Revenge of the Gun Nerds

[mac56]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/?utm_term=.8c1e0357994e

"Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss (others') views if they use imprecise firearms terminology."

[Hoyt]

1. Yep. Can't express an opinion about guns if one is not a rabid white wing gun-nut, trained to kill.

Now if you are like this, you are all knowing when it comes to gunz:

[hack89]

3. Ignorance in support of a good cause is still ignorance.

you need to raise your game beyond cherry picked pictures and broad brush smears if you expect us to respect your views. But we know this is a game to you - your tongue has been firmly planted in your cheek for years which is why we really don't take offense at you.

[Hoyt]

10. Addiction to guns and intimidation is worse. It might be a "game" to me, but it's protecting

access to guns -- and all the crud that goes with them -- for those who can't live without the damn things.

Gunners seem willing to ignore those, and the weapons, that threaten our society.

[hack89]

22. And once again you prove my point.

trolling is fun - time will tell if it is effective.

[sharedvalues]

52. What's your point? That flooding the country with guns is good for someone besides gun CEOs?

Remember: if you have bought guns or ammo, those profits go to gun companies, who fund the NRA to support killing.
People who buy guns or ammo are complicit in deaths -- unless you balance it out with a LOT of anti-NRA, gun control activisms.

[hack89]

56. I buy a lot of beer and bourbon

Am I complicit in every fatal DWI?

My hobby is competitive target shooting. In 35 of gun ownership I have never harmed a living thing. There is no blood on my hands.

[sharedvalues]

80. You're wrong, I'm sorry to say. Gun/ammo profits fund child killings.

Those kids that got killed in Florida got killed in large part because the NRA funds political warfare, designed to divide America to get votes for GOP billionaires. (GOP billionaires tax cuts are hated by a majority of americans, so the GOP needs wedge issues to get votes for their pro-wealthy policies. Guns are such a prominent wedge issue).

And gun and ammo profits go to fund the NRA. Gun CEOs give money to the NRA. It's a marketing expense for them. And the NRA does whatever it can to sell more guns. Arm teachers! Arm everyone! More guns! More profits!

And if you buy guns and ammo, your dollars are funding gun corps, gun marketing, the NRA, and ultimately, child deaths. I know it's hard to hear. But if you buy guns and ammo, you are complicit.

[hack89]

82. That's nice.

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

now leave me alone until you are ready for a serious discussion. One that is rational and not based on bullying, threats and broad brush smears.

[sharedvalues]

86. It's a serious discussion. Gun buys fund the NRA, and fund killings.

I don't buy Georgia-Pacific paper towels because their profits fund the Koch brothers' attacks on America.

Many gay people don't go to Chick-Fil-A, or Hobby Lobby, because they are run by hateful anti-gay leaders, and their profits fund anti-gay discrimination.

And gun profits fund the NRA and fund pro-gun advocacy. There's a straight line from that to child killings.

Do you have kids or grandkids in school? Do they have active shooter drills? Do you have to explain to them why crazy people have guns to kill them?

[hack89]

97. Bye. Nt

[sl8]

85. How much goes to the NRA?

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

An 11% tax is charged, per the Wildlife Restoration Act ( https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_Act.htm ).

How much goes to the NRA? I don't doubt that some does. I'm assuming that the amount varies according to the manufacturer/vendor/retailer, but we all know about assumptions. Do you have any specifics?

[sharedvalues]

87. It's standard corp finance: gun co's have a marketing budget. But here's some details.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

One of the most interesting aspects of all is how an association for sportsmen became the prime defenders of assault weaponry.

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.

While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

The NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.

[sl8]

88. Thanks for the response, but it doesn't really answer my question.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)

If I buy a box of .22s at my local gun store or Walmart, how much will go to the NRA? I'm particularly interested in New Hampshire retailers, but I'd be interested in other states, as well.

The 11% tax is federal; it applies thoughout the U.S..

[sharedvalues]

89. Profits go to fund gun violence.

That’s all you need to know.
If you buy guns or ammo, the deaths are on your soul.

[sl8]

90. Question:"How much goes to the NRA?" Answer: " ... the deaths are on your soul"

With all due respect , that doesn't help me at all.

I would like to buy a box of .22s, whilst contributing little or nothing to the NRA.

According to you, my soul is in jeopardy regardless of where I buy them?

I doubt that's what you really meant. Is it?


On edit: With regards to "that's all you need to know", many of us commoners don't respond well to such language. Luckily for you, I'm fairly tolerant of such disrespect.

[sharedvalues]

91. Answer #1: "hundreds of millions, here's a citation"

With all due respect, in my first answer I listed some details in response, showing that hundreds of millions of gun profits goes to the NRA from gun corps in various ways:
- Yearly donations to the NRA
- For some companies, direct shares of gun/ammo/sight profits
- donations to the NRA foundation.

Your response to my first answer:
"that's not exactly what I was asking for". Which made it seem like you weren't asking in good faith. (You might want to quibble again with secondary points, but the main point of the argument was answered.)

I hate to be rude, but it seems like you're not arguing in good faith. So to answer your question for the third time:
If you buy a box of .22 shells (as I have in the past, but no more) then yes, you are generating profit for the gun companies. Which they send part of to the NRA. Which is basically a terrorist organization.

So if you buy a box of ammo for a .22, you are helping fund American kids' deaths. I know it hurts to hear, but it is the sad truth. That's why I don't buy ammo or any gun stuff any more.

[SlimJimmy]

115. Really? When did the NRA support terrorist activities in the US?

Which they send part of to the NRA. Which is basically a terrorist organization.

[sharedvalues]

119. Answer #1: hundreds of millions. Heres a citation

First I wanted to make sure not to change the subject. First question was about how much the NRA receives from gun corps and CEOs. Answer: hundreds of millions. The NRA goal is to sell more guns, and they don’t care about Americans dying.

Second, my kids at school are terrorized by the idea of a gun nut coming in and shooting them. A domestic terrorist coming in and shooting them. The NRA actively enables that. They are a domestic terrorist organization.

Do you have kids or grandkids in schools? Do they cry with fear in active shooter drills?

[SlimJimmy]

132. See my answer below.

Second, my kids at school are terrorized by the idea of a gun nut coming in and shooting them.

If we would harden schools as recommended, and add armed security (either teachers or guards) it would mean the near end of school shootings. We have heavy security and armed guards at the capital; why not in every school in America? Who is more important, a Senator or Congressman, or our kids?

My grandkids go to a private school with all locked access and an armed guard inside. Why can't we do this for public schools as well? The cost is negligible when protecting our greatest asset, our children.

The NRA is responsible for training of armed guards in schools, as well as multitudes of law enforcement and private citizens. Over 1 million a year. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own set of facts.

https://firearmtraining.nra.org/

[sharedvalues]

135. Your post is a big rightwing talking point

The NRA is a terrorist organization.

They want to increase gun sales to enrich gun CEOs.

It’s safer to get rid of guns than to turn our schools into armed camps. Way way safer. (Armed school camps is a GOP/NRA talking point).

But the NRA makes less money if we ban guns. So they advocate for more guns, which gets kids killed.

[Marengo]

136. Do sales between individuals fund the NRA? If I buy a box of ammo from my neighbor, am I funding...

The deaths of children.

[Marengo]

93. What about private sales between individuals ?

[Devil Child]

96. Is there a mathematical formula for computing the amount of blood on my hands?

I am now very concerned about my complicity in all these deaths.

[Canoe52]

103. That didnt take long, Example number one right here.

[Alea]

11. Just for diversity

?h=450&w=600

[Hoyt]

12. Hum, I'd call that arming up against the majority of gun-strokers who are white wing racists

and a threat to society.

[Alea]

16. So in other words

Self defense with a gun is OK, regardless of color.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

47. This...

...nails it

[Hoyt]

49. Most guns in this country are not purchased for self-defense, unless you think

George Zimmerman, racist militia groups, Cruz, 3%ers and Oathkeepers, white wing racists, etc., are armed up for self-defense. I don’t.

[AzureCrest]

50. Bless your heart.

[Marengo]

59. Would you categorize those in the photos posted by Alea as gunners?

[Hoyt]

60. I would categorize that as a blatant attempt to obscure the fact that white wing racist gunners

are a serious problem in this country, and represent the majority of gun-fanatics who put guns over society.

[hack89]

62. Looking at murders statistics, can't one say that gunners of all races put guns over society?

You might have a point if whites were the only ones killing people. Gun violence in America transcends racial boundaries and you know it.

[Hoyt]

63. White gunners are the only ones arming up against government and changing demographics they are

so afraid of.

Sorry, you are having trouble understanding the point.

These gunners are a threat to society:

[hack89]

65. So the people actually killing people aren't the real danger?

ok I guess. Impossible to argue with that "logic".

[AzureCrest]

72. Clearly not.

The danger is from the white guy punching holes in paper.

[Hoyt]

73. There would be a lot less poor on poor gun crime if you guys would quit buying more guns.

There would be less mass shootings, intimidation, spousal abuse, etc., too.


When are gunners going to do their part?

[hack89]

74. That makes no sense at all.

but then I didn't expect it would.

[Hoyt]

75. Of course it doesn't. You are for protecting guns, no matter what.

[hack89]

77. Except for all the gun control laws I support, you mean?

there are only two proposed laws I opposed - we agree much more than we disagree.

[Marengo]

70. Your failure to answer is noted. Im going to ask you again, do you categorize them as gunners...

Or not? Yes or no only please. Anything else and we’ll need to have a discussion as to why you are dodging.

[Marengo]

48. Would you categorize the folks in those photos as gunners?

[Adrahil]

17. We've had this argument before Hoyt....

I'll just say, some opinions are more informed than others.

I'm not interested in Joe Shit the rag man's opinion on climate change when he doesn't even know what Beer's Law is. He is uninformed, and expressing an opinion based on emotion, not technical understanding.

I'm also not interested in people like Kirsten Gillibrand making gun control laws that include technical details when she think a barrel shroud is the "shoulder thing that goes up."

If self-righteous folks would actually listen to people with some technical expertise, they might be able to identify things that will actually help, instead of banning bayonet lugs or pistol grips. We've burned way too much political capital on laws that don't actually help.

[sharedvalues]

53. Sure. Pass real bans, that actually work. As Rubio said (to cheers): need to ban semi-autos

Link to tweet

If you can come up with a better way to ban military, human-killing weapons that doesn't interfere with legitimate, single-shot hunting rifles, great.

If you CAN'T come up with a good ban, then I guess we'll just have to ban all semi-autos.

[Hoyt]

64. I'm not interested in people who can't imagine life without guns influencing society's gun laws.

[BSdetect]

2. Crazed looking sociopaths or slobs pretending they can fight like soldiers.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Loud mouthed, one issue, fuckwit, assholes.

[Alea]

15. That includes 30 percent of the democratic party

We say... back at ya.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Melt every fucking gun in the world. Fuck Guns. Fuck Gunnerz.

Poor, tender snowflakes.

[Alea]

31. Back at ya

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. I find it's always better...

...to make fun of what you don't understand.














If it's needed:

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. ?

[Lee-Lee]

5. Meh, its a line that isnt as far over as the gun banners scream it is

There is nitpicking just to nitpick, and there’s is calling out outright lies and ignorance.


If people nitpick if you call a magazine a clip, when we know what you mean and the distinction doesn’t alter the debate, that’s pointless.

But if you get corrected for either statents that make no sense or are outright false, then that’s a different story. If people are saying things that are outright false than they need to be corrected, and correcting factual errors in not “gunsplaining” to use their made up term, it’s bringing accurately to the debate.

If you can’t stand to have your misconceptions or false standbys corrected, then you are not entering the debate in good faith or with honest intent.

So if someone jumps on you for saying clip for magazine, sure they are just nitpicking and not into it for honest debateZ

But at the same time if you say things like “AR-15’s are designed to be sprayed from the hip”, “The AR-15 is super high powered”, “Full-Semi-Auto”, “you don’t have to aim an AR-15”, “You just file down a firing pin to make a semi auto full auto” well all those are not different opinions or just a mistake or terminology. All those statements (all chosen because I’ve seen them all posted here or linked to here) are outright falsehoods. Proveable to not be true. So if you are in a debate and saying things that are simply not true you should expect to be called out on that. And if you are interested in honest debate and forming your opinions from positions of knowledge instead of ignorance you shouldn’t be mad or offended when people point out where you are saying things not grounded in fact.

[mac56]

6. I have no objection to being shown where I am plainly in error

and am always as respectful to the other parties as they are to me.

What I object to is "gunsplaining." Being mocked, derided, and marginalized because I don't know the difference between the various bullet calibers and bullet sizes.

It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's flat-out weak-ass cowardly.

"Its point is not to foster deeper understanding of these weapons, but to further a group identity of firearms owners as beset upon by a dumb or dishonest adversary, to flatter their insecurities and tell them they don’t need to take gun controllers seriously because you can’t reason with ignorance."

[Lee-Lee]

8. Oh of course. But the other side has their version too.

The anti-gun has their equivalent of that form of dishonest debate.

Just look for the “all gun owners have blood on their hands” or “all gun owners are a danger” or the term “ammosexual” that is tacitly homophobic in how it’s used, or the “you don’t care about dead kids” line. Or my favorite the “white racist gun owner making up for a small penis” I’ve been called here- when I’m neither white nor male. I could go on and on about the same kind of stuff.

Or the people who keep cherry picked pictures of racists with guns close at hand to post them every chance they get to try and paint anyone with a gun as a racist.

All those are equally as intellectually dishonest and cowardly as a form of debate.

And how many posts did it take for a perfect example of that to show up on this thread?

[Paladin]

7. "Gunsplaining" is routinely used by your side to terminate meaningful dialogue.

Right here at DU. And you damn well know it.

[Lee-Lee]

9. Of course it is

It is used.

But often what isn’t “gunsplaining” but actual correction of falsehoods being posted in the debate that is dismissed as “gunsplaining” and not listened to.

And see my reply just above about equally as dishonest tactics used by the anti-gun side to end or head off any meaningful dialogue. Both sides of this debate have people engaging in dishonest tactics.

[Hoyt]

13. Got some examples of these "falsehoods?"

[Lee-Lee]

20. Here are some I have seen here or in sources people linked to from here :

The AR-15 was designed to spray fire from the hip without aiming, and various other claims about how they don’t have to be aimed.

You just have to file down the firing pin to make a semi auto full auto.

State background check laws don’t help with guns because it’s legal to just go to another state and buy without a background check- it’s actually a serious violation of Federal law.

Criminals get their guns mostly at gun shows.

You can’t go against a person with a long gun with a handgun indoors.

The AR-15 fires an unusually high powered or damaging round.

Calling semi-auto full auto.

Calling semi-auto machine guns.

Before any state changes laws around concealed carry you see the same claims about how there will Be Wild West shutouts, blood in the streets, etc. As an example before any state changes its laws about licensed concord carry holders being allowed to carry in places that serve alcohol (but not while they are drinking) you see the same folks predicting shootouts in bars, the Wild West, etc. And that is despite the fact that they made the same claims ten last time a state did that and none of that came true, they keep making the same claims they know experience shows are false. You can go back here and look before NC and GA both made the same changes at the hysterics, but none of those people have said anything when none of their predictions came to pass.

I could keep going on and on, but those are just some examples.

[Hoyt]

27. Ah come on, those might be exaggerations, kind of like gunners exaggerate the need for

guns for hunting and self-defense -- very few people hunt nowadays and there is not a criminal behind every tree as you'd think listening to paranoid gunners.

Fact is, an AR15 does make it easy to kill a lot of people quickly, especially when equipped with hi-capacity magazines. Most folks know the difference between auto and semi-auto. Most also accept a semi-auto can kill too many people quickly. "Machine guns" doesn't bother me, because the rifle, or even handgun in some cases -- especially equipped as most gunners like -- can fire a lot of lead in a short-time.

Never seen anyone say criminals get most of their guns at gun shows. Some do, some buy it in the parking lot, and some steal them or buy it from so-called "law-abiding" gunners who refuse to go to an FFL for a background check, as they would if truly "responsible."

It is relatively simple to convert a semi-auto to fully auto, but it does takes more than filing the firing pin. Of course, if one is inclined, you can go to just about any gun story and buy a bump-stock and get darn close to an automatic. Personally, I don't think full auto operation has much to offer over semi-autos when killing people in a non-war zone.

To me, auto or semi-auto isn't what is important. It's how rapidly these guns can kill, how they embolden sick people, how they are marketed as weapons that will make any loser a winner, etc., that are important.

I think you are just sensitive because you know you can't justify your affinity for weapons that are used nowadays to intimidate and kill people. I guess that's a good sign.

[SQUEE]

33. Teflon coated bullets are "cop killers"

Posted right here, in this very thread.
Teflon protects the barrel, but adds no penetrative ability.
A simple change in lingo to push a dishonest narrative.

I don't care who uses clip or mag in conversation or discussion, but I do think basic knowledge of the facts, and working principals of the tool in question is important.

[Hoyt]

37. Are there weapons or loads more likely to penetrate an armored vest? If so, then there are so-called

police killer ammo and guns. I get "teflon bullets" are not be "police killers," but I do know there are white wing terrorists out there who specifically acquire weapons and ammo more likely to be effective against police, national guard, FBI, etc.

In fact, the weapons gunners can, and do, acquire is the main reason police have to arm up.

To deny the existence of these weapons and loads, is being disingenuous.

[Lee-Lee]

39. Not really

Any rifle will do it.

Some obscure Soviet era pistols fire a very fast bullet that will.

There were some really expensive speciality rounds made in the 80’s for government users that supposedly could do it. Congress reacted by passing a sweeping ban on lots of styles of construction of handgun rounds that banned those and in the process banned a lot of ones that were not ever “armor piercing” as well because as is typical badly written legislation about guns.

[Hoyt]

42. Well, those guys out in LA years ago, sure managed to take out the police. Of course, they were

using rifles.

But, there definitely loads that do a better job of piercing armor, and loads that screw you up inside more than the standard military round. And, you can look on any gunner forum and they are extolling the benefits of each round when it comes to shooting some teenager or the boogeyman they fear.

The point to all this is that someone who thinks a teflon covered bullet is armor piercing -- although mistaken about that -- can still have a very valid opinion about guns in America nowadays.

And some gunner who has shot every kind of ammo, can still be so enthralled by endorphins when fondling a gun that he will never understand why two thirds of Americans don't own a gun, 93+% would never carry a gun, most gun owners only have a couple, etc. Yet, gun fanatics just can't understand that their hobby or irrational needs are a detriment to our society.

[Lee-Lee]

66. Sure, the person can have an opinion

But that is an opinion not based on fact or experience. And when someone is talking about “cop killer feeling bullets” or other things that are not true at all and exist only in Hollywood, their opinion is considerably less informed and fact based than someone that knows otherwise.


It is like a case we had here in NC where they passed a bunch of laws setting new medical “safety” standards for abortion providers. Those laws of course were all written by a bunch of old white men who had not only no experience with getting an abortion but zero medical training at all. So their opinions on on what we’re adequate safety standards for a facility providing abortion different considerably from those of actual doctors and nurses who have worked in those facilities and done those procedures.

Now, under your standard those people who really didn’t have a clue have an equally “valid” opinion on how abortion facilities are run and how abortions are provided in America.

But is it really?

And the laws that come out of advocacy based on ignorance, that ignores the voice of the people with more knowledge and experience, is exactly as bad as you would expect it to be. On both reproductive rights and guns.

[Hoyt]

67. Don't care about gunners' experience with lethal weapons. Has nothing to do with whether guns

should be allowed in society. Keeping one or two at home is fine with me, but anything more is just not good for society.

I don't expect someone who has lots of guns or seldom walks down the street without a gun or two strapped to their body to make rational gun decisions. I don't care how much you know about gun nomenclature.

We need to quit stumbling over gunner impediments, and irrational needs, and get this problem solved.

[EX500rider]

104. "Well, those guys out in LA years ago, sure managed to take out the police" Not really...

Actually the only 2 people "taken out" that day would be the perpetrators, Larry Eugene Phillips Jr. and
Decebal Ștefan Emilian Mătăsăreanu. Both killed and nobody else.

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

[Hoyt]

105. I don't think you read your citation -- "twelve police officers and eight civilians were injured. ."

[EX500rider]

107. I know all about the events of that day and the only ones taken out as in killed were the robbers

[hack89]

40. Any centerfire rifle round will penetrate the typical police vest

typical policeman wears a vest that protects up to 9mm handgun rounds.

[Hoyt]

41. Guess to protect our police we'll just need to ban all ammo.

[AzureCrest]

51. Good luck with that.

[hack89]

68. I love DU performance art.

you are the master - I bow to your skill.

[sharedvalues]

54. Handgun bullets are cop-killers. That's why Canada, the UK, Japan and Australia all-but-ban them.

You're making a different point than you think.

The reality is that handguns kill cops. And Americans. And American kids. Most of those handgun deaths are in cities, which is why almost all city-dwellers and city mayors are pro-gun-control. Many Americans who live outside cities see only hunting and not the kids killed by handguns in cities.

It's hard to define which bullets are cop-killers, because almost all are. That's why we need a real gun ban. Australia, Canada, the UK, and Japan all have either outright handgun bans or such strong restrictions that handguns are effectively banned. That's what we need.



....Unless you can come up with a better defn and better bans that still protect American lives while allowing single-shot hunting rifles to been used by people that enjoy them. If not -- ban handguns, ban semiautos!

[Hoyt]

57. We need a post recommend button.

[sharedvalues]

79. +1. We're on the right side of history.

Keep making the argument. You're speaking the truth.

[EX500rider]

111. Right, because most the criminals who currently kill cops and are already prohibited..

...from owning firearms will rush to turn theirs in, right?....good one!

[Alea]

23. "your side"

You mean the gun owning 30 percent of the Democratic Party? Which means DU is comprised of possibly 30 percent gun owning Democrats which are constantly told to basically f##k off.

Why don't "your side", the other 70 percent, come right out and tell us, the 30 percent of the gun owning Democrats to f##k off and take our 30 percent of the vote with us?

[Hoyt]

44. Would you vote for GOPers if tougher gun laws were supported by Dems?

I would hope not.

In fact, I don't believe a true Democrat would vote for GOPers even if guns were completely banned (which isn't going to happen).

[Adrahil]

14. It's not just about "imprecise terminology"

It's very often about a fundamental misunderstanding, or outright ignorance of how a firearm works, and what makes them deadly weapons.

The use of "imprecise terms" is often a clue that someone is out of their technical depth.

The thing that bothers me about this is I thought that "liberals" and "progressives" actually valued expertise. I thought it was just the right that rejected technical expertise when they found it distasteful. I've been disappointed to find that the left is not immune to such thinking, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Just look at any GMO debate.

[Paladin]

19. So sorry that "liberals" and "progressives" aren't living up to your standards.

Your use of quotation marks around those terms in a Democratic site speaks volumes about your political outlook. Smooth move with the GMO ricochet attempt, as well. Get back to me when you want to have a meaningful discussion about gun regulations, but be forewarned: If you were born after, say, 1957, you don't have as much firearms-handling experience as I do; there won't be any "imprecise terms" from an old-timer like me.

[Adrahil]

24. You assume a lot.

First of all, if you know WTF you are talking about, then that wasn't written to, or about you.

Second, I'm not interested in comparing round count. It's not about that.

Third, you seem to assume I don't support substantial gun control. I do.

Fourth, the use of the scare quotes had a particular purpose. Most notably, that I believe liberals and progressives should make evidence and fact based decisions, and not fall is outcome-based thought that plagues the right.

I have no doubt some "gun nerds" are trying to short circuit the debate. By FAR the best way to disarm that argument is to not be ignorant. Knowledge, as always, is power.

[SlimJimmy]

35. I was born prior to 1957, and spent my entire life handling firearms of all types.

I am a life long Democrat, and a supporter of the 2nd amendment. You want to have a debate using "precise" terms. Let's have it.

[mac56]

21. Exactly how much "technical depth" does it require

to be opposed to widespread slaughter?

[hack89]

25. Enough to formulate meaningful laws that actually do something

Look no further than the federal AWB of 1994 to see what technical ignorance can and will produce.

[Adrahil]

26. Well, if you want to actually regulate them...

it's probably worthwhile to understand them. I mean, that's freakin' basic in my book. If you don't care to know, then leave that aspect to people who do.

[sharedvalues]

55. NO. Absolutely NOT. Every American can and should be pro-gun-control.

Leave the laws to the lawmakers. It's the job of the Congress and the orgs that study this - Violence Prevention Council, Everytown, Brady, Moms Demand Action - to draft bills.

For you and me and every other American, it's our job to say what we want. What we WANT is for killings to stop and the flood of guns in this country to stop. Even if every American can't quote chapter and verse on clip-mag-sight-silencer-bullet-grain-jacket-lever-action-assault-sawed-off-stock-fully-auto, we can all advocate for that -- stop killings by reducing guns.

[hack89]

69. How do you avoid getting rolled by the NRA again like what happened in 1994 with the AWB?

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

those law makers and gun organizations that you think so highly of crafted a law that did the exact opposite of what they intended and gave the NRA and the gun manufacturers an enormous political and economic gift that keeps on giving.

If you are not personally informed, you will have no idea whether or not any proposed law does what you want it to do.

[sharedvalues]

78. Fight. Stand up for waht you believe in.

We can't run and hide just because we're afraid we might not win. This is a critical, important issue that is vital for American civil society. This is the kind of issue you fight for. The kind of issue you march for.

So that's my answer: avoid getting rolled by the NRA by resisting, organizing, marching, and voting. That's the only answer there is. Good luck. I hope we can win this together.

[hack89]

81. But no place about knowledge of the things you want to regulate?

ok.

[sharedvalues]

83. I must have missed where all the AIDS activists in the 80s were medical researcher PhDs

Our job is to march and advocate for what we need:

An end to child killings by guns.
Ending the flood of guns in this country (due to GOP billionaire-funded identity politics).

No, not every advocate needs to know everything. Just like every marcher in the 1980s about AIDS didn't need to know everything about retroviruses.

Advocate for what America needs: an end to killings. Period.

[hack89]

84. Then you will fail like in 1994

ignorance in support of a good cause is still ignorance. The NRA is many things but ignorant about politics and gun laws is not one of them.

[sharedvalues]

92. No. Grassroots advocacy is needed. Not everyone needs to be an expert.

[hack89]

98. Ok. Nt

[Hoyt]

45. Exactly. All else is just stalling and BS.

[Fred Sanders]

102. Firearms work by sending bullets out of a metal barrel. What else is there to "know"?

There are folks called "experts" that politicians can use to sort out the terminology and folks called "lawyers" who can write the legislation.

Just like they do in every other country...easy peasy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. They are like grammar nazis

except about guns. :-/

[billh58]

29. All too familiar on DU

From the OP article:

"Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact. (If gunsplaining had a motto, it might be Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s macabre old saw: “Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.”)"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

95. It might not be that way if the pro-regulation folks weren't...

...quite so enamored with criticizing correctness.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. I had some nut try this because I mentioned teflon bullets, correcting me as "teflon coated".

.

I used to be in the NRA, back when I was younger, and almost became a lifer--because they offered a steep discount. I left when they tried to justify assault-type weapons as legitimate hunting firearms, and tried to justify teflon-coated "cop killer" bullets. This was back in the 80s.

I wonder how many "active" NRA members are these lifers who bailed on the organization, but remain on the roles?


He tried to trip me up with lingo, because he couldn't refute anything else I was saying.

When I said, "Yea, duh! When I said teflon, I meant teflon coated." he got all bent and angry. I was in a politics class, and throughout the rest of the semester, he harbored a grudge and was trying to trash talk me to others.

.

[mac56]

34. "He tried to trip me up with lingo, because he couldn't refute anything else I was saying."

That's it in a nutshell.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. What's worse is that I've seen some pre-emptively gunsplain.

On Facebook I merely mentioned the AR-15 and I had a gun-enthusiast reflexively jump up and say, "You know AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle, right?"

And I had to say, "Yes, I already knew that. What's your point?"

[SlimJimmy]

36. To be fair. A lot of folks on social medai think that AR stands for

Assault Rifle.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

38. Which it is in fact is.

So it's understandable why people would think that's what it stands for.

[SlimJimmy]

100. It's not an assault rifle by any stretch. But thanks for the comment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

101. It's A) a rifle, and....

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

B) regardless of its marketing (which you somehow felt the need to display) it's use goes far beyond what is intended or necessary for hunting or self-defense purposes.

Last I checked, hunting is described as being a "sport". While I don't know if I truly agree with that characterization or not (I'm not a hunter myself), if it is indeed a sport, one would assume there are times one wins and other times where one loses. Inasmuch as you "win" at hunting, that naturally would be where you bag your game. "Losing" would mean your targeted game gets away.

But to keep it fair and competitive, I would think you would give your "opponent" at least a sporting chance to "win." There's no sense for a weapon that holds 30 bullet magazines and allows for quick firing without having to take the time to manually reload and re-aim being used on something that poses no inherent danger to you. It's not like the deer are going to be shooting back. If you miss the first shot, you should be forced to manually re-chamber and re-aim your weapon before getting off the second shot. It's the least you can do to keep your hunting "competitive."

As for self-defense, if you're--say--trying to defend against a home invasion, I don't understand how using a rifle in such close quarters is more practical than a small handgun. And you're probably not going to need more than a few shots before either your intruder is hit or high-tails it out of there, so again, what good is the 30 capacity magazine?

And those are the only two legitimate uses for guns in this country: hunting and self-defense (other than target shooting, which is basically just practice for the real thing).

What a weapon like the AR-15 is designed for is not for hunting or self-defense, but the quick offensive neutralization of a target. In other words, an assault. And that might work in military or police settings, but no civilians need to ever mount an assault.

So yes, AR-15s are indeed an "assault rifle."

[SlimJimmy]

114. Then I guess the advertising that I posted is a hoax and not the real thing?

And to be accurate, there is no "fairness" in hunting. It is an activity designed to kill prey. With the noted exception of "trophy" hunting, which I am not in favor of, hunting is designed to put game on the table. Deer, wild turkey and hogs - just to name a few.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

126. The advertising you posted was just that. A marketing scheme.

We're not living on the 19th Century frontier these days. Essentially everyone in this country has access to a local grocery store.

I'm not a hunter. I don't think I'll ever be a hunter. Personally, when I fish, I'm catch and release. That's just who I am, personally.

I do understand that in parts of rural America there's a cultural aspect to hunting and as a meat eater and someone who thinks most humans will biologically be disposed to eating meat, I'm fine with the traditional notion of hunting by those who want to engage in it as a "sport."

But I'll be completely honest when saying there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be using semi-automatic assault rifles against deer and turkey. That's literally overkill.

[SlimJimmy]

131. Not an assault rifle and NEVER marketed as one.

I'm not a hunter. I don't think I'll ever be a hunter. Personally, when I fish, I'm catch and release. That's just who I am, personally.

Then, in all honesty, you'll never understand.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

133. I'll never understand that the purpose of hunting is to obliterate your game?

Eh?

But go ahead. Keep on defending the AR-15 here.

[SlimJimmy]

134. I'm actually not defendng the AR-15.

I'm saying, correctly, that it was never marketed as an assault rifle. Do you know that there was an AR-7 marketed as a "hunting" or "sporting" rifle prior to the AR-15? Google it for a look back in history.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

137. I don't give a damn how it was marketed.

Stuff gets marketed all the time for reasons that go beyond their regular purpose.

And yes, you are defending the AR-15.

[Hoyt]

46. I doubt the association escaped the gun Marketeers.

[SlimJimmy]

99. Considering the rifle was "marketed" in 1960, I doubt it.

[Hoyt]

106. They could have changed the designation at anytime since. Bet my rear, Marketeers said No.

We want every ignorant white wing gunner -- the vast majority of gun-fanciers in our country -- to think he's get an official/certified "assault rifle."

[Lee-Lee]

108. Hahaha

Actually, only Colt can actually use the AR-15 name because they have it trademarked.

Every other company that makes AR-15 style rifles uses another name. XM-15, M&P-15, LAR-15, etc.

The marketing people actually all did the exact opposite in all those cases and stated away from using AR, when they could have by changing the numbers, and elected to keep the numbers.

As is usual when it comes to guns your wrong again, and your rambling is only supported by the things you make up and then try to pass off as fact.

No wonder you get so worked up about people who actually have knowledge on a subject telling you that the things you make up are false.

[Hoyt]

109. Well, let's go sue these gun stores.

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/bushmaster/rifles.do

https://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/bushmaster/m4-ar-15/rifles/


They also know what potential "assault rifle" buyers want, as bushmaster put it so well --





Lee-Lee, I get worked up about gun-lovers protecting their guns like children, and making a big deal about things that don't matter in the discussion.

Read the last line at the bottom of the Bushmaster ad. Here, I will help you out, it says "AR platform." Sounds like you are mistaken. Again, not that it makes one bit of difference in the argument of whether people should be allowed to keep arming up with these weapons.

[AzureCrest]

110. Good luck with that.

Neither Federal Law nor judicial precedent are on your side. Historically, manufacturers of legal products that comply with the laws regarding the sale of those products are not responsible for criminal misuse of those products by uninvolved third parties.

[Hoyt]

112. Check your aim. You missed the target. He said AR-15 belongs to Colt.

Those gun stores at link and Bushmaster seem to disagree.

You are quicker than george zimmerman making an excuse for shooting an innocent kid, but you are off target.

[AzureCrest]

117. AR 15 does belong to Colt.

The term AR platform is a generic term, not copywrited.

[Hoyt]

122. Just repeating what DU gun expert -- only ones allowed to express opinions on sicko "hobby" -- said.

[Marengo]

129. In what way did that poster make an excuse for shooting an innocent kid?

[SlimJimmy]

113. Nice try, but it was "marketeered" as a hunting rifle. See my other response this thread.

It also came in AR-7 and AR-10 versions. Both as "sporting" rifles.

[Hoyt]

116. For hunting people, thats why sales have taken off. White wingers love the idea.

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2018, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

[AzureCrest]

118. No,

For hunting wildlife.

[Hoyt]

121. Don't think hunters -- of animals -- need a rifle with that capacity. Fact is, only 6% of population

hunted in the past 12 months, and most of those were just one timers going out with the boys to drink, curse, and probably act politically incorrect and racist.

The hunting argument is BS. No self-respecting hunter needs an AR15.

[AzureCrest]

123. Depends on the wildlife.

Nice pic.

Family Reunion?

[Hoyt]

124. Typical gunners nowadays, and what gunners refer to as hunters.

[AzureCrest]

125. Uh huh.

You go with that, tiger.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

127. Why are you here? nt

[AzureCrest]

128. It's a discussion board.

I'm discussing Hoyt's assertion that his picture album is somehow representative of firearm owners in America.

[SlimJimmy]

130. In 1960? Nice try, try again.

[maxsolomon]

43. This isn't news to anyone who follows this issue on DU

I have learned to be very circumspect in expressing my despair over our endless, pointless massacres. I can name the posters who've gunsplained to me over the last 10 years - half of them are on my blocked list. Some I still engage because they're clinical about it.

I no longer use "Assault Rifle"; I use "MSSA". Military-Style Semi-Automatic, which is how New Zealand defines it.

I no longer argue that the 2nd doesn't say what it says. It says the people are able to keep and bear arms so that a Militia can be raised to defend the security of the state. There are no limits specified to the type of arms the people can keep. The people don't have to be in a Militia. "Well-regulated" means having properly functioning arms, not regulated by laws and rules.

The 2nd is a sociopathic anachronism. It should be repealed, but I won't live to see that day. None of us will; the kids in HS now might, when they're in their dotage.

[Lee-Lee]

58. A perfect example of why you need to know the gun laws when debating just happened to a candidate

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:00 AM - Edit history (1)

(Edited to add- I know some anti-gun type will try and game the alert system saying I am bashing a Democratic figure here. I’m not bashing, I
Am using her mistake that isn’t in dispute of happening as a teaching tool for why people engaged in a debate in a subject need a basic understanding of what they are debating)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1007910832680117&id=911026625701872

Karen Mallard is a teacher running for Congress. She decided that she needed to make a video cutting an AR-15 apart for publicity.

So she did.

But in all her campaigning about the need for more gun laws and stronger gun laws she never bothered to learn the actual laws.

So what she did in making a video was to make a video of herself violating the Nationals Firearms Act and committing a felony punishable by up to 19 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. Actully two violations if you want to be technical.

I am going to “gunsplain” what she did. The National Firearms Act is one of the nations oldest Federal Level gun control laws. Passed after the end of prohibition it bans civilian ownership of machines guns, rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches and shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches and/or an overall length under 26 inches unless the proper paperwork is done and a $200 tax stamp is obtained.

That AR-15 she cut up was a rifle, so it is not legal to have a barrel on it under 16 inches unless it is registered as an NFA weapon. The first thing she does is cut the barrel in half leaving a 3-4 inch remaining part attached to the rifle. At the moment she does this she broke the law. Yes, the gun at that point would not work as a semi-auto since the gas to was cut, but that does not matter. The NFA applies to all guns and since it would still work to fire a single shot there were two felonies committed there. The first was illegally manufacturing an NFA firearm but cutting the barrel. The second was illegally possessing an NFA firearm that wasn’t on the Federal Register of NFA Firearms.

And there isn’t a defense to these violations. She says later she destroyed it “to regulations” but there isn’t an exception to allow you to make an illegal NFA weapon as long as you destroy it later.

She committed two felonies violating gun laws, on video, while trying to make a point we need more gun laws because she didn’t know what the hell she was doing or talking about.

Now, had she taken time to learn anything about gun laws or the AR-15 she was trying to make a point about she could have easily done her video and be legal. Had she taken 3 seconds and pushed two pins out and taken the upper half of the gun with the barrel attached off the lower part that had the serial number and is therefore legally the gun then cutting the barrel not attached to the part of the gun with the serial number would have been perfectly legal.

But in her complete lack of knowledge instead she commmitted two serious NFA felony violations of firearms law while demanding tougher gun laws. Not exactly a good look and doesn’t make her point very well, since now she and her backers have to argue why the gun laws on the books shouldn’t be enforced in her case...

[sl8]

71. "Well-Meaning Gun Owner Accidentally Creates Illegal Firearm in Viral Video"

Popular Mechanics' article regarding similar video.

From https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18569641/well-meaning-gun-owner-accidentally-creates-illegal-firearm-in-viral-video/

Well-Meaning Gun Owner Accidentally Creates Illegal Firearm in Viral Video"
Cutting the barrel didn't disable the AR-15, and actually made it illegal to own.

By Kyle Mizokami
Feb 21, 2018

A well-meaning but uninformed gun owner accidentally committed a felony on social media in the process of “destroying” his AR-15. The weapon, which was previously a legal firearm, was made into an illegal one when its owner cut the gun barrel below the size allowed by federal law.

Scott-Dani Pappalardo, in response to the recent school shooting in Florida, uploaded a video to Facebook in which he explains his decision to destroy his AR-15 rifle. Pappalardo then takes the weapon to a miter saw, cutting the barrel of the weapon in half and declares there is now “one less” AR-15 that could harm others.

...

It seems unlikely the obviously well-meaning Pappalardo will face federal charges for his actions, but the incident is a reminder however that the regulations regarding firearms can be quite specific, and for good reason. An improperly destroyed firearm may run a greater risk of falling into the wrong hands when disposed of in a repairable state. That having been said, as The Firearm Blog shows, the ATF is willing to provide guidance on the destruction of firearms—if asked.

More at link.

[HopeAgain]

76. Boy is that familiar...

And they don't usually help come up with a solution -- it's more duck and cover behind terminology.

[pwb]

120. The new trend for gun humpers is to blow your own head off first.

And leave law abiding citizens alone. Get the word out. m