HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am sincerely perplexed ...

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:26 PM

I 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:


211 replies, 56116 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 211 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am sincerely perplexed by the "it's not an assault rifle" meme... (Original post)
phantom power Jul 2012 OP
Cooley Hurd Jul 2012 #1
pinboy3niner Jul 2012 #3
PatrynXX Jul 2012 #123
pinboy3niner Jul 2012 #128
pscot Jul 2012 #132
pinboy3niner Jul 2012 #139
lunatica Jul 2012 #13
xmas74 Jul 2012 #51
PatrynXX Jul 2012 #131
pscot Jul 2012 #135
xmas74 Jul 2012 #148
X_Digger Jul 2012 #210
xmas74 Jul 2012 #211
movonne Jul 2012 #119
samsingh Jul 2012 #203
DrDan Jul 2012 #2
Odin2005 Jul 2012 #4
Edweird Jul 2012 #5
grantcart Jul 2012 #17
Edweird Jul 2012 #30
grantcart Jul 2012 #90
klook Jul 2012 #114
quakerboy Jul 2012 #118
grantcart Jul 2012 #125
Llewlladdwr Jul 2012 #167
grantcart Jul 2012 #169
slackmaster Jul 2012 #190
drm604 Jul 2012 #120
calimary Jul 2012 #130
Surya Gayatri Jul 2012 #127
calimary Jul 2012 #129
grantcart Jul 2012 #133
calimary Jul 2012 #165
laundry_queen Jul 2012 #192
DCBob Jul 2012 #158
Tejas Jul 2012 #202
samsingh Jul 2012 #204
Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #172
Edweird Jul 2012 #41
rl6214 Jul 2012 #194
DirkGently Jul 2012 #54
Edweird Jul 2012 #184
DirkGently Jul 2012 #188
Edweird Jul 2012 #191
rl6214 Jul 2012 #195
pasto76 Jul 2012 #58
Edweird Jul 2012 #69
pasto76 Jul 2012 #149
Edweird Jul 2012 #163
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #186
rl6214 Jul 2012 #196
TroglodyteScholar Jul 2012 #71
pasto76 Jul 2012 #151
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #103
pasto76 Jul 2012 #150
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #154
pasto76 Jul 2012 #160
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #162
Igel Jul 2012 #79
Edweird Jul 2012 #87
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #101
Paladin Jul 2012 #109
Edweird Jul 2012 #138
rhett o rick Jul 2012 #112
Edweird Jul 2012 #140
phantom power Jul 2012 #121
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #137
phantom power Jul 2012 #206
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #208
intaglio Jul 2012 #136
Edweird Jul 2012 #143
intaglio Jul 2012 #168
Edweird Jul 2012 #170
liberalmuse Jul 2012 #152
Erose999 Jul 2012 #178
Edweird Jul 2012 #183
Erose999 Jul 2012 #185
Edweird Jul 2012 #187
Erose999 Jul 2012 #197
Edweird Jul 2012 #198
Erose999 Jul 2012 #201
Edweird Jul 2012 #205
hack89 Jul 2012 #6
slackmaster Jul 2012 #7
DrDan Jul 2012 #16
leftyohiolib Jul 2012 #22
DrDan Jul 2012 #23
LonePirate Jul 2012 #38
slackmaster Jul 2012 #48
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #56
DrDan Jul 2012 #73
slackmaster Jul 2012 #75
Skittles Jul 2012 #116
DrDan Jul 2012 #146
calimary Jul 2012 #141
DrDan Jul 2012 #145
calimary Jul 2012 #147
jmowreader Jul 2012 #156
DrDan Jul 2012 #159
dionysus Jul 2012 #175
DrDan Jul 2012 #177
leftyohiolib Jul 2012 #18
Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #57
slackmaster Jul 2012 #60
Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #70
slackmaster Jul 2012 #72
Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #76
slackmaster Jul 2012 #77
pasto76 Jul 2012 #61
slackmaster Jul 2012 #65
A Simple Game Jul 2012 #142
pasto76 Jul 2012 #161
slackmaster Jul 2012 #173
Kaleva Jul 2012 #181
pasto76 Jul 2012 #153
slackmaster Jul 2012 #155
Kaleva Jul 2012 #80
Igel Jul 2012 #82
pasto76 Jul 2012 #157
ileus Jul 2012 #63
bonniebgood Jul 2012 #124
slackmaster Jul 2012 #126
muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #164
slackmaster Jul 2012 #171
muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #180
slackmaster Jul 2012 #182
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #8
Posteritatis Jul 2012 #20
ellisonz Jul 2012 #9
Kaleva Jul 2012 #10
Kaleva Jul 2012 #11
Edweird Jul 2012 #12
Kaleva Jul 2012 #19
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #35
Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #66
Igel Jul 2012 #83
frazzled Jul 2012 #14
Igel Jul 2012 #86
frazzled Jul 2012 #95
TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #144
Gman Jul 2012 #15
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #21
Generic Brad Jul 2012 #24
Igel Jul 2012 #89
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #25
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #27
99Forever Jul 2012 #26
TeamPooka Jul 2012 #28
wandy Jul 2012 #29
Tejas Jul 2012 #36
wandy Jul 2012 #40
Tejas Jul 2012 #49
Kaleva Jul 2012 #55
-..__... Jul 2012 #68
Igel Jul 2012 #104
Igel Jul 2012 #93
Kaleva Jul 2012 #37
wandy Jul 2012 #46
slackmaster Jul 2012 #53
Kaleva Jul 2012 #62
slackmaster Jul 2012 #52
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #67
wandy Jul 2012 #85
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #98
Tejas Jul 2012 #31
Kaleva Jul 2012 #44
Igel Jul 2012 #105
Iggy Jul 2012 #32
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #39
Kaleva Jul 2012 #43
Kaleva Jul 2012 #42
Iggy Jul 2012 #166
Tejas Jul 2012 #47
Igel Jul 2012 #110
petronius Jul 2012 #33
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #34
ileus Jul 2012 #45
JVS Jul 2012 #50
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #74
samsingh Jul 2012 #59
slackmaster Jul 2012 #64
Kaleva Jul 2012 #81
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #100
Kaleva Jul 2012 #106
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #111
harun Jul 2012 #107
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #113
dionysus Jul 2012 #174
Ready4Change Jul 2012 #91
slackmaster Jul 2012 #94
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #97
Igel Jul 2012 #134
jmowreader Jul 2012 #189
benEzra Jul 2012 #209
Schema Thing Jul 2012 #78
Rex Jul 2012 #84
avaistheone1 Jul 2012 #88
Kaleva Jul 2012 #92
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #99
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #102
ananda Jul 2012 #96
MineralMan Jul 2012 #108
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #115
Raine1967 Jul 2012 #117
baldguy Jul 2012 #122
nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #176
Hoyt Jul 2012 #179
rl6214 Jul 2012 #193
MrMickeysMom Jul 2012 #200
REP Jul 2012 #199
phantom power Jul 2012 #207

Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:28 PM

1. Used for hunting... IF your prey is armed...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:32 PM

3. I think we need MORE assault weapons...for the prey :)

Seems only fair that they shoud be able to shoot back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:18 PM

123. think they made a game for that

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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #123)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:25 PM

128. "I am ready to wreak some havoc," lol

I don't think I wanna go out in the woods anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #128)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:34 PM

132. Nothing scarier than meeting a band

of heavily armed teens while you're taking a walk in the woods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #132)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:45 PM

139. I hope that's not something you encounter often

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:54 PM

13. And you want a high body count

You never know when you're going to run into a herd of deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:32 PM

51. I know quite a few hunters

who would be offended by even the thought of using something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #51)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:28 PM

131. well yeah

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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #131)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:40 PM

135. Nothing compares with planting an arrow

in a deer's gut and watching it run off to die a slow and agonizing death. Tres amusant, non?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrynXX (Reply #131)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:54 PM

148. Most of my friends who are serious about hunting are strictly bow,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #51)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 11:57 AM

210. But paint it camo, and..



^ That's remington's line of AR-patterned hunting rifles. Same features.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #210)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 02:10 PM

211. Nah.

They wouldn't want it. They prefer their bow hunting above all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:10 PM

119. Why in Gods name would you need either one for hunting...I believe

that the indians used bow and arrows and that did the job just fine...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 07:59 AM

203. yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:29 PM

2. seems pretty obvous why gunners would prefer the second . . . doesn't it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

4. +1,000,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:38 PM

5. Here's the thing. You are being fooled by cosmetics. Both guns perform the same.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:58 PM

17. The problem with your comment is


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:12 PM

30. There is no 'assault weapon' in the OP or my post.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:21 PM

90. I am not arguing for any political action. It is counter productive.



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:02 PM

114. Great post that should be an OP. Thank you. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:09 PM

118. I think I have found a flaw in your argument.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #118)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

125. I don't think that individual gun rights are tied to the 2nd Ammendment.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #125)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:52 AM

167. Really?

So what exactly does "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." mean then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #167)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:12 AM

169. In the context of the complete sentence it means



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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #125)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 09:59 PM

190. Every member of the present Supreme Court disagrees with you

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:10 PM

120. +1 million

I'm sick of the rhetorical games and NRA talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #120)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:28 PM

130. I am, too, drm604.

Sick to death of them. And they WON'T convince me or change my mind. NOT EVER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:24 PM

127. Thank you, Grantcart, for this well-thought-out post...

 

Please consider posting it as another OP.
It deserves to be more widely seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:25 PM

129. I. LOVE. THIS. POST.!!!!!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #129)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:35 PM

133. I posted it in GD, you may want to add your thoughtful comment there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #133)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 10:03 PM

165. Done. Happy to kick it.

Well worth sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #129)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:30 PM

192. +1000000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:20 PM

158. This post is required reading for all DUers.

very, very well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:28 AM

202. Washington, DC > by law, a 9mm handgun is a machinegun.

 

"idiotic arguments over the exact definition" "banal" < LMAO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #90)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 08:02 AM

204. this is a great post. thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:15 AM

172. Groundhog Hunting?

Seriously? We put up with mass slaughter about once every six months so that people can hunt fucking groudhogs?

Oy....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #17)


Response to grantcart (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:41 PM

194. "Simply because hunting rifles can be converted to assault rifles doesn't mean that it should be leg

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:34 PM

54. One funny thing about the well-worn "meaningless cosmetics"

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #54)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:03 PM

184. You forgot to mention that the men and women that own the 200 miilion guns in the US

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #184)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 08:18 PM

188. So, you have no rational response. But have penises on your mind?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #188)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:20 PM

191. The "lethality" of a weapon is solely determined by the HUMAN operating it.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #188)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:48 PM

195. You forgot to include that most of these "assault weapons" are ergonomically superior to hunting rif

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:37 PM

58. Incorrect, they are very different weapons. As well "assault rifle" is VERY real and not made up

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:44 PM

69. Really? You believe semi-auto is "more firepower" than 3 shot burst or full auto?

 

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'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #69)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:53 PM

149. Dude, do you even know why there is 3 round burst? SEMI AUTO is the MOST LETHAL

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #149)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:10 PM

163. I think you are giving accessories way too much credit and your training and experience too little.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #149)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:10 PM

186. Rifle caliber, Yes. Pistol caliber, No.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #149)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:53 PM

196. The Va Tech shooter fired 170 rounds killing 32 and injuring 17

 

He used standard 10rd mags, changing mags 17 times before killing himself when he heard the police arrive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:46 PM

71. Bravo

You destroyed the false comparison. Thanks for providing an honest assessment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroglodyteScholar (Reply #71)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:07 PM

151. Im a democrat. Im also a soldier. I also want people to be able to watch a goddamn movie

and not be afraid.

Word

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:34 PM

103. If semi-automatics with lots of accessories confer more fire-power than machine guns

 

why do all militaries issue their troops with machine guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #103)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:03 PM

150. "accessory" to the untrained. Important features to soldiers.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #150)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:13 PM

154. You kind of argued against your own point

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #154)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:25 PM

160. wtf are you talking about

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #160)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:38 PM

162. Perhaps the military then is unaware of what it is doing

 

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:56 PM

79. "Assault weapon" is the new, fashionable term.

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #79)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:16 PM

87. Yeah, swapped them by accident.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:31 PM

101. The black paint makes the bullet faster

 

also ergonomic grips mean it can penetrate bulletproof vests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:46 PM

109. You're The One Being Fooled By Cosmetics, Pal.

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.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #109)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:44 PM

138. I don't own one black or plastic stocked rifle. You fail - as usual.

 

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:54 PM

112. Great point. Outlaw both. Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles. A good hunter doesnt

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #112)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:50 PM

140. Yeah, ok.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:10 PM

121. I see your point, but it seems like it must be more than *just* cosmetics...

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Reply #121)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:44 PM

137. Nope. Wooden stocks are expensive, heavy and require much more maintenance. The military developed

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #137)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:23 PM

206. So, if I understand then, the performance differences are...

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Reply #206)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

208. Yep, that about sums it up. The .223 can be used for something deer sized if you are

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:42 PM

136. Interesting, You say they are the same - they're not

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 )
Dr. Martin L. Fackler, observed when he was conducting wound research for the U.S. Army several years ago ("Wounding Patterns of Military Rifles," International Defense Review, Volume 22, January, 1989), that in tissue simulants such as ballistic gelatin, , the 55-grain, M-193 military bullet lost stability, yawed (turned sideways) 90 degrees, flattened and broke at the cannelure (groove around the bullet into which the cartridge case is crimped) after penetrating about four to five inches. The forward portion of the bullet generally remained in one piece, accounting for 60% of its originally weight. The rear, or base portion of the bullet, broke into numerous fragments that may also penetrate tissue up to a depth of three inches. Dr. Fackler also noted that a relatively large stretch cavity also occurred, violently stretching and weakening tissue surrounding the primary wound channel and its effect was augmented by tissue perforation and further weakening by numerous fragments. An enlarged permanent cavity significantly larger than the bullet diameter resulted by severing and detaching tissue pieces
And
In his study, Fackler remarked that in abdominal shots, "There will be increased tissue disruption (beyond the bullet diameter wound channel) from the synergistic effect of the temporary cavitation acting on tissue that has been weakened by bullet fragmentation. Instead of observing a hole consistent with the size of the bullet in hollow organs such as the intestines, we typically find a void left by missing tissue up to three inches in diameter." However, "unless a extremity (peripheral hit) is sufficiently thick like a thigh, or the bullet does not strike bone, the round may pass through an arm for instance, causing little damage from a puncture type wound."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #136)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:05 PM

143. Ok

 

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #143)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:52 AM

168. With a maximum effective range of 100m

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #168)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:11 AM

170. It's a completely different firearm. It's a bolt action.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:11 PM

152. LOL!

Unreal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:06 AM

178. AR=30rd mag. Mini 30 sporter or a woodsmaster has a 5-10 rd. mag. Also, an assault rifle takes an


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #178)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:36 PM

183. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #183)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 04:13 PM

185. The phrase "well regulated militia" preceeds "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be finfringed". So


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #185)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:35 PM

187. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with 10 rd magazines.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #187)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:05 PM

197. "The shooter might have been shot". It would have been a bad idea to pull on the shooter. several


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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #197)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:19 PM

198. You do realize that purpose of CCW is personal defense, right?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #198)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:20 AM

201. I'm just saying its not the best idea to challenge a shooter in a situation where he has all the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #201)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:40 AM

205. That, right there, is what I see at the heart of the gun control advocates

 

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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:40 PM

6. Put a 5 round magazine on it as many states require for hunting

and what exactly is the difference? Besides firing a much weaker round that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:43 PM

7. You are allowing yourself to be seduced by the military appearance of the AR-15. Put a scope on it,

 

...and a magazine with a limited capacity as required by your state's hunting laws, and it's a perfectly good hunting rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:58 PM

16. why is this something to be proud of . . . . he is just beaming with pride

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:05 PM

22. why not be proud he relentlessly laid around until the beast was close enuff then blamo

 

a great big head to mount on a wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:07 PM

23. to compound it, all his buddies are pounding him on the back and buying him rounds

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:20 PM

38. You may be my new favorite DUer. I laughed hysterically upon reading this post.

I am glad we share a similar sense of humor and this viewpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:29 PM

48. Because it tastes good

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #48)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:35 PM

56. is steroid and hormone and antibiotic free range lean meat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #48)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:48 PM

73. it seems obvious to me that the trophy is the goal here - not the food.

I am ok with hunting for food. This guy is not doing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #73)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:50 PM

75. A trophy or recognition for a long-distance shot might have been the main goal

 

But I'll bet he ate it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:05 PM

116. he's not proud of the kill

he's proud of the raging boner it gives him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #116)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:18 PM

146. probably the only way he can attain one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:59 PM

141. Good question, DrDan. I don't find anything appealing in photos like that.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #141)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:18 PM

145. I have done a couple of photo safaris to Kenya - it is remarkable to see these animals in the wild

(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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #145)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:25 PM

147. Indeed. I bet it made him feel virile as ALL HELL!

I don't find that virility-enhancing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:17 PM

156. Because for all we know...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #156)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:21 PM

159. FINALLY got to kill something . . . ok - got it - I understand now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:50 AM

175. if he ate that, i wouldn't mind. if he did that just for a trophy head he'd be a sick bastard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #175)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:03 AM

177. completely agree - the picture, suggests to me the latter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:59 PM

18. some "sport". lucky for us this d.b. was there to take down the man eating terror that's been

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:36 PM

57. That's what they call hunting these days, huh?

Did the deer have to stand in line with a number?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #57)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:38 PM

60. A scoped rifle has been a standard weapon for hunting for well over 100 years

 

What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #60)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:46 PM

70. The scope is half the size as the deer.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #70)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:47 PM

72. Antelope

 

It's a pronghorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #72)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:51 PM

76. Sorry, my bad.

I shot a whole bunch of them a couple of years ago. Should've recognized it. I used a Nikon digital SLR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #76)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:54 PM

77. I've seen a heard of them running. They're amazingly fast, and you can't get close to them.

 

I imagine photographing or hunting them to be more than a small challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:38 PM

61. CORRECT! the magazine capacity is a -KEY- feature of an assualt rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:40 PM

65. The fact that the AR-15 can accept different types of magazines makes it more useful

 

It's not correct to say that it's an "assault rifle" because it can take large magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:03 PM

142. The AR-15 is actually not a rifle at all by most normal definitions.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #142)


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #142)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:42 AM

173. It can be configured with a long barrel and a fixed stock

 

Making it just as long as any other typical rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #142)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:25 AM

181. There are carbine versions of the AR-15

Just as there are carbine versions of the bolt action Mosin-Nagant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:11 PM

153. try and twist it some more

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #153)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:13 PM

155. Placing limits on magazine capacity is a legitimate topic for discussion

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #61)


Response to pasto76 (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:02 PM

82. True. Not terribly relevant.

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?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #82)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:19 PM

157. funny which one of us is a combat vet?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:39 PM

63. Not a bad looking pronghorn...notice he invested more in the scope

than the rifle....something you have to do if you're serious about shooting long distances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:18 PM

124. This photo tell it all this

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonniebgood (Reply #124)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:23 PM

126. He doesn't look like a terrorist to me

 

Are you a PETA member or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:11 PM

164. That looks like a different rifle to me

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #164)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:09 AM

171. That's another nice feature of the AR-15 platform - Interchangeable parts

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #171)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:24 AM

180. But the point is, combat weapons should be banned

Combat is illegal, unless you're in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #180)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:31 AM

182. I believe the distinction between combat weapons and sporting weapons was drawn correctly in 1934

 

The National Firearms Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:43 PM

8. What particular detail makes the 2nd one more dangerous?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:01 PM

20. Well, it's painted black and has a pistol grip, you see.

That enhances the range and lethality of the round, and also increases its rate of fire. Or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:43 PM

9. The NRA nuts get off on feeling smug and superior...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:44 PM

10. It appears you have more of an issue with magazine capacity then with the gun itself

Military's don't use semi-auto rifles except in very certain circumstances such as sniping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:52 PM

11. At longer ranges, the upper gun would be more dangerous in the hands of a bad guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:53 PM

12. Jesus, if it's a .30-06 it's no slouch close up either.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:01 PM

19. No but for close range shooting, I'd choose the 2nd gun.

It's lighter, shorter and thus easier to handle. It's also very accurate at close to mid ranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:15 PM

35. For close range, a shotgun is more deadly

 

than either of the two. In WW1, Germany was howling bloody murder because of the effectiveness of pump-action shotguns in trench warfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:40 PM

66. And our movie theater shooter had both. Hmm!

Just walked in through an emergency exit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:04 PM

83. And that...

would be the less desirable way of being tombstoned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:55 PM

14. They want to confuse you, because they have no real arguments

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:14 PM

86. No, we like knowing what we're talking about.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #86)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:27 PM

95. Sorry, we're not buying that crap anymore

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #95)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:07 PM

144. Which crap is it you aren't buying because it appears as if you have no idea.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:57 PM

15. Then they start the bullshit

About, "If you knew what you were talking about, the AR-15...", as if what we see is it what we see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

21. It isn't an assault rifle

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:08 PM

24. Those look more like "murder rifles" to me n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #24)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:20 PM

89. Hard to ban objects by reference to function.

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:08 PM

25. I suspect...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:10 PM

27. I ahve mentioned .22 bolt actions with skeleton stocks at gun shows

Selling like hotcakes, because they look cool. They look like what people think sniper rifles or SWAT rifles look like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:08 PM

26. So the NRA crowd is ...

... making a great case for banning "semi" automatic weapons also.

Works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:12 PM

28. It's used for hunting 'The most dangerous game"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)


Response to wandy (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:15 PM

36. You show how to commit Federal crimes?

 

Where do you and your fellow members meet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #36)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:22 PM

40. I don't even own a gun! I'm pointing out how Fing easy it is to turn this thing auto......

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:30 PM

49. Guarantee you won't after .gov gets through with your little stunt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:34 PM

55. Laws prohibit the manufacture or importation of guns that can be easily converted to full auto.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:43 PM

68. You need to do your research better then.

 

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 Conversion for the AR-15

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.


There are two types of AR15 Drop-In Auto-Sears (DIAS) available; (1)the so called ”legal pre-81” auto sears and (2)the registered auto sear. The “pre-81” sears are commonly advertised in Shotgun News for about $125-$200. The registered and transferable ones are much more difficult to find, and currently (Nov-2003) are priced in the $7500 - 8500 price range. The purpose and function of each type is the same; to convert a semi-automatic AR15 rifle to full automatic. While there is no physical difference between the two, there are enormous legal differences - one is completely legal to own and use, the other is a felony waiting to happen.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #68)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:35 PM

104. They used to make gadgets that stripped out DVD anticopy signals.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:25 PM

93. Relevance?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:18 PM

37. You seem to be another who has more of an issue with the magazine capacity then with the gun itself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:27 PM

46. I'm just unnerved at how easy it is to convert one of these things........

At the moment although James Holmes may have had a high IQ I'm just thankfull he didn't think of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #46)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:34 PM

53. The machine work needed to do a proper conversion requires special equipment and is not simple.

 

A milling machine is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #46)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:39 PM

62. It's not that easy on post 1986 rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:33 PM

52. Methods 1 and 2 require precision machine work, and are no longer available to private citizens

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:43 PM

67. No gun shop would do that -- and you should delete your post

That is a big time Federal crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #67)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:09 PM

85. I'll go with that. Even if ithe infor is out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #85)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:28 PM

98. Make them work for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:13 PM

31. bottom rifle is an AK-47, fires child-seeking bullets

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:27 PM

44. I've seen numerous articles where it was reported that the weapon was an AK-47

Only later to be corrected that it was actually something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #44)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:36 PM

105. Yes. A banana, perhaps. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:13 PM

32. Me, Too

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:21 PM

39. He could have changed standard magazines a few times

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:26 PM

43. Yes. I read his drum magazine jammed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:23 PM

42. Then argue for a ban on high capacity magazines.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:46 PM

166. Banning of anything

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:28 PM

47. Ah, the "RKBA is about hunting, not self-defense" mantra.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:52 PM

110. The best defense is an insult.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:14 PM

33. 'Assault rifle' means an automatic or select-fire rifle - i.e., more than one round

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:14 PM

34. That's not the actual argument, though.

 

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:27 PM

45. In the 1980's you may have been right.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:31 PM

50. Have you ever seen large spoilers attached to front wheel drive economy cars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #50)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:49 PM

74. This

And yes, yesterday, in the Target parking lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:37 PM

59. which cowards need a semi-automatic gun to hunt?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:39 PM

64. I'd post a link to a set of photos taken by a guy in Georgia who used a spear to hunt wild pigs

 

But it's too gristly. Shooting the animals would have been far more humane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:01 PM

81. Many people hunt with semi-auto pistols

In parts of lower Michigan, one can only hunt deer with a pistol or shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #81)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:30 PM

100. Really? Why?

I don't hunt, although I know hunters, and they always hunt with "deer rifles."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #100)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:38 PM

106. This is for the more populated areas

Where there's a greater chance of a stray bullet fired from a rifle hitting someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #106)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:54 PM

111. Gotcha -- that makes sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #100)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:38 PM

107. Iowa has the same rules

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #107)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:55 PM

113. That all makes sense -- thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #100)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:48 AM

174. rifled bullets, as opposed to a shotgun slug, travel vast distances (up to a mile)

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:24 PM

91. Some hunters prefer a semi-auto.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:26 PM

94. I would probably go with a semiauto if I were to hunt

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:27 PM

97. So many misconceptions in there

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:36 PM

134. Language. It's a problem.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 09:54 PM

189. The kind of cowards that hunt pissed-off man-eating predators

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #59)

Wed Jul 25, 2012, 11:53 AM

209. The overwhelming majority of U.S. gun owners are nonhunters (>80%).

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:55 PM

78. C'mon, you're saying policy should be based on the visual design of a gun?



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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:08 PM

84. It is a semi-auto assault weapon, don't let anyone kid you.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:17 PM

88. I strongly agree.

 

These automatic assault weapons should be outlawed. How many more innocent people have to die?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #88)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:24 PM

92. No automatic assault guns were used in this tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #88)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:28 PM

99. Because it needs to be repeated: no automatics were used in CO.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #88)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:32 PM

102. It is not an automatic weapon

Good God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:27 PM

96. As far as I am concerned..

.. those rifles are in the same class and should be banned completely
for private use. Period. Hunting my eye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 02:43 PM

108. There are two distinct definitions for "assault rifle"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #108)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:04 PM

115. No, an assault rifle is an automatic weapon

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:09 PM

117. to the OP:

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:14 PM

122. The dead don't care about the trivial technical minutiae of firearms design.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:58 AM

176. I tell you the problem

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:17 AM

179. Personally, I think anyone attracted to the second gun should be prohibited from owning guns.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:37 PM

193. What does that scary black gun do differently?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #193)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:15 AM

200. I think it's too scared to tell you...

I guess you'll have to buy it flowers, date it and then pop the question on the 3rd date....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 12:08 AM

199. Assault rifles are select fire (full auto/semi auto); AR-15s (civilian model) are semi-auto only

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:14 PM

207. Thanks to those who provided some answers to my questions...

it was educational


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread