Simple visual that clarifies why the Assault Weapons Ban renewal

[Mira]

is a no brainer.

[cthulu2016]

1. Handguns are at least as distinctly anti-personnel as an AR-15

Functionally speaking.

One could hunt with an "assault weapon" but pretty much nobody hunts with a handgun.

The only functional purpose of handguns is to shoot persons. They are designed for portability and operation at close quarters (streets and interiors) where their diminished accuracy is off-set by their portability.

The AWB is kind of dumb... it is a gratuitous regulation for regulation's sake while almost all the gun murders continue to be done with sidearms.

[Reasonable_Argument]

7. That's inaccurate

Many people hunt with handguns.

[tiny elvis]

18. wade's last hunting trip

heard he bagged a few

[Reasonable_Argument]

20. So because one person committed a horrible act

You want to restrict the constitutional rights for the rest of us? Do you apply that same standard to all our rights. BTW, good job on adopting tactics similar to what the pro-life people use. Very classy using their photos to try to get people to emotionally support your position.

[tiny elvis]

22. hunting is not a right

it is a meted allowance
those pics are your good work
you would like to leave murder out of the hunting issue
you bring hunting into the murder issue

No more restrictions on law abiding gun owners! These restrictions do nothing about the criminals they are meant to affect.
Why punish and render defenseless the very people that deserve to be protected while HELPING the offenders with such laws?
The only other use for such laws is for government to gain control over the people.
Sincerely,
Wade M. Page

[Reasonable_Argument]

23. Well

I agree that hunting is not a right and I was just correcting his assertion that people don't hunt with handguns. The rest of what I responded to you still applies.

[sarisataka]

29. Many pro-controllers like these tragedies

they can never wait to bathe in the blood of the victims to push their agenda.

However if a citizen legally defends themselves with a gun, they will scream murderer and fall over themselves to excuse the 'victim' i.e. the criminal.

For myself, I plan to join a vigil of remembrance tomorrow with our local Sikh community.

[tiny elvis]

36. bring your gun, just in case someone else brings a gun

what is a militia?

[sarisataka]

37. Militia

mi·li·tia? ?[mi-lish-uh]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Word Origin & History
militia
1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia?s=t

Anything else I can help you out with?

[tiny elvis]

57. please let the sikhs know that you have their back next time

[Reasonable_Argument]

62. I was reading on another forum

A thread from a Sikh talking about getting a CCW permit for him and his family. So obviously those people don't represent all Sikhs.

[tiny elvis]

69. i once knew a man whose weapon carried him

so it is a wash, where status quo holds sway

[NickB79]

134. Just curious, do you know where this picture from?

Is it the Aurora Theater shooting?

[tiny elvis]

159. yes

[NickB79]

179. Are you sure? The MSM reported the Aurora shooter used a 100-rd drum magazine

That gun clearly doesn't have one in it, only a standard 30-rd magazine.

[tiny elvis]

197. would be strange if it were another incident

[shadowrider]

217. The drum jammed and was found inside.

This was the reload (which didn't work because the gun was jammed) before he switched to handguns.

[NickB79]

223. Ah, ok.

I didn't read about him carrying anything more than the 100-rd magazine for the AR-15.

Damn, that must have been one hell of a jam if he couldn't clear it by racking the action a few times.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

100. Militia definition - 5. A word determined by the Supreme Court in the Heller case to not limit an

individual right to possess a firearm and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290

6. A term sometimes used by anti-gun proponents who ignore the Heller decision to support an unnecessary argument as to whether the Second Amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.

[tiny elvis]

115. i propose the anti-gun

are you an anti-gun opponent?

A word determined to not limit an individual right

A word determined ... to use that arm

ignore the Heller decision to support an argument

argument as to whether

a mess
meaning is lost in cuteness and phrases that should never be
if you have something up your nose, blow it out and be done

is this a good militia or bad?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

124. I am pro-control...

But I find myself highly annoyed when people try to defend a criminal when he's shot.

If someone breaks in on me, I don't have a gun, but I consider that an automatic threat to my life and will beat them severely with a blunt object to handicap them until police arrive.

If they die, oh well... they shouldn't be prowling around breaking into people's houses. I feel no sympathy for people like that.

[tiny elvis]

160. hero fantasies

[sarisataka]

162. What is your solution then?

What would you do if someone broke into your house and you encountered this intruder?

[tiny elvis]

164. i do not have a fantasy or plan to kill

i have a dull bayonet
if i encounter your nemesis with a gun i am screwed

[sarisataka]

168. Not necessarily

A gun does not always beat a knife and you are on home ground.

I have no fantasy or plan to kill. I do face the reality that in the unlikely event of a break in I will have to take positive action due to the layout of my home. It is impossible for all family members to sleep in a contiguous area.

Tactically I'm screwed. I would have to do about the worst possible thing and leave safety; I value my children's lives above my own. Target ID must be 100% positive so light is an absolute necessity. The dog will play a large part in securing the house. He is an old wiener but he will tell me if and where anyone is that does not belong.

We also have a family plan in case of fire... Prepared does not automatically mean paranoid.

[tiny elvis]

199. i hope your fire drill is as detailed in your mind

i walked around the house with my bayonet a few nights ago
because i heard a loud noise which i never identified
that is the extent of my defense plan
we do not even lock our doors around here

[sarisataka]

202. It is

also a plan for tornadoes too

Unfortunately where I live, locks are mandatory. Lady next door has been broken into twice in the last three months.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

143. "Pro-controllers.....can never wait to bathe in the blood of the victims to push their agenda."

Seriously? Really?

Strawman much? Well two can play at that game--I'm going to say that when you talk about "a citizen legally defend(ing) themselves (sic) with a gun", you have in mind a certain person named George Zimmerman in mind, with Trayvon Martin being the "criminal".

Playing strawman is fun, isn't it?

Do yourself a favor. Skip the vigil of rememberance and take a long, hard reflection about your little obsession instead.

[sarisataka]

148. Nope

it is the control side that always leads in with pictures opinions and wild ass guesses before any facts are known. everything is emotion based. if the later facts disprove their guesses, they will never retract the claims that they made and say it could have happened that way.

as far as g z, he is an accused of murder were facing trial, exactly as it should be. I was talking more about the street thug who gets shot while attempting to rob a store. even though he was threatening to kill people, his defenders will leap up. we will hear many wild scenarios how any 80 year old granny could have restrained the criminal and the person who shot him was a Rambo wannabe who has laid awake dreaming of the day he gets to kill someone.
I almost forgot, the criminal what's a good boy who was just about to turn his life around

[Tommy_Carcetti]

156. Yes, us silly "controllers" always making things up and guessing.

Thankfully, we have NRA types like yourself to counteract such tomfoolery by collectively sticking their heads in the sand and claiming, "Gun violence? There's no such thing as gun violence! Only criminals use guns to commit crime!"

[sarisataka]

161. A few questions

a- what makes you think I am an NRA type, or is that a baseless assumption?
b- even if I am, what difference does it make?
c-Gun violence is your shtick, I am concerned with all violence. Does any one but a criminal use a gun to commit a crime?

Extra credit- Do you believe a person has a right to use force which may kill a violent attacker, even if that force is a gun?
(I have asked pro-control people this before, but they usually just wander away)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

185. And a few answers....

A) Recitation of common NRA talking points, use of the term "controller" as a pejorative.

B) The NRA's agenda is self-serving and generally counter to the interests of public safety and democracy. Here in Florida we have a rather nefarious woman named Marion Hammer. She's the chief lobbyist for the NRA here and has written nearly word for word multiple laws enacted by the legislature which serve only to punish and intimidate anyone who dares cross the agenda of the gun lobby.

C) I used that phrase for a satirical purpose. Of course only a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime. The problem is, the gun lobby would have you believe that gun violence only occurs at the hands of repeat criminals with illegally obtained firearms. The reality is quite the contrary. Page, Holmes, Lochner, Cho and many others were not "criminals" until the first time they pulled the trigger in the commission of their infamous acts. They obtained their weapons legally and very easily, despite the clear existence of warning signs that they were not fit individuals to be carrying such weapons. If you are going to ask whether I support a blanket ban on all firearms, I will tell you I do not. However, the laws surrounding purchase and licensing of guns are often way too lax, and the NRA's interests are seemingly to ensure that those laws are not tightened or subject to better enforcement.

And extra credit: To answer your question, I do believe a person has such a right, but with a caveat. If that person overreacts or uses poor judgment in such a situation, they--as the carrier of a deadly weapon--are legally responsible. Self-defense only goes so far. That is the situation that I believe to be at play with Mr. Zimmerman.

[sarisataka]

190. Thank you for your reply

A) Recitation of common NRA talking points, use of the term "controller" as a pejorative.

Several of my opinions do match those of the NRA, but they were reached independently. I use the term controller to sum up the position of those who parrot VPC and Brady talking points which are as bad as those of the NRA and even more riddled with fallacies.
To be open, I am a NRA certified instructor but neither support or accept the majority of their positions as reasonable. As I posted in RKBA, my profession mandates holding the certification.

B) The NRA's agenda is self-serving and generally counter to the interests of public safety and democracy. Here in Florida we have a rather nefarious woman named Marion Hammer. She's the chief lobbyist for the NRA here and has written nearly word for word multiple laws enacted by the legislature which serve only to punish and intimidate anyone who dares cross the agenda of the gun lobby.

I would put forth that any organization is self serving. As to whether their position is counter to public safety is why there is so much debate on the subject. Their process is very democratic, they use the legislative process to further their cause. If they abuse that process is another subject of debate.
That said, I do believe in gun control to an extent that would give Mr. LaP nightmares. My only litmus test is 'will the control affect crime more than it burdens lawful gun owners.' Most of the 'reasonable' proposals do not pass. I am willing to give ideas a fair hearing.

C) I used that phrase for a satirical purpose. Of course only a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime. The problem is, the gun lobby would have you believe that gun violence only occurs at the hands of repeat criminals with illegally obtained firearms. The reality is quite the contrary. Page, Holmes, Lochner, Cho and many others were not "criminals" until the first time they pulled the trigger in the commission of their infamous acts. They obtained their weapons legally and very easily, despite the clear existence of warning signs that they were not fit individuals to be carrying such weapons. If you are going to ask whether I support a blanket ban on all firearms, I will tell you I do not. However, the laws surrounding purchase and licensing of guns are often way too lax, and the NRA's interests are seemingly to ensure that those laws are not tightened or subject to better enforcement.

Understood and agree. While those you named are by far the exception, the fact that they get past the current safeguards shows that current methods are not completely effective. We need to find ways to get better data into NCIS without resorting to non-due process ways such as the 'watch list'.

And extra credit: To answer your question, I do believe a person has such a right, but with a caveat. If that person overreacts or uses poor judgment in such a situation, they--as the carrier of a deadly weapon--are legally responsible. Self-defense only goes so far. That is the situation that I believe to be at play with Mr. Zimmerman.

Congratulations on being the first to answer. I completely agree with your stipulations. Carrying a gun should never tempt you into doing something you would not do if not armed. As the operator, the carrier is completely responsible for the results of the use of the gun.


Thank you again for the serious reply. Have a good evening.

[shadowrider]

218. Tell ya what Tommy_Carcetti

Next time there's a tragedy, come back to this forum. Within HOURS and sometimes MINUTES, an anti-gun person will post about it and claim we need gun control.

Seriously? Really?

Absolutely YES.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

224. Damn that common sense!

Meanwhile, within hours and sometimes minutes, you'll also come across some gun enthusiast who will make emphatic statements that "This is NOT the time to talk about guns!"

Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room....

[shadowrider]

234. I disagree. Most of those posts were put into GD by people who rarely, if ever,

post in the gungeon. If it's posted within minutes, I sincerely doubt it's by a regular poster here.

On edit: You'll also find those posters to be, by and large, anti-gun.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

236. Well, gee....

....the fact that these posters rarely post in the gungeon must mean their opinions are utterly meaningless.

Apparently, one must have an obsession with guns and not be "anti-gun" in order to weigh in on any subject concerning gun violence.

[shadowrider]

240. Anyone can weigh in with an opinion. Everybody has one. My point is,

the threads that appear out of nowhere after a tragedy are not posted by regular RKBA posters, but by people that immediately jump on an anti-gun bandwagon.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

243. Again, does that mean they have no validity?

So that you simply label them persons on the "anti gun bandwagon" as opposed to the oh so knowledgable and informed (and in no way, shape or form whatsoever ideologically jaded) "regular RKBA posters."

We just had another shooting. I don't know yet if the weapons used by the shooter was legally purchased, but if it was, do you think NOW is the time to have a conversation? And if not now, when?

[NutmegYankee]

118. Actually, in some states you do have a right to hunting.

Like Virginia: The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law

[spayneuter]

176. Hunting isn't a right...well neither are food, clothing and shelter.

According to our Constitution, anyway...

[tiny elvis]

203. neither is the birth of another sophist

stuff just happens

[spayneuter]

220. Haha...now -that- is funny!

(If you think I'm a sophist, I'll gladly accept the compliment.)

[sibelian]

167. Yeah, nice try with that "one person" thing.

Presumably you think everyone posting here is stupid?

[slampoet]

49. There is some small game hunting for pistols (rabbit).

also some varmint control. But this is only for .22 pistols.

There also is the fact that many Bear hunters will carry a pistol as a backup self-defense in addition to their rifle because the bears are about the only creature you hunt that can kill you easily.

But frankly the way most white hunters hunt bears it is pretty disgusting and mechanized and commercial so i kinda don't care about their self defense as much as the average person.

[Mojorabbit]

91. My husband bow hunts

He has been charged by a boar. He used his 357 magnum to stop the boar in it's tracks. It has happened only twice in over a decade but still....

[NutmegYankee]

2. Alternate use: target practice and competitions.

I know several folks who prefer the AR-15 for target competitions. The design of the weapon (bolt goes into stock) makes it not tend to climb as much as traditional rifles.

[Hoyt]

8. Are they shooting silhouette targets that represent people, or something like these guys?

That target shooting ruse is getting old when you are talking about weapons like that.
I think buddy's preference for an AR-15 is more than just it "climbs less."

[NutmegYankee]

116. You can't score a human silhouette.

The targets are more like this. And just because you personally don't like target shooting doesn't mean that others can't enjoy it. I have no interest in a few types of sports, but I don't go on a crusade to eliminate it just because I don't like it.

[Reasonable_Argument]

117. Just FYI

I've used scored silhouette targets before. There's a set of concentric rings with points on the torso and a smaller set of two circles on the INZ portion of the head.

[NutmegYankee]

119. Are they used in official matches?

I've seen body shaped targets, but never at an official match.

[Reasonable_Argument]

120. Not sure

Maybe for something like the IDPA but I've never had the chance to shoot a match to confirm it. Always wanted to though.

[ManiacJoe]

177. IPSC and IPDA matches quickly come to mind.

Certainly not the same as bullseye matches.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

150. IPSC and USPSA use "scored" silhouettes. A, B, & C scoring zones.

[Scootaloo]

181. Well, I'll tell you the same thing I tell other people who make this argument...

Buy a BB gun, Ralphie!

[NutmegYankee]

207. Please explain.

A BB gun doesn't have the range nor the accuracy.

[Scootaloo]

209. You know, the "target practice" argument reminds me of something when I was a kid

My dad kept a few packs of swisher sweets in his car when I was little. Me and a friend, being the curious little boys that we were, snagged a package and absconded to our little clubhouse in the woods, with every intent to light up and see what the appeal was. Unbeknownst to us, my friend's parents saw us and traild after, and sort of ambushed us at the clubhouse. They wanted to know just what we planned to do with my dad's smokes. Now, me and my friend knew we had planned to light 'em up and have a smoke. My friends' parents knew this. You know this too, just reading. So you know what I told them?

"I read in national geographic that Indians used tobacco for stuff!" - yeah, I was nice and vague. They didn't buy it, and neither did my dad, and I'm sure you, presented with the same situation wouldn't buy it, either.

By the same token, I don't buy the "we use guns for target practice!" argument. if your sole interest were to score points by putting holes in paper, you could use the BB gun I mentioned. it doesn't have the range or accuracy? Move the targets closer.

No, if it were about target shooting, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you'd understand there's all sorts of ways to put holes in a paper target that don't involve live, lethal weaponry. You and I both know that it's certainly not about scoring points on a paper target.

[Scootaloo]

211. You know some strange people

Really, they think sports they don't like need to be eliminated? You need to stop hanging around Republicans, their thought patterns can be corrosive. For the record, the only sports I "hate" are the ones that involve an animal being mangled for the entertainment of a crowd. I hope you can join me in hoping those do get eliminated, 'cause y'know, that's honestly a fucked-up form of entertainment.

Anyway. It's all about putting holes in paper? Then what's the problem with using something specifically designed with that purpose in mind? It wouldn't be the first weapon-based sport to adjust its tools to fit the needs of sport.

You mention archery. Good mention. I've competed in archery, and I've hunted with a bow. In fact I started around the same time I was snitching cheap cigars from my dad's car. Let me show you something interesting.

This is the tip of an arrow designed for archery - target shooting

There are other designs, notably a rounded bullet-tipped one used with cardboard or fiberglass targets; this one is for firmer materials like rope or wood.

this is the tip of an arrow designed to impale into a living creature and kill it;


Now, don't get me wrong, if you shot someone with a target arrow it would really fucking hurt, possibly even kill because, hey, you're smacking the tip of a slender object into them at 300 feet per second. However, they are, by design, "less lethal" - they lack the blades and barbs of hunting arrows, and the blunter heads reduce penetration.


By the same token, fencing! here's a martial sport that originated with weaponry. Face to face sword dueling, in the manner of rennaisance Venetian street toughs
This is a rapier, the weapon the sport started with;

Notice the smooth, even taper to a fine point? This weapon was designed to stab the shit out of someone without folding, while still being light enough to offer good speed to its wielder.

This is a fencing foil, as used in the olympics;

Notice any design changes from the original?

One more... this was polo then


This is polo now


Again, notice any significant differences?

Now. here's what you load into your rifle to put holes in paper targets...


And here's what you load into your rifle to turn a rabbit into airborne spaghetti sauce;


And this is what the beltway sniper used to turn people's heads inside out;

[NutmegYankee]

212. Ever seen wadcutter and semi-wadcutter rounds?

But i'll venture to guess that's a no. Most of the ranges I shoot on don't allow jacketed rounds. But you just hate the sport, hence your ignorance.

[Scootaloo]

213. I don't hate the sport, actually

I just dislike the rampant dipshittery inherent in the following statements

"I buy playboy for the insightful articles."
"I want marijuana legalized for the hemp industry"
"I listen to Kary Perry ironically"
"I own an AR-15 because I like to shoot at paper"

But you've invested the emotion of love into your toy, so I can imagine that your natural impulse is to respond as if i just called your child ugly and dumber than a sack of wet hair.

You might want to get that checked, actually. Deep emotional attachments to your sporting goods probably isn't the surest sign of mental stability.

[NutmegYankee]

214. The only "rampant dipshittery" here is your posts

Also, I don't own an AR-15. Explain that Mr. Freud!

Not that you will in any insightful way. You hate guns and you believe that anyone who owns them has a mental defect. You're no better than the jag-offs I work with who hate basketball because "the court is just an excuse for drug deals". No different at all.

[Scootaloo]

215. So because I think target shooting could be done with modified tools...

I'm a dipshit, and a jagoff, and I "hate guns"?

Or are you just an angry little dude because I don't believe that the only reason someone would own a lethal weapon is to poke holes in paper?

[NutmegYankee]

216. LOL

I've never been called little before.

[derby378]

3. Now define what an "assault weapon" is.

Go ahead. I can wait a while.

[NightWatcher]

4. a big scary black gun

My Mini 14 is one but doesnt look as scary scary as my AR 15 (ok, XM15-E2S) does



ooo scary

[Mira]

6. I must admit I am not knowledgable about guns.

Maybe the point of the graphic is missed, your question would indicate it. Since I don't know the answer to your question, and because I sense more than just sarcasm in your response to the graphic I went to Wikipedia and found this, when asking for a definition of "Assault Weapon".

Assault weapon is a term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]

The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next bullet without human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[1] In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.

Although the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, several states have their own assault weapons bans, which sometimes differ from the former federal law. For example, in California, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 bars a number of specific firearm models as well as firearms that have one of a number of features.

Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms and the definition and value of the "assault weapon" classification is part of gun politics in the United States.

Prominent gun-control groups which support restrictions on ownership of these firearms include the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Prominent opponents of assault-weapons bans include the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. Gun-rights groups consider the phrase assault weapon to be a pejorative when used to describe civilian firearms.

[derby378]

9. Understood, but what you might not know is...

Washington state tried to pass their own "assault weapon" ban around three years ago, and some of the guns that wound up on their ban list were actually pump-action shotguns. Nothing semi-automatic about them.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the term is still undefined and very fluid.

[Travis_0004]

16. Pop quiz, which of these guns in CA legal (where there is an assult weapon ban)

[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]


If you guessed every single one is legal in CA, you would be correct!
The first 2 do not have a detachable magazine, so they are legal (although a screwdriver and 5 minutes would remove that feature.

The 3rd one is a .22 (but it could be converted to .223 in 30 seconds.

The 4th and 5th ones have funny looking grips to get around the pistol grip requirements, but are functionally the same as any AR-15. They are cosimetically different, which doesn't make them any different.

Also, the part of an AR-15 that is considered a rifle is called a lower receiver:

One of the following is banned, one is not: Can you tell which one:
[img][/img]
[img][/img]

If you think they look the exact same, you would be correct. In fact, they may have been made by the same manufacturer, but one is illegal, and one is not.

I feel safer already.

[Posteritatis]

21. Okay, I'm stumped - what's the legal difference between the two lowers? (nt)

[krispos42]

46. I'm going to guess the magazine release

If an AR-15 has a push-button mag release, it's considered a detachable-magazine rifle and can be, with a couple of other features, an assault weapon.

If the magazine release requires a tool (even something like a ball-point pen) it's considered a fixed-magazine gun and, by definition, not an assault weapon.



Damned if I can see the difference in lowers, though.

[Travis_0004]

178. Nope

The other user is correct. Some brands of AR lowers are banned, some are not.

Neither of these has a mag release button on it, it hasn't been installed yet.

[krispos42]

192. I thought one of them might have been missing some critical notch or something

So it would only fit a certain kind of mag release.

Unbelieveable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

152. My guess would be the actual brand names on them...

The CA ban has an inclusive "list" of rifles banned by name... even if the rifles otherwise comply with the banned features.
For example, a "Colt AR-15" might be illegal while a "Remington R-15" is not... despite being functionally identical rifles.

So I would guess that the old "DPMS A-15" is banned and the relatively newer boutique "Mega Gator" is not.

[Posteritatis]

154. Brilliant! (nt)

[deaniac21]

173. DPMS makes the Remington R-15

They are both part of Freedom Group. Bushmaster is too but they just assemble parts made by others. They don't make anything.

[dsc]

50. well fine if you don't like those ambiguous regulations then how about this

you can have only those guns that existed back when the amendment was written. The fact is the country is sick to death of 2nd amendment absolutists who refuse to accept even the most basic, reasonable regulations. So fine, you want the original words then you got them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Did you post that with a quill pen or a hand-cranked printing press?

"The fact is the country is sick to death of 1st amendment absolutists who refuse to accept even the most basic, reasonable regulations. So fine, you want the original words then you got them."

How's that work for ya?

[dsc]

83. there are all types of reasonable regulation of first amendment rights

I can't just up and start a tv station for precisely the reason that it will interfere with other tv stations. I have to get a license. I'm not allowed to put up a billboard in my yard. I can't open a porno store across from a school. But you ask 2nd amendment people to do anything all we hear is right, right, right. If we treated the 1st amendment that way we would have child porno stores in the middle of elementary school cafeterias.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. And if I want to buy a gun, I have to have a background check.

And since I live in Massachusetts, I also first have to go to the local cop shop, have my fingerprints taken and get an firearms ID card to show at the gun dealer.
I have no problem with this. In extremely-blue, peaceful Vermont I could skip the firearms ID card part. They have very little violent crime or murder up there.
So it's not gun laws (or lack thereof) that drives crime.

The stuff you listed all interfere with others' 'quiet enjoyment' or FCC regs or zoning laws.

[dsc]

153. No you don't

you can go to a gun show, plunk down cash, and get a gun. No backround check no nothing. Guns interfere with thousands of people's lives each year. Again, if we treated the first amendment like the second, there would be porno shops in elementary school cafeterias and if anyone dared suggest that there was something wrong with that he would be laughed out of town.

[hack89]

163. Not if you are buying from a gun dealer.

the laws are the same inside a gun show as outside.

[dsc]

194. you can buy a gun at gun shows without a backround check

yes you do have to choose carefully from whom you buy but yes you can buy guns from gun shows without a back round check.

[hack89]

198. From a private selller. And not in every state.

I agree that all sales should require a background check - it is, of course, completely unenforceable because there is no record of guns in private hands but it would do no harm. It is, however, a state issue so each state would have to pass legislation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

191. Are all you lot this stump-ignorant? Per the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

Pay attention, there are some big words used here:

https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentHome

Massachusetts Firearms Registration and Transfer System
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, requires all individuals who sell, transfer, inherit, or lose a firearm to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss of the firearms to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau (FRB). This on-line system will allow you to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss/theft data electronically to the FRB.

Before you continue, you should have the following information available:

A detailed description of the transferred weapon (serial number/make/model/caliber etc.)
The Seller/Transferor's license information
The Buyer/Transferee's license information

Additionally:

It is unlawful to conduct a personal sale or transfer of a weapon to anyone other than an individual lawfully licensed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is strongly recommended that you require the buyer/transferee to produce a valid FID/LTC License Validation Certificate (obtained by the buyer/transferee using this system) prior to conducting a personal sale or transfer.
You may need your PIN number to complete a transaction. You may obtain your PIN number at your licensing authority.

Since actually getting an FID card/LTC requires a criminal background check (with fingerprints submiited to the FBI), not only is your original ludicrous, but so is the one you just made about gun shows.
The Staties make rather a point about being visible at gun shows (at least the ones I've been to).

[dsc]

195. I assume you can drive to say Vermont

and go to a gun show and buy the gun without the back round check.

[friendly_iconoclast]

201. I *could*, if I didn't mind breaking the law. I do, so no Green Mountain arms sales for me.

Funny thing about Vermont. While they don't require background checks, and California does, California is the state with the higher violent crime and murder rates.

Even the rural areas of California (and there are quite a few) have a higher rate of violent crime compared to the rural bits of Vermont.

So restrictions put on legal gun owners don't seem to work all that well on the illegal ones.

[Peepsite]

193. Pretty sure

Most of the porno shops are on the Internet these days, and the internet is available in school libraries(not all that far from the cafeteria). Odd argument ,that , eh?

[dsc]

196. the schools have filters which block the porn and a whole lot more

if we treated the first amendment like the second amendment there would be no such blocks.

[Peepsite]

200. Background checks don't act as a filter?

News to me.

[dsc]

226. again all one has to do is go to a gun show and wala no backround check

no such thing exists for porn.

[X_Digger]

228. Dealers at gun shows run background checks.

Private sellers may or may not, depending on various state laws, or the kinds of gun.

For some states, all private transactions must include a background check. For other states, only for handguns. For some, neither. That is a state law issue (intrastate commerce) rather than a federal issue (interstate commerce).

btw.. it's voilà.

[spayneuter]

221. child porn is the equivalent of machine gun

you are mistaken about the kinds of controls already in place.

[Hoyt]

10. Favorite question of gun culture's attempt to cloud the issue.

Most of us know darn well what an "assault" weapon is. In fact, they are marketed to you guys using terms like assault, tactical, strategic, etc., with marketing photos to match.

Besides, go to a gun store (or show) and watch the right wingers drooling -- that's an "assault" weapon.

[krispos42]

47. Admit that the only way to end debate about AWs is to ban all semi-auto long guns

Admit that you can't clearly define between a "sporting" semi-auto and a "tactical" one, and that your side's continuing efforts to do so are a failure.


State what your only true solution is... banning semi-auto long guns. State it, promote it, and run on it.

[4th law of robotics]

140. You sound like the people who want to ban porn

Please define porn.

Response: well I darn well know it when I see it!

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. No shit!

[Paladin]

11. It's Whatever The NY Times Says It Is.

I'd a lot rather rely on the NYT definition than the politically-tailored definition that right-wing gun activists invariably try to impose in forums such as this one......

[derby378]

12. Really?

You want to run with that? Okey dokey...

[4th law of robotics]

141. Assault weapon. Definition (journalist edition):

any weapon used in a crime ever. Or that could have been used in a crime at some point.

[tiny elvis]

19. circumcised?

explain what a militia is

[Edweird]

41. (1)The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state.........

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XVII
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS

Chapter 250
MILITARY AFFAIRS

View Entire Chapter
250.02?Militia.—
(1)?The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.
(2)?The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.
(3)?The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.
(4)?Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0200-0299/0250/Sections/0250.02.html






The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

[tiny elvis]

63. that means that these guys really are militia

[Edweird]

71. Unless they are precluded from military service by Federal law, yes. But so are YOU.

[tiny elvis]

78. i will not boast that i am so well regulated as

wade page, but i have replaced my flintlock with a hammer and cap
and stand at the ready

[Scootaloo]

182. 1994 called; Newt Gingrich wants his bullshit talking points back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon'

Was that hard? You're on the fucking internet, use a google for christ's sake

[derby378]

219. Sorry, that's not a definition

That's merely a laundry list of various ergonomic and safety features. It also includes a list of brand names and design types - hardly an objective list.

Try again.

[Scootaloo]

235. Yeah it is a definition.

The law talks about assault weapons. The law then defines exactly what that term means. I just presented you with the boundaries of that definition. That is the definition of assault weapon.

If you want to argue whether that definition makes for a good list of banned features or not, feel free to make that argument.

But don't pretend there is no definition, because anyone with a working keyboard and 0.4 seconds to spare can easily see that such a claim is full of shit.

[derby378]

239. Try telling that to Washington State

A couple of years ago, lawmakers tried to enact their own ban on "assault weapons" in which the list included pump-action shotguns that didn't appear in the 1994 list. So now we are to have two convoluted "definitions" that don't agree with each other?

Sorry, it's still not a definition. The 1994 list couldn't give one single example of what made each weapon on the list an "assault weapon" except for a comment on all such weapons being semi-automatic, which Washington's proposed law would have rendered moot.

[cthulu2016]

5. For the record, the Sikh temple shooter was armed with one handgun.

Earlier reports of two guns were withdrawn

[TroglodyteScholar]

13. Another thing I heard in the press conference...

He obtained his weapon legally.

[Erose999]

135. Which he bought legally, despite being dishonorably discharged from the military and having well

known ties to White Supremacy groups.

I think the first step is to do something to keep the crazies from getting guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. 1) It wasn't a DD, and 2) Do you *really* want to go the 'watch list' route?

[slackmaster]

14. One recent photo that proves the dishonesty (or ignorance) of the cartoon in the OP

AR-15 rifle being used at the Camp Perry national shooting matches this year.



They are also very commonly used in hunting and pest control.

[Mira]

15. I posted it in ignorance. I was clueless to predict

the interpretations that are coming forth from the enlightened people. I saw a tiny bit of humor, a point pretty well made, and I was coming from a high having heard our President mention today that the Assault Weapons Ban's restoration needs to be re-considered.
Those are the ONLY things I understood, really. The rest was meant to be silence.
Sorry I posted it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. Now you know why there's a gungeon.

The 2nd Amendment has a vocal--I don't know how sizeable--contingent here.

[spayneuter]

26. Well, we certainly can not put up with any support for the Bill of Rights.

How can we get rid of those unpatriotic idiots?

[rDigital]

108. Re-education camps of course. How dare they invoke

rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution.

[sibelian]

165. Ah, the constitutional right to spray innocent people with bullets.

How noble.

[rDigital]

169. Cool straw man, bro.

[spayneuter]

175. Yes but not nearly as noble as letting home invaders have their way with your wife and children

and offering them a sandwich afterward.

[tiny elvis]

110. what is with the creepy wade page type platitudes?

how can we tell the good gun rubbers from the crazy gun lickers
if they all talk the same?

[rDigital]

172. Cool false dilemma, bro.

[tiny elvis]

204. cool and bro are expletive

leaving the mightily conjured half thought,
false dilemma

no either/or problem presented prior, we read a phrase of nonsense,
spray a little lysol at the pungently lingering stupidity, and move on

[rDigital]

205. Logic fail, bro. Painting yourself into a corner you are.

You ignore the fact that there are many in between and or unrelated possibilities with your ridicule. You are forcing one to choose between "stupid and wrong" or "totally wrong". We deserve a higher class of ridicule on DU.

Thus you are guilty of the "false dilemma" logical fallacy.
Keep on truckin'

[tiny elvis]

208. yes

cool {x} bro
certainly all of that was what you meant and i missed it

there are many in between and or unrelated possibilities

borrowed generic sophistry, foreboding justification of wackiness

choose between "stupid and wrong" or "totally wrong"

even as a joke, asking how to distinguish two is not posing a dilemma
you are trying to make a poor, half considered drive by into a real argument
that is the deepening hole fallacy

truck ye without relent

[spayneuter]

241. The obvious answer is to disarm the U.S. Marines.

[tiny elvis]

242. :)

this thread is too old for drive by bumps

[sibelian]

166. Can you point me to the bit in the ill of Rights that says it's okay to walk into cinemas

and start shooting people at random?

Thanks.

[rDigital]

170. Cool straw man, bro.

[pkdu]

180. Cool way of trying to get your post count up "bro" n/t

[rDigital]

184. Thanks for the help!

[sarisataka]

27. There is no shame in ignorance

the shame is on those, who likely the author of the graphic, who do know better but try to confuse the issue. They will appeal to emotion and imagery to attempt to elicit a response to the viewpoint they are promoting.

Those of us who believe in rights over meaningless restrictions tend to point out such fallacies with vigor.

For posting such in ignorance of the issue, no one will hold you at fault. Though unintended, you have received some enlightenment on an issue that is not as simple as many wish it to be. If the issue interests you, I would encourage you to look at the 'facts' both sides present. (I will not try and tell you one is truthful while the other always lies. There is always a slant) Then some critical thinking, perhaps you may dare to join our discussions in the depths and you can make up your own mind.
If it is not of further interest to you, that is fine as well.

Peace and be safe.

[WillyT]

31. There Is No Shame In Ignorance, Because The Ignorant Are Too Stupid To Be Ashamed...

[sarisataka]

34. There is a big difference between ignorant and stupid

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, you cannot know what you have not learned. It can be fixed with education.

Stupid is you have been given the information but refuse to use or accept it.

[WillyT]

39. It Is Both Ignorant And Stupid To Own An Assault Rifle... There Is Absolutely NO Reason...

for the average citizen.

Period... end of story.

[sarisataka]

42. That is a good example

of a stupid statement.
Unless you do not know what an assault rifle is, in which case it is very ignorant.

[WillyT]

48. Dude... I've Fired Assault Rifles, Street Sweepers, Etc...

AK-47's. Modified AK-47's, And...



And while it was fun in a fireworks sense, the assholes that showed up over and over in their Beamers showing off their outstanding weaponry tended to shrink my libido significantly.

As did my drunken best bud who taught me gun safety, only to start firing his AK straight in the air as we left in my 64 Convertible.

Many morons tend to own guns. C'mon... it's OK to admit it.

If you are a responsible gun owner, you HAVE to admit it.

[sarisataka]

51. I agree

many morons do own guns. Many drive Beamers.

My training was somewhat different. I have fired guns from BB to 155mm. I am happy staying on the small end of the spectrum these days.

To say there is NO reason to own military style semi automatic weapons is false. Target shooting, hunting and home defense are three good reasons.

f we can keep them out of the hands of morons so much the better, but like cars, we cannot discriminate based on what we think they may do.

As an aside, I would suggest staying away from drunken instructors in anything. If you are up MN way I would be happy to demonstrate a very different type of gun safety. I don't have an AK, but I can guarantee it will not rain lead

(You actually fired that piece of scrap metal?? I do not question your bravery )

[WillyT]

59. LOL !!! - He Wasn't Drunk At The Outset, But He Was Having Difficulty With His Gal...

Which, BTW is a common problem...

But I thank you for that post.

At the very least this issue, and these "tools", should be treated with deadly seriousness.

[Reasonable_Argument]

45. Well

You're entitled to your opinion but every thread about gun rights consistently shows why you're incorrect. You choose not to use this information you've been given though so...

[WillyT]

56. Well... Jesus And Thank You Lawd... For Allowing My Opinion

You guys are so full of your serious take on weaponry.

Go ahead... own all the fucking implements of death you wish...

The REAL TEST will be your ability to use them.

Most people who fire at another human being tend to soil their pants.

And THEY are the normal ones.

[ellisonz]

28. Once you get them started...

...they don't quiet down. It's a common internet problem.

[Mira]

32. ...

[ellisonz]

38. ...

[Mira]

67. ...

Have a good night, and thanks!!!

[WillyT]

30. Don't Be... It's Just A Tactile Penis Replacement

For those unsatisfied with their penises.

Happiness is a warm gun, don'tcha know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Do you tell women that own guns that?

Gun control, the last refuge of Freudian thought...

[WillyT]

87. I Would NEVER Tell A Woman That Owned A Gun That !!!

Dude... she owns a gun.

What were you thinking?

[obamanut2012]

129. And what is it for those of us without a penis?

[tiny elvis]

206. a penis

also called wishing a motherfucker would
but that is your business

[LanternWaste]

151. It's rather difficult for many people to laugh at our own sacred cows.

"I saw a tiny bit of humor..."

It's rather difficult for many people to laugh at our own sacred cows.

And firearms I believe, is a very, very sacred cow to many people-- it tolerates no humor which casts it in anything but glorious light, and even a jest cane bring DU's very own self-professed "I'm only here to cause shit" posters to remake themselves into bastions of dignity and individuals of calm behavior.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. OK, so if you need one you should have to register it.

Everyone else buying unregistered weapons will have to make do without one.

[virginia mountainman]

24. Mira here is a short video, that explains EXACTLY what the AW ban actully did..

&feature=player_embedded

If you watch this 6 min video, you will know far more about it, than the vast majority of posters here in this fine forum, Rep Caroline McCarthy, and those in the MSM could ever hope to know.

You would also understand just how poorly thought out it was. Also realize this ban, was one of the key reasons, we took such a pounding in the 1994 election. You don't need to just take my word for it.....

Excerpts from "My Life" by Bill Clinton:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

I wish our party would LEARN from history, instead of trying their best to repeat it. The NRA in 1993 was not anywhere NEAR as strong as it is today and now they have about a 70% approval rating with the general public. Politicians need to pick their battles carefully, or WE, may pay a high price during a Romney administration

[WillyT]

25. K & R !!!

[Deep13]

33. not really the point.

how many victims can someone like the theater shooter kill using a knife or a hammer? it's not whether military-style weapons have other uses. it's the tremendous amount of casualties they generate in a short time. no other commonly available weapon can do that.

[sarisataka]

35. A Chinese teenager

killed 75% as many people with a knife as the theater shooter did with four guns...

[Deep13]

40. news to me nt

[WillyT]

43. More Info Needed Please...

Because you are suggesting that the knife wielder, is more dangerous than the multiple 30 clip assault rifle guy...

And I do not buy that.

[sarisataka]

44. Chinese teen kills 8, hurts 5 in knife attack

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/02/china-teen-knife-attack.html?cmp=rss

The eight he killed are just as dead as the twelve in CO. To those victims, the knife was as lethal as a rifle the a 100 round magazine.

[slampoet]

54. So one person in a billion acheives what Americans do every 4-5 months?

[JI7]

55. far more than every 4-5 months

[sarisataka]

58. Rather callous

of non-American lives.

This is not an isolated example. China has had many spree killings with hand held weapons in the last several years.
A bomber in Yemen killed 45 two days ago.

If you take the murder's tool away, the murderer will choose another tool. Focusing on the weapon is not the solution.

[slampoet]

123. You can make up accusations

but I and others can see that you are projecting.

[sarisataka]

146. Not accusing anything

Nor projecting, just pointing out facts. People will kill other people. The debate focuses on the tool rather than the action/actor.

I have now heard "if it would just save one life" re:CO shooting.
Ok, we ban 100 round magazines. say another shooter goes into a theater. this one kills 11 and wounds 50. will the control side celebrate because "one life was saved? will it matter that less were wounded?

IMO 1 dead and 1wounded is a tragedy. even so I will not support restrictions that would have no effect on that total. feel good laws like the assault weapon ban fall into that category

[WillyT]

61. You Forgot To Mentioned The Injured... Or... "Shot, But Not Dead"... They Don't Count ???

The Chinese knife guy could have killed twelve and sliced 58 more ???

[sarisataka]

70. Usually all that matters is the number of dead...

it makes for better headlines. Those 'only' wounded are a human interest story for 15 minutes, then are forgotten.

[WillyT]

73. If You Say So...

I doubt you will get much agreement.

[sarisataka]

79. Never claimed

I agree with it, just an observation

[WillyT]

80. You Were A Marine ???

[sarisataka]

139. I did spend some time

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

as 1 of uncle sams misguided children

I think you did not understand my point. or I was too tired and not saying it right.

I don't agree that the wounded are unimportant, but to the media and others they are soon forgotten.

[JI7]

53. they look for some rare examples and act like all the cases of gun attacks

would have been just as deadly if a knife had been used.

if it's the same, then why not just arm yourself with a knife instead of a gun. after all a gun and knife can kill the same.

lets arm our military with knives instead of guns. it's all the same.

why not use a knife when hunting instead of a gun ? it's all the same thing.

[Skittles]

60. that's the power of NRA propaganda

cowards buy it in droves

[WillyT]

64. Have I Told You How Much I Love You Lately ???

Because I will.

[Skittles]

66. HOWDY WILLYT

[WillyT]

72. HOWDY SKITTLES !!!

[Reasonable_Argument]

74. Really?

Do a google image search for "soldiers for the NRA". I'm sure they'd love to hear your opinions about their cowardice.

[WillyT]

75. Oh... They Are Cowards Alright... They Hide Behind Their Guns...

And they have small dicks btw...

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. Classy. Another example of *why* gun control is the success that it is...

[WillyT]

89. Exactly... Sex Sells...

Protecting My Family, and Protecting Others... not so much.

And for good reason.

And statistic.

[Skittles]

92. YES - COWARDS

and by the way, I was in the military so don't throw your bullshit my way

[WillyT]

93. Word...

[Skittles]

94. gawd I fucking DESPISE the soldier card

yet another tool of the COWARD

[spayneuter]

222. If you substitute "NAACP" for "NRA" your comment will closely resemble many I see posted on

forums that get very busy whenever an African American is arrested for some violent crime. Every time I see the term "gun nut" I'm reminded of those broad brush posts.

(I am simply making an observation, please don't read into it any more than what it says)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

231. Except the NAACP works in the interests of people.

The NRA, on the other hand, works in the interest of objects, and those objects' manufacturers.

[Major Hogwash]

52. You've always been one of my favorite DU members, Mira.

And of course, you're right, George W. Bush was an asshole for not renewing the AWB in 2004.

[Mira]

65. GWB. *. Was. Is. and forever will be the asshole of assholes. Now with that out of the way

let me tell you I read the first line and
honestly
from someone I did not know
this made me feel some damn good.

Unless there is something I don't know, like possible sarcasm, it's nice to know that I've been even noticed out of my usual haunting grounds. (photography)

[WillyT]

68. You Done Great Mira...

Don't worry about people who swarm... they are usually called mobs.. and they are the epitome of group think.

I am sincerely grateful you started this thread.

Needed to be explored.

[Mira]

76. ...

Thanks.
I needed this.

[WillyT]

77. Anytime...

[Major Hogwash]

122. Our Vice President, Joe Biden, was the major author of the AWB.

And the AWB had widespread bipartisan support in Congress when it passed. Senator John McCain worked with Senator John Kerry to get it passed in the Senate.
Back in the day, 20 years ago, before the Republicans sold out to the corporations, the pharmaceutical companies, and the oil industry.

Oh, there was no sarcasm on my part, I think you are a very nice, very considerate person.
You're one of the people that makes DU an interesting and fun forum to be on.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Shrub offered to, it's Congress that didn't pass it.

[Major Hogwash]

121. Hahahahaha!!!!!!

That's hilarious!!!!

[hack89]

125. "President Bush says he will sign a bill renewing the assault weapons ban if Congress passes it."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-10/politics/assault.weapons.ban_1_assault-weapons-ban-gun-control-supporters-vote?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

[Major Hogwash]

130. Now YOU are quoting Bush.

Got anything else you want to say??

[hack89]

131. Just pointing out that Bush was willing to extend the AWB in 2004

isn't that the topic of conversation?

[Major Hogwash]

132. And you believed him?? Really???

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hack89]

133. Argument by smilies? OK.

at least we know the depth of your understanding about politics in 2004 and the AWB renewal.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

88. Here's (1) a simple visual to clarify a problem and (2) a Bill Clinton analysis

With regard to the 1994 Congressional election, in Bill Clinton's recently-released book "My Life," he wrote:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

For those who are opposed to the private ownership of firearms for self-defense or other lawful purposes, it may be worthwhile to act in a way consistent with Democratic values, learn from experience, and listen with respect to the concerns of gun-owning Democrats and gun-owning independents.

The alternative is to (1) show disrespect to gun-owning Democrats and gun-owing independents and (2) resurrect an issue which contributed to the loss of the Democratic controlled House in 1994 after having such control for 40 years.

Maybe, of course, there are people who are politically smarter than Bill Clinton, former Speaker Tom Foley, and former majority leader Dick Gephardt.

[rad51]

90. You do realize people hunt with AR platform rifles,

and hunting calibers are more powerful right?

[WillyT]

95. That Ain't Hunting... That's Slaughter...

Who do you hire to remove the 27 rounds it took to take down the Elk you shot ???

It's one thing to pluck shot out of a pheasant or a duck, butt AR Rounds out of a DEER???

Your world is out of whack.

[Lizzie Poppet]

98. In most states...

...you're limited to a 5-round magazine when hunting. And .223 is a terrible choice for big game...not even legal in some jurisdictions.

[rad51]

99. I guess you don't understand how a semiautomatic operates or

what hunting regulations are. Your post is silly.

[WillyT]

101. No... Hunting With A Semi-Automatic Is Silly... And Cowardly..

And it is now being used to justify semi-automatic weapons.

Nice try.

Are you really that shitty a shot?

[rad51]

103. Explain the difference between hunting with a ar platform with a 5 round mag and a 100 yr old mosin

with a 5 round fixed mag.

[WillyT]

107. Well In The Era I Grew Up In...It Was All About A Single Shot...

At least with big game... deer, elk, etc...

If you couldn't bring down your quarry with a single shot... you pretty much sucked.

Now using shot with duck or goose... fine...

But nobody is opposed to a shotgun for hunting.

Just semi-automatics.

[rad51]

109. Please answer the question. No insults this time please.

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 04:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Follow up shots are sometimes necesary to be humane. I would imagine the need has lowered thanks to ammo tech.





edit: If post #48 is true why are you so confused about semi vs fully auto weapons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. He *is* just chockablock with cool stories, isn't he?

Some of them even match up...

[NickB79]

126. Are you 120 years old? Semi-auto guns have been used for hunting for a century

In fact, here is a Remington Model 8, a semi-auto rifle firing a round AS POWERFUL AS AN AK-47 ASSAULT RIFLE, which was manufactured pre-1899! Special versions were offered with detachable, 15-round magazine.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/993989348/Guns/Rifles/Remington-Rifles-Pre-1899/Remington_Mod_8_Semi_auto_30_Rem_ca.htm

And in my grandfather's era, the Remington 740 was a very popular deer rifle for hunting in brush where you might need quick follow-up shots. It was introduced in 1955 and it too used a detachable magazine holding 3-5 rounds: http://www.gunsamerica.com/913661356/Guns/Rifles/Remington-Rifles-Modern/Other/REMINGTON_740_WOODSMASTER_30_06.htm

And don't even get me started on semi-auto shotguns in hunting, they've been even more successful until recently. Now, semi-automatic rifles are THE most popular form of rifle for all hunting, be it small game, deer, ducks, geese, or turkeys. So saying you're not opposed to hunting guns, only semiautomatic hunting guns, means you're firmly against what most hunters now prefer.

[Posteritatis]

155. I don't believe for an instant your "era" was all about single-shot firearms. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

128. well they will just have to make do with a bit less firepower.

oh well.

[hack89]

136. A traditional "hunting rifle" bullet has much more power than a AR-15 round

there is a reason AR-15s are not allowed for hunting in some states.

And what about "civilian" semi-automatic rifles? If they don't look like military rifles are they ok for hunting?

[Erose999]

144. And the AR round has less recoil and is lighter and more compact and less expensive. Intermediate

rounds are designed for slaughtering people, and quickly. Not hunting animals.

A weapon with a 30 rd. mag of 30.06 and a barrel and action for firing the heavier round would be pretty unwieldy.

[hack89]

147. And yet rifles and shotguns of all kinds are the least likely murder weapon

hands and feet, knives, baseball bats all kill many more.

That is why an AWB is pure security theater - it would have no discernible impact on public safety. We learned that from the first AWB.

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that neither the assault weapons ban nor the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effect_on_crime

[Erose999]

157. Hands, feet, knives, and baseball bats are all multi-purpose tools. An Assault Rifle is a unitasker.

Its really only meant to put a series of bullet holes whatever is in front of it in rapid succession.

[hack89]

158. But if saving the most lives is the goal

why start at the bottom of the list when it comes to murder weapons?

For all the political capital it will take why not do something bigger and grander? Let's save thousands of lives instead of tens of lives.

[rDigital]

96. People are murdered with bare hands and feet

at a rate of 2-1 over rifles being used in murder. Knives are used 5X as much in murders vs rifles.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

187. Sources? nt

[X_Digger]

189. FBI's UCR, table 8 (at least in recent years)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

In 2010, there were 358 homicides by 'rifle' - that could be any kind of rifle, scary black ones or walnut stocked ones.

Hands / fists / feet? 745

Knives? 1,704

[Tommy_Carcetti]

225. Nice try.

Now give us the figure for total firearms.

[X_Digger]

227. Did you not see the post you responded to? #96?

People are murdered with bare hands and feet at a rate of 2-1 over rifles being used in murder

No 'nice try', I gave you a source that backs up rdigital's statement.

If you want to heft the goalposts somewhere else, feel free.

eta: typo

[Tommy_Carcetti]

229. Except it's all part of the same conversation.

So yeah, nice try.

The facts are clear that a vast majority of all homicides are committed with some sort of firearm. Gun enthusiasts like yourself think that is some sort of irrelevant fact when in fact it is indeed relevant.

And by the way, the conversation need not end with demanding a blanket ban on all weapons. I don't necessarily see that as the solution either. But there needs to be a conversation started. It hasn't even gotten much to that point. Every time one of these massacres happens, the gun lobby scurries to say, "Let's not blame guns! Let's not discuss gun laws! Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" And so on and so forth.

[X_Digger]

230. "some sort of firearm" isn't what this thread is about- "assault weapons" is the subject at hand.

The majority of "assault weapons" are classified as rifles. Therefore the stats on rifles (which includes those that would have been previously designated "assault weapons&quot is germane to the discussion at hand.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

232. If that's how you want to limit the conversation, then there's a question begging to be asked.

So let's just talk about these rifles, shall we?

If use of these semi-automatic assault rifles is indeed rare, what exact purpose do they serve?

Unlike handguns, they aren't practical for concealed protection, either inside a house or--if in a CCW jurisdiction--on one's person.

And there's nothing that they offer for hunting that can't necessarily be provided by your more traditional gauge shotgun.

I guess there's always target shooting, but again, isn't that something that could be just as well be served by a pistol or gauge shotgun?

So you say that the proportion of rifles used in homicide is smaller than some other weaspons used in homicides. That may be true, but I wonder what the statistics are in terms of proportion of gun ownerships as in what percentage of semi auto rifles are there in comparision to handguns, shotguns, etc.--and see how they rank with the percentage of rifles used in homicides versus other firearms.

Also, just because a percentage is smaller does not make it insignificant in terms of discussion. If something has the capability of creating massive harm (say, 12 people dead and 58 injured in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado), it cannot and should not be discounted. It reminds me of the oil drilling lobby's excuse for the BP Horizon spill, stating that it was only one well out of 500 (or whatever the number) in the Gulf. And that was true, but we all know the damage that just that one well did. It's the same thing here.

You cannot claim an assault rifle is a "concealed" weapon. They're not optimal for hunting. So what are they good for?

[X_Digger]

233. The *criminal* use of these rifles is rare. There, fixed it for you.

They're the top selling rifle in the US (AR-15-like rifles, that is), according to the trade association responsible for tracking them (NSSF).

They're being used for sporting competitions:

Camp Perry


3 gun competition


They're also great guns for hunting- which is why more hunters are choosing to use them. They're lighter, less prone to rust or scratches, easier to adjust, maintain, and re-configure for different game or hunting areas.





With a frangible round, they make a great home defense gun.



Heck, even during the "ban", they sold like hotcakes.



That's from the DOJ study that found that:

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effect_on_crime

[Tommy_Carcetti]

237. Well, obviously an AR-15 *could* be used for sport or hunting purposes. It is a gun, after all.

Likewise, a stick of dynamite can be used for fishing, and will probably work a lot more efficiently than a reel and rod in killing vast amounts of fish. Yet blast fishing is typically frowned upon and is in fact illegal in most jurisdictions. Not because the government wants to be mean ol' "nanny staters" (I hate that term, by the way), but because it's considered destructive to the ecological habitat, and besides, rather unfair to the fish. It takes most of the sport out of it.

The AR-15 (and its variants) is a rifle that was first designed for military use. I have no problem for its use in such a setting, but given that we live in a relatively peaceful society, it comes off as rather gratituous in the face of more practicable alternatives.

Our guys in the Olympics use guage shotguns for skeet shooting; that seems to do the job fine for them. Likewise, a single fire shotgun with buck shot will often land a hunter a buck just as fine as any AR-15 or variant would.

When it comes to ice cream and guns, my opinions diverge. The more the variety, all the better when it comes to ice cream. I'm sure you'd agree. But then again, ice cream is a delicious blend of frozen cream mixed with flavoring. A gun, on the other hand, is a deadly weapon designed with the intent to either kill or hurt, put in imminent fear of being killed or hurt, or simulating killing or hurting vis a vis a target. The use of a gun in a given setting should be no more excessive than the situation practically calls for. In the heat of battle, maximum fire power is logical. But for stalking a deer? Hitting a target? Warding off a single intruder? Not nearly as much.

In other words, a gun isn't exactly your rock road ripple.

[X_Digger]

238. All 'hunting gunz' derive their origin from a previous military weapon.

And there's always a generation of fudd's who decry the change.

Your grandpap's pump-action shotgun? Trench sweeper in WWI

His winchester model 70? Was a sniper rifle in the military right up until Viet Nam.

His ruger mini-14? See WWII garand.

Lever-action repeaters? Mounted cavalry guns.

No, it's a bit of a genetic fallacy to try to say, "Because this is from the military.."

The features that make an AR-15 suitable for the military are the same characteristics that make it suitable for non-military purposes.

For example:

*Folding or adjustable stock -- makes a gun suitable for multiple shooters, or the same shooter in multiple seasons with different clothes (adjustable), or makes a gun easier to store in a gun safe (foldable)

*Pistol grip -- more ergonomic, more natural hand position, which means fewer missed shots. Contrary to the chicken-little's at various gun control orgs, it is actually harder to fire a gun with a pistol grip from the hip than a straight stocked weapon. You can try it yourself with an empty soda can.

*lighter weight -- easier to carry while hunting

*modern finishes, lack of wood -- less prone to rust and scratches

*configurable, maintainable -- you don't have to go down to the local gunsmith (assuming you even have one) to get your gun repaired, you can do it yourself. Want a different caliber for hunting different game? Swap out the components yourself.


Oh, w/r/t 'buckshot' and deer- that depends on the area you're hunting in. If you are in brushy, hilly country where you expect deer to stumble upon your spot, and shot lengths are short, that's fine. For large portions of the country, however, that's not the case.

[Lizzie Poppet]

97. Common?

Um...no. Rifles of all kinds are used in under 4% of firearms-related homicides...less than 400 per annum (DoJ stats...I can probably find a link if anyone needs one, although it's easy to Google). Paramilitary semiautomatics are a very minor contributor to homicide statistics, really. It's just that mass killings are always milked for maximum effect by the news media ("if it bleeds, it leads&quot , so they loom large in the public awareness.

We'd do exponentially more good (literally...) by doing a better job of keeping handguns out of criminal hands.

[rDigital]

102. Remember, Europe is not some peaceful oasis.

Even with all of their gun control laws they have just as many mass shootings as we do.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

The 2 deadliest mass shootings in history were in Norway & South Korea, 77 & 57 dead.

[Egalitarian Thug]

105. No! NRA propaganda! Impossible! The only reason prohibition doesn't work is that

we haven't tried it enough yet.

Death Penalty for gun-nuts!
























































Just in case..

[Egalitarian Thug]

104. And just as it was looking really good for the Democrats...

I do not believe for a moment that the people running this party are minimally functional brain trauma victims, so the only remaining conclusion I can reach when I see something this dumb being pushed by them is that they are very deliberately resuscitating and reanimating the republicans even as they are equally determined to commit suicide.

Rmoney has even less chance of winning than McSame did after the Failin choice, so of course now is exactly the right time to push one of the only two issues Democrats have that are guaranteed to fire up the republicans and alienate the largely mythical undecided.

Can we also please push the forced abortion for middle class white women amendment right now, please?

[Egalitarian Thug]

106. Simple visual that clarifies why the Assault Weapons Ban renewal is a no-brainer.

And so on...

Any questions?

[JDPriestly]

111. But assault weapons make weak people feel strong, powerful,

sexually potent, loved, all the best things in life.

Whereas those other things, well, they just don't.

[canEHdian]

114. Funny Thing

This Godless Socialist Foreigner actually supports the right to own hunting rifles. And handguns for personal protection. But you don't need an AK-47 or an Uzi for either purpose.

[rDigital]

149. Funny, you can buy an AR-15, AK-47 and other semi-auto "assault" guns in Canada.

http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/products/firearms/rifles.aspx

It's not the firearms. It's the what's inside a person that makes them dangerous.

[4th law of robotics]

138. Hunting, self defense, target practice . . .

[spanone]

171. the gundeon must be deserted

[One_Life_To_Give]

174. Ban is a non-starter

We place Assault Rifles in the hands of men and women every day. We hold that we can tell that these individuals are same to carry such firepower in amongst ourselves and our elected officials. And yet would also claim that everyone else is BAD, evil people? If we can tell that a Secret Service agent is safe to stand in the Oval office with a MAC10, we can certainly tell if it's safe for someone to own one for personal sporting reasons.

Any regulation should start with the premise that maximizing the availability of firearms to the law-full citizen is a priority. Weapons should not be banned but may have restrictions based upon performance. A MAC10 should have a higher level of scrutiny than a 1911 Browning which would be higher than a LeMat .44

The only question to be asked is what level of individual scrutiny should be required at each level of firearms possession? And whether or not public funds might be required for low income individuals needing to comply with the regulations.

[Scootaloo]

183. Wood chippers are a common murder weapon?

The mind boggles

[Tommy_Carcetti]

186. You ever see Fargo?

"We split the car."

"How do you split a fucking car? With a fucking chainsaw?"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

188. Here's the thing....

An "assault rifle" is just a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine. It's no more or less deadly that just about any other type of rifle in common use (and no, I don't count a 50 .cal as being in "common use&quot .

The only remarkable thing about it is the magazine, which can hold up to 100 rounds. This is a legitimate area of concern, particularly for law enforcement officers who could literally find themselves outgunned by one or more suspects with high capacity mags.

But the rifle itself? Nothing particularly special about it. I'll grant that it can look pretty scary (or "way cool" if you like guns) but that's really nothing to build a law enforcement policy around.

Assault rifles are rarely used in crimes (they're hard to conceal) and they account for only about 3-6% of all homicides, depending on how you squish the numbers.

I'm all about making sure that cops and the community are protected from whack jobs with guns, and I think we probably should find some way to put the brakes on the number of these high capacity magazines. But that being said, the assault weapons ban really and truly didn't do anything to reduce the number of assault weapons deaths (the numbers were already low) and so banning these weapons will have a negligible impact on crime -- while pissing off a low of conservative Democrats and Independent voters.