or permit to carry.

Those with legal access to automatic weapons have usually gone through more intensive police or military training and they have strict rules that govern their use.

Remember back in the 1980's the big argument was that gun control advocates were trying to bad guns that "looked" more dangerous than they really were. I always found this silly because even a semi-auto with the right stock or extended round clip changes the function dramatically.

Guns are certainly fun to shoot, but I'd agree that to own an AR-15 for instance has little value to the individual other than the cool factor. Even if it's not the military version it was still designed to be an offensive weapon.

-spence

I know you wont agree, but to me, its the same senitment as banning large sodas in NYC.
You can't steal a large soda and use it to kill someone.

You can't equip a gang with large sodas and challenge the police or terrorize a neighborhood.

I think there's quite a difference.

Sure, banning assault weapons won't fix the problem, but the widespread availability certainly makes unnecessary violence more likely. As Jack noted, how so much ammo could be acquired on short notice online is astonishing.

Perhaps part of the answer is stiffer penalties on merchants who sell illegally, closing the gun show loophole etc...

-spence

Ban them! Quickly! They're scary looking!

Apparently Jim is a closet liberal.



It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.

Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up.

You can't equip a gang with large sodas and challenge the police or terrorize a neighborhood.

I think there's quite a difference.

...

-spence

I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?

I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?

Soda/beer aren't scary looking.
No reason to ban them.

This is like some kind of Bizarro world I've wandered into....:huh:

Tell me about it! I was half-expecting you to shut down the thread out of sheer habit...

I like them. Would like to add another to the collection. Might even build a custom I have in mind. I designed a muzzle brake for long guns ten years ago and it has been well received in its reductiion of signature, especially in dusty environments. (I could probably get your weapon operational, Jim..... as long as you did not remove mass from the action...)
That said, I would be for taking them out of the hands of the public, as long as they can assure that they have gotten them all..... only then would I be willing to put myself at a disadvantage.....





Hi Ben......I know you are reading this one......

Ban them! Quickly! They're scary looking!

Apparently Jim is a closet liberal.




Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up.

"Apparently Jim is a closet liberal."

Nope! But I have often said that I think for myself, I don't blindly follow any one ideology. I also believe, for example, that conservatives (and my church) are wrong on gay marriage.

"Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up"

I don't need to look it up, I know all about it. It's because I know about that incident that I said it's harder to kill large numbers of folks with a handgun than with an assault rifle. I didn't say it was impossible to kill many people with a handgun...I said it's easier to do it with an assault rifle. That's what I said, and I cannot believe you disagree with me.

I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?

The people who die from obesity are auffering, in most cases, from their own choices. Shooting victims don't get to choose what weapon their attackers will arm themselves with. I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons. I'm torn on the issue, very conflicted...

That soda ban is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. People can get 2 small sodas instead, and restaurants often offer free refills. Does Bloomberg really think that there won't be a need for dentists anymore? Does he think he's found the formula for creating a city of Supermen?

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?

If assault weapons are banned again, the only people who have them will be the government and the criminals. I don't want that to happen. I could have bought a Thompson years ago, # 266 of the first run of them since production ended after WWII. I had no desire. But if I knew what it would have sold for 20 years later I would have joined my co-worker and invested the $800.00 that day.
Wonder what it cost now to empty a 100 round drum of .45 amunition in just a few seconds?
Some people buy fishing equipment and some people buy guns.

Tell me about it! I was half-expecting you to shut down the thread out of sheer habit...

I thought within the hour it would escalate to the point where I probably would have to.....but everybody is being civil to each other...I'm a little confused to say the least.

Why can't everybody talk this way to each other in all the Political threads.....life would be so much easier

Because people 'need' them?
It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.

The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.


Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"

Ok... let's look at mortality rates and apply that philosophy:
2008 Gun Deaths in America - About 30.4k (18.2 of which were suicides - people that could have killed themselves another way if guns weren't avail)
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pdf/Leading_Causes_Injury_Deaths_Age_Group_Highlightin g_Violence-Related%20Injury_Deaths_US_2008-a.pdf
2000 - 20004 Mortality rate related to tobacco products - Approximately 443,000 deaths per year
CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm)
2001 - 2005 Alcohol Related Deaths - Approximately 75,000 per year
CDC - Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) - Alcohol (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/ardi.htm)

So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."

Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?

Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?

Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?

And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:
I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons.
There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons.
Gun Control (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership)

I don't need to look it up, I know all about it. It's because I know about that incident that I said it's harder to kill large numbers of folks with a handgun than with an assault rifle. I didn't say it was impossible to kill many people with a handgun...I said it's easier to do it with an assault rifle. That's what I said, and I cannot believe you disagree with me.

Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.


The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed.

This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.


"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy."

I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?
You're assuming a clearly irrational (i.e. bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy) person would behave in a rational manner...that's a stretch.

Certainly he intended harm and could have found another way, but you'd hope his means could be limited.

I've read the FBI stats on guns used in legal defense and it sure doesn't appear like it happens very often.

-spence

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?
I'll tell you why... That theater was a "Gun Free Zone". The theater is owned by Cinemark and the corporate view on guns in their theaters is that only police officers should be allowed to carry guns in their theaters (some good that did).
Theatre In Aurora, Colorado, Was A Gun-Free Zone Like Virginia Tech - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/article/619196/201207231853/aurora-colorado-theater-gun-free-zone.htm)

In AZ, any private business can post signs to create a "Gun Free Zone" restricting the carrying of firearms into their establishment. Any person that violates the businesses' policy can be arrested for trespass.
Questions and Answers: Concealed Weapons & Permits - Arizona Department of Public Safety (http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/Questions/#30)

I've read the FBI stats on guns used in legal defense and it sure doesn't appear like it happens very often.

-spence
What do you consider not very often?
Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."
Yes, Guns Kill, but How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? ? The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14230)

Seems a bit more frequent than "doesn't appear like it happens very often."

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.
I believe the AR-15 was designed to be a military weapon. It has a detachable magazine so it can be rapidly reloaded. It accomidates many accessories rarely used for hunting and from what I hear is pretty easy to convert to full auto.

You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly.

-spence

You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly.

-spence

DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

Oops, it's the hall monitor :rotf2:

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

-spence

It might not fit the exact definition of an "assault weapon". But it damn well is overkill for hunting deer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oops, it's the hall monitor :rotf2:

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

-spence

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

steers & queers.

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

You didn't answer my question.

-spence

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that


I'm a believer in the right tool for the job

It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.

The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.


Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"

Ok... let's look at mortality rates and apply that philosophy:
2008 Gun Deaths in America - About 30.4k (18.2 of which were suicides - people that could have killed themselves another way if guns weren't avail)
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pdf/Leading_Causes_Injury_Deaths_Age_Group_Highlightin g_Violence-Related%20Injury_Deaths_US_2008-a.pdf
2000 - 20004 Mortality rate related to tobacco products - Approximately 443,000 deaths per year
CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm)
2001 - 2005 Alcohol Related Deaths - Approximately 75,000 per year
CDC - Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) - Alcohol (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/ardi.htm)

So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."

Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?

Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?

Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?

And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:

There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons.
Gun Control (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership)

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.

I have no issues with handguns or hunting rifles. I'm conflicted on this, I'm not an anti-gun radical. But I have reservations about these specific weapons.

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that
Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow. I'd think a hunting rifle or shotgun would work fine...if you're against that many zombies at once you might want to reflect on your lifestyle.

-spence

Interestingly enough, the new typical hunting gun more and more looks like an "assault" rifle. Modern rifles with that type of action look like that type of action, they don't look like a lever, bolt, pump or one of the WW2 style automatics. The sporting models shoot well, function well and have some other advantages I am told. To me they don't look like hunting guns but I am not very fashionable and still hunt deer with a 30-30. As for a wacko doing mass killings being a reason to outlaw anything sounds good politically but likely will not achieve the result. There are many ways to do evil things that rational people would not consider. Perhaps we should just medicate everyone and keep them in their spaces to prevent the bad things that occur when they interact. I think that was a novel, later a movie.

Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.




This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.


"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy."

I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

"Really? harder?"

Yes. Really. Harder.

"VT proved that to be completely and utterly false."

No. VT proved it's possible to kill many people with handguns. It did nothing to refute my claim that it's easier to kill many people with a rifle.

Likwid, how many Americans troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima with .45 pistols, and how many had rifles? Why do you think that is?

I have never, ever, anywhere, heard anyone deny that rifles provide significant tactical advantages over handguns (unless you are within 18 inches of the person you are fighting). All other things being equal, rifles fire more rounds, and have much longer effective ranges, and the rounds do more damage.

"I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped "

It's not reasonable to assume that the attack could have been prevented altogether. It is absolutely possible that an armed moviegoer or two might have resulted in a lower bodycount. And I've been in a firefight, with smkoe, noise, screaming, confusion. Not everyone is trained like a Marine, but it's certainly possible someone could have stopped this guy before he stopped on his own.

I'm not saying I'd want to see 15 yahoos shooting up the theatre. But if I was in that theater, huddled over my wife, and I had my rosary beads in one pocket and a gun in the other, I'm safer with the gun in my hand, and so is evertyone else in there with me, no?

Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow. I'd think a hunting rifle or shotgun would work fine...if you're against that many zombies at once you might want to reflect on your lifestyle.

-spence

/tangent

Yet all of them are too noisy. The best tool by far is the Dead On Annihilator Superhammer. Cost effective, doesn't rely on shady online ammo, and quiet. Won't attract others.

/end tangent

And its always appeared to me that there's much more outrage in this country about tobacco and alcohol... Seems like we're (rightfully) inundated with anti-smoking and drunk driving ads, and I've never seen an anti-gun possession commercial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just think how much safer you would have been with an AR-15:rocketem:

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.



I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

There is no bravado being flung about by me. Never said I had been in a firefight nor did I allude to being in one. I am curious though how many you have been in LIKWID? I agree completely with JimCT on this.

What do you consider not very often?

Yes, Guns Kill, but How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? ? The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14230)

Seems a bit more frequent than "doesn't appear like it happens very often."

Brilliant analysis. It's certainly thorough, thought provoking and complete.

As an aside, I usually consult Charmin.com when trying to determine how much toilet paper my family really should be using.

-spence

Deadliest mass shooting around the world CCTV News - CNTV English (http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20120721/100115.shtml)
So if you look at the deadliest shooting incidents around the world, It does not seem to me that gun laws or specific weapon bans have much impact.
England, Finland and Norway all have more restrictive laws than much of the USA.

The constitution states that the people should have the right to bear arms for an important reason.. Our founding fathers wanted a small efficient government, and they wanted the masses to have the firepower to stand up to take down the government by force if needed when and if the government became large, out of control and was oppressing the people. I'm all for the ownership of assault weapons... I think every non felon should own one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

xactly...

I do find it interesting that a country like Switzerland doesn't have these problems and most everyone has an assault rifle.

This is like some kind of Bizarro world I've wandered into....:huh:

:rotf2:

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that


I'm a believer in the right tool for the job

Double :rotf2:

As I said. Everyone should have one and a side arm. Crime? What crime. Crowded jails that we all have to pay for?? Empty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do find it interesting that a country like Switzerland doesn't have these problems and most everyone has an assault rifle.



:rotf2:



Double :rotf2:
Mass shooting reveals dark side of Swiss society (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/swit-o09.shtml)
Google is a wonderful thing!

Deadliest mass shooting around the world CCTV News - CNTV English (http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20120721/100115.shtml)
So if you look at the deadliest shooting incidents around the world, It does not seem to me that gun laws or specific weapon bans have much impact.
England, Finland and Norway all have more restrictive laws than much of the USA.

No, they don't.

A motivated individual will do what they want despite any threat or laws.

VT shoot proves that
Charles Whitman proves that
This latest incident proves that

There is no bravado being flung about by me. Never said I had been in a firefight nor did I allude to being in one. I am curious though how many you have been in LIKWID? I agree completely with JimCT on this.

None, nor would I want to be, nor do I have this BS belief that some john wayne is going to pop out and save everyone from the evil doer. I live in reality where people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens.

The vietnam vet is right.
A: people freaking the eff out.
B: shooter shooting at pretty much anything that moves
C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

well seeing what happened to the National Seashore access over the years and the governments' track record on such things, you can guess my answer

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.

UN based gun control?? Bwaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmmm . . . What if every Jew in Germany in the 1930's and 40's owned an assault rifle with a whole lot of amunition? And what if they understood what was about to happen to them so refused to surrender their guns? Ah, well, firefights and all . . . you know . . . everbody would be disoriented and wouldn't be able to shoot strait. Just mayhem and they'ld be shooting each other instead of the well trained Nazis who would then be justified and skilled enough to methodically mow them down and elliminate them. Oh, wait, they did do that anyway. Bad idea about them owning guns. That would have been too messy and disorderly. Too bad about what happened to them. Oh, well, as likwid says, people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens. Better that the U.N. should control us. Life will be better that way

DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

Oh I know who the usual Suspects are.....and they were already on "The Watch List" :hihi:

Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow.

You haven't seen 28 Days later or Zombieland have you? Today's Zombie is a Fit, Fast and fierce Killing Machine...

Rule#1 Cardio...The fatties were the 1st to go

Part of the guns was that the citizenry being able to raise a militia in the classical sense, and yes, some reasoning was to be able to overthrow the government if needed. If the government grew too powerful.

You haven't seen 28 Days later or Zombieland have you? Today's Zombie is a Fit, Fast and fierce Killing Machine...

Rule#1 Cardio...The fatties were the 1st to go

"I don't have to outrun the Zombies, I just have to outrun you."

Sh!t

I found this amusing.....

http://people.cs.vt.edu/wchiang/images/If%20Guns%20Kill%20People.jpg

Brilliant analysis. It's certainly thorough, thought provoking and complete.

As an aside, I usually consult Charmin.com when trying to determine how much toilet paper my family really should be using.

-spence
Response 2 of 2 that's merely condescension due to your lack of knowledge. Is it just that you're merely incapable of having a grown-up discussion with someone you disagree with?

So, was anyone on here's life actually lessened during the AW Ban? Did you feel inadequate as a man w/o a machine gun? :-P

Besides, I'm not a great shot... I want a semi-auto Mossberg 12ga during a zombie attack rather than a semi-auto .22 AR-15.... or a cross-bow a la the walking dead.....

and JD, while spence was being a condesending ass, he does have a point regarding the source of the article...

C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

"panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots"

Yeah, I guess that explains why all those American teenagers shot each other up, and therefore lost, at Iwo Jima and Normandy.

"The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low"

Likwid, if I'm in that theater, and I do not have a gun, then I am at the mercy of someone who is merciless. If I have a gun, I have a chance. Maybe not a great chance, but that's better than no chance.

It's funny that I'm supporting this, since I won't keep a gun in my house, not with little kids. I fail to see how a gun can be (1) close enough to be ready if I need it in a hurry, and (2) still safe from my kids.

A motivated individual will do what they want despite any threat or laws.

VT shoot proves that


VT does not prove your point at all, because there was no threat to the gunman. From what I recall, the VT campus was a weapon-free place, meaning even the security guards are unarmed. What VT proved, is that if only the lunatic is armed, that's not a good scenario.

I notice that these shooting sprees never take place at the local gun club. I wonder why that is?

I'm sure these things would continue to take place even if these weapons were banned. You can't eradicate evil. You were 100% correct on that Likiwid. Bad things happen, it's just a way of life.

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks
To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.
So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.
So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67PNOuj93w

Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

and JD, while spence was being a condesending ass, he does have a point regarding the source of the article...
Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

The point remains...
In science it is pretty standard to want to know not only what is said, but who said it, and who funded it....

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?


So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.


So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67PNOuj93w

Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Apples and oranges, no?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?



Hollow point armour piercing.

I worked for a very large shop in MA at the time of the Brady bill. The day it passed every AR SKS Glock Spas etc went up in price. Then we ordered all of the large capacity magazines we could get our hands on. Considering the parent company was the distributor we had more than we thought we would need.

Every para military "tactical guy" In a 100 mile radius called and came to get the stuff. Some thought they would be a me to turn em around for a hefty profit in 2 years when people could t get them retail. My guess is the mags are still on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.

I never was into the stuff I could care less of your average citizen wants to blow through 150 dollars in ammo on Sunday in three minutes. If that is what you are into more power to you.

It is my opinion that these shootings would. E just as devastating if the individual had a 357 revolver and reloaders. The people caught in these situations are probably shocked that it is happening first and then scared to death that it is happening. More often than not flight as opposed to fight wod kick in if you are not trained in how to handle a situation like this. How many are truly trained to handle a situation like Aurora?

Ban them or not it will still happen. It is not the guns it is the individual perpetrating the act that creates the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.
I see two parts to this discussion, one being the slippery slope of increasing government regulation, the other being the risks we take for our freedoms.
The slippery slope is true in my opinion, the legislators say we are only going to___________ and that is what they do at that time, the next time it comes up they say the same thing not recalling that the basis was all they were going to do. Examples: Taxes, seat belts, etc.
The risks we take for our freedoms are also part of this discussion, if you want limited risk and someone to control yours and others actions there are places in the world you can live.

You didn't answer my question.

-spence

I never made one comment about the ar-15. I have no clue what type of gun it is.

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

Probably, but you would be the best judge, if your honest, of why you are reacting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

But you would not be the best judge on other peoples actions or reactions.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Be concerned first, if the feds are doing what is legitimately in their power to do rather than trampling on either inalienable or constitutional rights. And if the feds legally have the right to take away your golden retriever they have the power to take most anything from you. And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights. If you are going to go on feelings and knee jerk reactions rather than principles, you have abandoned principle and opened the door to your subjection to any whim of the feds.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If the feds have the power to tax your risk taking, such as not buying health insurance, they have power to tax your skydiving. They could make it expensive enough to discourage your risk taking. It's for your own, and society's good, after all. Freedom is frought with risks. It is attractive for many to give up freedoms for safety. And all you need is confidence that the fedgov knows what's best for you and will always do that best.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Generally, when one feels his neighbor is a little, or a lot, "off," one feels like his kids are in a little bit, or more, of danger. And your neighbors "offness" is not of your choosing. You might be more concerned with your neighbor's mental stability and character than what he owns. And if you choose to remain next door to him, you might want to arm yourself, in your best way of choice, to protect your kids.

Apples and oranges, no?

Are you in a little bit of danger if he owns any other gun? Is it only the assault rifle that puts your kids in danger?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

"Assault" rifles as sold to John Q. Public are not automatic weapons.

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[22] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.
Of course if you are in New Bedford you might have reason to worry since the cops have been losing their real assault rifles.

Hey, here's a novel approach: why not ban all idiot psychos that lose their minds in some idiotic fantasy world?
Seems that the gun issue is only a secondary concern since this wacho could have easily booby trapped some other building an killed many more people if he didn't have guns.

So a crazy man got some weapons? Go after the person that supplied him with them. Apply the gun laws that already exist, and stop trying to change them to fit this one scenario.

Why didn't anyone notice this guys drastic change of personality?
If he was a "loner" that kept to himself, maybe they could request a psyche evaluation when applying for or renewing a gun permit or FID card?

Why won't the mental stability (or lack of) be considered MORE of a driving factor? Because we have become a spineless society that doesn't want to offend ANYONE, ever to the extent of our own safety!!!

Keep the guns, maybe be more aware of the type of ammo being purchased, and be MORE aware of the mental state of the person buying the weapon(s).

AS for the car comparison, I'd say that if the operator of any device, be it gun, cannon, car, bike, boat or even plane does so while willingly impaired, THEY are at fault and not the device.

Hollow point armour piercing.
Paul, I sincerely mean this respectfully but this response demonstrates that conclusions are made based on completely inaccurate information. Couple things, the common full metal jacket bullet has a better penetration ability than hollow-point rounds. Hollow-points are designed to flatten out and transfer the maximum amount of energy into whatever it penetrates. However, from what I understand, this design to "flatten" also makes hollow-points *less* effective than common full metal jacket rounds at piercing bullet-proof vests.

"Hollow point armor piercing" is a load of hogwash created through propaganda and holds no actual credibility.

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?
I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a slippery slope argument or either-or argument. What I'm saying is that on the premise of outlawing things based on their danger and a lack of perceived "need", then the same people that thinks a 60rd magazine should be banned because no one "needs" them should also support making alcohol illegal.

My point comes down to a lack of priorities. People keep saying, "we need to outlaw these guns because they kill people." Then I say we should outlaw alcohol because it kills people, causes addition and is frequently a factor in sexual assaults.

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.
Just to reemphasize the above, I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying that if we let big brother outlaw specific guns, that any at-risk activities will be banned. My argument is based more on the premise of how people are justifying the reasons arbitrary aspects to firearms should be banned.

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.
You've mentioned a few times that you're conflicted about the whole situation and I think it's because there's an emotional and rational response that are in conflict. Emotionally, you think "these things are bad and people shouldn't have access to them." Rationally, you think "do we really want the government imposing more restrictions on the American public? and if they do, would those restrictions even be effective?" Or I'm completely off-base :grins:

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you
think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

I have not stated nor implied that assault weapons or rifles are less or as equally "dangerous" than hand guns. I have implied just the opposite in my previous two posts in this thread, especially when I asked what if all the Jews of Germany during Nazi power were armed with assault weapons and sufficient ammo? That might have led to an easier task, if necessary, when our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy.

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

One might then say the rebels of our revolution were delusionally paranoid. They took on the greatest military might of their time, and even half of their neighbors not only didn't support them, they openly fought them and gave aid and comfort to the British. If you assume that you have no chance from the start, much will never be accomplished. Might it be more difficult now, maybe so, but that's what the second ammendment is for, not hunting. And it surely would not be possible without a commitment to liberty and the virtue to stand up for that principle.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

You're entitled to your personal desires, but how does that trump your neighbor's desires?

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

Yes, that's one thing. Every thing is one thing, different than all the other one things. What is the principle behind banning things simply because they are different?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

I am telling you no such thing. On the contrary, if you wish to protect yourself against a tryrannical government, then you and your cohorts must have the firepower that can escalate the danger to your enemy--just as the troops who stormed the beaches of Normandy had. If you think you would be able to do that with handguns, I think you are 100% wrong.

The argument about alllowing some guns but not others because some are less dangerous is puzzling to me. If you can kill 10 or 30 people quickly, that's a no-no, but if you can only kill one or two or five in the same amount of time, that's OK.

Get real: people will kill people!!!! Worldwide the weapon of choice is probably sticks & stones and the main reason is differences in religious beliefs!

Are we to ban sticks, stones, etc? How about religion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

None, nor would I want to be, nor do I have this BS belief that some john wayne is going to pop out and save everyone from the evil doer. I live in reality where people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens.

The vietnam vet is right.
A: people freaking the eff out.
B: shooter shooting at pretty much anything that moves
C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

I am not even going to get involved in this debate, however this strokes me as incredibly bizarre.....
So his point is invalid because he has never been in a firefight, yet yours is not considering the same. But, you read someone's post online so you are now a subject matter expert in how people will react in a life threatening situation? :biglaugh:

Ted has been grasping at straws recently.

Hmmm . . . What if every Jew in Germany in the 1930's and 40's owned an assault rifle with a whole lot of amunition? And what if they understood what was about to happen to them so refused to surrender their guns? Ah, well, firefights and all . . . you know . . . everbody would be disoriented and wouldn't be able to shoot strait.
I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.
So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

There's is nothing condescending about calling a out a ridiculous and arrogant remark.

Also, good that I'm getting under your skin without even trying :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

They just Caught a Guy in MD that had 25 assault rifles and assorted
weapons sittting on 3000 rounds of AMMO....

he was his own gun store for crying out loud

his tee shirt said "Guns don't kill people , I do"

said threateningly to cops

"i wanna go home and load my guns....."

He'll be charged this weekend for numerous violations

my point is: there are extremists out there in the USA

You can only shoot 2 guns at once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I'm going to start using TNT to catch bass and claim its just my fishing pole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

There were 600,000 Jews in Germany before the Nazi crackdown and eventual holocaust. Of that, I assume, half would be able to use an assault weapon. The key is for them not only to be armed, but to know what was about to happen to them if they did not leave or forcefully resist. Waiting too late is the mistake we make when we trust but don't verify. The American Founders did not wait too long. They realized early on what was going on and to what it could eventually lead. Furthermore, what if all the Jews in Europe, millions of them, knew what was going to happen to them, and if they were fully armed? And what if all the non-Jews, especially in Eastern Europe knew what was coming and were fully armed? Even if the Nazis could have overcome them, not only would their losses have been huge, the task of the allies would have been greatly easier, and the German war machine would have been defeated fairly quickly. And half of Europe would have been spared the Communist domination that followed the war. But not only were the people not armed, everybody waited too long. The Germans easily took control of unarmed civilians and weak armies in Poland, parts of Czekoslovakia, Austria with the help of Austrians, and made alliances with Italy and Russia and most of the remaining Eastern European countries who were too weak too resist and saw no help from the West forthcoming.

We are very trusting of our government in America. We think it is ridiculous to arm ourselves beyond protection from criminals or for hunting or sport. We didn't start that way, and were originally fearful of a powerful central government. You believe that it is ridiculous to arm ouselves with more powerful weapons, since you obviously feel that we will never need them. It would be very good if you are right. Because we are far along the road, in many respects even other than arms and the second amendment, to waiting too long. The second amendment was given as a means to resistance in the last resort. We can still turn things around to a more constitutional form of government that centers on individual rights and responsibilities. The vote is still a powerful weapon. But ignorance and blind trust can nullify that weapon.

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

The flip side to making everything illegal (where did I advocate that) is to make everything legal. I advocate neither. I advocate adherence to the Constitution. You may not have noticed that that is where I draw the line?

First, I like the notion that we respect the constitution. And I really don't like the prospect of ignoring parts of the constitution that we don't happen to like.

That is a position that no gun rights supporter can disagree with.

Along those lines, I believe that law-abiding folks ahould have reasonable access to guns for hunting, target shooting, and/or protection.

But that statement could, on it's face be seen as violating your opening sentence or at least setting it up for violation. If we were really concerned with respecting the Constitution we would not be trying to discern what the citizen is allowed to do but discussing what the government is allowed to do.

But I don't get the availability of assault rifles.

The 2nd Amendment was enacted with a very plain and understood object; to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and the federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens available to aid the civil authority. In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms and ammunition supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions. That's the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment for as long as the government obeys the Constitution.

Also part of the 2nd Amendment's object is to preserve the fundamental principle that the people retain the final right to rescind their consent to be governed by a government no longer abiding by the principles of its establishment.

The only way for the founders to ensure that those objects could be fulfilled/maintained/preserved was to secure from government's reach the means to achieve those objects; the already existing, individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Amendment does not create, grant, give or otherwise establish the right, it merely recognizes and secures it from government action. The right is not dependent in any manner on the Constitution in general or the 2nd Amendment specifically, for its existence.

Here's where it gets sticky and where it is vitally important that we do respect the Constitution . . . Even though the general right does not depend on the Amendment, SCOTUS has said the levels of government's protection of the right has been framed by the object of the 2nd Amendment's declaration and guarantee.

Long standing case law has inspected this question and has created a criteria to decide if an arm has 2nd Amendment protection. That criteria is, if it is the type of arm currently employed in civilized warfare and that it constitutes the ordinary military equipment and can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen.

If one were to apply this longstanding criteria without prejudice, the type of arms that have been assigned the moniker of 'assault weapon' are the type of weapon that near absolute 2nd Amendment protection must be applied (deemed 'strict scrutiny' when a law is challenged).

Only law enforcement and the military are legitimately in need of that ability.

Given the fact that the Federalist's, the promoters of a strong central government, endorsed the principle that whatever federal standing army could be amassed it should be opposed by a ratio of 17-20 armed citizens to 1 soldier (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm), I can hardly agree that government forces should enjoy such an "ability". (Interestingly, Madison's 1788 ratios remain nearly spot-on today; 308 million total souls, 2.9 million active and reserve military, a general militia of 65+ million citizens with arms in their hands)

It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.

Again, none of that holds legal weight. You would need to demonstrate the source of government's power to do the actions you want.

As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....

The Aurora shooter did not use a "fully-auto machine gun" . . .

"Fully-auto machine guns" have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I find it interesting that Congress knew then that they could not "ban" them.

Hmmmmm . . .

It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In some cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.

I would be interested in hearing a reasoned, well cited argument precisely laying out what the "wrong side" is and what the "correct side" is.

The appeal that it is all about NRA money is as ridiculous as saying that pro-choice people are in it just to kill babies.

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it 😊

Ok that was a little condescending. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I also believe, for example, that conservatives (and my church) are wrong on gay marriage.I hear ya . . .I consider myself a political conservative (Constitutional Originalist) but I condemn theologically based social and cultural conservatives.

As far as I'm concerned, in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and "living constitution" leftists have more in common than dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Originalist conservatives. That many of these dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constitutionalists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

Dogma governed social/cultural conservatives certainly undermine politically conservative originalists with their all-encompassing opposition to abortion / gay rights. Those agendas pollute their constitutional thinking with the, "it's not in the Constitution, so it's not a right" position.

This position is in opposition to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the concept that the Bill of Rights is not the exhaustive listing of the citizen's rights and thus, at complete odds with the principles underlying the 9th Amendment. Which is why so many social/cultural conservatives are in lockstep with liberals in dismissing the 9th Amendment as meaningless surplusage.

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

Uhhhh, yeah that.

Words have meanings.

"Assault Rifle" is the name of a type of arm that does exist and the characteristics that make the gun an "Assault Rifle" are not met by the AR-15 and its clones.

OTOH, "Assault Weapon" is an invented term that was intended to cultivate a response in the general population unfamiliar with the mechanical operation of firearms, specifically the difference between a semi-automatic AR-15 and a fully automatic Assault Rifle like the M-16:"Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms are a new topic. Assault 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."

Josh Sugarmann, 1988, founder, Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm)
If you are going to use an incorrect term please use the one that is less incorrect.

I agree about the term "assault weapons". It's a word that is much like "weapons of mass destruction".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives are a fearing bunch.

You mean like the fear of other people owning guns, especially scary guns?

I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand.

Quite a sweeping statement. Do give some examples. Are casual, unserious, conservatives more courageous than the serious ones. Are liberals, or progressives more confident and fearless about things they don't understand (of course, they understand everything, so what's to fear?) than serious conservatives?

They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs.

You mean like the serious socialist and communists (and progressives) who adhere to their secular religion of government as god and as regulator of and meddler in the lives of everyone and intolerant of those whose ideas don't jive with their's, especially those who desire freedom from excessive government?

Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night.

Conservative phobias must be very severe if they need a gun to make them feel better. On the other hand, they are cheaper and, apparently, easier to alleviate than the complex phobias that seem to attack liberals and require shrinks and counseling and government to cure.

Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A lot less conservatives, even serious ones, live in Detroit. I haven't found that they are more driven by phobias than the liberals, nor more armed. Most non-conservatives here are not infected with phobias about constitutional rights or individual liberties, but most still go to a church and have "rigid" religious lives that involve some god (beyond the government to which they are greatly dependant) and many have guns. Don't know if it's because of a special non-conservative phobia, but it not only makes many of them feel safer, but many have actually used them in defense of their lives and property. And they, for the most part, don't like homos or muslims. And, though a great number of the non-conservatives that live in Detroit could be categorized as "the less intelligent ones," even the more intelligent non-conservatives have guns. Probably a different phobia drives them to own guns.

Good stuff by ReelnRod here.

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that was interesting . . . Since we are putting on our headshrinker hats on tonite I'll share a bit about what I have learned in 20+ years of gun rights debate . . . To me, anti-gun Liberals / Progressives are an angry bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious anti-gunners I have met in my life and debated had serious anger issues when people disagree with them.

Generally, Liberals / Progressives go on and on about "values" and avoid at all costs the term "principles". Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; problem is, a Liberal / Progressive knows that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection.

That's why anti-gun Liberals / Progressives don't like guns or trust anyone with them - because they don't trust themselves with guns. (Of course, being statists, it is acceptable if not desirable when government possesses these horrible instruments of death -- just as long as the guns are pointed at people waving Gadsden flags)

Anti-gun Liberals / Progressives need to have strict control over the facts as they feel them while dismissing real knowledge.

The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything.

A direct challenge to a anti-gun Liberal / Progressive to defend their public policy positions is often met immediately with anger and vitriol because that challenge is perceived as a personal attack on one's "feelings" about the evilness of guns and not simply an intellectual challenge to logically defend policy stances in reasoned debate.

As bad as all that is, the worst of it comes out when a horrible incident like Aurora happens.

The worst trait anti-gun Liberals / Progressives display is the covetousness for the sympathy of the victimized, claiming society's pain for themselves and then dancing in the victims blood, blaming gun-owners and their evil overlords, the NRA for their pain.

Ok that was a little condescending. :) (but the smiley face makes it alright :love: )

^^ i agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you are going to use an incorrect term please use the one that is less incorrect.
For the purposes of this thread they are pretty much interchangeable. The historic naming of such devices is pretty much irrelevant unless it's to distract from the point at hand...

There is a legal precedent that classified the AR 15 as an assault weapon. That the law expired doesn't change the description, it simply means those in charge of policy at the time didn't feel necessary to continue with the ban.

-spence

Generally, Liberals / Progressives go on and on about "values" and avoid at all costs the term "principles". Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; problem is, a Liberal / Progressive knows that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection.
The opposing force here is conservative hypocrisy. As usual the real world has little time for absolutes.

That's why anti-gun Liberals / Progressives don't like guns or trust anyone with them - because they don't trust themselves with guns.
There is certainly some truth here although I'm not sure it has anything to do with political beliefs...people in general who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to be wary of them. I knew someone who was arrested at an airport because he forgot a hand gun in his bag. Was he just so comfortable around guns it seemed like a casual thing?

. . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything.

I guess the irony here is that you posted this remark in a thread started by an admitted conservative who also happens to be quite familiar with the use of such weapons :hihi:

-spence

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are on a roll lately :rotf2:

My posts are purely for entertainment purposes. However I do believe everyone should have sheet loads of weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The opposing force here is conservative hypocrisy. As usual the real world has little time for absolutes.

Whose real world? Is the "real world" an absolute? If not, is it a dream, a concoction, a figment of your imagination, a temproary aberation that fluctuates, dissolves, and reassembles into whatever form your or anyone's imagination desires? What are all the scientists that secular non-conservatives admire almost as demi-gods doing messing about with various laws and searching for some absolute answer or other? How can we have a conversation or an opinion of any value if it is "absolutely" relative? Isn't the function of language, communication, based on stable, determinable signals that everyone is taught and must agree on lest we all live in the "real" solipsistic world of ultimate individuality where we are just undeterminable conglomerations of particles that somehow accidentally, randomly, bump into each other in the unknowable night of existence? Isn't the need for society, government, relationships, a need for escape from chaos to stability? I don't know what your "real" world is, but if it has no time for absolutes, I don't think you know what it is either.

There is certainly some truth here although I'm not sure it has anything to do with political beliefs...people in general who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to be wary of them. I knew someone who was arrested at an airport because he forgot a hand gun in his bag. Was he just so comfortable around guns it seemed like a casual thing?

Sort of like being so comfortable with various cosmetics and stuff that you're not allowed to bring on the plane that they seem like casual things. Oh, that's right, your not supposed to feel comfortable around guns, or anything else that can cause death. Always be wary of your car when you enter it. Don't like it too much or be too comfortable with it.

I guess the irony here is that you posted this remark in a thread started by an admitted conservative who also happens to be quite familiar with the use of such weapons :hihi:

-spence

So, to avoid irony, we must not disagree.

solipsistic




had to look that one up....


Classic:drevil:


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,”

Obviously, we can't make bad things not happen, but we can limit the tools used to do these bad things (within reason)
Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.

Oh no he didn't.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729)

-spence

Timeline | Modern Sporting Rifle (http://www.nssf.org/MSR/timeline.cfm)
Maybe someone with more computer savvy than I can paste this image in here, "Assault" rifle turning into hunting rifles are nothing new.
The ability and speed of media bandwagon jumping is very different.

http://www.nssf.org/MSR/images/timeline.png

I'm a lot more worried about this stuff
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)

I have been packing and moving.....possible the best, most entertaining and informative debate yet.
Well done

Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.

Yes, and banning larger clips does nothing. Any good machinist can make any
size clip in no time.
Banning them will not cut down on crime or terrorism as there will always be ways to obtain anything illegal as long as human nature exists.

Talking about gun laws, assault weapons is a waste of time.
Laws don't apply to criminals.

For the purposes of this thread they are pretty much interchangeable. The historic naming of such devices is pretty much irrelevant unless it's to distract from the point at hand...

Yeah I guess. Kindasorta like how bicycles and motorcycles are the same because some idiots can't discern further than each having two wheels. I wouldn't be comfortable with those people being given the task of creating policy and laws for them.

There is a legal precedent that classified the AR 15 as an assault weapon.

Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.

So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?

https://hotfile.com/dl/164925089/ebcb4ac/AWB-20inch-POST-BAN.jpg.html

OR

https://hotfile.com/dl/164925291/f54fc71/PRE-BAN_AR.jpg.html

That the law expired doesn't change the description, it simply means those in charge of policy at the time didn't feel necessary to continue with the ban.


Well, if you really want to pick nits, if the "legal precedent" that defined what an "Assault Weapon" has expired, can you really say that "Assault Weapon" remains a valid descriptor of anything since legally no "Assault Weapons" exist?

All in all I see this exchange as validation for my earlier stated position:

"The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything."

Actually Assault rifles are kind of mild.
If you want to see real guns you have to go to one of these.
http://greenmountainboysshootingclub.com/2012Flyer.pdf

Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.

Tape mags together with ends facing opposite. Then they can just be pulled and flipped. As crazy as it is, if he didn't have that drum, more people would have died. If he knew guns, he wouldn't have bought the drum. He could have even done a tone of damage with just shotguns. If he couldn't get guns, he may have bombed or nerve gassed the place. The whole problem is complicated.

If he couldn't get guns, he may have bombed or nerve gassed the place. The whole problem is complicated.

Absolutely, there are many ways to kill if a terrorist chooses, for example
Timothy Mc Veigh. Should fertilizer be banned too?

Absolutely, there are many ways to kill if a terrorist chooses, for example
Timothy Mc Veigh. Should fertilizer be banned too?
Banned no, but plans to regulate the sale were proposed last year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Banned no, but plans to regulate the sale were proposed last year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh and how about diesel fuel. that's how you make a fertilizer bomb

Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.

So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?
Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

oh and how about diesel fuel. that's how you make a fertilizer bomb

I think there is a much more widespread need for diesel fuel than large quantities of ammonium nitrate. If you need both to form an explosive it would make sense to regulate what would have less impact if you felt it would be beneficial to homeland security.

-spence

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence
This is demonstrative of you not knowing what you're talking about when it comes to this subject matter.

An "assault weapon" as federally defined during the AWB:

"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)"

Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.

Banned no, but plans to regulate the sale were proposed last year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ever hear of buying a little at a time?
Regulation, the next best thing to banning by Big G.
Trust me where there is a will there will always be a way.
Trains, planes and automobiles. :)

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.

Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components:
A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".

The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.

Now, federally, neither are.

Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.

Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components:
A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".

The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.

Now, federally, neither are.
I think there is an echo in here. Well put! :cheers:

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Maybe the ignoramous' that didn't make it out of the 8th grade fear everything he/she doesn't understand, but the conservatives have a lot in common with you and many others, that is, less rules(we have enough, less government:yak5: intervention)

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

But at least the jews would have died standing up!

Yep.. What's that saying?? I'd rather die standing up than spend a lifetime on my knees?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Absolutely, there are many ways to kill if a terrorist chooses, for example
Timothy Mc Veigh. Should fertilizer be banned too?

when i was a driller in the rock quarry i was always impressed
with how small a nitrates charge was needed for the amount of
rock it moved.... on each shot....

so yes, it needs to be regulated enough that anyone buying large quantities better be a farmer....
with ready fields he's spreading them in... and NOT another Timothy

My point being crazies and terrorists usually plan these attrocities way
ahead of time and can stock pile things as they go without detection.

I agree a strange or unknown person buying a large quanity in a farm store
should be reported,but there are so many ways to skin a cat that all the bans
and regulations in the world won't stop an evil person/persons bent on mass destruction.

My point being crazies and terrorists usually plan these attrocities way
ahead of time and can stock pile things as they go without detection.

I agree a strange or unknown person buying a large quanity in a farm store
should be reported,but there are so many ways to skin a cat that all the bans
and regulations in the world won't stop an evil person/persons bent on mass destruction.
I agree with one thing Obama said (I paraphrase): "We cannot defend against and prevent every incident that may bring harm to the American People."

I agree with one thing Obama said (I paraphrase): "We cannot defend against and prevent every incident that may bring harm to the American People."

Agree JD, however, as much as it's been beat to death, guns no matter what
the bans or regulations are, will always be in the hands of terrorists and criminals
to the detriment of law abiding citizens.
The very first thing you hear,mostly by the far left, after one of these tradgedys is, "guns need to be banned."
Well we have a Constitution that doesn't agree.

In the past 100 years 3207 people have been killed by terrorist attacks in the continental United States. More than 622,000 soldiers have been killed in Wars protecting our freedom in that same time. Are our rights that were fought for so hard and at such a price to be written off so casually?

Ever hear of buying a little at a time?

Like Steve McQueen with the sand in the pants? :hihi:

-spence

LOL Spence, good one. :hihi:
He was in no hurry, I think he was in for life. :D

LOL Spence, good one. :hihi:
He was in no hurry, I think he was in for life. :D

Too bad he got shot in the end, but the motorcycle chase is a classic.

-spence

He didn't get shot in the end....it ends with him bouncing the ball against the wall of his cell

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence
Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.
Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?

I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.

Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?

I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.
I didn't even look at the pictures :hihi:

-spence

I didn't even look at the pictures :hihi:

-spence
That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it.:buds:

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Depends on who is defining.
In WW1 it was a Springfield
In WW2 it was a M16
Since Vietnam it is an AR15 style, AR stands for assault rifle.
Many servicemen used similar types to their service rifles for hunting after they spent years carrying them.

IMO, the ban should be on full automatic rifles. That makes sense. It should end there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Here you go. It's not perfect but pretty damn close...
It's an image but I'm going to post just the link to avoid having the huge image screw up the forum.

Common Misconceptions: Assault Rife, Assault Weapon (http://imgur.com/wdJsh)

IMO, the ban should be on full automatic rifles. That makes sense. It should end there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They are pretty much banned or at least tightly controlled.
In order to get a permit for a fully automatic firearm, you pay $250 there is an extensive background check by the FBI and a few other hoops and then you can buy one, Want two, do it all over again. And you get to pay yearly.
Now I would guess that a good gunsmith can make an auto out of a semi fairly easily, but the BATF don't fool around with people who don't play by the rules.
And probably on the worldwide illegal arms market you can buy a truckload of automatics if you know who to talk to.

They are pretty much banned or at least tightly controlled.
In order to get a permit for a fully automatic firearm, you pay $250 there is an extensive background check by the FBI and a few other hoops and then you can buy one, Want two, do it all over again. And you get to pay yearly.
Now I would guess that a good gunsmith can make an auto out of a semi fairly easily, but the BATF don't fool around with people who don't play by the rules.
And probably on the worldwide illegal arms market you can buy a truckload of automatics if you know who to talk to.
I believe it's $200 for the National Firearms Act tax stamp, and you can only but pre-ban (I think it's 1986) automatic weapons. This tax is only paid *once* per transfer. Also, they can only be purchased through a licensed SOT vendor and have to be sold back to a licensed vendor. There is no ability for the legal private sale of any automatic weapons.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C _taxes_and_transfers)

That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it.:buds:
I was just joking.

My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.

-spence

I was just joking.

My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.

-spence
Your understanding is incorrect. It is on the current components on the rifle. If you take the pistol grip off, a collapsible stock can be put on. Replace the threaded barrel with one that doesn't have threads and you can put a grenade launcher on.

Take a look at the image I posted at 12:38 for more details.

Your understanding is incorrect. It is on the current components on the rifle. If you take the pistol grip off, a collapsible stock can be put on. Replace the threaded barrel with one that doesn't have threads and you can put a grenade launcher on.

Take a look at the image I posted at 12:38 for more details.
Fair enough.

But for the sake of discussion, adding a flash suppressor or folding stock to a base AR 15 changes more than it's appearance, it change it's function.

There are plenty of things that while legal on their own are illegal when combined.

-spence

Fair enough.

But for the sake of discussion, adding a flash suppressor or folding stock to a base AR 15 changes more than it's appearance, it change it's function.

There are plenty of things that while legal on their own are illegal when combined.

-spence
Neither of them change the actual function of the firearm - pull trigger, a single round comes out the barrel, pull trigger again and another single round comes out. To quote one of your own comments "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?"

Neither make a rifle deadlier. Also, having only a flash suppressor or only a folding stock was perfectly legal even under the AWB.

Neither make a rifle deadlier. Also, having only a flash suppressor or only a folding stock was perfectly legal even under the AWB.
Yes, but not both. And I'd certainly argue that they do make the rifle deadlier.

I'd agree that legislation on the basis of degrees is tricky and it may not be the best method. But there is purpose to said modifications beyond just the visual.

-spence

Yes, but not both. And I'd certainly argue that they do make the rifle deadlier.

I'd agree that legislation on the basis of degrees is tricky and it may not be the best method. But there is purpose to said modifications beyond just the visual.

-spence
If you'd argue that they make the rifle deadlier, how so exactly?

You're right not both. My point is that if individually they aren't dangerous and scary enough to completely outlaw, what is the *measurable* difference that makes them cumulatively dangerous enough to outlaw when utilized at the same time. Especially when you consider that a grenade launcher is allowed as long as it's not combined with a bayonet lug.

The people that try to regulate these guns, for the most part, have no idea what they're talking about. They create laws based on fear and image as opposed to actual data-backed metrics. Hell, the FBI's own data says that in 2009 handguns are used 18 times as often as rifles. Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html)

I Hell, the FBI's own data says that in 2009 handguns are used 18 times as often as rifles. Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html)

Does that mean there are 18 x more handguns that rifles? Or is the ratio higher?

Gun Laws :rotf2:

Does that mean there are 18 x more handguns that rifles? Or is the ratio higher?
I'm sure the info is probably somewhere on the BATF website but, frankly, I can't be bothered to look because I don't think it's even relevant.

If guns were outlawed like drugs are today, nobody would use them and everything would be solved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does that mean there are 18 x more handguns that rifles? Or is the ratio higher?

you cant really conceal a rifle. So if your going to go into a 7-11 and hold up the cashier, a hand gun makes more sense.. trust me.... i have put a lot of thought into this.. :rotfl:

Gun Laws :rotf2:
Norway is a perfect example where guns are oppressively regulated yet still susceptible to an attack that killed 77 and injured 319.

Depends on who is defining.
In WW1 it was a Springfield
In WW2 it was a M16
Since Vietnam it is an AR15 style, AR stands for assault rifle.
Many servicemen used similar types to their service rifles for hunting after they spent years carrying them.
Above are a few more media-driven misconceptions that need to be killed.

First, the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for 'assault rifle'. The "AR" comes from the name of the original manufacture of the AR-15, ArmaLite. Unfortunately, ArmaLite's naming convention made it easy for the ignorant media to redefine the "AR" in AR-15 to 'assault rifle' decades after the gun was designed which (I'm assuming) contributes to the average person thinking every weapon with a black synthetic stock is an assault weapon.

Second, the M16 is a fully automatic/burst fire assault rifle based off the AR-15 platform. The M16 did not see action until Vietnam.

Third, there is no "Depends on who is defining it" when it comes down to what an assault rifle is. 'Assault rifle' is quite clearly defined. However, 'assault weapon' is a politically-created term with an arbitrary definition that depends on how gun control politicians (and the media) want it to fit within their agenda (see link: Common Misconceptions: Assault Rife, Assault Weapon (http://imgur.com/wdJsh)). Keep in mind that the politician's definition of 'assault weapon' only includes semi-automatic rifles/pistols/shotguns and has never included any type of automatic weapons.

Pete F bases his reply on Common Knowledge, but the problem is that common knowledge is horribly inaccurate. The term 'assault weapon' and the Assault Weapon Ban are nothing more than a giant political red herring that placates the gun control crowd while having no measurable effect on crime or loss of life.

It is impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about these topics when politicians and the media have muddied the waters so much that few people even understand the definition of the terms being used. For the average person, it's like trying to do math without knowing how addition and subtraction work. John Q Public hears the term 'assault weapon ban' and is led to believe that it includes every scary weapon that exists (automatic weapons, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, 60 round magazines, etc), when in reality, the term includes none of them.

It is impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about these topics when politicians and the media have muddied the waters so much that few people even understand the definition of the terms being used. For the average person, it's like trying to do math without knowing how addition and subtraction work.

Spot on.

I'll note once again that this entire thread was started by a conservative with significant firearms experience who from the get go demonstrated the same ignorance you say invalidates most from a discussion on the topic.

The modifications listed in the AWB were primarily targeting concealment and ability to increase rate of fire. I don't know how anyone could argue this doesn't increase the potential lethality of the weapon in the right hands.

I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. The law you assert as arbitrary was in fact trying to draw a line with some very basic parameters.

Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?

-spence

I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. -spence

Is the right to bear arms now for "sporting purposes only"?

Is the right to bear arms now for "sporting purposes only"?
No, I just picked one example in haste. You could insert self defense etc...

The point is that there is a line and has been for quite some time. It's just shifted a bit back and forth.

-spence

You could insert self defense etc...
-spence

Or you could insert the Hillstrand Brothers........wouldn't want to be a Pirate trying to board that vessel! They pack some serious heat.

"Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?"


Full time rock and roll, all the time!!!

I'll note once again that this entire thread was started by a conservative with significant firearms experience who from the get go demonstrated the same ignorance you say invalidates most from a discussion on the topic.
That's great, but political affiliation is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I know liberals that are firm 2A defenders and carry a pistol on their hip every day. Regarding Jim's experience with firearms, the Marines train every one of their soldiers to be damn good with their rifles. The Marines don't train their soldiers on arbitrary political definitions of civilian firearms.

The modifications listed in the AWB were primarily targeting concealment and ability to increase rate of fire. I don't know how anyone could argue this doesn't increase the potential lethality of the weapon in the right hands.
I'll agree that there was a pathetic attempt to target concealment (which is amusing when you consider a person trying to conceal a 26" rifle with the stock folded) but you're absolutely incorrect that the AWB had a focus to "primarily target an ability to increase rate of fire" and even if it did, the AWB did nothing to address rate of fire. How do any of the features increase the rate of fire? This argument would hold a small amount of water if high-capacity magazines were on the list, but they weren't. Folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, grenade launcher - how do any of those things "increase rate of fire"?

There's that whole "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?" again - remember, your words not mine.

I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. The law you assert as arbitrary was in fact trying to draw a line with some very basic parameters.
I believe the intent of the law was to get rid of those "scary black guns", even though their use in committing a crime is 18 times fewer than handguns (as of 2009). How exactly is semi-auto a "grey area" between sport and military/police? The military utilize weapons with burst/full-auto capability and the police have access to the same weapons systems if they choose. Is my semi-auto shotgun that I use skeet shooting within one of your inconsistent and undefined "grey areas"? For hunting, the ability to quickly get a second round off could mean the difference between being trampled/maimed by a pissed off boar or putting the animal down. For home-defense, how much good would the slow action on a bolt-action weapon do? Keep in mind that home-defense is more than home invasions. It's also a bear going after your horses or some negligent neighbor's pitbull chasing after your kid in the backyard.

Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?

-spence
You forgot to ask about burst. Either way, the question is completely irrelevant because we aren't talking about combat situations. Just as you previously mentioned that there are many legally available items that become illegal when combined, there are many effective tools and products that civilians utilize that the military has also found to be effective. We are not talking about an exclusive situation here, where if the military can use it, then it must made completely unavailable to civilians.

Gun Laws :rotf2:

A F*&&^ing men
I may be missing something but are you guys saying that we should ban guns so only criminals have them?

This argument would hold a small amount of water if high-capacity magazines were on the list, but they weren't. Folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, grenade launcher - how do any of those things "increase rate of fire"?

There's that whole "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?" again - remember, your words not mine.
No, I copped those words from Reel I think. It's been a long thread.

While high capacity magazines were not on the Chinese menu, I do believe the AWB banned them in general. Doesn't a pistol grip usually give easier access to the mag release making it faster to reload?

Is my semi-auto shotgun that I use skeet shooting within one of your inconsistent and undefined "grey areas"? For hunting, the ability to quickly get a second round off could mean the difference between being trampled/maimed by a pissed off boar or putting the animal down. For home-defense, how much good would the slow action on a bolt-action weapon do? Keep in mind that home-defense is more than home invasions. It's also a bear going after your horses or some negligent neighbor's pitbull chasing after your kid in the backyard.
Your semi-auto shotgun has limited capacity, is probably difficult to conceal and has a clearly defined and legitimate purpose. As for bolt action, you're just being silly.

You forgot to ask about burst.
Not sure what model he was issued.


Either way, the question is completely irrelevant because we aren't talking about combat situations. Just as you previously mentioned that there are many legally available items that become illegal when combined, there are many effective tools and products that civilians utilize that the military has also found to be effective. We are not talking about an exclusive situation here, where if the military can use it, then it must made completely unavailable to civilians.
It's a comparison that illustrates how the legal weapon is really quite close to the restricted weapon in use.

-spence

A F*&&^ing men
I may be missing something but are you guys saying that we should ban guns so only criminals have them?

No, we all think guns are cool and fun to shoot. But this is a wedge issue so it's impossible for the thread to end :hihi:

-spence

You mean God, Guns and Gays?
Jim already said he's not totally against gays, not sure about guns and I think he might be a Unitarian.
:hidin:

You mean God, Guns and Gays?
Jim already said he's not totally against gays, not sure about guns and I think he might be a Unitarian.
:hidin:

:thanks:

-spence