General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am sincerely perplexed by the "it's not an assault rifle" meme...
There's a widely used talking point that goes something like "the AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle commonly used for hunting so stop calling it an assault rifle and being so overdramatic"
To my way of thinking, a semi-auto rifle designed for hunting looks like this:
Which is significantly different than a semi-auto designed for combat like the AR-15:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Seems only fair that they shoud be able to shoot back. 
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)where the Deer was hunting the rednecks.
have it around somewhere. Deer Avenger. (knockoff of Deer Hunter)
has this redneck in the crosshairs. looking like he's an idiot..
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I don't think I wanna go out in the woods anymore. 
pscot
(21,024 posts)of heavily armed teens while you're taking a walk in the woods.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I got used to firearms in the Army and in combat, but I never wanted one afterward--and all of these gun deaths back home drive me nuts. 
lunatica
(53,410 posts)You never know when you're going to run into a herd of deer.
xmas74
(29,670 posts)who would be offended by even the thought of using something like that.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)they'd been eating like lots of kill shots.. and pretty much scare the game away
heck the noise it makes probably makes them run off.
true hunters are going to use a bow and arrow. or maybe the one that looks like a hand gun..
pscot
(21,024 posts)in a deer's gut and watching it run off to die a slow and agonizing death. Tres amusant, non?
xmas74
(29,670 posts)unless something comes along that's too good to pass up.
Maybe that's why I've never understood the argument about using most of those weapons for hunting. My friends who hunt all eat what they kill-they use almost everything. They've all said the same thing-they'd never use a weapon like that for hunting.
Oh, and most of my friends are pretty conservative, so it's not because of their politics that they feel this way.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
^ That's remington's line of AR-patterned hunting rifles. Same features.
They wouldn't want it. They prefer their bow hunting above all.
movonne
(9,623 posts)that the indians used bow and arrows and that did the job just fine...
samsingh
(17,590 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)That's why it's brought up. 'Assault weapon' is a made up term to scare people. "Ooooh it's black for increased lethality!" Assault rifles - real military weapons are extremely rare, outrageously expensive, difficult to get licensed for and essentially NEVER used in crime. The top one, if it's a typical .308 or .30-06 is capable of much greater damage than the scary black one on the bottom.
I own a Mini 30. This isn't mine, but this looks exactly like it:
It's fairly innocuous appearing.
But then:
ZOMG! It's an 'assault weapon'!!111!
No. It's the same rifle. Nothing has changed but it's appearance. It is no more - or less - lethal due to some accessories.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)that you have proved that in fact that they are not the same.
The hunting rifle can be made into an assualt weapon while the assault weapon cannot be seriously compared to being the same as a simple rifle.
They are not the same but the hunting rifle can be converted to an assault weapon.
No problem with hunting rifles.
Simply because hunting rifles can be converted to assault rifles doesn't mean that it should be legal to do so.
If you made it illegal to convert, and if you jailed those that manufactured the devices and clips to convert them, then the two would not be interchangeable and we could get rid of the assault weapons and let people keep their hunting rifels and their personal handguns for personal protection.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)The AR-15 is remarkably accurate and is perfectly suited for groundhog hunting and general 'plinking'
Both rifles are functionally identical. Neither is an 'assault rifle' nor 'assault weapon'.
It sounds like you are arguing for the AWB. The one that cost Dems Congress.
'Assault weapon' is made up gun grabber fear mongering.
What capacity magazines did the Virginia Tech shooter use?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I am just pointing out that you and the others who make similar points congratulate yourself on 'winning' arguments by immersing yourself in munitions munitae and you think you have accomplished something.
There are rifles that are suitable for hunting. Keep them legal and encourage education and we have 100% agreement.
There are handguns that people wish to own for person protection. Keep them legal and encourage education and safety. Allow impacted cities to control the quantity per owner.
That now covers all that is needed to fulfill any explicit or implicit constitutional right to own a firearm.
Recreational firearms, like other weapons including machine guns, bazookas, anti tank missles or hand held stinger missles do not have any constitutional right for individual ownership.
I understand that some people are devoted to having exotic firearms, but there is no constitutional argument that could support it as a right. I would have no problem with restricted commercial sites where people could go and exercise their devotion to that.
Before you further trivalize the argument with all of you banal trivialities about the definition of weapons is this one clearly stated principle:
There is no constitutional right and no individual need for any civilian to be carrying around any weapon that can discharge dozens, let alone hundreds of bullets in one minute. None. You may be devoted to it. You may worship it like a religion but you cannot rationally justify it and other countries, like Switzerland, that have high percentages of individual gun ownership consider your position to be a kind of insanity, I know because I have lived there. No one in the civilized world agrees with the idea that a civilian should have the ability to whip out a weapon that can dischage hundreds of rounds in a minute.
Keep your banal weapons definitions to the gun worshiping club and try not to keep trivializing the point.
Beyond the issue of personal weapons is the ability to own weapons that have the capacity to kill a hundred people in a few minutes. If his weapons hadn't jammed we might not have 72 wounded but 100 dead.
Yes it cost Democrats the Congress. So did backing Civil Rights Act of 1964. It gave us Richard Nixon.
So we have learned from it. We aren't going to do it at this time.
Do you know how this is going to end?
Someday some guy's clip isn't going to jam. He may have a buddy. There aren't going to be dozens of wounded there is going to be more than a hundred fatalities and then all of the phony banal obfuscations will melt away. I just wish that it would occur at a site where all of the victims support that right and not at a movie theatre, or a hospital or a work place.
Slavery lasted a long time too. All attempts to fix it by legislation were well defeated. Eventually they had to come into conflict and with the shelling of Fort Sumter the issue was finally engaged.
Eventually there will be a body count that will make the country retch and then the trivial, banal and idiotic arguments over the exact definition of 'an assault weapon' and 'a hunting rifle' and a 'machine gun' will be gone and any weapon that discharges hundreds of rounds in a New York Minute will be history.
That is why gun control advocates don't bother with legislation now, they know it is simply a matter of time.
klook
(12,151 posts)
quakerboy
(13,916 posts)The constitution, to my knowledge, does not address Hunting, nor personal protection. The right to arms is granted for the purposes of militia. Wouldnt that mean that the stinger missiles and assault weapons would be protected, whereas a hunting rifle would be only secondarily covered by the constitution?
I fully agree with you on one point, at least. It would be really nice if the next gunner would target some armed, militant organization. Instead of relative innocents in a school, church, movie theater, or street corner. Somehow it never seems to work out that way.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)This is part of the mythology of the gun movement that is now elevated to a Religion.
Its like the virgin birth. Either you believe it or you can look rationally at it but you can't look at it rationally and still believe in it.
If you believe that the there are basic rights implicit in the constitution, like the women's ability to control their own body, then you have to take a broader look at gun rights.
Given the historical traditions and the fact that the constitution gives broad individual rights then you can use the same logic to say that the right to hunt and the right to self protection are also invested implicitly in the constitution.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)So what exactly does "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." mean then?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
'the people' being the group that comprises the Militia that the ammendment refers to.
It is a plural noun reflecting the group of people who will comprise the defense of the people.
What it does not refer to is to 'individual' rights of people to carry arms for individual reasons.
In studying historical documents one of the most important tools is the tool of redation criticism. You compare it to other similar sentences. For example the first ammendment;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is written with absolute clarity and with absolute terms. If those passing the 2nd ammendment to speak unambigiously to individual rights of gun ownership they would have used decisive and clear language, they did not choose to do so.
But we have much more clarity because we have all of the various versions before it was ratified;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[81]
On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[82] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[83] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[84]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[85]
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[86] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[87]
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.[88] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[89]
Clearly the ammendment was aimed at providing a means for individual citizens to gather for 'the common defence' in the nature of a citizens military force. You are free to join the national guard to continue that tradition.
Even though that is clearly the case I concede that it is fair to conclude that the individual right is among a vast number of other rights that could be fairly implied in the constitution.
So;
Even though I agreed that there was a constitutional basis for the right to own your gun that wasn't enough for you. We can conclude the following;
Your devotion to a particular (and clearly misleading) reading of the 2nd ammendment reaches a religious level. You have bought the myth and even when someone tries to agree in general principle you want to pick a fight on specific interpretation. Do you have any idea how fucking pathetic that is? Do you also realize that even the most ardent gun enthusiast in Europe, even the CEO of the German company that makes guns, even the British representative of that firm who sells munitions to governments consider your position to be psychotic and the fact that you are more devoted to your idea of your gun, your idea of your right to own as many guns as you can house and all of the other strange attributes of the radical American gun culture to be psychotic?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)See the District of Columbia v Heller ruling.
The language of the Second Amendment, as is the case with all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was already understood to exist at the time the document was written. People have that right as a consequence of the human condition.
The only thing a government can do to that right is reduce it. Reasonable restrictions made through due process of law are allowed. Outright infringement, such as saying that individuals don't have the right, is prohibited.
drm604
(16,230 posts)I'm sick of the rhetorical games and NRA talking points.
calimary
(81,107 posts)Sick to death of them. And they WON'T convince me or change my mind. NOT EVER.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Please consider posting it as another OP.
It deserves to be more widely seen.
calimary
(81,107 posts)You nailed it, grantcart. And you definitely speak for me!
I am just sick to death of the gun apologists who nitpick whine and say "oh it ISN'T an assault weapon" because of some fine print they can fall back on. I'm sick of the excuses falling back on the Second Amendment. I'm sick of the rationales and justifications and fancy rhetoric that always wind up proving that the attacker's rights outweigh and override the victims' rights. Because THAT is what it comes down to here. In Aurora CO. In Columbine. At Virginia Tech. At too too too many other places where one bullet didn't kill one person - a BARRAGE of bullets mowed down dozens.
This keeps happening. And somehow America's okay with it. Well I AM NOT OKAY WITH IT. I just saw a "Meet the Press" segment where they all agreed this is a settled issue and can't be revisited. A woman's right to choose somehow doesn't get that. Hell, even the right to vote doesn't merit that anymore! Why are THOSE not settled issues, while the "sanctity" of gun ownership seems to be an absolute???
I actually wound up putting someone on full ignore here because of the relentlessness and the refusal in his arguments that guns are our right and guns must not be touched and - we have to blame something else, someone else, and when I argued - the Second Amendment was found necessary and drawn up when MUSKETS were the coin of the realm, and if all you gun folks are willing to go back to muskets again then I'm fine with it in the spirit in which it was intended. And he comes back with some smart-ass remark about how those of us who think as I do should then resort to quill pens. ASSHOLE!!!! Well, I don't care WHAT kind of smart remark, I don't care WHAT kind of statistics, I don't care WHAT kind of definition or loophole people like that jump through and cling to for the sake of justifying their right to own murderous objects. I don't care WHAT the reason or rationale or excuse or hair-splitting or justification is. I STILL believe, and I'll believe it till I die, that these guns and weapons and ammo clips and hundreds-of-rounds magazines HAVE NO PLACE in civilian society. Because the uncompromising insistence of those who insist on owning them tells me something exceedingly dark about their souls.
THOSE KINDS OF WEAPONS are designed for nothing else than killing. Killing PEOPLE. Killing people in MASS QUANTITIES IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME. That's all they're meant for. That's all they do. And NO amount of justifying or hair-splitting definitions or rationales or excuse-making or hiding behind the skirts of the Second Amendment (and always, as THEY define it, of course - always ignoring the "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" part of it) will change that.
And no argument (please, don't even try. You're wasting your breath and your posting fingers, at least with me) will convince me that your point of view is valid. I don't care if you throw a hundred Constitutional Amendments at me and they all say it's okay to possess neutron bombs for personal use, freedom-freedom-freedom! You will not convince me. I want guns gone. ESPECIALLY these kinds of guns. If they're supposedly so illegal, as some here have argued - then why did this guy in Aurora Colorado get one? How did this guy get one. And if on the other hand these nightmare instruments of death are legal (by whatever hair-splitting technicality you can somehow excuse them) are legal, for God's Sake WHY??????
And again, please just save your breath. Don't try to convince me there's any good reason or flimsy rationale for any of this, or any good reason why we shouldn't keep trying to eradicate these weapons from ANYONE's use. Just don't. Yes. I said flimsy. Because that's all these are. Flimsy rationales. They don't stand up, at least with me. I don't care of spineless Dems are reluctant even to bring up the subject anymore because they lost the House in 1994 for having done so. I don't care if the NRA is jus too powerful. I'm sorry. NOTHING should be that powerful. That only makes me want to figure out how, someday, somehow, to make them UNpowerful.
You gun-lovers and gun-nuts and gun-excusers Will. Not. Move. Me. You can argue and filibuster about the blessings of any kind of gun ownership til every last one of you has passed out, breathless and exhausted. It won't work with me. It will NEVER work with me. I will never be okay with just giving in and accepting that these wretched Satan instruments are alive and well and allowed to exist and to fall into the hands of any Tom-Dick-and-Harry that has an axe to grind with society and feels its their right and their divine vengance to go wantonly wiping out a crowd of innocent people today - and that there's nothing we can do about getting them off the face of the earth.
And until you can tell me how many of these massacres is finally enough.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)calimary
(81,107 posts)Well worth sharing.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)very, very well said. 
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"idiotic arguments over the exact definition" "banal" < LMAO
samsingh
(17,590 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Seriously? We put up with mass slaughter about once every six months so that people can hunt fucking groudhogs?
Oy....
Response to grantcart (Reply #17)
Edweird This message was self-deleted by its author.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Actually it is completely legal. Take off the wood, put on the plastic. Same gun.
"If you made it illegal to convert, and if you jailed those that manufactured the devices and clips to convert them, then the two would not be interchangeable and we could get rid of the assault weapons and let people keep their hunting rifels and their personal handguns for personal protection."
Stupid comment of the day. So you want to make it illegal to remove the wood stock and put on a plastic one?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)line is that it implies people are BUYING guns based on how lethal the useless, "cosmetic" "accessories" make them appear to be. Because, I guess, gun buyers are just silly like that.
So, the very best case scenario for defending "scary-looking black rifles" is that a lot of Americans buying weaponry enjoy *pretending* they have more "badass" guns.
And really, what could be the harm in weapons modified to help armed adults pretend they are in the military?
Certainly stable, sensitive adults enjoy military-themed, but solely "cosmetic" alterations to their guns, because playing Soldier of Fortune with real weapons is a completely normal and healthy attitude about firearms. It's basically a version of playing dress-up with paper dolls, only with rifles.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
Edweird
(8,570 posts)have small penises. No smugly superior, condescendingly insulting post is complete without it.
I do have to say that I find it a little 'odd' that so many gun grabbers are CONSUMED by the size of gun owners sex organs. Hmmmm.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't advocate "smugly superior" arguments from anyone. In fact, it's the biggest problem with the typical pro-gun stance out here on the interwebs. From airily dismissive takes on the Second Amendment to silly technical quibbles about clips vs. magazines.
The fact remains that you can't have it both ways. Either certain weapons have features designed for lethality, or gun buyers pretend that.
Take your pick.
Edit: I'll agree penises aren't an issue. Go argue with someone who thinks they are, if that's what's up your craw.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)If the Aurora shooter's gun was so extra super mega lethal, why did he only get 12 kills? He was shooting 'fish in a barrel' - guaranteed to be unarmed thanks to a brilliant 'gun free zone'. That's not all that 'lethal'. Hell, a flat tire on an F250 topped him. Yet the Virginia Tech shooter used 10 rd mags in a handgun and killed 32.
Pretty much all the stuff for 'increased lethality' is gimmicks. At least as far as the general public is concerned. The only thing that is going to make your weapon more 'lethal' is proficiency, and that's not an 'off the shelf' item. That's why they train you in the military. And train you. And train you. And train you. I'm not saying that there aren't civilians that train as much, if not more than, the military - just that just that it's obvious that the Aurora shooter was a doofus.
I'd take my chances with the Aurora shooter over this guy:
or this guy:
any day of the week. And these guys are using REVOLVERS.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)That's why they were designed with collapsing stocks, pistols grips and vertical foregrip. It really makes no difference if it is black or not, I've seen many that are pink.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)the second weapons is in fact, much better suited to conduct....an assault.
Increased magazine capacity> I can fire more rounds downrange before reloading. It is actually US doctrine to carry more loaded magazines than the enemy (soviets), each one carrying more rounds than the other guy's clip.
Vertical foregrip pistol grip and telescoping stock mean I can go from firing in the open, or from a deliberate position, and then go _quickly_ to a shorter weapon for CQB.
Vertical foregrip and pistol grip make shouldering the weapon, acquiring the target and squeezing off rounds (thanks again to that pistol grip)
Oh, and that buffer in the AR style weapons, means a hell of a lot less recoil...meaning I can more quickly re-acquire a target, or a different target.
There are very specific features that makes a weapon suitable for combat. The top rifle has few of them, the bottom has almost all of them.
Consider this dude has a 90 round magazine. In a stand up fight, I would have to stop firing, Take cover and change magazines TWICE to equal his firepower.
I also didnt carry a sidearm in Iraq - most troops arent authorized sidearms. And a shotgun? fuggedaboutit. Would liked to have had one, but no. Shotties are extremely powerful. If anybody is unwilling to acknowledge that this guy had more firepower than most troops in iraq and afghanistan, they are plainly lying to themselves.
SGT PASTO
Edweird
(8,570 posts)In a crowded theater?
How many people did this guy kill in this crowded theater? How many people did the Virginia Tech shooter kill using 10rd mags?
Yes, 'assault rifle' is real. 'Assault weapon' is the made up one. I may have swapped the two. However, that notwithstanding, none of the rifles in the OP or my post are 'assault rifles'.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)because it is the most accurate. hence the buffer. hence the vertical foregrip, hence the pistol grip. conveniently overlooking those features arent you? Give me a choice of the two to fight the alien invasion, or redploy to iraq, and I take the bottom one in a heartbeat. That should tell you something.
3 round burst is a DEFENSIVE POSTURE. Sometimes, you can use it _At the COST OF ACCURACY_ to simulate an automatic weapon to deceive the enemy.
ACCURACY EQUALS DEAD ENEMIES. DEAD ENEMIES MEANS I WIN.
Automatic weapons are used for suppression, primarily. Suppress the enemy, so the guys with, you know, the semi auto M16a2 or M4s can outmaneuver the enemy's field of fire and kill them. With semi auto.
10 round mags huh. Did he have 60 of them? Cause that's more firepower than I carried in iraq. regular soldiers are issued 210 rounds. In a goddamn war zone. you know how fast you burn through that? anyway, If the VA tech shooter had somehow been limited to 210 rounds...his 10 round mags would have lost to my 30 round mags. Likewise if I was allowed to carry 600 rounds, my higher magazine capacity would win.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)You trained for that and were experienced. You, the operator, is what makes your weapon lethal not a rail or a handgrip or a stock. How many people could you have killed under the same circumstances?
Any putz can go into a Home Depot and buy all the tools in the store but that doesn't make him a craftsman.
Yes, the Virginia Tech shooter used 10 rd mags and killed 32 people.
Yes, I know why there is burst.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I have shot/handled a number of full auto firearms. Rifles chambered in .308, 7.62x39, and .223/5.56mm are pretty tough to keep on a target at any sort of meaningful distance. 5.7mm and 9mm caliber\ SMGs, on the other hand, are ludicrously easy to keep on target when firing full auto. Holding 90%+ of shots on a PAPER PLATE (inside 25yds) is not uncommon for a good pistol caliber SMG.
If I had to use a rifle caliber machine gun in self defense, I'd probably keep it set on semi.
If I had to use an SMG, it would, without a doubt, be pegged on full auto.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)He used standard 10rd mags, changing mags 17 times before killing himself when he heard the police arrive.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)You destroyed the false comparison. Thanks for providing an honest assessment.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)and not be afraid.
Word
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)why do all militaries issue their troops with machine guns?
pasto76
(1,589 posts)one word. Suppression.
Moving in my squad in iraq, or driving down the MSR tampa. We get attacked with small arms. Somebody determines direction we are getting fired on ---> AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OPEN UP to make that guy/those guys stop firing and take cover. automatic gunners reduce rate of fire (still much higher than an assault rifle) to keep their heads down.
The rest of us, started flanking the bad guys immediately. Since they have their heads down, they can not see us, and can not fire on us. We get their positions in an interlocking field of fire and kill them.
We kill them by AIMING at them. You can "walk" an M249 or M240 in on a target, but that enemy has a chance to take cover while you do that. Line up a bad guy in your sights, squeeze the trigger. Thanks to a pistol grip and vertical foregrip (although I didnt have the latter) I can hold a very steady sight picture. POW. If you dont know what a buffer is, google it. Thanks to the buffer, I can re-acquire the target in my sights quickly, or pick another one.
Im not a gun nut. I am a combat vet. These features matter.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)you clearly state that soldiers rely on automatic weapons and that you were not given several of them.
Sorry but I really don't see (and evidence backs me) that a bayonet lug or a black paintjob makes a gun deadlier.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)wow you really want to be right despite being told by a combat veteran that you arent.
Rely? Um no, and I never said rely. They are damn handy though. remove machine gun, replace with semi autos. My unit can STILL suppress with heavy semi auto fire, and 3-4 soldiers. Semi auto still kills the bad guys.
Or we can use some common sense in a war zone and use only 1 soldier to suppress. Leaves more semi autos for the actual killing part.
Which is why you brought up the paint job and bayonet lug. Ive never mentioned those. Im not surprised you went there. try to stay on target and not get derailed by a major sad attack.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)since they seem to like issuing automatic weapons.
Let's start a letter writing campaign to inform the US Army and Marines that they are stupid, don't know how to wage a war, and should listen to internet folks on how things Ought To Be Done.
Which is why you brought up the paint job and bayonet lug. Ive never mentioned those. Im not surprised you went there. try to stay on target and not get derailed by a major sad attack.
Two major factors in defining an "assault weapon". A bayonet lug is all that is required to turn a rifle in to an "assault weapon". Good thing those were banned, drive by bayonetings were getting out of control.
In case it's still unclear those were to illustrate the silliness of the AWB.
Igel
(35,274 posts)"Assault rifle" has been around since WWII or before. Has to have automatic and semi settings. Other stuff, too. Doesn't have to look scary.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)also ergonomic grips mean it can penetrate bulletproof vests.
Paladin
(28,243 posts)You and people like you are the ones shelling out the big bucks for all those scary assault rifle features. But then, I'd rather having you casting stones than bullets.....
Edweird
(8,570 posts)I own a stainless Mini-30 with a walnut stock. No military has ever adopted it as their weapon. It also wasn't particularly expensive - it cost less than most of my handguns. So, nyah nyah!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)need rapid fire. A great hunter I knew said that often hunters with semi-automatics shoot too quickly because they think the more lead they fire the better their chances. He said, take your time and make the shot count.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)
phantom power
(25,966 posts)I agree you can change stocks, materials and colors and make a gun look all "oooh ... tactical!"
but, it seems as though if the performance was really the same, nobody would have ever needed to invent an AR-15, or M-16, in the first place. They would have just painted a classic remington hunting rifle camo, and been done with it, wouldn't they?
(speaking in context of semi-auto, since full automatic is clearly a major performance change)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)the .223 to save money and weight. The performance (accuracy, range, and lethality) of a hunting round (.30-06 or 7mm express, for example) is far greater, but is unnecessary for their purposes. Building the rifle smaller, lighter, cheaper, and with a less lethal round delivers what is perceived as necessary but no more.
Anybody that is truly concerned with the lethality of firearms should really focus on shotguns. They will deliver the most carnage at short range quickly.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)an AR15 is lighter and smaller, which makes it easier to carry around in tight spaces or long distances, and in fact uses a "less" lethal round, or more to the point a round that is lethal enough at the range most common in combat. And if you want longer range or higher caliber then use something else like a sniper rifle, or a fifty cal machine gun, or whatever meets your combat situation.
And, it comes with a high capacity clip, but of course, you could engineer a 30 round banana clip for a remington deer rifle if you're into that sort of thing.
So, considering all that, it sort of makes me wonder why people like them so much, especially for hunting. They prefer hunting with a gun that's not really optimized for hunting, because they think it looks cooler?
I realize there could be literally hundreds of answers to this question, but why do people want to own them?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)a good hunter & shot, but really it is too small for killing an animal that weighs 400 lbs and more. There are few real hunters any more as most of them seem to prefer to sit on their asses in a comfortable blind and use scents to lure the deer in. I can't tell you many carcasses I've found out in the wilds where some asshole wounded the animal and didn't bother to track it and finish the job.
BTW, I don't want to go to that much effort and so I do not hunt. If you need to eat, fine, but I have never seen the 'sport' in pointless slaughter and the methods they use today makes me ask, "why don't you just buy a video game and kill all the pixel deer you like from your couch"?
The .223 is a fine round for smaller game and people, of course.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The hunting version cannot be carried in "Low Ready" with the butt over the top of the arm, which is the preferred military method of carrying for speed of present. "Low Ready" also minimises the chance of nearby victims interfering with the weapon.
You have also ignored the problem of magazines that carry in excess of - say - 5 rounds. The weapon you illustrate has the 20 round Magazine. Anyone needing 20 rounds to take down a deer or wolf is probably incompetent.
Leaving aside the issue of weapon form, i.e whether an assault weapon is more dangerous, look at the problem of the round used
The .223 produces devastating wound characteristics (see below) whilst being a comparatively short ranged weapon. Given this why use such a weapon for hunting?
(From Olympic Arms test page )
"The hunting version cannot be carried in "Low Ready" with the butt over the top of the arm, which is the preferred military method of carrying for speed of present."
That changes the fact that they are both box-fed semi automatic rifles how? Additionally, 'thumbhole' stocks are available for virtually every hunting rifle (and were AWB compliant) that would allow it.
(ZOMG it's a tactical assault "low ready" capable bolt action rifle!!111!)
"You have also ignored the problem of magazines that carry in excess of - say - 5 rounds. The weapon you illustrate has the 20 round Magazine. Anyone needing 20 rounds to take down a deer or wolf is probably incompetent."
A magazine that holds 20 or more rounds isn't a "problem". Your 'deer hunting' scenario is a strawman. You are typically limited to a 5 round magazine for deer, but a lot of places don't allow the .223 for deer hunting because it lacks the ability to make a clean kill. Just because there are 20 round magazines for a rifle doesn't mean that 5 or 10 round magazines don't exist. They are not mutually exclusive. A 20 round magazine in a .223 would be ideal for groundhog hunting, though. Legal, too.
As far as your quotes go: the .223 relies mostly on frangibility. It is ideal for small game.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Way to go, Hawkeye. Nice that you have changed the illustration as well. Yes you can carry thumbhole stocks but try carrying them at low ready for an extended period ...
Small game? So you need a frangible tumbling bullet and a 20 round mag to take out rabbits? Or raccoons?
Alvin Yorke would be ashamed
Edweird
(8,570 posts)It's only there to prove a point - that point being you are wrong. Even bolt actions can meet your ridiculous "low ready" threshold to make them 'assault rifles' in your eyes.
The .223, despite the fearmongering BS going on here, is really only suitable for small to medium sized game.
I don't hunt for sport.
liberalmuse
(18,671 posts)Unreal.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)intermediate cartridge, designed for killing at close range and rapid fire with low recoil. and the intermediate rounds in high capacity mags are lighter/smaller and thus easier to carry/conceal/load in a combat situation. 200 rounds and mags for an AR or AK is much less of a burden than 200 rounds and mags for a 30.06 Woodsmaster, lol.
The AR/M4 platform has no sporting purpose that can't be accomplished with a non-military rifle like a mini-30 or bolt action.
Also, some of these military types of weapons can be owner modified to full auto. My friend had a co-worker who made full auto conversion parts for AK platform rifles off the clock at the machine shop where they worked.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)I happen to own a Mini 30. It looks like the top one - stainless with a walnut stock. It is exactly the way it came from the factory - no 'add ons'.
This isn't mine but it's identical.
It is chambered in the same round as the AK47 - 7.62X39. It has more kinetic energy and 'knockdown' power than the AR. Ruger makes 20rd mags for it and 30rd mags are available from the aftermarket. I know this because I own some. You are proving my point to a "T". You are fooled by cosmetics and nothing else.
Additionally, please show me where 'sporting' is listed in the Bill of Rights or, for that matter, any quotes about gun ownership from the founding fathers. Hint: it isn't there. Whether or not it has a 'sporting purpose' is completely irrelevant.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)are we to assume that one's keeping arms would be conditional to their membership in a state sanctioned militia?
Furthermore, I don't see how this proves any point, as the function of higher capacity magazines is a combat function. The purpose of such magazines is to fire 30 rounds nonstop to maximize killing efficiency. Had that shooter been limited to 10 round magazines he'd have had to stop to reload, and the crowd might have had an opportunity to jump him.
I'm not so much advocating for a ban of 30 round magazines as I am some sort of system that makes it harder for nutbags to get them and provides tracking and accountability for when they do fall into the wrong hands.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)For that matter, the theater was a 'gun free zone'. Law abiding citizens didn't have any guns there - a point I'm the shooter was aware of. Instead of 'jumping him' he could have just been shot. The fact of the matter is that people are elevating accessories to near mystical level - as if a barrel shroud will make the gun aim itself. The reality is that it all comes down to the desire and skill level of the person trying to kill you.
Here is a video of the worlds fastest shooter: This guy shoots 8 rounds in ONE SECOND - while hitting his target and 6 rounds, reloads and another 6 rounds in under three seconds. with a REVOLVER.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)reasons.
Dark and loud theatre with tear gas and people running around everywhere. With the density of people in a crowded theatre, a missed round might be fatal to a bystander.
When 2 people are shooting, the people won't know which one to run from. Remember, the shooter was wearing police tactical gear and there were lots of people dressed in costumes.
Shooter was wearing body armor, hits would stun him but not necessarily take him down.
The random vigilante is not part of the communications loop of police/first responders.
Had someone pulled on the shooter and had a shootout with him it'd have just added to the chaos and the shooter would have had all the advantages anyway.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Some guy is shooting at or near me and I'm not supposed to shoot back because "hits would stun him but not necessarily take him down"? I can't even express how I feel about that without being really rude.
All of your points are defeatist. That's exactly the same mentality that allowed 9-11 to happen. I categorically reject them.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)advantages. Best to get yourself and others to safety and let the cops handle the shooter.
Your chances of being a hero are not good, and would also put others in greater danger.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Fear. All consuming fear. Your response to someone attacking people is to lay there and hope you don't killed - and insist no one else does anything because "someone might get hurt". That boggles my mind.
I know you said "Best to get yourself and others to safety and let the cops handle the shooter." You're in a packed movie theater. There is no 'get yourself to safety' . Let the cops handle him?
They aren't there and won't be there until long after everything is over. Additionally, they aren't required to protect you. They have no obligation to run in and stop him. They can, and HAVE, waited for the shooter to stop. In other words, the cavalry isn't coming and you are on your own.
"Your chances of being a hero are not good, and would also put others in greater danger."
"Greater danger"? What possible "greater danger" could there be than some maniac intent on killing everyone? Challenge him a try to stop him. I'd say it's fairly easy to prove that my chances of survival are better if I fight back than if I don't.
If you want to lay there and be helpless that is your choice. Feel free. But to demand, as an extension of your fear, that EVERYONE ELSE 'just lay there' is supremely arrogant and selfish. Additionally, as enticing as playing armchair tactician may be, you have NO WAY of knowing what other people's skill levels and training as well as experience are. The fact that you have judged all gun owners and found their skills wanting is as unbearably condescending as it is ignorant.
No one is saying you can't be a coward - but don't try to make me one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and what exactly is the difference? Besides firing a much weaker round that is?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...and a magazine with a limited capacity as required by your state's hunting laws, and it's a perfectly good hunting rifle.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)a great big head to mount on a wall.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
LonePirate
(13,408 posts)I am glad we share a similar sense of humor and this viewpoint.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)I am ok with hunting for food. This guy is not doing that.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)But I'll bet he ate it as well.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)he's proud of the raging boner it gives him
DrDan
(20,411 posts)calimary
(81,107 posts)Photos like that just make me sad. My best friend had one of those too. She took her kids to a photo safari in Africa. While there, they got a chance to shoot some antelope-like beast. Yes I know she said that the meat from that was going to feed a village for a week. I still found it unsettling. And when she showed me that photo of everybody smiling and posing with this dead creature, it just made me sad. That's all. Just sad.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)(save the wildlife park).
Because of this, I cannot visit a zoo. Just too sad to see these proud animals caged as they are.
Worse yet, of course, is the likes of this "man". Trying to prove his manhood with a high-powered weapon against that animal. Wonder if his testosterone level was elevated when he pulled that trigger. Must have been quite the thrill to kill.
calimary
(81,107 posts)I don't find that virility-enhancing at all.
jmowreader
(50,528 posts)he has spent the last three years figuring out the best place to hunt, the last ten years getting nothing (most hunters DON'T kill every year and many don't kill for years on end) and FINALLY was able to be in the same place as an animal he wanted to expend his tag on.
And don't believe the lie about leaving the trophy males in the wild improving the herd: those big bucks and bulls contribute to a lack of genetic diversity by keeping the younger males from mating. Kill the biggest buck or bull you can find, and you'll have a much more genetically diverse herd.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)terrorizing man since man has been. the blood thirsty man eating gazelle his terror knew no bounds was slain by someone hiding in a bush 500 yds away. our brave hero (shown here) laid in a bush for hours under a merciless sun without a care to himself waited until the beast stood still long enough. then killed the raging monster using an enormous scope blah blah blah. senseless ego b.s.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did the deer have to stand in line with a number?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)What's your point?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You could probably watch a moon landing with it. I see lots of deer bigger than that on our local golf course. They don't even dodge golf balls. What's next, rent-a-drone and hunt from your couch? Sorry, but I think hunting deer with a gun like that is hardly sport. More like a game with only one winner.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's a pronghorn.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I shot a whole bunch of them a couple of years ago. Should've recognized it. I used a Nikon digital SLR.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I imagine photographing or hunting them to be more than a small challenge.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's not correct to say that it's an "assault rifle" because it can take large magazines.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)It is a carbine. And there in lies much of it's advantage in an assault. Being shorter it is easier to move and generally lighter than the average rifle. The handling difference between a rifle and a carbine can be significant.
Response to A Simple Game (Reply #142)
pasto76 This message was self-deleted by its author.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Making it just as long as any other typical rifle.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Just as there are carbine versions of the bolt action Mosin-Nagant.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)a higher mag capacity is a KEY FEATURE of an assault weapon.
take my M4 and pair it against one limited to 3 round mag. its combat effectiveness is greatly reduced compared to mine, but still more effective than that hunting rifle shown somewhere above.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts) Response to pasto76 (Reply #61)
Kaleva This message was self-deleted by its author.
Igel
(35,274 posts)Live births are a -KEY- feature of humans.
Mice have live births.
Mice are humans.
Doesn't work so well, relying on just one required trait to the exclusion of others. Automatic fire is a better trait, because it's unique to assault rifles. You still need the large capacity magazine, semi-auto fire, a buttstock, etc., but without the automatic fire you don't have an assault rifle. We like litmus tests, there you have one. (Although why we're so liking that lichen is beyond me. How about a bromothymol blue test?)
pasto76
(1,589 posts)there is a reason the US issues semi auto weapons. There is a REASON the M16A2 lost its automatic option when the A1 was revised.
So by your definition, the army doesnt even issue assault rifles. Do you really think you know more than the goddamn US military about this?
Other countries are really enamored with that "automatic" thing. Its hard to hit anything in Auto. Uh oh, here comes another example of how the US military works....
Even the US military does not train our troops to keep that trigger depressed in most circumstances. 3-5 round bursts are most effective for hitting a target. But no where near as effective as my non-assault weapon (by your definition).
sorry some of you dont have the experience of what actually makes something useful in combat. Your mice are humans thing is just stupid. It's a -key feature-, and no where in anything Ive posted on this did I exclude any other features.
"Automatic fire is a better trait" - spoken just like someone who doesnt have a clue about this. They look good in hollywood. There is a reason that a squad of 16 soldiers only has 2 automatic weapons and 14 semiautos.
ileus
(15,396 posts)than the rifle....something you have to do if you're serious about shooting long distances.
bonniebgood
(940 posts)country is f*ing sick and racist to boot. The thrill to kill. The complicit media
would put up this terrorist school picture instead of his red head mug shot. I could not bare to read
the news articles that showed his smiling face and childhood photos.
I guess it was too difficult to get his arrest photos immediately. If this guy had been brown or black his mug shot with his red hair and the military gear he was wearing would have been all over media, including all his immediate family.
Besides the horrific trauma i feel about these terrorist shooting every six months, i have to see the race angle played out in the media reporting. Disgusting, sick and racist country.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Are you a PETA member or something?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)Different shoulder stock, different grip, different top to the body (I can't see how you could fit a scope to the one in the OP), different barrel in front of the scope. And something fixed below the barrel.
In particular, the different stock makes that one look suitable for hunting, by allowing a carefully aimed shot, rather than the one in the OP, which looks designed to be short, for combat.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The shoulder stock, grip, and upper receiver assembly are all easily swapped out. You can get "uppers" with barrels from 10 inches to about 26 inches long, various different materials, thickness, rates of twist in the rifling, different fore grip configurations, rails on which all kids of sights and accessories can be mounted.
The core of the rifle, i.e. the lower receiver assembly, is what makes it legally a firearm, and even it can be configured with a variety of trigger configurations for different purposes.
In particular, the different stock makes that one look suitable for hunting, by allowing a carefully aimed shot, rather than the one in the OP, which looks designed to be short, for combat.
The one in the OP is collapsible. Those typically can be adjusted to any of four to six positions for comfort, or collapsed to its minimum size for ease of transport or storage. Anyone who shoots the rifle would normally adjust the stock to the most comfortable length for best accuracy. My state's law doesn't permit collapsible or folding stocks - Another good reason to have them interchangeable, and a variety of different types available. Changing the stock on an AR-15 takes just a few minutes. The stock is held in place by one screw.
Accuracy in combat is just as important as accuracy while hunting. You always want to shoot as accurately as possible.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)Combat is illegal, unless you're in the military.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The National Firearms Act.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I think people are saying it's not an automatic weapon (I've seen many falsely claim that it was) or that "assault weapon" is basically a meaningless term.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)That enhances the range and lethality of the round, and also increases its rate of fire. Or something.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...while the bodies pile up at their feet. Do they give enough of a damn about any of us to push for progressive change? No.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Military's don't use semi-auto rifles except in very certain circumstances such as sniping.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)Kaleva
(36,248 posts)It's lighter, shorter and thus easier to handle. It's also very accurate at close to mid ranges.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)than either of the two. In WW1, Germany was howling bloody murder because of the effectiveness of pump-action shotguns in trench warfare.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Just walked in through an emergency exit.
Igel
(35,274 posts)would be the less desirable way of being tombstoned.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And it's time to stand up to them. Law enforcement officials want these weapons made illegal. Everyone with a brain wants them made illegal.
But these NRA goons flood our boards and our media with specious arguments peppered with all kinds of obscure letters and numbers of weaponry, trying to fool the public into thinking there are arcane technical things they don't know about.
They try to make the argument that people would get them anyway and commit crimes. Well, sure: all criminals break laws. Does that mean we shouldn't have any?
It's time to end this mumbo jumbo and push back at the goon squad. We're not going to take it anymore--especially the inevitable attacks that claim we "don't know anything about it." Screw that. It's over.
Igel
(35,274 posts)You can call the damned thing a "raging kitten" if you want to, as long as we all know that "raging kitten" has a specific meaning and that the term is consistently used in laws, regulation, and normative communication.
If I use "raging kitten" to mean a truly pissed off feline and *you* use "raging kitten" to mean a "semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine and scary colors" while the guy across the street uses it to mean his pissed off girlfriend, then we're not going to communicate. We all all sit around and use the words, but there's no real communication happening.
Except in this case if we make semi-automatics into "assault rifles" then what we've done is effectively made the laws passed decades ago "living," in the sense that they we can always make the law mean whatever it needs to mean at the present. No need for actual legislatures and representatives to talk about them.
Have a law using terms with precise meanings.
Have a minority redefine the terms.
Have the minority order everbody complaining about the new definitions to shut up.
Apply the old law with all the new meanings.
Hoist a cold one to Orwell's defeat and Democratic minority rule.
Sorry, bad idea. Let's keep the terms that we have and the definitions that we've used and put into law and common discourse. Sometimes assimilation is ambiguously voluptuous. Or really good, depending on what you think "ambiguously" and "really," "voluptuous" and "good" mean.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And you don't know what you're talking about. You're just talking. Your attempts at argument are not only wholly unconvincing but lame and tired. The party's over, gun nuts: your feeble excuses are used up.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)2+2=2
Words have definitions, if you honestly wish to craft an effective law then it doesn't work to have nonsense definitions. The funny thing is you have already failed on the exact same tact and did a lot of damage not only to your own agenda but the vast common good while putting into place a law without any impact on the very concerns it was supposed to address.
You are being told that your willful ignorance that you take such pride in is cutting you off at the knees and counter-productive in other areas. Most importantly, your are being informed why what you call for is of no effective consequence.
When you pass a law you have to think about how it will work in the real world not how you want or hope for.
What is to "not buy" when you are being advised that two very different looking pieces of hardware are the same in function? The best arguments in the thread were about the grip and stock but since that exact same configuration was permissible under the goofy ass assault weapons ban from the 90's, one just skipped another cosmetic feature like a bayonet lug or vented barrel and guess what? If you are going to try to make a hit on a member of Congress or shoot up a movie theater, any penalty for modifying can't really be argued as a deterrence factor of even the nuisance level. The only possible people impacted are otherwise lawful citizens made fodder for the prison complex on a stupid round of flinging shit at the wall.
The honest answer almost has to be that people on that side of the issue no damn well that the game would be over if they actually called for what they apparently want which is really to ban and hopefully confiscate any post black powder gun (and maybe including those) so they will take a slice if they can't get a loaf, even if the slice is symbolic that or their perception is so shallow that the connection between the trim types cannot be bridged because of the prejudices of a person's imagination.
I bet in some cases folks would vote to ban an AR-15 and declare an AK-47 ok based on the stock. In fact, the AK in the picture could be full auto and some would prioritize banning the middling caliber semi-auto.
I'm not here to pretend I support restrictions on either but the function and the appearance are far from one to the point of being immaterial which leads us to the more honest discussion of which calibers and functionality you wish to restrict or ban so we can get on with that or the movement needs to admit what their endgame is and go from there.
You are saying that you have a treatment for a problem, you are responsible for explaining how the treatment affects the problem. A law isn't a spell. Angry defiance in response to questions about your process mechanics isn't going to resolve a damn thing.
Again, you either don't understand well enough to do what you say you want or you are being deliberately dishonest about what you want because you have an obvious action/goals mismatch.
The movement has never passed or even proposed legislation that would have stopped virtually any of the events they seize on for momentum that would not be rejected with extreme prejudice by a heavy majority of the population on a nonpartisan basis without racial bias. I would reject economic bias as well but there are indications that upper earners in the largest urban centers have a special predilection.
There must be honest objectives so that you know what it takes to get to them and so those you court as allies know what they are signing up for.
Gman
(24,780 posts)About, "If you knew what you were talking about, the AR-15...", as if what we see is it what we see.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)It's a semi-auto rifle with non-selective firing made to "look cool." I have been to gun shows and seen .22 rifles with a skeleton stock selling left and right, because it looks cool, even though it's just a regular .22 plinkster.
The upper gun in your OP actually fires a more powerful round.
An AR-15 is not a military combat rifle.
Generic Brad
(14,272 posts)Igel
(35,274 posts)Easier to ban them by list or by physical attributes.
When you ban functions, you really want to outlaw acts and activities. We tried that. Didn't work as we wanted. Then we tried it in a self-deceiving way--banning actions under guise of banning objects--because we couldn't get everybody to ban all the objects we wanted banned.
Not surprisingly, the only people we deceived were ourselves.
You can ban using guns for a certain purpose. Make murder illegal.
You can ban guns. "Anything firing a projectile using these modalities and this structure is outlawed."
What's hard to do is ban the use of an object for a given purpose. "Screwdrivers are okay, murder isn't. There are still murders, so what we'll do is ban those specific screwdrivers used for murder."
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)That if someone took a bolt-action Enfield, replaced the wooden stock with an adjustable one, and painted it black, that there would be a significant number of people calling it an assault rifle.
Its like porn. "I dont watch it, I cant define it, but if there are naked people in it we must ban it!". Same mentality.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)Selling like hotcakes, because they look cool. They look like what people think sniper rifles or SWAT rifles look like.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... making a great case for banning "semi" automatic weapons also.
Works for me.
TeamPooka
(24,205 posts)Response to phantom power (Original post)
wandy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Where do you and your fellow members meet?
wandy
(3,539 posts)And the 'bump' stock appears to be legal.
And one other thing I'd like to point out, the research took me less than 5 minuets.
Now find me a Fan less Nvida 8400 chipset video card with 512M of memory.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Kaleva
(36,248 posts)The rifle in the video was made prior to the 1986 ban. You'll here the person say the conversion was done in 1984 by a gunsmith. The bolt carrier in post ban AR-15s is different then in M-16s.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)If you had, you would have discovered exactly what's involved and how difficult and expensive it is to have a semi-auto AR-15 converted to full-auto...
The Drop In Auto Sear (DIAS) is a device that is adds an auto sear to an otherwise semi-automatic AR-15 so that when used with M-16 fire control parts including an M-16 carrier produces full auto fire. The DIAS is referred to as a "Drop In" as this piece can be added to an AR-15 without drilling a receiver for a traditional auto sear. Following is a photo of a registered Drop In Auto Sear (rDIAS) made by JCB and registered before 1986.
THE REGISTERED & TRANSFERABLE DROP-IN AUTO SEAR
This is a an auto sear made before 1986 and registered (tax paid) with the BATF as a machinegun. Currently (Nov-2003) they sell in the $7500 - 8500 price range and require an additional $200 transfer tax to own. This is the only type an individual can use to make an AR15 full auto. To obtain one, an individual (non FFL/SOT) would have to live in a state that permits ownership of full auto firearms and complete a BATF form 4 in duplicate with fingerprints, pictures, and a CLEO certification. The auto sear itself is legally the same as a complete transferable machinegun - it is legal to own and use, provided the paperwork is filed with BATF and you receive an approved form 4. The registered auto sear requires installation of M16 (full auto) fire control parts (trigger, disconnector, selector, hammer, and bolt carrier) in the semi automatic host rifle. Normally, even possession of an M16 part with an AR15 is a felony - it doesn’t even have to be installed in the gun! If you own a registered DIAS however, possession is permitted as long as you are the legal owner of a registered DIAS. If the DIAS is removed from the rifle, the M16 parts MUST BE REMOVED also. The instant a registered DIAS is removed, any M16 parts in the AR15 will constitute a felony. The same principle also applies to barrel length. If you have a short barrel (less than 16”) on an AR15 with a registered DIAS installed, you must remove the barrel/upper whenever the DIAS is not in the gun. The registered DIAS can be installed in either a pre or post ban AR15 with all the evil assault features you wish. Because the DIAS makes the rifle full automatic when installed, it is no longer covered by the 1994 assault weapons ban, which defines an assault weapon as a “semiautomatic rifle” with specific features (bayo. lug, threaded barrel, flash hider, etc.). When the sear is removed from a post-ban gun, you must restore the gun to a post-ban configuration, and remove those evil assault features. Just remember, when the registered DIAS is installed, the host gun becomes like a machinegun and is treated as such. The instant the DIAS is removed, the host firearm must revert back to its original semiautomatic state (no F/A parts, no short barrels), and if a post ban, it must comply with the assault weapons ban.
THE “PRE-81” DROP-IN AUTO SEAR
The “pre-81” DIAS - commonly advertised in Shotgun News for about $125-$200 are a completely different item than a registered DIAS. Prior to 1981 it was legal to make and own these sears without necessarily registering them as machineguns. BATF eventually caught on, and in 1981 issued a ruling that the sears were considered machinegun conversion parts and sears made after 1981 had to be registered (tax paid) and transfer as any other NFA item (these became the registered ones referred to above). BATF grandfathered the unregistered sears made prior to 1981, but sears made after 1981 had to either be registered or are considered unregistered machineguns - a serious felony. IT IS A FELONY TO POSSESS BOTH A PRE-81 DROP-IN AUTO SEAR AND AN AR15 - UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN AN INDIVIDUAL LEGALLY USE A PRE-81 DIAS IN AN AR15. Technically, you are allowed to possess an unregistered DIAS which was made prior to 1981, but you cannot possess one if you own an AR15 - it’s one or the other, but not both. Obviously, this rule makes possession of a pre-81 DIAS useless - if you cannot own the rifle it goes in, about all you can do with them is to make cufflinks, earrings, or a very small paperweight.
The so called “pre-81” DIAS presents another legal problem, which can make the mere possession of the sear a felony - even in the complete absence or an AR15. As stated previously, only sears made prior to 1981 are allowed to be unregistered - any sears made after the 1981 ruling must be registered or will be considered by BATF to be unregistered machineguns. Because none of the pre-81 sears carry a serial number which can be definitively linked to a date of manufacture, there is no way to prove to BATF or a prosecutor that an unregistered pre-81 DIAS was actually made prior to 1981. If you are caught with one (just a sear, not even with a rifle) BATF can assume it was made after 1981, and therefore prosecute for felony possession of an unregistered machinegun. The burden of proof will fall on the owner of the sear to prove it was made prior to 1981 - very difficult to do without a serial number of date of manufacture on the sear itself. Granted, some pre-81 sears come with a letter purported to document the sears authenticity, but often these are just Xeroxed, and will not stand up to the scrutiny of a prosecutor.
CONCLUSIONS
If you are considering buying an auto sear to convert your AR15 to a full automatic firearm, there is only one option - the registered & transferable DIAS. While it may be tempting to buy a pre-81 to save thousands over the registered sear, the risks are considerable. Possession of an unregistered machinegun (a pre-81 DIAS and an AR15 rifle...or possibly even just a so called “pre-81” DIAS) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine, and permanent loss of your right to ever own a gun or vote again. Numerous rumors have circulated that some of the people selling the pre-81 sears are actually BATF operations. Buyer beware.
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html
Or alternatively, via a Lightning Link...
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html
Igel
(35,274 posts)They were legal. They were also easy to obtain, fairly cheaply. (Strictly speaking, they still are legal, so it's not a perfect comparison. Just good enough.)
Now you make new ones. The company hasn't made and shipped them for a few years. You can only sell ones that were bought from the company before the company owning the patent withdrew the product from the market and sat on the patent.
It's totally not illegal to own one of those little gadgets. But 99% of the stuff you'd probably use it for is illegal. (Yeah, it does some conversions, but really, people bought them to circumvent anti-piracy safeguards.) You can find them on eBay and Amazon. They cost a lot more than they did 5 years ago and the price goes up every year, simply because every year there are fewer available on the market.
Same with the upgrade kits. You can own them and sell them, if they were made before they were declared illegal. But 99% of what you'd use them for is illegal. And, barring illegal imports, every year the price goes up because every year there are fewer that could be sold.
You're trying to argue from individual instances to a conclusion, a arrive at a pre-determined generalization, but the logic won't can't get you there. The generalization you'd arrive at is much more limited and, in fact, self-limiting.
Yeah, it's possible to 'upgrade' a lot of semi-automatics to make them automatic. Less easy now since the automatics aren't just down-graded automatics.
On the other hand, by the carefully planned replacement of specific parts, I can convert my 1992 Ford into a fully automatic weapon. Much harder than upgrading a semi-automatic, but doable.
However, in this case it's not relevant. The weapon used was a semi-automatic. Since it didn't have the automatic fire option, calling it an assault rifle inaccurate. It's less inaccurate than calling my 1992 Ford an "assault rifle," but it's a matter of degree. Both involve calling something what it is not simply because it could be altered to fit the definition.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)At the moment although James Holmes may have had a high IQ I'm just thankfull he didn't think of this.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)A milling machine is required.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Per Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The NFA registry for private citizens is closed to new machineguns.
Method 3 does not create an actual machinegun. Bump-firing is just a gimmick. Some people can make a semiautomatic fire that way without a special stock.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)That is a big time Federal crime.
wandy
(3,539 posts)obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Only later to be corrected that it was actually something else.
Igel
(35,274 posts)Iggy
(1,418 posts)sorry, but I think people who want to constantly argue this point are
1. NRA members.
2. Contrarian; they just want to argue (the sky is blue, NO! it's black)
3. are sociopaths who really don't care about human life.
bottom line is the AR-15 Holmes used could shoot 50-60 rounds. is this a hunting rifle?
No, it's not
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and it wouldnt have made a difference. Takes 2 or 3 seconds to swap magazines. He might have even killed more, because report is the drum magazine jammed.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Banning the AR-15 does nothing about all the other semi-automatic rifles that can fitted with a high capacity magazine.
The Ruger Mini-14 is a very popular varmint hunting rifle. Put a 30 round mag on it and you got yourself a so-called assault weapon.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)is never going to happen. never get this thru congress
I'm gettin real tired of the same ol' weak excuse from law enforcement, "Gee, we just can't stop these guys!"
BS, this guy had a 4 month long trail of credit card purchases, including 6,000 rounds of ammo. he had
_fifty_ packages delivered to his place of work and home
not trackable? gimme a break pls
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Igel
(35,274 posts)1. I'm not an NRA member. I never owned a gun. Haven't fired anything but a shotgun (one) and muzzle loaders (perhaps a dozen times). Last time was about 30 years ago. However, my father killed himself with a handgun about 2 years ago.
2. I like to argue against those who say the sky is always blue or always black. Or never orange. I like trying to make sure the words I use to express propositions that I need to say are true or false because they reflect or influence reality have a meaning that I and my listeners agree on, and that we have a common set of facts that we agree on. If we don't have that, there's no discussion possible. Politics and academics without discussion and understanding is basically a matter of brute force and naked power. Some prefer it that way. "Can't you all just get along with me, or I'll lock you up or kill you, kulaks." The only thing missing is the chest thumping and having the dominant male haul all the womenfolk off into the bushes to propagate his line, after killing off all the children by the former dominant male. (Although Russia did do the latter bit, didn't they, as well as the chest-thumping?)
3. Sorry, not a sociopath.
"bottom line is the AR-15 Holmes used could shoot 50-60 rounds. is this a hunting rifle?"
Don't know. What's the usual definition of a hunting rifle? Don't think there's a special, form-based one. It's a function. The AR-15 is a rifle, because it fits the definition of one. People use it for hunting. That makes it a hunting rifle. It may be overkill, it may be seldom used as a hunting rifle. But it's a rifle that's used for a hunting. It can't be a can of baked beans, definition doesn't fit. Certainly not a lawn mower, definition doesn't fit. Can't be a shotgun, definition doesn't fit. Can't be an assault rifle. Definition doesn't fit.
Find a term we can all agree on that doesn't rewrite law and misuse current words and all'll be well. But don't get pissed off because you're caught not having a clue what the words you're using mean. Wiki's not perfect, but it's often a better source of information than our self-contained portable wetware unit.
petronius
(26,597 posts)fired per pull of the trigger. Semi-auto-only rifles by definition are not 'assault rifles.'
'Assault weapon' is a propaganda term contrived by gun control advocates that is intended to drum up fear and concern, but in fact the definitions of 'assault weapon' generally have little to do with the effectiveness or lethality of the firearm. In many cases, the exact same rifle can go from being an assault weapon to not being one by the change of only cosmetic features.
There are aspects of firearms that relate to effectiveness/lethality, such as capacity, caliber, barrel length, or reloading speed, but the 'assault weapon' spin-word does not actually have much relevance in that regard...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Not many (informed) people are calling an AR-15 a "hunting rifle," At most, they're pointing out that it operates in the same way a semi-automatic hunting rifle operates...only with a larger magazine and firing generally less-powerful ammunition than most hunting rifles are chambered for.
A civilian AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle" because it's not selective fire: there is no option for fully automatic fire, like a machine gun. That ability is part of the correct definition for an "assault rifle."
ileus
(15,396 posts)In 1984 I carried a 243 Remington 742. The past few years I've carried an AR. This spring I built a lower that I intend to top with a 6.8 upper so I can hunt with my favorite platform in my state.
JVS
(61,935 posts)And yes, yesterday, in the Target parking lot.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)if you want to hunt go out there with a spear or a pistol. unless its the death and power to obliterate a living animal that someone craves.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)But it's too gristly. Shooting the animals would have been far more humane.
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)In parts of lower Michigan, one can only hunt deer with a pistol or shotgun.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)I don't hunt, although I know hunters, and they always hunt with "deer rifles."
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)Where there's a greater chance of a stray bullet fired from a rifle hitting someone.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)
harun
(11,348 posts)They don't want you using the big rifles for a number of reasons. Safety, don't need to, bullets don't travel as far and do as much damage, terrain is more flat, etc.
I grew up in Wisconsin where we could use rifles and if we wanted to also hunt in Iowa we would have to use shotgun's with slugs.
So it depends on the politics, terrain, deer population, etc.
Many states also have special seasons in special areas for black powder rifles. Where you have a bag of powder, load the gun up with it and use a metal ball for the bullet. Old school style.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)in densely populated areas, they often to not allow rifles for hunting.
where i live you can only use a shotgun or bow for hunting
Ready4Change
(6,736 posts)Responsible hunters strive to make their first shot kill the animal as quickly as possible. Two reasons. First it reduces the animals suffering. Second, an animal that dies quickly doesn't run off, requiring a long chase and even longer drag/carry to get it home, or worse, doesn't run off to die a long and suffering death someplace unobserved.
For those reasons, if a hunters first shot winds up not being a quick kill, a semi-auto rifle allows a very rapid followup shot, in order to both reduce the animals suffering and ease the hunters efforts.
Many (most, in my opinion) hunters feel they can get that rapid second shot with a slower to fire bolt action rifle. But there is, and always will be room, for semi-auto hunting rifles.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I shoot rifles left-handed because I have a lazy right eye. Some left-handed bolt action rifles are available but they cost extra and choices are limited.
Does my handicap make me a coward?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Igel
(35,274 posts)Most words we hear we never look up in a dictionary. That's fine. We hear them used in sentences and we may discard our first guess as to the word's meaning the second or third time we hear it. Then we learn where it's okay to use the word and we narrow and shape the meaning(s).
Sometimes we get it wrong and words, over time, change meaning. "Stay the course" meant "to stay in the race until the end of the course." Like "stay the night." It wasn't common, people could interpret it to mean "not change the course", they liked how that definition fit and didn't see a reason to change there interpretation. Now "change the course", less than 10 years later, mostly means "not change course." Just like, apparently, "stay the night" means "not change the night."
That kind of change was responsible for the word "lord" going from the guy who handed out the bread on a work crew to the guy who owns and is responsible for a large manor to the supreme being, all in 400 years. Still, we're not talking 400 years and we're not talking about words that don't need detailed definitions. These are specialized terms and built into the law. You change the meanings only if you want to impose your meanings on experts and rewrite the law without legislation.
An automatic weapon is a weapon that reloads the chamber after each shot. You pull the trigger, and it will fire, reload, fire, reload, etc., until you release the trigger. It is fully automatic, you don't need to tell it to reload by letting go of the trigger.
A self-loading weapon is a weapon that is ready for a new shot with every pull of the trigger. You pull the trigger and it will fire; you release the trigger, it reloads. You can pull the trigger repeatedly and keep on shooting. But if you pull the trigger once, you can only fire a single round.
There are old fashioned self-loaders. Revolvers, for instance. It would move the chamber and bullet into place for the next shot. Pull trigger, fire shot, release trigger, cylinder moves and puts new bullet into place. After a few shots you have to remove the spent cartridges using gravity or your fingers, and then reload what amounts to a built-in merger of magazine and chamber. This is "Old West" tech, and the size and mass of the cylinder mattered: After 7 or 8 spots for bullets the cylinder becomes too big for a pistol, and the spring to make that mass move quickly becomes large. Revolvers are self-limiting.
A semi-automatic rifle (or pistol) is the same but different. You pull the trigger, fire shot, release trigger, a new bullet is put into place. That's the same. There are three big differences, of which two are irrelevant here: The first is that the spent catridge is expelled, so you never have to remove them (unless there's a jam). The second is that there's only one chamber, unlike a revolver in which the cylinder is a rotating chamber. The third, and arguably relevant point, is that since the mechanism just expels the cartridge and grabs a bullet from a magazine, any magazine that gets a bullet to the right spot for the mechanism works. It can hold 2 bullets. It could hold 2000. That means the real difference between a Dillinger or Tombstone shoot-out revolver and the AK-15 is one of "how many bullets can I fire before I have to stop."
The third kind are manual loading rifles or pistols. They can be pump action or bolt action. Or even things like muzzle loaders. In other words: pull trigger, fire bullet, release trigger. Then perform some sort of manual action to expel the spent cartridge or remove it, reload the chamber, and set the gun for the next round. When you're hunting this is slow and cumbersome. You want a semi-automatic for hunting, if at all possible. I knew hunters that had 3 or 4 rifles with them when they hunted. I didn't understand until somebody explained. They were bolt action. He'd fire one, drop it in his lap as he picked up the second and fired it. Slow, but faster--and a heck of a lot quieter--than reloading.
The problem is that people are hearing "assault rifle" and thinking "military-style rifle with big magazine" because almost every time they've heard the word "assault rifle" their self-produced definition fits what they see and also fits the context. It's wrong, but it's not obviously wrong. Then when they hear a sentence where their definition doesn't fit, they can't believe that they're wrong. It's like being told you've made an error is an insult. They don't want to take the time to admit that their definitions are wrong.
Same for "semi-automatic"--it's got to be big and scary because the guns we see described as "semi-automatic" are usually big and scary. Heck, the air gun firing pellets that my friend had in the '70s was semi-automatic.
It doesn't help that adjusting their speech to fit the specialized definition of these terms makes the target of their outrage hard to nail: They obviously hate something and want to ban something away from the less-competent for their own good, but if it's not "assault rifles", if it's not "semi-automatic weapons," then what is the target they're shooting at?
Then there's familiarity-based confusion. You hear "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" and don't understand the difference. You can't admit ignorance because we think that'st he same as being stupid, we're not going to waste time looking up the difference, so we ignore the difference. They mean the same thing, don't they? Others can't explain the difference so there isn't one. They're synonyms. But they're not. Assault weapon is a term made up for "big scary weapons with big magazines that are legal but still scary and still big." It lacks a good definition because it's not a term that needs precision or accuracy. "Big" and "scary" are hard to nail down. "Assault rifle" is a term with some precision. It absolutely needs to have an automatic firing setting, for instance.
jmowreader
(50,528 posts)No you don't need a semi-auto to hunt Bambi.
If you're hunting polar bears, razorbacks or alligators, that's a different story.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)The AR-15 can make a decent deer rifle if you get one in a bigger caliber than it normally comes in, BUT it's not primarily a hunting rifle. What it *is*, is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, the rifle that dominates competitive shooting in this country, and the most common carbine alternative to the traditional 12-gauge shotgun in U.S. homes. I shoot competitively with one.
The AR-15 platform is also one of the least misused firearms in the nation; all rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders in this country, despite their popularity. Check out the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)The amount of bullets the two guns (in your example above) can fire w/o reloading is the only practical difference.
I personally think there should be an upper limit of something like 10 bullets (something comparable to what a cop's pistol can hold, for instance). And either an out-right ban, or a very difficult screening process for anything higher than that.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Who cares what they want you to believe, just stick with the facts. It is an assault weapon.
EDIT - sure as shit, I forgot "assault rifle" only refers to true automatic firearms. "Assault weapon" is the term for an AR-15.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)These automatic assault weapons should be outlawed. How many more innocent people have to die?
Kaleva
(36,248 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)Good God.
ananda
(28,834 posts).. those rifles are in the same class and should be banned completely
for private use. Period. Hunting my eye!
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)One is the one used by firearms aficionados, and refers to select-fire military weapons capable of fully automatic operation.
The other is the one used in many states' assault weapons laws. It includes semi-automatic rifles that have a similar appearance and other characteristics of those military weapons.
Which one you use depends on who you are. The media mostly uses the second definition, which is the one used in most laws restricting them.
The firearms aficionados use the first one, since it works better for their argument.
Both definitions are valid and in common use. It's a popular argument point, though.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)A selective-fire military weapon. A semi-automatic anything is not an assault rifle. I am not a "firearms aficionado," but I also do not like any arguments being made with "facts" that are not facts. These rifles are very highly regulated, and you must be approved by the Feds to possess one, and the Feds know who has them. They are illegal to sell.
THAT is what "assault rifle" means. That is the definition.
You are referring to "assault weapon." The AR-15 used in Colorado was also NOT an assault weapon as defined by the 1994 (I think) Assault Weapons Ban.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)This meme is a way to distract from a real conversation that we need to have in this nation.
Why do we have so many gun deaths? Why do so many people die from gunshots?
They are trying to thread the needle, IMO.
To the rest of the internet and those that live in real life as well: Let's have a real conversation, let's at least agree that these weapons are for one purpose only -- killing as fast and as many possible.
I come from a hunting family -- anyone telling me that the AR-15 is just a hunting rifle is blowing smoke. This is dishonest. An AR-15 can kill a deer -- woopdeedoo. They can also kill a garden snake -- but why would one use it? One can use a simple handgun to do that.
Let's not pretend that this is why these guns exist. Anything less is intellectually dishonest.
People die at the hands of those that own them. I will say this (not to any DU-er, rather in general) if one owns this type of weapon and as such feel the need to defend said ownership... do not defend it here by saying you are just a HUNTER or that they are simply hunting guns.
They really aren't. They are semi-automatic weapons. They are used to kill. We need to figure out a way to make sure they do not fall into the hands of people who will use them to commit murder.
Figure out the problems that exist within the Gun Ownership community. There is a reason why people are questioning things. Stop telling them it's raining when it kinda looks like they are getting peed on.
In other words-- please stop dismissing those that have serious concerns about guns and the people who use them in this nation.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And what they're fixated on...potential rate of fire. Functionally the only difference between a battle riffle, which the M-16A2 is, and it's civilian cousin, is the selector switch. The Military weapon can select for full auto, 800 rounds per minute potential rate of fire. The AR-15 only goes to semi auto, you need to pull the trigger every time.
Yes, it is the most popular hunting riffle, and for me the solution is simple. Only have one mode of fire on this, regardless of the cosmetics...single shot, period. You would have to manually get the next round into the firing chamber. Since both the battle riffle and the AR have that firing mode, it's not imposible to do.
And given how effective the AR has been in Mexico. (And some are converted into full auto, regardless gun bunnies say) making the argument that it functionally does not effectively function like it's military cousin, is at this point silly.
Same can be said about the AK.
And yes, I get the attraction of a semi auto, yes they are fun to shoot...(and once actually fired a full auto weapon). But really, for target shooting, plinking things, hunting, getting rid of coyotes around the chicken coop, all legit uses, you really do not need a weapon with that potential high rate of fire, and a check on a tyrannical government...all red dawn fantasies aside, head to head...good luck.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It's a symptom of a really serious problem.
Yea, I know -- what about due process and all that. It's my opinion based upon knowing a lot of gun owners who are/were into that kind of stuff, and watching the accounts of people drooling over such weapons in gun stores after Obama was elected (some junk about "taking their country back"
. None of them should ever be allowed near a gun.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I guess you'll have to buy it flowers, date it and then pop the question on the 3rd date.... 
REP
(21,691 posts)Assault rifles that are select fire (fully automatic - continuous fire with one trigger pull or semi auto- one round per trigger pull) are legal to own in some states, but only with special licensing that isn't that easy to obtain.
AR-15s are assault-style in LOOK but not function; they can only fire one round per trigger pull, like any other semi-auto (including semi-auto shotguns).
phantom power
(25,966 posts)it was educational
