assault rifles

[Nebe]

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

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

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

If you are going to use an incorrect term please use the one that is less incorrect.

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[detbuch]

Good stuff by ReelnRod here.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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 )

[Nebe]

^^ i agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

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

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

So, to avoid irony, we must not disagree.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

solipsistic

had to look that one up....


Classic


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

[piemma]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[spence]

Oh no he didn't.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

-spence

[Pete F.]

Timeline | Modern Sporting Rifle
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.

[Pete F.]

I'm a lot more worried about this stuff
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

[buckman]

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by piemma

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.

[Raider Ronnie]

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

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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?



OR

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[Pete F.]

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by piemma

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[piemma]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by piemma

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by 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.