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

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:50 PM Jul 2016

Gun lovers are just going to have to give up assault rifles.

There is no justifiable reason for them to be on the street and accessible at all. Hobby, fetish and tradition are not worth the risk to our society. M

And don't even start the pedantic definition debate. I don't give a goddamn what you call it. Don't even start, that has precluded reform far too long.

Any weapon capable killing an office party before any can get out, of spraying 100 LGBT folks celebrating pride in a safe place, capable of overpowering a police force and picking off 5 and hitting 11 does not belong in the arms of any citizen. No matter how well adjusted, clean or quiet.

We are a grown up society, a country capable of changing. Change isn't always comfortable. But, just as the people got on board or got left behind thoughout the civil rights movement, women's movement and the marriage equally movement, among so many others, the people are ready. We've had enough.

Gun reform is a civil rights movement. It is a social movement. Those movements always move forward, even with set backs. Get on board.

432 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gun lovers are just going to have to give up assault rifles. (Original Post) morningfog Jul 2016 OP
Good luck with that, we can't even get agreement on DU n/t doc03 Jul 2016 #1
DU has a few vocal gun fetishists. morningfog Jul 2016 #2
Well I happen to agree with you, morningfog. calimary Jul 2016 #37
totally agree RazBerryBeret Jul 2016 #339
No, I have been here over 10 years pipoman Jul 2016 #338
There were Democrats who didn't want, or believe in, civil rights in the 60's, too. villager Jul 2016 #156
Its a modern sporting rifle SpookyDem Jul 2016 #3
Which bears an amazing resemblance to weapons first designed by the Nazis. NT Jerry442 Jul 2016 #6
What modern gun are you comparing to which nazi rifle? SpookyDem Jul 2016 #27
How about this one. Jerry442 Jul 2016 #65
Top one is a 22 LR nt michreject Jul 2016 #106
The first one is NOT an StG 44 MohRokTah Jul 2016 #264
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #30
Sporting rifle... What does that mean? 3Stones Jul 2016 #19
For sportsing of course SpookyDem Jul 2016 #25
Who the fuck uses an AR-15 for "sport"? MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #31
I use them for target shooting and coyote/pig hunting SpookyDem Jul 2016 #34
And you need an AR-15 for that? MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #57
What kind of fun should he use? NT Adrahil Jul 2016 #90
Something that can't be used to murder dozens of people in minutes would be a start. nt. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #103
So no semi-auto handguns either? TeddyR Jul 2016 #116
Personally, I want them all banned. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #131
Look, I completely respect your opinion TeddyR Jul 2016 #134
I appreciate the civil discussion, truly MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #138
Thank you TeddyR Jul 2016 #141
This is exactly what we need. Scruffy1 Jul 2016 #159
Do you want to stop mass shootings, or the quotidian gun violence? sir pball Jul 2016 #394
I want to do both. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #397
i totally agree with you. I'm absolutely DONE enabling violence trueblue2007 Jul 2016 #244
Here's how you accomplish that. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #266
The amendment is silly in today's real world MyNameGoesHere Jul 2016 #375
No, you don't understand the opriginal intent at all. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #376
Sorry your opinion MyNameGoesHere Jul 2016 #377
Hard to write that into a law. Adrahil Jul 2016 #118
None of these killing machines are acceptable. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #132
Not even for hunters? Marengo Jul 2016 #157
Hunters can find a new hobby. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #168
Ah, the voice of ignorance. But, please continue to roll with that "hobby" nonsense... Marengo Jul 2016 #169
Ahh, the voice of an enabler. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #271
Do you believe all hunting is for sport? Marengo Jul 2016 #407
What's your plan for.... Adrahil Jul 2016 #269
Sound's like "Bungalow Bill" SheriffBob Jul 2016 #162
Difficult but not impossible. See post #266 for a detailed step by step how to guide. eom MohRokTah Jul 2016 #267
Any gun can be used to murder dozens of people, or even a knife or bomb jack_krass Jul 2016 #336
Not based on need michreject Jul 2016 #108
So it is a toy to you and could be replaced with a shotgun for hunting KeepItReal Jul 2016 #127
you could but shotguns are not practical, for this range/type of hunting SpookyDem Jul 2016 #354
Nope. I use an actual military-issue sniper rifle for hunting. sir pball Jul 2016 #390
The majority of those who own them. beevul Jul 2016 #41
Ignorance you say? MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #54
Well.... Adrahil Jul 2016 #93
What a lovely straw-man. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #98
Murder is illegal too. Adrahil Jul 2016 #120
Haven't seen too many felonious gun violent perps get a pat on the back. They too are typically jmg257 Jul 2016 #363
I don't get your point at all. Driving drunk is illegal, and other activities drunk MillennialDem Jul 2016 #104
Murdering someone is illegal too. Adrahil Jul 2016 #124
Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2016 #146
No. Ignorance is believing that any majority share your opinion. beevul Jul 2016 #170
Target shooting is a sport Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #179
3 gun competition shooters. ileus Jul 2016 #381
The Germans, they LOVE the AR but hate our sloppy manufacturing. sir pball Jul 2016 #393
It seems the sport they refer to is... liberal N proud Jul 2016 #128
Shooting guns is not a sport SheriffBob Jul 2016 #163
ahhhh the voice of ignorance melm00se Jul 2016 #180
Olympics also sees curling as a sport. liberal N proud Jul 2016 #194
No it takes skill Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #185
You have to make sure that trigger finger is properly stretched liberal N proud Jul 2016 #187
Pulling a trigger doesn't mean you're going to hit anything. beevul Jul 2016 #199
Me, my Loving Wife, and all three of our sons shoot HighPower. oneshooter Jul 2016 #258
The fact that something is hard doesn't make it a sport mythology Jul 2016 #344
It requires more than "physical strength" oneshooter Jul 2016 #346
Is it a sport if it's in the Olympics? nt sir pball Jul 2016 #391
Who on earth should respect anything you have to say on this subject after that ignorant gem. Marengo Jul 2016 #341
flame SheriffBob Jul 2016 #383
Then come on out to a match, and show us how easy it is. oneshooter Jul 2016 #384
LOL! It's rare to see a such a public display of profound ignorance on a subject. But... Marengo Jul 2016 #387
You are SheriffBob Jul 2016 #412
It's not the guns, even, it's the NRA. Barack_America Jul 2016 #4
It's BOTH. calimary Jul 2016 #38
^^^This!!! DemonGoddess Jul 2016 #69
its not the NRA, it is the gun culture they represent Amishman Jul 2016 #88
This is fairly accurate TeddyR Jul 2016 #117
The NRA isn't about members SCantiGOP Jul 2016 #126
I'm not familiar with their funding TeddyR Jul 2016 #130
It's not for lack of funding EL34x4 Jul 2016 #151
Actually, that would be the NSSF. N/T beevul Jul 2016 #171
Bloomberg has more money than the NRA Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #188
Completely wrong pipoman Jul 2016 #343
The death toll due to "gun culture" is strange. Igel Jul 2016 #147
Unfortunately, you are right. Scruffy1 Jul 2016 #158
The 2nd Amendment hasn't a thing to do with "need" or "hunting"....nothing pipoman Jul 2016 #345
In which conflict(s) did your grandfather win 3 silver stars? What was the branch of service? Marengo Jul 2016 #404
Don't forget the 90-100 million gun owners. That's a whole bunch of people. nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #123
disagree SheriffBob Jul 2016 #164
Open carry is totally idiotic Motley13 Jul 2016 #5
My son best friend is a concealed and carry person. I asked him why B Calm Jul 2016 #56
His possession of a firearm makes him on average 8.5 times more KingCharlemagne Jul 2016 #80
When these two boys were growing up together I insisted they B Calm Jul 2016 #83
Sorry to belabor the point. you can be the safest gun-owner in the history of the known universe and KingCharlemagne Jul 2016 #91
Cite your source, please. Kang Colby Jul 2016 #112
nah, not going to get in a pissing match with gun humpers. - nt KingCharlemagne Jul 2016 #114
I think people are starting to get it. Kang Colby Jul 2016 #119
At least you admit what your statistics are composed of. former9thward Jul 2016 #177
Heh-heh. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #193
At least you seem to admit Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #191
You cite lies and pretend those who point it out are the problem.... pipoman Jul 2016 #347
Well, not totally idiotic. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #270
The humpers are going to swarm this, but of course you are right. Squinch Jul 2016 #7
If you put them all on ignore, it makes things almost tolerable. SwankyXomb Jul 2016 #23
One reason that nothing gets done in this country TeddyR Jul 2016 #122
Add me jack_krass Jul 2016 #356
How about rifles with 10 round fixed mags, like the SKS? nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #8
I have a Savage Arms .22 Semi-auto with a 10 round mag. Assault rifle? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #32
.22 caliber firearms kill a lot of people annually. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #337
But then how would they resist a tyrannical government / kill cops? ...I mean...er...Constitution! alcibiades_mystery Jul 2016 #9
Yeah, ask them who exactly they plan to shoot and when? Jerry442 Jul 2016 #66
Technical Note: Hitler was "appointed," not "elected." The Nazi Party KingCharlemagne Jul 2016 #81
Fair point. Jerry442 Jul 2016 #85
Van Papen and the conservatives around Hindenburg thought they could "control".and KingCharlemagne Jul 2016 #89
{Sigh} Remember when "Godwin's Law" was an obscure Internet meme? NT Jerry442 Jul 2016 #92
Right, because people willing to murder never do anything illegal. appal_jack Jul 2016 #10
Why not make it harder for the murderous fucks, as you say? morningfog Jul 2016 #11
No & no at present. appal_jack Jul 2016 #12
Of course it would make it harder. morningfog Jul 2016 #14
Jesus... G_j Jul 2016 #18
+1 n/t IL Lib Jul 2016 #22
remember this? AntiBank Jul 2016 #47
Yes, fire extinguishers are for cowards too. appal_jack Jul 2016 #111
Maybe more like having a hook and ladder truck G_j Jul 2016 #136
If it needs to be parked in the drive way, it's a howitzer, not a handgun. appal_jack Jul 2016 #150
I had to call emergency services once in Maine.. sir pball Jul 2016 #392
I was referring to the imagined "need" G_j Jul 2016 #398
The only imagined 'need', is the 'need' to ban them. N/T beevul Jul 2016 #399
If you are going to go through the steps to arm yourself, especially for defense, jmg257 Jul 2016 #401
a lot of sane people G_j Jul 2016 #402
Sure....and it makes some sense - for home protection - for some. Of course they have semi-auto jmg257 Jul 2016 #403
Sure - if you are a good shot hack89 Jul 2016 #409
"Are you worried about the police and HS weapons?" sarisataka Jul 2016 #13
Yes. Two black men had guns and white cops freaked out morningfog Jul 2016 #15
So if black men don't want to worry about police sarisataka Jul 2016 #16
the shooter cop in Minnesota was a PoC, Jeronimo Yanez, not a white cop AntiBank Jul 2016 #48
We have what amounts to an open border to the south. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #33
The thing is, you DON'T make it harder for the murderous fucks... beevul Jul 2016 #172
If guns were illegal, they'd be very, very expensive. Marr Jul 2016 #28
Market science says that makes the price go down rather than disappear. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #35
Just like cocaine pot and heroine, right? N/T beevul Jul 2016 #42
Exactly like that, yeah-- they're expensive. Marr Jul 2016 #144
Our survey says: Bzzt. beevul Jul 2016 #173
This says you're wrong: Marr Jul 2016 #182
So you want a war on guns, just like the war on drugs. beevul Jul 2016 #189
I'm glad you admit prices on guns would go up, at least. Marr Jul 2016 #192
Gun control proponents regularly engage in mischaracterization... beevul Jul 2016 #198
So the US and Australia are utterly incomparable, but comparing a Marr Jul 2016 #272
Gun control advocates also tend to double down when called on their mischaracterizations... beevul Jul 2016 #291
In posts #173 and #42, you very clearly made the comparison to marijuana. Marr Jul 2016 #302
In the context of its prohibition. beevul Jul 2016 #306
Obviously. That's the entire context of the discussion. /nt Marr Jul 2016 #307
Then don't accuse me of comparing pot to guns... beevul Jul 2016 #308
I didn't mischaracterize your comments. Marr Jul 2016 #357
Yes you did, and unless you edit or delete... beevul Jul 2016 #367
they would still be dirt cheap AntiBank Jul 2016 #50
Not according to this. Marr Jul 2016 #184
you erected a strawman. I never said it would drive the price down AntiBank Jul 2016 #252
Well, if your argument is that the price would go up, but not much, you're equally incorrect. Marr Jul 2016 #305
you once again fail to see that Australia is vastly different AntiBank Jul 2016 #311
Australia is a huge continent, surrounded by massive economies. Marr Jul 2016 #355
not only are you wrong, but this entire thread is based off AntiBank Jul 2016 #359
Not a fantasy, a hypothetical. Marr Jul 2016 #362
One man 'Challenged' the government just a few days ago. beevul Jul 2016 #364
Where is that Texas shooter, again? Marr Jul 2016 #368
Of course you do. beevul Jul 2016 #370
I'm finding it difficult to control my laughter. Marr Jul 2016 #371
How many did the DC sniper kill? beevul Jul 2016 #374
There's asymmetrical war, and there's Ammon Bundy-style 'uprising'. Marr Jul 2016 #379
More likely massive and open non-compliance, with law enforcement agencies refusing to enforce Marengo Jul 2016 #366
Those who expect a 'civil war' to help them defend their toy chest Marr Jul 2016 #369
I doubt much resistance would be violent, nor would it need be. Compliance and enforcement Marengo Jul 2016 #373
Sorry, but ganja price is still dropping. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #203
Sorry, but you're the one arguing against basic market principles. Marr Jul 2016 #234
Well hell, why have any laws at all then? Marr Jul 2016 #358
Thats a strawman. Nobody wants "no laws". beevul Jul 2016 #365
Common error. Straw Man Jul 2016 #372
It's almost pathetic that all of the mass shootings in recent SheilaT Jul 2016 #17
Modern military assault rifles never were meant for everyone. rusty quoin Jul 2016 #20
The weapons in question, are not "Modern military assault rifles". beevul Jul 2016 #43
You know you've lost when you're trying to debate the definition of the weapon KeepItReal Jul 2016 #133
We weren't debating the 'definition'... beevul Jul 2016 #176
Interesting virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #46
Agreed. That's why the US has banned them since the 1930s Recursion Jul 2016 #71
Way to twist the argument. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #73
*He* doesn't know what he meant. He thinks AR-15s fire faster than other rifles. He's wrong. Recursion Jul 2016 #75
That is not the point, at all. MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #77
None of *which* weapons? Semi-automatics? Recursion Jul 2016 #84
Most people don't know all the terminology MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #100
Getting the terminology right is critical TeddyR Jul 2016 #125
I agree we need to be educated so we may fight from a position of strength MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #135
The Virginia Tech shooter TeddyR Jul 2016 #140
Rifles of any kind are rarely used in murders Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #197
What are "these" weapons? Recursion Jul 2016 #137
I'm not uncomfortable with it at all- MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #145
We tried that way once and got the disastrous AWB Recursion Jul 2016 #148
It is really very simple if you would just admit it Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #202
+1 Matrosov Jul 2016 #153
Or an ammosexual Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #205
If you are in the business of banning, you better. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #211
It very easy to convert a semi-auto to full auto. Truthfully, a semi-auto is sufficiently deadly. Hoyt Jul 2016 #109
None of those were converted to full auto Recursion Jul 2016 #139
No, you've totally missed the point. Semi-autos can kill 50 people quickly. And if you want, Hoyt Jul 2016 #143
So drop the "military" nonsense Recursion Jul 2016 #149
Time to ban/restrict semi-autos. Thought it was clear. Hoyt Jul 2016 #154
You're being clear; the OP isn't Recursion Jul 2016 #155
It is not easy and has not been for decades Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #207
Bullshit. beevul Jul 2016 #212
So this slide stock does not exist, even though it's sold on Amazon.com. Hoyt Jul 2016 #222
Were those goalposts heavy hoyt? beevul Jul 2016 #225
I've already posted a video of how to do it internally. The slide stock is a conversion too. Hoyt Jul 2016 #226
Not in this thread you haven't. beevul Jul 2016 #230
Fact is, real military assault rifles are used on select fire most of the time. Hoyt Jul 2016 #236
Fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. beevul Jul 2016 #241
Beevul, it's a title with editing to make it fit. You know what it means, or should. Quit playing Hoyt Jul 2016 #242
ROFL. beevul Jul 2016 #246
This message was self-deleted by its author SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #21
The prospect of having to "give them up" is exactly what they live for. Aristus Jul 2016 #24
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #26
I'll keep my semi-automatic rifles. n/t Waldorf Jul 2016 #29
Why? Germany, Austria, Italy, New Zealand, among others, all allow them and it's OK...BAN PISTOLS. sir pball Jul 2016 #36
Yes, ban all guns NOW, in the USA. underahedgerow Jul 2016 #39
So, you propose the absolute strictest gun control in the world, off the bat? sir pball Jul 2016 #40
Yes, I propose banning all guns except those for agricultural purposes, underahedgerow Jul 2016 #95
It is HUGELY difficult TeddyR Jul 2016 #129
Most of the civilized world hasn't banned guns. Statistical Jul 2016 #190
The Constitution is hardly a perfect document, and it is meant to be a fluid document that underahedgerow Jul 2016 #196
Well then get out from"underahedgerow" and get busy. oneshooter Jul 2016 #260
I do what I can. I've done what I can on other issues, far too deep to detail here. underahedgerow Jul 2016 #273
What's an agricultural purpose? Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #210
How about "No". N/T beevul Jul 2016 #44
No.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #49
All guns? Adrahil Jul 2016 #94
Thank you. The 2nd Amendment argument for handguns is much weaker, too Recursion Jul 2016 #72
Interesting. Given the data and ergonomics, you might be right. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #216
I don't actually support *banning* handguns, but I do realize they're the bigger problem by 20x. sir pball Jul 2016 #389
I am under NO obligation to obey unjust laws.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #45
There goes that "law-abiding" BS. Hoyt Jul 2016 #86
And you've never broken a law, mister self admitted former robber? N/T beevul Jul 2016 #201
Good luck making your own powder and primer MillennialDem Jul 2016 #99
It is not a problem.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #281
No, I'd never waste a single penny on that horrible (outside of war) industry. MillennialDem Jul 2016 #303
Who's wasting? virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #313
Irrelevant to my point. I said I will never spend a penny on guns. MillennialDem Jul 2016 #314
But you do spend money on guns and ammo. oneshooter Jul 2016 #315
Oh brother MillennialDem Jul 2016 #324
Not a chance in hell. OccupyPA Jul 2016 #51
Aren't the majority of shootings done with handguns? JonathanRackham Jul 2016 #52
ssssssssshhhhhhhhhh nt michreject Jul 2016 #113
Yes Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #213
During WWI shotguns were used as trench clearing firearms JonathanRackham Jul 2016 #231
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #53
People that use an assault weapon for hunting suck at hunting. baldguy Jul 2016 #55
OK, what you've just done is shown that you don't understand what these are. Recursion Jul 2016 #70
Yeah - that handgrip sure makes a "wanna be" hunter a real wussie. jmg257 Jul 2016 #110
And you hunt how often? n/t oneshooter Jul 2016 #284
The constitution doesn't mention hunting and sporting as the reason to be able to carry FXSTD Jul 2016 #58
I'd like for you to quote the exact phrase in the Constitution GaYellowDawg Jul 2016 #348
The preamble comes pretty close. beevul Jul 2016 #349
Well I don't see guns, or oppressive government mentioned anywhere there. So... GaYellowDawg Jul 2016 #350
No, you don't. beevul Jul 2016 #351
"A well regulated militia" SheriffBob Jul 2016 #420
Do we have to pit gun carriers and gun haters against each other on this site again? romanic Jul 2016 #59
Yes. Because the gun lovers are standing in the way of societal progress. morningfog Jul 2016 #60
Discussions have to be made. romanic Jul 2016 #61
I've lost patience. Every goddamned time, these assholes trot morningfog Jul 2016 #62
Good luck. romanic Jul 2016 #64
Not interested in a civil conversation with this people. They are irrational. morningfog Jul 2016 #96
You are free to keep thinking wrongly, & losing votes. appal_jack Jul 2016 #115
I don't need your permission. So long. morningfog Jul 2016 #142
Hope the fog clears for you some day. appal_jack Jul 2016 #152
I thought you were leaving? morningfog Jul 2016 #160
+1 MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #79
You don't coddle them. hack89 Jul 2016 #165
Way to win your argument, lol Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #214
I don't give a FUCK. Not trying to win an argument. Get o. It get the fuck out of the way. morningfog Jul 2016 #249
That attitude is why Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #253
No, it is the people who worship the gun and stroke it. morningfog Jul 2016 #277
And who is that, me? Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #279
You'll have to try on your own shoes. morningfog Jul 2016 #293
You directed that response to me Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #296
And tell us, who are those people? n/t oneshooter Jul 2016 #285
They are obvious. morningfog Jul 2016 #292
They are not, point some out Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #297
No I have decided not to. n/t oneshooter Jul 2016 #261
Is anybody here against their own free will? SheriffBob Jul 2016 #421
The definition debate has to preclude reform concerning assault rifles. Captain Stern Jul 2016 #63
We won't be giving them up. aikoaiko Jul 2016 #67
I'm thinking of picking up an SKS 7.62mm MohRokTah Jul 2016 #178
I'm right there too. beevul Jul 2016 #206
If you're interested.... aikoaiko Jul 2016 #209
Man, I was told no background checks for internet sales Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #255
License and insure, just like cars greymattermom Jul 2016 #68
And tax them annually, just like cars. Hoyt Jul 2016 #87
Whoops, posted in wrong place. My apologies. Hoyt Jul 2016 #102
I do not need a license and insurance to OWN Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #217
tax a civil liberty? virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #382
I agree. And "open carry" has to go away. Vinca Jul 2016 #74
That's interesting: I'm personally much more bothered by concealed carry Recursion Jul 2016 #76
I'm bothered by that, too. Personally, I'd like all guns gone. Vinca Jul 2016 #78
Me too, open carry Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #219
Nope Matrosov Jul 2016 #82
No. nt hack89 Jul 2016 #97
Honestly, we should ban all handguns. Let the fetishists keep their long guns, hand guns cause MillennialDem Jul 2016 #101
Police? mainstreetonce Jul 2016 #105
because the AWB was ineffective. Statistical Jul 2016 #200
In mass shootings mainstreetonce Jul 2016 #208
Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., prove semi-autos are plenty deadly, but gunners can convert Hoyt Jul 2016 #107
And how many people are killed by rifles annually? nt hack89 Jul 2016 #167
I'd like to hear about one instance of a mass shooting where a bump fire stock was in use. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #195
Once again, I have no issue restricting semi-auto pistols too. Just riding the wave of opposition Hoyt Jul 2016 #218
What you say makes me happy. hack89 Jul 2016 #220
LOL! virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #386
The first two videos ARE NOT automatic weapons. They are sem-automatic approved by the BATF. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #183
Didn't say they were fully automatic. It's a technique to simulate full auto. Hoyt Jul 2016 #215
That was the implication you made when you used the word 'convert'. beevul Jul 2016 #239
Look at what I said and stop pointing at each word. This is exactly what I said above bumpfirer: Hoyt Jul 2016 #240
I am. beevul Jul 2016 #243
The FBI Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #221
No thanks. n/t Kang Colby Jul 2016 #121
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #161
Why would they do that? Gun hoarders have serious issues that will never be addressed. Rex Jul 2016 #166
We have more guns than people in the US Motley13 Jul 2016 #174
IT takes a lot of money and a special license to buy an assault rifle, and only one manufactured... MohRokTah Jul 2016 #175
We are talking quasi-assault rifles and you know it. Everyone but gunners understand the target. Hoyt Jul 2016 #224
What the hell is a quasi-assalt rifle? Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #233
How else to converse with people who play the gun nomenclature game to avoid obvious. Hoyt Jul 2016 #238
As opposed to people who can't be bothered to know what they're talking about... beevul Jul 2016 #247
Good point Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #256
Words mean things MohRokTah Jul 2016 #254
Words mean things and there is a VERY specific definition of "Assault rifle" MohRokTah Jul 2016 #251
Instead of creating new words, why not just call it what it is. A semi-automatic rifle. Waldorf Jul 2016 #274
Correction: Assault Rifles are capable of full-auto fire. These rifles are already regulated. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #181
Not a fetishist, a realist. sofa king Jul 2016 #186
^^^^^ LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #204
Thank you. sofa king Jul 2016 #223
Exactly; I agree LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #265
I agree 100% SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #245
Meh. Fuck tradition. Ass backwards hicks should not control the debate. morningfog Jul 2016 #248
But they will... sofa king Jul 2016 #257
Are you saying everybody who disagrees with you about firearm regulation is... MohRokTah Jul 2016 #259
Of course not, only the ignorant hicks. morningfog Jul 2016 #275
And neither should insult spewing morons. n/t oneshooter Jul 2016 #262
+1 (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #268
Who you calling a moron, shooter? morningfog Jul 2016 #276
those who bring nothing to the table oneshooter Jul 2016 #282
Much noise, and vitriol ... no action as usual DonP Jul 2016 #405
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #395
No, you do not get it. morningfog Jul 2016 #396
If I can give up lawn darts... maveric56 Jul 2016 #227
Lawn darts were not Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #235
As with the phony "assaut weapon" ban, lawn darts are not completely banned. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #340
the last two nationally prominent mass killers explicitly targeted whites Angel Martin Jul 2016 #228
You need to clean up your definitions. I think I will buy one... Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #229
FWIW, my husband is a hunter, bought a lifetime membership in the NRA many years ago, napi21 Jul 2016 #232
Semi-automatic firearms have been around since before the year 1900. beevul Jul 2016 #424
I AGREE WITH YOU. trueblue2007 Jul 2016 #237
I look forward to hearing your plan for collecting all of those weapons bluestateguy Jul 2016 #250
Legal Gun owners are just going to have to give up assault rifles.... ummmm Nope n/t DustyJoe Jul 2016 #263
I got no time for pro-massacre assholes. morningfog Jul 2016 #278
And I have no time for hoplophobes. n/t oneshooter Jul 2016 #286
So you genuinely believe.. SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #287
Not all of them. morningfog Jul 2016 #294
Are most? Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #298
Who the fuck knows. Not playing. morningfog Jul 2016 #301
Is there anyone... SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #304
LOL. Good luck to you. morningfog Jul 2016 #310
hah SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #312
It is very typical Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #321
Yup. SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #330
So when challenged on your comment Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #320
I don't think that being for gun rights makes me pro-massacre, but then I'm also for abortion rights LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #288
Stop calling them assault rifles - Use the proper name - Killing machines. GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #280
If you truly want to use the proper name, then it would be semi-automatic rifles. Waldorf Jul 2016 #290
And the nomenclature bullshit begins. Killing machines. GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #316
Nomenclature bullshit part 3. Killing machines. GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #318
How are you going to define "killing machines" TeddyR Jul 2016 #326
Sorry, no. in any discussion about these devices, the best way to frame it is "killing machines". GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #329
Not quite. SuperDutyTX Jul 2016 #335
The Killing Machine Ban - should go over big in Congress. nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #328
I will not give that bullshit argument respect. Fuck that/ morningfog Jul 2016 #295
Nomenclature bullshit part two. Killing machines. GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #317
Because that is not the proper name Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #300
Nomenclature bullshit part 4. Killing machines. GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #319
Good luck passing a law TeddyR Jul 2016 #325
I've been learning all my life and one of the things I have learned is that some people love GoneOffShore Jul 2016 #327
One of the many reasons Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #331
Yep TeddyR Jul 2016 #333
Something catchy and trademarkable, yet demeaning SwankyXomb Jul 2016 #342
Uh nope and besides, if they don't know you have them, how they going Purveyor Jul 2016 #283
We should be able to make deathrind Jul 2016 #289
Why do you leave Chicago out? Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #299
You'd have to ban all firearms TeddyR Jul 2016 #332
They will not listen, sadly Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #334
re: "We've had enough." discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #309
I do not know how the poor officer behind him Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #323
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #322
You demand that a current right be taken, then say "don't even start a debate, I don't give a damn." MadDAsHell Jul 2016 #352
I don't have a dog in this fight but I find these threads wildly entertaining. Anyone else? WillowTree Jul 2016 #353
I love them, one side knows their shit R.A. Ganoush Jul 2016 #378
A grown up society? Abq_Sarah Jul 2016 #360
The Gun Used by the Dallas Police Murderer is Revealed. Itís Not What Most People Thought. tirebiter Jul 2016 #361
I don't see an issue here...considering I own counter assault rifles. ileus Jul 2016 #380
a connection SheriffBob Jul 2016 #385
The Dallas shooter used an SKS. dilby Jul 2016 #388
To get this out there - the weapon used is now reported as an AK-74. jmg257 Jul 2016 #400
Sadly, someone like him could have used a bolt action to similar effect (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #411
What an incredibly arrogant OP. NaturalHigh Jul 2016 #406
Thanks! morningfog Jul 2016 #410
I's sorry SheriffBob Jul 2016 #413
Why? Because you say so? Wayburn Jul 2016 #408
Their is a word of warning, in the responses in this thread.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #414
Shhh! Keep it secret from the gun lovers until after we take the House, Senate and White House. morningfog Jul 2016 #415
the "gun lovers" as you put it.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #416
They are extreme, I'll give you that. morningfog Jul 2016 #417
Extreme? virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #418
Meh. You say personal property, I say instrument of death morningfog Jul 2016 #419
? virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #422
Wait and see mountainman. morningfog Jul 2016 #423
Paranoia?? virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #426
Oh, like you are talking free enterprise. Jim Beard Jul 2016 #427
Its funny how that works, isn't it? beevul Jul 2016 #425
But can we keep our counter assault rifles? ileus Jul 2016 #428
Absolutely not. morningfog Jul 2016 #429
Ah, come on SheriffBob Jul 2016 #430
Will your ever-shifting definition include 19-ton refer trucks? Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #431
Are truck drivers going to have to give up assault trucks? Albertoo Jul 2016 #432

calimary

(80,155 posts)
37. Well I happen to agree with you, morningfog.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:22 AM
Jul 2016

You'll get all kinds of excuses and rationales and other crap about why somebody needs and just simply HAS TO have a massacre machine. Their problems just simply MUST become a problem for all the rest of us, I guess. Nobody can tell me there's a reason on earth why, that will ever make any sense to me. And Heaven knows they've certainly tried!

And their whole canard about the so-called "good guy with a gun" - hell, Dallas police were the absolute poster children of that, in the madness that erupted there, and look how nicely that all worked out. I'm fed up being held hostage to the 2nd Amendment. And no one can tell me it simply mustn't ever be touched. Baloney. If they can futz around with the 15th Amendment, there's no reason on earth why the 2nd Amendment must absolutely be immune to a few nips and tucks, and much-needed modernization, too. The 2nd Amendment desperately needs further amending. If we have ANY hope of reducing further carnage, that is.

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
339. totally agree
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:53 PM
Jul 2016

with your post.

I don't understand the huge need to own semi automatic weapons. But I call those people ammo-sexuals. I know a few of them, a couple of my in-laws, actually.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
338. No, I have been here over 10 years
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:51 PM
Jul 2016

Every year or less there is a "repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment" poll in GD. There has never been a single poll on this topic that is even close...always 4 to 1 against any such action....and that is on DU....society in general is even less likely.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
156. There were Democrats who didn't want, or believe in, civil rights in the 60's, too.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:02 AM
Jul 2016

Yet it still finally happened.

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
65. How about this one.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 06:37 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)



The StG 44, an early German assault rifle, was adopted by the Wehrmacht in 1944.

-----------------------------------------------



Colt AR15A4

-----------------------------------------------

Yep, those Nazis knew how to build a good huntin' rifle.

(And yes, I know the AR-15 isn't full-auto. This is very significant to somebody.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On edit: a couple of respondents have pointed out that the first image is not in fact an StG 44 but is a replica. Apparently accidentally showing a picture of a replica of the StG 44 which was intentionally constructed to be nearly indistinguishable from the original has destroyed my entire argument. Here is a genuine picture, although for some reason you won't see it until you click on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44#/media/File:MP44_-_Tyskland_-_8x33mm_Kurz_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg

Here is a picture also appropriate to this discussion:




 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
264. The first one is NOT an StG 44
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:51 PM
Jul 2016

It's a cheap imitation of an StG44 that is actually a .22LR semi-automatic rifle. It is functionally the same as this:

Response to Jerry442 (Reply #6)

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
31. Who the fuck uses an AR-15 for "sport"?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:16 AM
Jul 2016

Even the pro-gun people I know who love them only take them to firing ranges, and that's not a god damned sport. They serve no purpose other than being exceptionally good tools for killing people.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
116. So no semi-auto handguns either?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:29 AM
Jul 2016

That's what he Virginia Tech shooter used. Look, I think you have a right to keep and bear arms, but if you can get the political will to pass an "assault weapon" ban then great. But the weapon used in Dallas might not even qualify as an "assault weapon," so instead of using imprecise terms he controllers need to identify what function they want to ban, like high capacity detachable magazines.

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
131. Personally, I want them all banned.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:51 AM
Jul 2016

Im sorry if that will deprive people of their hobby. If that's the price we have to pay to end this madness, so be it.

I understand my position is extreme, and probably unrealistic. But I'm absolutely DONE enabling violence by attempting to adopt half-measures. Too much blood has been shed. No more.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
134. Look, I completely respect your opinion
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:56 AM
Jul 2016

Even if I disagree with it. Here's my issue with those calling for a ban. First, as you recognize it isn't feasible. Second, it gives groups like the NRA fodder for the argument "they want to take our guns"!!! And the related point is that basically makes any gun control much more difficult.

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
138. I appreciate the civil discussion, truly
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:02 AM
Jul 2016

And I am certainly arguing from a place of emotion.

But I do want to take the guns. And if enough people start saying it, loudly and without fear of the NRA, we might actually start to break the strangle-hold they have on this country.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
141. Thank you
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:07 AM
Jul 2016

And you may be right. If you TRULY want to stop or lower the rate of mass shootings then a firearm ban is the only way to do so.

Scruffy1

(3,233 posts)
159. This is exactly what we need.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:35 AM
Jul 2016

The time for half measures has long passed. It's my right not to be shot by crazies with guns. They are always talking about rights.
I can't see where the rights of a gun nut trump the rights of the eight year old girl who was killed by a stray bullet about a mile from my house or the guy who was murdered for his cell phone a block away from here. I think the assault weapons ban is ludicrous and will not accomplish anything. But if enough people start to see the light we could get a change in attitude. The proposed legislation is only a feel good sop.

sir pball

(4,695 posts)
394. Do you want to stop mass shootings, or the quotidian gun violence?
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 12:19 AM
Jul 2016

I'm breaking in because, with civility and respect, I'm far more interested in reining in the 7,000+ handgun deaths a year before we worry about the 500 or so mass shooting deaths a year - in 2014 rifles of all kinds killed about 250 people while handguns killed about 14 times as many people.

I do understand that mass shootings are far, far more visible and emotionally challenging, but there is, at best, limited political capital for gun control in America - it might be possible to ban the sale of semiauto rifles (I don't think a buyback would be possible), but that would pretty much be the end of gun control for years. The way an AWB addon has poisoned other gun control bills in the last decade should evidence that. I favor a differently targeted, broader package that I also suspect would be much easier to pass with less blowback, and would have ten times the impact on American gun violence as even an immediate, fully effective, confiscatory ban of "assault weapons":

I believe in a nationwide, mandatory ownership license, with safety and responsibility training.
I believe in mandatory dealer transfers, where not only is a background check performed, but a record of the sale is made.
I believe in a "title", much like a car, where the duly legal owner of the firearm is documented, and it must be passed to the next owner, with record of transaction. Possessed by the owner, but severe penalties for not having it.
I believe in severe, mandatory, criminal charges for gun crime, including failure to secure your gun properly.
I believe in handgun registration.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
266. Here's how you accomplish that.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:01 PM
Jul 2016

1) Write up an amendment to the constitution. Basically, all it needs to say is this:


Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


2) Convince 290 members of the House of Representatives that amendment should be passed.

3) Convince 67 members of the Senate that amendment should be passed.

3.5) Barring being capable of both 2) and 3), convince 34 state legislatures to pass identical legislation calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention for the purposes of considering that amendment, then have 26 voting delegations vote to pass it.

4) Upon completion of 2) & 3) OR 3.5), convince 38 state legislatures to ratify that amendment.

5) Then just get all 50 states to make all firearms illegal.

Best get started right away and good luck!
 

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)
375. The amendment is silly in today's real world
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:16 PM
Jul 2016

The idea that the people will stand up to a tyrannical national government that possesses the means to extinct cities is laughable. The original intent was to fight a standing army of the National government with flintlock muskets. But hey if you belive your little pop guns can stand up to tactical bombers and nukes, then by all means live in that wolverine fantasy world. It's a stupid amendment written by some very drunk people.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
376. No, you don't understand the opriginal intent at all.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:26 PM
Jul 2016

The original intent was to have a militia of individuals ready to defend the nation against enemies. So long as all people had the right to be armed, we would have the means of national defense.

It was NEVER intended to prove the people with the means to overthrow the government that guaranteed such rights. In fact, every attempt to do so has been crushed, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration.

Regardless, the only way to ban all guns is to amend the constitution. There is no other way.

 

MyNameGoesHere

(7,638 posts)
377. Sorry your opinion
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:42 PM
Jul 2016

is different than mine, but that is once again the silliness of the this amendment. It is written in a fools language, most likely by drunken founders as they were known to do at the time. And besides when you rewrote my words to fit your narrative, you kind of lost. I said to protect against a tyrannical national threat.
Some people disagree with your opinion

“The Second Amendment was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states,” then-Justice John Paul Stevens correctly noted in his minority opinion.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
118. Hard to write that into a law.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:32 AM
Jul 2016

And could be dangerous. Wild pigs, for example, can be very dangerous if you miss your shot or only wound the pig. Sometimes a rapid follow up shot or three is necessary.

But in any case, you need to be specific. Are semi-autos with a fixed magazine acceptable to you?

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
132. None of these killing machines are acceptable.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:53 AM
Jul 2016

No more tip-toeing around the issue just to protect an outdated tradition.

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
168. Hunters can find a new hobby.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:32 PM
Jul 2016

Why should we sacrifice our lives rather than they sacrifice their fun? Where are our priorities?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
169. Ah, the voice of ignorance. But, please continue to roll with that "hobby" nonsense...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jul 2016

You'll be sure to realize your goal in no time.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
269. What's your plan for....
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:06 PM
Jul 2016

Managing wildlife populations?

Abandoning hunting would be a disaster.

And for many, hunting is not just a hobby, but a major food source.

SheriffBob

(552 posts)
162. Sound's like "Bungalow Bill"
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:10 PM
Jul 2016

Beatles. "Hey Bungalow Bill, who did you kill?"
"It could have been us instead of him"

Oink, Oink.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
127. So it is a toy to you and could be replaced with a shotgun for hunting
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:47 AM
Jul 2016

You don't NEED an an Assault Rifle derived weapon.

sir pball

(4,695 posts)
390. Nope. I use an actual military-issue sniper rifle for hunting.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 11:57 PM
Jul 2016

OK, so it isn't a genuine Remington Defense M24 Sniper Weapons System (available to the public!), it's just identical - a Remington Model 700 in 300 Winchester Magnum with a heavy barrel and adjustable stock, fitted with a bipod and adjustable scope. Well, the scope is better, so I guess it isn't the exact same...but it's still as innocuous a rifle as you could hope for, perfectly legal even in the UK. If this assface in Dallas had it, everybody he shot would be dead, and yet nobody's howling to ban it, yet.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
41. The majority of those who own them.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:48 AM
Jul 2016
Who the fuck uses an AR-15 for "sport"?


The majority of those who own them.

Even the pro-gun people I know who love them only take them to firing ranges, and that's not a god damned sport.


That's simply your opinion, and an ignorant one at that.

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
54. Ignorance you say?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 05:38 AM
Jul 2016

Ignorance is pretending these guns have any place in a civilized society. You are part of the problem.

Why not just admit firing a big gun makes you feel good? That's their only purpose, and it's not a good enough one to justify their existence.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
93. Well....
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:14 AM
Jul 2016

How many people die each year from Alcohol-related causes?

What exactly is the purpose of alcohol?

Personal pleasure. And most people don't drive drunk, right?

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
98. What a lovely straw-man.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:43 AM
Jul 2016

Drunk drivers are routinely punished in this country and are not considered remotely socially acceptable. They are vilified, and rightly so.

Gun violence, on the other hand, is "just something we have to live with" and gun-rights activists are seen as legitimate, even though guns are responsible for atrocities beyond imagination.

Apples and oranges.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
120. Murder is illegal too.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:34 AM
Jul 2016

Drinking is not illegal, and neither is owning a gun. It's the actual crime part that is illegal. But drinking facilitates drunk driving, the same way owning a gun faciliates gun violence.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
363. Haven't seen too many felonious gun violent perps get a pat on the back. They too are typically
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 09:26 AM
Jul 2016

vilified - and yes - rightly so.

They are something we have to effectively deal with, not live with.

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
104. I don't get your point at all. Driving drunk is illegal, and other activities drunk
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:53 AM
Jul 2016

almost never hurt other people.

If being drunk made you like someone on PCP, you might have a point.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
124. Murdering someone is illegal too.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:37 AM
Jul 2016

And other drunk acitvites almost never hurt anyone? Are you serious?

Bar fights, domestic violence, non-driving accidents while drunk, liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome, young people killing themselves with alcohol poisoning, getting young people drunk to facilita rape? Those ring a bell at all?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
170. No. Ignorance is believing that any majority share your opinion.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:04 PM
Jul 2016
Ignorance is pretending these guns have any place in a civilized society. You are part of the problem.


No. Ignorance is believing that any majority share your opinion.

Why not just admit firing a big gun makes you feel good?


Uh...because it doesn't? It doesn't make me feel one way or the other.

That's their only purpose, and it's not a good enough one to justify their existence.


Again, this is your opinion.

sir pball

(4,695 posts)
393. The Germans, they LOVE the AR but hate our sloppy manufacturing.
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 12:09 AM
Jul 2016

Dead serious - it's a pretty popular target rifle in Germany (which oddly enough means the controls on it are looser than a hunting rifle); they adore them so much they manufacture them themselves. I'd love to have one, they're probably as well made as an HK.

http://www.schmeisser-germany.de/
http://www.hera-arms.com/
http://www.oberlandarms.com/produkte-infos-rifles-oa15-de-artkat=11-Selbstladeb%FCchsen+Rifles+OA+15.html

melm00se

(4,950 posts)
180. ahhhh the voice of ignorance
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:22 PM
Jul 2016

the ISSF recognizes up the 9 shooting disciplines in the summer Olympics and an additional 9 disciplines in the World Championships.

liberal N proud

(60,217 posts)
194. Olympics also sees curling as a sport.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:35 PM
Jul 2016

Siding a rock across ice. These organizations made shooting a sport because of lobbying from gun makers and gun enthusiasts.

If shooting was only restrained to these events, it wouldn’t be a problem.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
258. Me, my Loving Wife, and all three of our sons shoot HighPower.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:37 PM
Jul 2016

Three position, timed at 200, 300, and 500 yards. No glass sights.

I shoot a National match grade M1Garand.308, Wife and kids shoot Military Match AR-15's.

I would challenge you to try it. Then repeat the ignorance you just wrote.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
344. The fact that something is hard doesn't make it a sport
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:19 PM
Jul 2016

It doesn't require any particular physical strength. Darts and pool aren't sports in my book either.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
346. It requires more than "physical strength"
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:28 PM
Jul 2016

It requires physical control, mental alertness, and the ability to recover and repeat within the time limits.

Why don't you try it, before you put it down.

or are you afraid to try, and fail.

SheriffBob

(552 posts)
383. flame
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 07:12 PM
Jul 2016

Ouch! Since when is somebody ignorant for expressing an opinion which you disagree with.

Video games require more skill than shooting a gun.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
387. LOL! It's rare to see a such a public display of profound ignorance on a subject. But...
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 09:45 PM
Jul 2016

Please do carry on, it's quite amusing.

Amishman

(5,523 posts)
88. its not the NRA, it is the gun culture they represent
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:04 AM
Jul 2016

if the NRA ceased to exist tomorrow, their millions of rabid backers and the gun industry itself would just pick another gun group to rally behind. All you would change is the name on the donation checks.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
117. This is fairly accurate
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:31 AM
Jul 2016

Although the NRA only has about 5 million members. The anti-gun movement should be able to gather that many supporters you'd think but so far it hasn't happened, at least not in an organized way.

SCantiGOP

(13,818 posts)
126. The NRA isn't about members
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:46 AM
Jul 2016

It has almost unlimited money - they are the marketing and lobbying arm of the US gun and ammo industry, posing as a citizen's advocacy group.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
130. I'm not familiar with their funding
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:51 AM
Jul 2016

But if the left was serious about gun control - truly serious - they could find the organization and funding. For example, pro-choice groups are very well funded and very organized, and those are largely left-leaning groups.

 

EL34x4

(2,003 posts)
151. It's not for lack of funding
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:40 AM
Jul 2016

Michael Bloomberg has tossed millions towards gun control causes and candidates with little to show for it.

Pro-choice and pro-gun organizations are actually very similar. Both groups are being asked to give up rights that they hold dear by people who offer nothing in return. Both see incremental laws as a slippery slope to total bans by an opposition who occasionally makes it clear that a total ban is in fact the end objective.

Finally, people who are against both gun control laws and anti-choice laws tend to make this issue of primary importance to them in the voting booth. For those who support increased gun control or limits on abortion, the issue is often near the bottom of stuff they care about.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
343. Completely wrong
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jul 2016

The revenue of all US gun makers combined....all...added....together...do not make a single fortune 500 company. The NRA has some 5 million members. The NRA's money is absolutely limited.

Far, far too many claims of the all-powerfulness of the NRA. The only power the NRA really has is, 'we will challenge that proposed law on grounds of constitutionality', and 'the people...voters...will not support that'....that's it...

The issue is that most every proposal for gun control are either asked and answered as being unconstitutional, or are obviously to any objective thinker to be constitutionally impossible...

Constitutional challenges will ensue any legislation with or without the NRA.

Igel

(35,092 posts)
147. The death toll due to "gun culture" is strange.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:35 AM
Jul 2016

On the one hand it's redmeck whites that we point to as prototypical.

But most guns are owned by middle classers.

And an unreasonably large number of deaths are at the hands of African-Americans.

So "gun culture" is the same across those three groups--the privileged and least so, blacks and the most racist?

One culture, or easiest talking point that has problems with close examination?

Scruffy1

(3,233 posts)
158. Unfortunately, you are right.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:26 AM
Jul 2016

A lifetime time of screen and television have created the glamour of the gun. The population is so inundated with this bullshit that it has become an act of faith that a guns fix things. From John Wayne, the draft dodger, to Dirty Harry to Rambo and lately Django. I am so glad I came from a military family. My grandfather had three Silver stars and never owned a gun in his life. My father served in two wars and liked to hunt birds. The good news is that the number of the households having guns has declined steadily over the years. The truth is that even for hunting, anything more than a single shot is unnecessary. With a shotgun by the time you get the barrel down and back on lead it's too late and in most deer hunting you really get one shot.. Even in open country, it's rare to get a second shot and if you do it's at a running target, which maybe one in a hundred could hit and they would have hit it the first time. The bolt action repeating rifle was just a hand me down from the military for when you are shooting at stuff that can shoot back. The repeating shotgun was aimed at market hunters not sportsmen. At the best it's just a convenient way to carry ammo. Some trap shooter like auto shotguns because of less recoil, but there are a lot of ways to reduce recoil.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
404. In which conflict(s) did your grandfather win 3 silver stars? What was the branch of service?
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 01:22 PM
Jul 2016

What was his terminal rank?

Motley13

(3,867 posts)
5. Open carry is totally idiotic
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 10:20 PM
Jul 2016

how do the cops tell the good guy from the bad guy?
One guy in Dallas was open carrying & was mistakenly identified as the killer, he is lucky to be alive. His brother told him to give his gun/rifle to a cop, which he did. Glad someone in his family had a brain.
So what good does it do?

We must vote everyone out of office that does not support gun regulation!

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
56. My son best friend is a concealed and carry person. I asked him why
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 05:44 AM
Jul 2016

he feels like he needs to carry a firearm. He said he was a county prosecutor that has sent a lot of bad people to jail. That said he made the point he has a lot of enemies.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
80. His possession of a firearm makes him on average 8.5 times more
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:28 AM
Jul 2016

likely to be killed or wounded by a firearm. As a County DA, he should be smart enough to comprehend the well-established actuarial science.

Or maybe he harbors a secret death wish.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
83. When these two boys were growing up together I insisted they
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:44 AM
Jul 2016

took a gun safety course when they showed interests in deer hunting. The three of us went through the course together. My son grew up as very liberal with no love for guns. He was more interested in archery and even went bear hunting with a traditional bow.

His friend (the county prosecutor) grew up to be a staunch gun loving Republican, but I do know he is smart enough to safely use his gun.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
91. Sorry to belabor the point. you can be the safest gun-owner in the history of the known universe and
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:10 AM
Jul 2016

it doesn't change the FACT that the mere possession of a firearm makes you 8.5 times more likely on average to be killed or wounded by discharge of a firearm.

IOW, his many "enemies" notwithstanding, your son's friend would be safer if he disposed of all firearms in his possession.

The actuarial statistics do not lie.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
112. Cite your source, please.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:22 AM
Jul 2016

The discredited Kellermann study concluded 2.7x more likely. Unfortunately, Kellermann counted a "gun in the home" as meaning a gun brought into the home for the sole purpose of killing the resident. Say if a neighbor brought a gun into the home of someone else to kill the home owner, that was counted as if the deceased home owner had a "gun in the home".

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
119. I think people are starting to get it.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:34 AM
Jul 2016

Gun control advocates use statistics like a drunk uses a street light....for support rather than lumination.

Gun control advocates also include suicides in their crooked definition of "gun violence" because 67% of gun related deaths are suicide. Just to inflate the numbers.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
347. You cite lies and pretend those who point it out are the problem....
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:31 PM
Jul 2016

Your 8.5 is complete hogshit....you know it is hogshit and stand by it anyway...don't expect lies to help your cause.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
270. Well, not totally idiotic.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:12 PM
Jul 2016

Wyoming is an open carry state and you'll be hard pressed to go to any town or "city" in the state and find a single person openly carrying a firearm who is not a security guard or a member of law enforcement.

But having worked on a ranch as a boy I would not want to go out checking fences and not have a firearm strapped to my hip because of the potential for an encounter with deadly wildlife, which has happened to me when I was 14 in the form of a rabid coyote. The .38 S&W I had in my holster on my hip that day probably saved me from an agonizing medical treatment at the very least. Had it not been legal for me to open carry, I would have been in a world of hurt.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
122. One reason that nothing gets done in this country
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:35 AM
Jul 2016

Is because we put people "on ignore" and huddle up in our safe spaces only with those whom we agree with, unwilling to learn or discuss compromise. The Atlantic had a pretty good article on this issue recently. And it isn't like folks here are ignoring Ted Nugent on the gun issue, but instead are ignoring other Dems who might actually be willing to compromise.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
32. I have a Savage Arms .22 Semi-auto with a 10 round mag. Assault rifle?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:30 AM
Jul 2016

It's a large enough caliber to kill a squirrel if you're a good aim.

Assault weapon? Jerry Brown says it is.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
9. But then how would they resist a tyrannical government / kill cops? ...I mean...er...Constitution!
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:12 PM
Jul 2016

Something something!

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
66. Yeah, ask them who exactly they plan to shoot and when?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 06:44 AM
Jul 2016

It seems to have gone completely off their radar that Hitler, for example, was elected.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
81. Technical Note: Hitler was "appointed," not "elected." The Nazi Party
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:31 AM
Jul 2016

never received a majority in any free and fair election.

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
85. Fair point.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:48 AM
Jul 2016

Still, it was electoral processes that got him into position to assume dictatorial powers. The actual reality is quite complicated. One could study it for a lifetime.

One thing's for sure -- the vision that some have that Hitler seized power riding into Berlin on a tank is not even remotely correct.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
89. Van Papen and the conservatives around Hindenburg thought they could "control".and
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:05 AM
Jul 2016

"coopt" Hitler if they brought him into the government, much the same way I imagine Republican power brokers imagine they will control Trump.

with a nuclear arsenal of 8,500 warheads, Trump is arguably more dangerous than Hitler.

All leftists must hope for the best but plan for the worst. I am.

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
10. Right, because people willing to murder never do anything illegal.
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:48 PM
Jul 2016

Mexican Cartels would never supply murderous fucks with illegal weaponry, would they? It's not like they have experience moving illegal goods and human beings across the US border, right?

Of course, every police department in America has semi-auto M-4 type carbines in their patrol cars. Plus, many are getting DRMO'd full-auto M-16's from Homeland Security. Is that a concern? Or is it only regular citizens we need to worry about?

But yeah, sure, another ill-conceived Assault Weapons Ban will do worlds of good.



-app

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
11. Why not make it harder for the murderous fucks, as you say?
Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:57 PM
Jul 2016

Are you worried about the police and HS weapons? Do you think your weapons will protect you from theirs?

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
12. No & no at present.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:11 AM
Jul 2016

I try not to worry about police at all. I interacted with a few officers today during the aftermath of a big storm down this way, and they were courteous, professional, and helpful. I appreciate that, and their important work helping to keep citizens safe around downed power lines, etc.

My own semi-auto weapons are for protection against home invasion, as police are usually >25 minutes away from me. That's a long response time if something bad were to happen.

If police departments can own full-auto guns and exploding robot drones, etc., then why can't an American own a simple semi-auto rifle? Police and non-police are both just regular, civilian citizens...

Banning citizens from owning semi-auto rifles will not necessarily make it harder for the murderous fucks...

-app

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
14. Of course it would make it harder.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:14 AM
Jul 2016

There is always a cost when something is illegal. The criminal business cost is not insignificant.

I'll worry about the cop's weapons after we deal with the gun nuts.

G_j

(40,365 posts)
18. Jesus...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:28 AM
Jul 2016

how did people become such cowards? You'd think ISIS was about to personally invade your house.

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
111. Yes, fire extinguishers are for cowards too.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:15 AM
Jul 2016

I mean, the odds of dying in a fire are infinitesimal. Still "cowards" like me make sure there are a few in the house.



-app

G_j

(40,365 posts)
136. Maybe more like having a hook and ladder truck
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:59 AM
Jul 2016

parked in your driveway.
"My own semi-auto weapons are for protection against home invasion"

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
150. If it needs to be parked in the drive way, it's a howitzer, not a handgun.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:39 AM
Jul 2016

Howitzers and their shells are tightly regulated by the NFA as "destructive devices," in case you did not know. I feel no need to own one, nor would my bank account permit me to do so.

A semi-auto hand gun is rather like a fire extinguisher in that it is small, individually-deployed, and generally only powerful for moderate defensive purposes. One won't stop an already-full blaze with a fire extinguisher, nor are the odds good to face-off an entire gang with a single handgun.

-app

-app

sir pball

(4,695 posts)
392. I had to call emergency services once in Maine..
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 12:03 AM
Jul 2016

..medical, not criminal, but the first responder on scene was a Skowhegan cop (Skow was actually closer to us than Fairfield where we technically lived).

Showed up twelve minutes after the 911 call. I guess you can call me a coward if you wish, but I'd rather not wait 12 minutes with somebody of unknown intentions in my home.

G_j

(40,365 posts)
398. I was referring to the imagined "need"
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 12:39 PM
Jul 2016

to have semi automatic weapons. People watch too much TV me thinks.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
401. If you are going to go through the steps to arm yourself, especially for defense,
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 01:07 PM
Jul 2016

why would you want to pick what likley may be considered an inferior choice?

I.E. Why would you want to settle, say, for 6 rounds of .38 when you could have 8 rounds of .45, or 16 rounds of 9mm?

Doesn't make much sense, if the choice is there.

G_j

(40,365 posts)
402. a lot of sane people
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 01:13 PM
Jul 2016

state that a shot gun is plenty sufficient for home protection, unless of course you think a Colombian drug cartel, jackbooted government thugs or ISIS is coming after you.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
403. Sure....and it makes some sense - for home protection - for some. Of course they have semi-auto
Mon Jul 11, 2016, 01:17 PM
Jul 2016

shotguns too, that are quite popular. Wouldn't necessarily want to choose a 28" over/under.

Overall, I think I'd still prefer the handgun, but don't get all worked up over it.

Hmm...a small pistol-caliber carbine like the Beretta Storm could be ideal.

sarisataka

(18,019 posts)
16. So if black men don't want to worry about police
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:22 AM
Jul 2016

they shouldn't have guns. Well why didn't anyone think of that before. Police won't kill an unarmed black man...

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
33. We have what amounts to an open border to the south.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:36 AM
Jul 2016

Ban whatever the fuck you want.

Then travel to CA, AZ, NM, and TX, and buy it all day and twice on Sunday.

Hello.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
172. The thing is, you DON'T make it harder for the murderous fucks...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:10 PM
Jul 2016

You just make it harder for everyone else that obeys.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
28. If guns were illegal, they'd be very, very expensive.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:08 AM
Jul 2016

Not many violent losers have got $20k to spend on an illegal weapon.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
144. Exactly like that, yeah-- they're expensive.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:14 AM
Jul 2016

When drugs are legalized, the prices drop precipitously.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
189. So you want a war on guns, just like the war on drugs.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:29 PM
Jul 2016

Would you like to guess how well that would work out?

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
192. I'm glad you admit prices on guns would go up, at least.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:33 PM
Jul 2016

That nonsense about prices dropping when items become harder to get is just absurd.

But I have to say, your fallback position is equally nonsensical. We can't have harsher gun laws because... there would be violence? What do you think we have now? Have you taken a look at a US newspaper lately? Ever heard of a place called Australia? Compare them.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
198. Gun control proponents regularly engage in mischaracterization...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:40 PM
Jul 2016
I'm glad you admit prices on guns would go up, at least.


I admit nothing. Explain why legal weed in CO is more expensive than black market weed, and we'll go from there.

We can't have harsher gun laws because... there would be violence?


Gun control proponents regularly engage in mischaracterization. Here, you mischaracterize my argument, by falsely attributing to it, something I did not specify in it - violence.

That was uh...nice...of you, but I was referring to lack of success. Or did you think the war on drugs was a success?

Oh, and by the way, the U.S. is not Australia. Not geographically, and not culturally.
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
272. So the US and Australia are utterly incomparable, but comparing a
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:22 PM
Jul 2016

fucking weed to a gun is just apples to apples.

lol.

Australia is not the moon. One can certainly make reasonable predictions based on their national laws. A lot more than you can compare the prices of pot and guns, anyway.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
291. Gun control advocates also tend to double down when called on their mischaracterizations...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 06:24 PM
Jul 2016

Gun control advocates also tend to double down when called on their mischaracterizations, and mischaracterize again, like you just did:

but comparing a fucking weed to a gun is just apples to apples.


I never compared 'a fucking weed to a gun', I compared prohibition of a thing, to prohibitions of other things.

Australia is not the moon.


Australia is also not the U.S.

One can certainly make reasonable predictions based on their national laws.


Yes, one can, particularly if one looks at how such laws are received when attempted here, such as in CT and NY.

What does 5% compliance in those states indicate for equally/more pro-gun states, such as...nearly every state in the union?

Like I said, the U.S. is not Australia, geographically, or culturally.
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
302. In posts #173 and #42, you very clearly made the comparison to marijuana.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:56 PM
Jul 2016

You are aware that, in forums, your words remain printed right ^^^ over your current post, right?


 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
308. Then don't accuse me of comparing pot to guns...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:13 PM
Jul 2016

When I was comparing one prohibition to another.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
357. I didn't mischaracterize your comments.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:15 AM
Jul 2016

Obviously we're talking about those two items in terms of their price in a setting that bans them. They are not comparable. Pot is easily produced on site. It literally grows like a weed. You don't need to import pot.

Guns are another story entirely. The buyer would pay for the risks taken by all the middlemen along the route-- not to mention the fact that those middlemen are moving guns instead of very profitable illegal drugs.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
367. Yes you did, and unless you edit or delete...
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 11:01 AM
Jul 2016
I didn't mischaracterize your comments.


Yes you did, and unless you edit or delete, I'll keep quoting you as proof:

but comparing a fucking weed to a gun is just apples to apples.




That obviously refers to something I've said, and it is a mischaracterization, since I was comparing prohibitions, not comparing guns to "a fucking weed".

Obviously we're talking about those two items in terms of their price in a setting that bans them.


Unless you have a turd in your pocket, that's enough with the "we". You may be talking about 'items in terms of their price in a setting that bans them", I am talking about why would one prohibition work when they other is a clear and obvious failure.

Pot is easily produced on site.


So are guns.

You don't need to import pot.


You don't need to import guns either.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
50. they would still be dirt cheap
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:32 AM
Jul 2016

look at how low the cost is in the EU (where most are illegal or HIGHLY restricted)

Illegal Gun Trafficking Brings Millions Of Weapons Into The EU


http://www.ibtimes.com/charlie-hebdo-massacre-illegal-gun-trafficking-brings-millions-weapons-eu-1779070



There is no definitive count, but the bloc estimates that around half a million lost or stolen firearms remained unaccounted for within the EU. And that only accounts for weapons that were once registered and later went missing. Many of the automatic “war weapons” are illegally trafficked from the Balkan Peninsula and former Soviet Bloc states, where millions of leftover arms from the Croatian, Bosnian and Kosovo wars are regularly stolen, bought and transferred in small numbers, mostly to organized crime clients in Southern Europe, according to Gunpolicy.org. In France, there are an estimated 10 million to 20 million illegal weapons alone, according to a Christian Science Monitor report.


snip

Guns can be acquired in the EU through a number of means. A .44-caliber Desert Eagle is advertised for 1,250 euros, or $1,481, by an anonymous European arms dealer on the Deep Web. The dealer ships that weapon through the mail. With the proper connections, which the Charlie Hebdo gunmen appeared to have, an AK-47 costs around $400 to $900 in certain European markets, and about $1,100 to 1,800 in France, according to a Bloomberg report.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
184. Not according to this.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:26 PM
Jul 2016
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/black-market-guns-triple-in-price-20141013-115f08.html

Making an item illegal (so long as there are harsh penalties for possession) does not drive the price down. You pay for all the risk-taking middle men between you and your fix.
 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
252. you erected a strawman. I never said it would drive the price down
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:26 PM
Jul 2016

stop putting words in my mouth. Also Australia is a completely different situation compared to the EU or the USA. It is so geographically isolated and thus has no natural borders of inflow for cheap illegal weapons.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
305. Well, if your argument is that the price would go up, but not much, you're equally incorrect.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:59 PM
Jul 2016

Again, see Australia.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
311. you once again fail to see that Australia is vastly different
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:35 PM
Jul 2016

There are NO neighbouring countries such as the ones in Eastern Europe or Mexico for that will keep up a steady supply of illegal arms and thus lower the increase of price dramatically.

THATS why the price increased so much. But you are just being obtuse on purpose.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
355. Australia is a huge continent, surrounded by massive economies.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:10 AM
Jul 2016

It isn't a tiny island fortress. If you really think Australia's geographical position makes it's borders so much less porous than those of the US, I don't know what to tell you. This is just an asinine line of reasoning, I'm sorry. I've heard gun nuts make the same argument about Britain, as if it's sea and airports aren't arteries of trade.

This 'island fortress' argument might have made sense in the 1800's-- today, it does not.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
359. not only are you wrong, but this entire thread is based off
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 01:41 AM
Jul 2016

a fantasy wherein firearms in the US are outlawed. The 2nd Amendment is never going to be repealed and confiscation would trigger a civil war.

End of story.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
362. Not a fantasy, a hypothetical.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 09:09 AM
Jul 2016

Hypotheticals sort of require you to accept a premise and extrapolate from it. My personal desires are irrelevant.

But since you brought up fantasies, I think your 'civil war' fantasy is absurd. I seriously doubt it would inspire more than a few isolated militia groups and lone wolves to acts of violence, and they'd be crushed in no time. This isn't 1860-- it wouldn't be rifle against rifle, but rifle against a militarized police force, helicopters, drones, apcs, 360 degree surveillance, cooperating international intelligence agencies, etc. Anyone thinking they're going to challenge the government with their little pea shooter has serious delusions of grandeur.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
364. One man 'Challenged' the government just a few days ago.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 10:49 AM
Jul 2016

When ten thousand of them decide to do it at the same time, that militarized police force, those helicopters, drones, apcs, 360 degree surveillance, cooperating international intelligence agencies, etc, wont stop it.


How come a militarized police force, helicopters, drones, apcs, 360 degree surveillance, cooperating international intelligence agencies, etc, didn't stop the texas shooter before the 5 vs 1 trade?

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
368. Where is that Texas shooter, again?
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 11:23 AM
Jul 2016

Oh, right--he's in several places, isn't he? Because he's in a bunch of little pieces. I think you just made my point.

I didn't say you can stop all violence. I explicitly stated that I was sure there'd be a few ignorant nitwits who would respond violently, and they'd find themselves facing more than a few rifles, as this Texas clown did. If, hypothetically, ten thousand diabetic Wal-Martians did rise up to start a civil war, ten thousand would be in the dirt the next day.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
370. Of course you do.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 11:38 AM
Jul 2016
I think you just made my point.


Of course you do, because you aren't thinking things through to their logical conclusion.

Where is that Texas shooter, again?

If, hypothetically, ten thousand diabetic Wal-Martians did rise up to start a civil war, ten thousand would be in the dirt the next day



The texas shooter is dead. And? If this scenario is played out proportionally (meaning a 5 to 1 kill rate), with the hypothetical ten thousand I mentioned earlier, that hypothetical ten thousand just wiped out cleanly half of ALL law enforcement in America, and incapacitated half of the remaining half. You do realize there are under a million state local and federal law enforcement in ALL of America, right?

Like I said, you didn't think this through. You obviously don't remember the havoc the DC sniper caused.

I didn't say you can stop all violence.


I didn't say you said you could.
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
371. I'm finding it difficult to control my laughter.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 11:59 AM
Jul 2016

Yes, one loon with a rifle managed to kill several unsuspecting cops in an ambush before they put his corpse into a collection of body bags. If you think that's what our gun nuts would average in some mystical, spontaneous uprising to defend your toy chest, then I can only shake my head and laugh.

I expect it would trend a little closer to the Ammon Bundy clown show.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
374. How many did the DC sniper kill?
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:10 PM
Jul 2016

How many did Whitman kill? How many did the DC sniper kill?



If you think that's what our gun nuts would average in some mystical, spontaneous uprising to defend your toy chest, then I can only shake my head and laugh.


That's nice. People who operate under the assumption that if there ever were such a conflict, it would be like the revolutionary war where lines openly faced each other and the sides were obvious, make me laugh even harder.

Assymetrical conflicts do not work that way. Again, you aren't thinking this through.



 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
379. There's asymmetrical war, and there's Ammon Bundy-style 'uprising'.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jul 2016

A troop of diabetic Wal-Mart shoppers vs. the US Government. Basically Bambi vs. Godzilla. There just aren't enough tired old white guys with militia fetishes, or at least, not enough willing to actually put their money where their mouth is, to be anything but an occasional rampage shooting nut job.

One of us isn't thinking this through, alright-- but it isn't me.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
366. More likely massive and open non-compliance, with law enforcement agencies refusing to enforce
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 10:54 AM
Jul 2016

Up to a state level. Those who want to repeal the 2A I believe vastly overestimate the general populations eagerness to surrender armed power on an individual level to the state.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
369. Those who expect a 'civil war' to help them defend their toy chest
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 11:25 AM
Jul 2016

are vastly overestimating the American public's willingness to upset the apple cart-- not to mention their capacity for doing so.

If we were in the middle of an extended, deep economic depression and those cops weren't being paid, there might be some significant pushback. Maybe. It would still be crushed in days, but it *might* try to start. But today? No, I'm sorry. The police would do their job, collect their checks, and rationalize it as doing their duty, no matter how they felt about the 2nd Amendment.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
373. I doubt much resistance would be violent, nor would it need be. Compliance and enforcement
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:06 PM
Jul 2016

Would be minimal. IMO, a fair number of states would openly defy any confiscation directives and actively interfere with any federal entity attempting to do so.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
203. Sorry, but ganja price is still dropping.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:45 PM
Jul 2016

As a culture, we are addicted to prohibition. Do you seriously believe markets, business systems and supply & demand remain static when some prohibitionist scheme is adopted?

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
234. Sorry, but you're the one arguing against basic market principles.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:32 PM
Jul 2016

If you really want to argue that more regulation/control makes prices drop, I have a whole world full of economists to direct you to. It's nonsense. Make it harder to get a thing, and the price goes up. The price of guns in Australia shot up like a rocket once they were made illegal.

Also, pot and guns aren't comparable to begin with. Guns don't grow like... well, weeds, and the consequences for pot possession are relatively light.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
365. Thats a strawman. Nobody wants "no laws".
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 10:53 AM
Jul 2016

The point is, laws that don't prevent criminals from violence, but burden people not prone to it, are not real useful.

Proof, is in the fact that folks like you keep asking for more and more of them, regardless of how many there currently are.

Straw Man

(6,593 posts)
372. Common error.
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:04 PM
Jul 2016
Well hell, why have any laws at all then?

I mean, criminals are only going to break them.

Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum. Some actions are evil in and of themselves. Gun ownership is not one of them.
 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
17. It's almost pathetic that all of the mass shootings in recent
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:23 AM
Jul 2016

years have done nothing to change the gun debate, but finally the shooting of some cops may actually make a difference. Maybe.

Has the NRA spoken up yet on this?

 

rusty quoin

(6,133 posts)
20. Modern military assault rifles never were meant for everyone.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:32 AM
Jul 2016

They were meant for the military. An example of that was yesterday when a robot bomb was needed to take what's his name down.

If you cannot figure that one out, then goodbye. We have nothing to talk about.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
43. The weapons in question, are not "Modern military assault rifles".
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:52 AM
Jul 2016

They're semi-automatic rifles designed specifically for the civilian market that do not function like the military weapons they resemble.

They're designed as such, because the law says they have to be, to be legal to sell.

KeepItReal

(7,769 posts)
133. You know you've lost when you're trying to debate the definition of the weapon
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:55 AM
Jul 2016

If a weapon can fire as fast as I can initiate the firing mechanism and I can fire and reload dozens of rounds in mere seconds with an unlimited amount of ammunition I can purchase legally...

That is the problem.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
176. We weren't debating the 'definition'...
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:17 PM
Jul 2016

We weren't debating the 'definition', we were debating whether the nature of the weapon matched the definition you chose to use, and it didn't.

If a weapon can fire as fast as I can initiate the firing mechanism and I can fire and reload dozens of rounds in mere seconds with an unlimited amount of ammunition I can purchase legally...

That is the problem.


If that was true, the US would be a war zone with millions dead annually.


Spin and hyperbole aren't going to get you anywhere on this topic, and you aren't going to find support among the American people, to take lawfully ownable firearm technology back into the 1800s, or to ban them all together.

Sorry.


virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)
46. Interesting
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:11 AM
Jul 2016

If they are so deadly why don't the military use them?? They use the M4 instead, a very different rifle..

We have nothing to talk about, because you lack basic understanding of the subject at hand, let me use point out some hard facts.. If they where ment for the military, WHY don't the military USE them??

I don't believe ANY military in the world, uses the AR 15.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
71. Agreed. That's why the US has banned them since the 1930s
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:02 AM
Jul 2016

Modern military assault rifles are not available to civilians in the US. It's been a piece of gun control that has worked very well for about 8 decades.

(That said, the exact same clause in the law banned sawed-off shotguns; that has not worked nearly as well. It's probably worth pondering on why one has worked and the other has not.)

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
75. *He* doesn't know what he meant. He thinks AR-15s fire faster than other rifles. He's wrong.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:07 AM
Jul 2016

Until the Democratic Party gets over this very basic but very pervasive factual error, we're going to be chasing our tails on gun control.

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
77. That is not the point, at all.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:17 AM
Jul 2016

You're making the "military rifles are fully automatic, civilian rifles are semi-automatic" argument. It's been a very useful straw man for a long time. While he may be technically incorrect about these being "military," the point remains that NONE of these weapons ought to be in the hands of civilians. Period.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
84. None of *which* weapons? Semi-automatics?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jul 2016

80% of guns manufactured in the past century? If that's what people mean, they need to say it, and we can start working on it. What we can't do is pretend that there's some small class of guns we can ban and that capability will go away. Hell, like I said in another post, if I could snap my fingers and replace every semi-automatic handgun (which are the real problems) with an AR-15, I would do it, and I think it would make the country safer...

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
100. Most people don't know all the terminology
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:49 AM
Jul 2016

because they are disgusted by the very notion of these weapons. I agree that people should be educated, but again, this is all a deflection from the real issue. It's missing the forest through the trees. And while I agree handguns are an extreme problem, especially in domestic violence/street crime situations, semi-auto rifles are unquestionably the go-to tools for mass murder.

Start a buy-back program and melt them all down. They serve no pumps in modern America.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
125. Getting the terminology right is critical
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:43 AM
Jul 2016

We are talking firearms on a board for liberals and I find it extremely frustrating when people start talking about banning "assault weapons" because they are "military" weapons. The simple fact is that they are not and never have been and are used in a minuscule number of overall killings. So when you start from a factually incorrect and uninformed premise you are going to get tuned out, and even more so when this discussion takes place in the national arena with Republicans who don't necessarily trust you on the issue to begin with.

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
135. I agree we need to be educated so we may fight from a position of strength
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:58 AM
Jul 2016

but statements like these-

"The simple fact is that they are not and never have been and are used in a minuscule number of overall killings"

ignore and excuse the fact that they are the weapon of choice for people looking to commit mass murder.

No more excuses. No more half-measures.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
140. The Virginia Tech shooter
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:06 AM
Jul 2016

Killed 32 people with two semi-auto handguns. So banning "assault weapons" isn't going to stop mass shootings. If you want to make these weapons perhaps less dangerous then enact a high capacity mag ban.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
197. Rifles of any kind are rarely used in murders
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:39 PM
Jul 2016

Yes, a few high profile ones. Handguns kill thousands of times more and those are just the facts. Why is no one on here mentioning the many more killed in Chicago weekly?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
137. What are "these" weapons?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:00 AM
Jul 2016

Seriously. What weapons are you talking about? This isn't derailing or deflecting; you are just ubcomfortable that there's no good answer to that question.

Why is this the only issue about which liberals are proud to advocate policies from an admitted position of ignorance?

MirrorAshes

(1,262 posts)
145. I'm not uncomfortable with it at all-
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:15 AM
Jul 2016

And I am grouping many types of guns together because they all share the same thing in common--they are tools of murder.

I agree with you we cannot fight from a position of ignorance. But too often we get caught up in these technical distinctions which DO derail the bigger picture, the bigger goal--to end this scourge of violence in our country.

When it comes time to write the laws, the experts will make all of this very clear. The layman does not need to know every detail to help enact change. The point is to stop cowering before the gun lobby, and speak harsh truths to people like yourself. I respect you and your opinions. But I am also advocating that you make sacrifices for the greater good.

I'm not the guy who will make or break the argument. I'm just one voice saying enough is enough, and asking people to join me in saying so.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
148. We tried that way once and got the disastrous AWB
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:37 AM
Jul 2016

No thanks. I have no desire to keep "these weapons" legal but regulate their grip shape. You shouldn't either.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
202. It is really very simple if you would just admit it
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:44 PM
Jul 2016

Bolt , pump action or lever action rifle
Semi-automatic rifle
Fully automatic or burst fire rifle

Please stop with it looks like a military weapon or what kind of features it had. KISS principal, when you let those so called legislative experts make the laws you get crap like that AWB. You do know the firearm used at Sandy Hook was fully AWB compliant, right?

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
153. +1
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:43 AM
Jul 2016
Why is this the only issue about which liberals are proud to advocate policies from an admitted position of ignorance?


In fact, if one actually makes an attempt to educate themselves about firearms, there is a good chance one will be accused by fellow progressives about being a 'gun humper.'
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
109. It very easy to convert a semi-auto to full auto. Truthfully, a semi-auto is sufficiently deadly.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:03 AM
Jul 2016

Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., are evidence enough of that. Don't you think?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
139. None of those were converted to full auto
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:03 AM
Jul 2016

Hoyt, I respect you, and this is a serious question: do you honestly think the guns in those massacres had been converted to full auto?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
143. No, you've totally missed the point. Semi-autos can kill 50 people quickly. And if you want,
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:09 AM
Jul 2016

they can be converted. Semi vs full-auto is just a smoke screen, nothing more.

But why convert them-- Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., prove a semi-auto does the job. In fact, the military keep their weapons on select fire most of the time.

You usually are on target, but here you've missed it -- Who cares if guns sold here are just semi-auto, you don't need a full-auto to kill a lot of people efficiently.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
207. It is not easy and has not been for decades
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:48 PM
Jul 2016

Weapons are now manufactured so military or equivalent parts will not fit. The receivers are just not close to being military specification.

Please stop posting that misinformation bull

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
225. Were those goalposts heavy hoyt?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:11 PM
Jul 2016
It very easy to convert a semi-auto to full auto.


The word 'convert' has a very specific meaning.

So this slide stock does not exist, even though it's sold on Amazon.com.


That does not 'convert' a rifle in any way, the trigger must still be pulled every time before a round can be fired.


Weak sauce.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
226. I've already posted a video of how to do it internally. The slide stock is a conversion too.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:18 PM
Jul 2016

But, beevul, the real point is that with all the gunner obsfucation -- it's not an "assault" rifle because it's semi-auto; it's a magazine, not a clip; and similar BS -- the exact rifles used by the Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., killers are available today to all those yahoos who got up early and lined up to buy one.

Line the Saturday after Sandy Hook for chance to buy a quasi-assault rifle exactly like the one Adam Lanza used:

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
230. Not in this thread you haven't.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:28 PM
Jul 2016
The slide stock is a conversion too.


No, it isn't. The trigger must still be pulled before each and every round is fired.

If it were otherwise, it would be illegal.

But, beevul, the real point is that will all the gunner obsfucation -- it's not an "assault" rifle because it's semi-auto; it's a magazine, not a clip; and similar BS...


Blubbedy blubbedy blub.

You made a very specific and very false claim (which I suspect you knew was false when you made it).

I let you know that your claim was false. You then put forward in support of this false claim, evidence which does not support it.

Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.


Line the Saturday after Sandy Hook for chance to buy a quasi-assault rifle exactly like the one Adam Lanza used:


You have no idea what anyone in that line went there to buy. Zip, zero, nada.


If you listen closely, you may hear your name being whispered, that's reality calling to you, pining for your safe return.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
236. Fact is, real military assault rifles are used on select fire most of the time.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:34 PM
Jul 2016

The rifles available down the street at your favorite gun store are exactly like those used in Orlando/Newtown/Dallas/Etc mass shootings, to intimidate people, to shoot ones spouse, to soothe gunners fears, etc., every friggin day.

Here's a Bundy militiaman drawing down on federal agents with a rifle available at most gun stores right this minute:

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
241. Fact is, you don't know what you're talking about.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jul 2016
Fact is, real military assault rifles are used on select fire most of the time.


Fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. 'Select fire' is the type of weapon it is, not a 'mode it can be put into'.

Tell us more about them.

The rifles available down the street at your favorite gun store are exactly like those used in Orlando/Newtown/Dallas/Etc mass shootings, to intimidate people, to shoot ones spouse, to soothe gunners fears, etc., every friggin day.


All your opinion.

Here's a Bundy militiaman drawing down on federal agents with a rifle available at most gun stores right this minute:


Without seeing the sight picture in the scope, I'd say its a leap to conclude exactly what he was aiming at.

But then, for those that behave as if they can read minds over the internet, I imagine it doesn't seem such a leap.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
242. Beevul, it's a title with editing to make it fit. You know what it means, or should. Quit playing
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jul 2016

Quit playing the "gun nomenclature game." Real assault rifles are seldom used on full auto.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
246. ROFL.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:50 PM
Jul 2016

That's what I'd say too, if I were ignorant about a subject that I was trying to be mouthy and pseudo-authoritative about.

Response to morningfog (Original post)

Aristus

(65,738 posts)
24. The prospect of having to "give them up" is exactly what they live for.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 12:59 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:02 AM - Edit history (1)

It's the only thing that gives their otherwise empty lives any meaning. The feverish hope that one day, one glorious day, the 'gubmint' is going to come for their guns, and they can do a Rambo-style "weaponing-up" montage-style maneuver that fulfills all of their squalid dreams. Going out in a blaze of glory.

Yeah, they'll probably have to give their guns up some day. But they're going to kill a lot of people before that actually happens...

Response to morningfog (Original post)

sir pball

(4,695 posts)
36. Why? Germany, Austria, Italy, New Zealand, among others, all allow them and it's OK...BAN PISTOLS.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:15 AM
Jul 2016

Of course, the section on "Legality" in the AR-15 article on Wikipedia has conveniently vanished, but suffice it to say that literally dozens of countries allow private AR-15/"assault rifle" ownership, they just properly and reasonably restrict ownership in the first place. Mostly by severely limiting HANDGUNS.

Rifles of all kinds killed less than 300 people in 2014, while handguns killed almost 7,000 - do you honestly feel that assault weapons are a good Waterloo for gun control?

THREE HUNDRED vs SEVEN THOUSAND. That's my calculus. Ban handguns now.

underahedgerow

(1,232 posts)
39. Yes, ban all guns NOW, in the USA.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:33 AM
Jul 2016

That's the only logical option.

There is no middle ground. Either stick with your huge mass murder problem, or give up all the guns.

It's time.

sir pball

(4,695 posts)
40. So, you propose the absolute strictest gun control in the world, off the bat?
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:43 AM
Jul 2016

Even Japan allows it, theoretically at least..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

underahedgerow

(1,232 posts)
95. Yes, I propose banning all guns except those for agricultural purposes,
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:23 AM
Jul 2016

as I keep stating, over and over.

The rest of the civilized world manages it just fine.

It's really not that difficult.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
129. It is HUGELY difficult
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jul 2016

First, you'd have to amend the constitution, which isn't going to happen on this issue. Then (or assuming you get Heller reversed) you'd have to pass the ban on a federal level because numerous state constitutions protect private ownership of firearms. Next you'd have to figure out how to get 300,000,000 guns out of the hands of private citizens, the vast majority of whom would simply ignore any ban. None of those things sounds particularly easy.

Statistical

(19,264 posts)
190. Most of the civilized world hasn't banned guns.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:29 PM
Jul 2016

However if you truly believe all firearms should be banned then you are getting start on that constitutional convention right?

underahedgerow

(1,232 posts)
196. The Constitution is hardly a perfect document, and it is meant to be a fluid document that
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 01:36 PM
Jul 2016

evolves.

It's time for that evolution.

But hey, I guess the gun humpers haven't had enough death, murder, suicide, slaughter and destruction.

No evolution for you!

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
260. Well then get out from"underahedgerow" and get busy.
Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:44 PM
Jul 2016

Or are you a "keyboard Kommando" only capable of spreading highly disingenuous crap on the internutz.