General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe only purpose of "assault" weapons is to kill people.
hunting rifles have a legitimate purpose, hunting (ducks from PETA nuts), there is no reason for a civilian to have these "military-style" fire arms with magazines with 30 or 50 rounds of ammo. Hell, I believe in many states it's ILLEGAL to hunt using such huge cartridges.
I don't think anyone should have such weapons.
And please don't give me the "BUT IT'S MY FREEDUMB!!!" nonsense.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Response to Odin2005 (Original post)
Post removed
flvegan
(64,408 posts)PETA nut comment aside, lol!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I am not a gun enthusiast but I understand why some people like them. Having used M-16 in Vietnam, I do worry about the idea that people like these types of weapons which as you say is made for killing. I think we glamorize war way too much with all the talk of honor and glory and such. I think those who like them are the ones who glamorize war.
doc03
(35,348 posts)magazine for?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)with one at the range. It is fun and a hobby just like midnight bowling for us.
renie408
(9,854 posts)then you are going to have to find another way to have fun.
I mean, I can't play Jarts any more.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)and not making a comment on what should be done about the problem. It seems a lot of people here have little experience re this firearm and there are a lot of misconceptions. I hope your holidays have been wonderful. Peace. Mojo
doc03
(35,348 posts)target you take aim and squeeze off a round. If you need a 30 round magazine you are just
wasting ammo you aren't hitting anything. I shoot a Springfield XDM 40 cal. that has a 16 round magazine, I have never loaded more than 10 rounds in it. When I shoot at a target I only load 5 rounds. Once in a while I will empty the 10 rounds just for fun, that's $4 in like 3 seconds.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)My husband makes his own ammo so the cost is minimal.
doc03
(35,348 posts)kill people. You don't save all that much reloading I know I have done it myself. I qualified Expert in both the M14 and M-16 in the army and I don't need 30 rounds to hit a target. Even deer hunting 3 rounds is all that is legal.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Sez you.
Seriously, why always the assertion about killing people? Based on no evidence whatsoever? There are millions of these magazines in private ownership. They are used in crimes so infrequently that you are literally more likely to choke to death while eating. If they were only used to kill people, our murder rate would be far higher than it is.
doc03
(35,348 posts)want to live out your gun fantasies. 20 6 years olds murdered so you can play army grow the f up.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Went to Iraq 4 times, Afghanistan 2 times.
I have some idea of what I'm talking about. You... do not. Have a real nice day, O.K.?
doc03
(35,348 posts)hides out waiting for a gun thread then come out to recite you talking points
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)where AR-15s are very popular.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)is there a time limit? don't you just shoot one at a time?
i've seen speed shooter exhibitons, but is there something where you have a certain amt of time to hit the target 5 times or something?
why 30? why 10?
hack89
(39,171 posts)just keep the big ones at home. It the gun that matters.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Bummer.
Just because they have found a way to 'have fun' and 'compete' with a WEAPON designed to KILL PEOPLE that really does not outweigh the society's right to protect itself.
hack89
(39,171 posts)nothing will change.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your sport weapon could be kept at a licensed facility under their control. What we as a society need to get rid of is the ridiculous proliferation of these weapons. They need to be controlled, as it has become quite obvious that we have too many out of control people.
LTX
(1,020 posts)It's about as "sporting" as sitting on the couch and playing your standard issue shoot-em-up video game.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)it is a physical activity with rules and a scoring system to determine a winner.
calimary
(81,322 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Well played.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)Just saying there is a meditative aspect to shooting.
Read "Zen and the Art of Archery"
Similar
LTX
(1,020 posts)Yes indeed, zen is the perfect analogy. There is a kind of meditative and soul-satisfying oneness with the universe when you blow a kid's head off.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A whole lot of sports started out either military or hunting-related. Even horse dressage.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)or are in love with it, and the media/gun lobby does the glamorizing...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)My AR-15 was not. But it is great for hunting (in approriate calibers), good for target shooting/competition and some self-defense scenarios.
I've been in the USAF for 22 years, seen people killed and helped pick up bodies. I do not glamorize war.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)calimary
(81,322 posts)just because you're denied access to your very own personal weapon of mass destruction.
Tough shit. Nobody's advocating taking your handguns away. You're not being dis-armed.
And I reserve the right to MY freedom not to be mowed down by some unhinged asshole or wackadoodle John Wayne wannabe with a hand-held overcompensation machine.
shintao
(487 posts)Anytime you take away someone's else's freedom, you have just limited your own.
You want to take away other people's freedoms for some false sense of insecurity you are experiencing. You are willing to destroy the constitution one article at a time until you have lost all the rights maintained by the sacrifices of Americans for over two hundred years. The problem with this spoiled generation is the notion that freedom is free, that you don't have to sacrifice to have it, you don't have to die or feel pain or discomfort to have it. Well your wrong. Arlington is full of patriotic brothers of mine that paid the ultimate price for your freedoms that you would give away so nonchalantly and carelessly. Do you think 20 children is a reason to destroy 200 years of American history and millions of Americans sacrificed their lives over? Perhaps if you had stood on a bloody battlefied like I have, and held my brothers as life slipped away from, or talked to their parents about their last dying words, perhaps then you would understand the sacrifice America makes for freedom. If you do nothing else in your life, go down to your local VA hospital and see whats left of combat veterans that have paid the price for freedom.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)not a freedom a PRIVILEGE
your comment about the 20 children offends me- everybody respects veterans, and this has nothing to do with war at all.
you are saying we fought all those wars to protect guns.
not true- its a much bigger concept. you fought to protect america- thank you. i am american, also, and my opinion counts exactly as much as yours does.
americans are entitled to be in public, without fear of being shot.
cops have a right to have the biggest guns- they fight criminals
freedom requires responsibility
why don't you go to a SCHOOL KIDS FUNERAL and see the price they paid for YOUR PERSONAL freedom
shintao
(487 posts)A privilege is something you can take away, like a drivers license. A freedom is something that is static, and guess what the 2nd says, shall not be infringed. Know what infringed means?
I didn't say we fought the wars to only protect guns. We fought it to preserve the freedoms you want to throw away.
I already told you it is a much bigger concept, and I know what I fought for, why don't you know what I fought for?
You are welcome to an opinion, not to destroying the constitution on a emtional whim. Opine away! Protest!
Being in public is protected by the 1st Amendment. Show me where you can be in public without fear? That is not a freedom or a priviledged right. Cops have no more right to bigger guns than I have. If I had the money I can buy an assault track, a jet, a battleship, a cannon, a tank, or whatever. Go look up militay sales and sin no more. We have people in this country sending rockets into space, and you think I can't be armed as well as cop on the street?? LOL!
Yes, freedom does require responsibility and it is time you become responsible for freedom. Because everytime you give away someone else's freedoms, you have just limited your own.
Yes, those kids paid a price for freedom that you as an adult are afraid to make. Those that cannot protect freedom, don't deserve to have it.
calimary
(81,322 posts)AHHHH! GREAT quote, my friend!
However, it appears from your writing that you would have that go only one way. What about the responsibility that owning firearms should bring with it? Your arguments suggest that gun owners have no responsibility. They just have their "rights." From the behavior I've witnessed, that certainly seems true. The right to own and use any goddamn kind of goddamn gun anybody feels like owning - trumps anyone else's right not to be mowed down by them.
I am NOT afraid to protect MY freedom to live safely from YOUR so-called "freedom" to have the means to blow me away with war-weapons that have NO place in civilian hands.
billh58
(6,635 posts)get to you. He doesn't realize how laughable he really is.
Response to billh58 (Reply #139)
shintao This message was self-deleted by its author.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)he also doesn't know I know how laughable he is.
too bad he isn't funny! and how are you supposed to argue with this-
what is wrong with having a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people? As to whatever reason you have, is of little reason to me.
sounds like, um, that red guy that lives down below!
shintao
(487 posts)There are a lot panty waisted people that think a rifle is to mix pancake dough, and they laugh about using it to make bisquits for breakfast, like most fools who don't know a rifle has one purpose and that is to kill. I would be interested in what you think it is for, bisquits or something else, so I can a good laugh myself. Come on laughing boy, cough us out a reason.
Anyone that would that would salute a Swiftboating piece of dung is a fool as well. LOL!!
Response to billh58 (Reply #139)
Post removed
billh58
(6,635 posts)is NOT a fucking right to own any weapon of choice, nor to carry it any fucking where you want. I was in the military as well -- Vietnam -- and I saw many of my friends "pay the ultimate price." You do not have a lock on patriotism, and you certainly do not speak for all veterans. Using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to allow the unchecked proliferation of lethal weapons places you squarely in the camp of the neoconservative, right-wing, Republican fucking NRA.
America does NOT have 200 fucking years of history of civilians owning assault weapons. No rational American is asking for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or wants to take away your precious gun. What we want is sane and reasonable regulation of who gets to own a fucking gun, and to make gun owners responsible and accountable for the fucking things.
Before you preach to other combat vets about patriotism, examine whether or not "20 children" plus the 30,000 fellow Americans (roughly 85 per day, every day) who die each year are worth the price of unfettered gun ownership. That is three times (in just one year) the number of total American combat deaths in Iraq AND Afghanistan in 10 fucking years of war.
The chances of an American being killed by a gun on any given day is several times more than any other developed country in the WORLD. Is that really what we risked our lives and fought for? Not me, and not what my friends died for either. You may think that patriotism means allowing every asshat who wants a gun to have one, but then again thinking like that is what allowed the fucking NRA to help kill more Americans in one year than the Taliban has in 10 years.
To answer your question about whether or not the lives of 20 precious, innocent children is a "reason to destroy 200 years of American history," the answer is not only yes, but hell yes! We have "destroyed" American history by outlawing slavery and supporting the civil rights of ALL Americans. We have "destroyed" American history by allowing gay people to love each other openly. We have "destroyed" American history in many ways which have been a part of this country growing up and at least attempting to cure its own ills.
Now go wrap yourself in your flag and think really hard about why the rest of us chose to serve our country, AND our fellow citizens. You may just find that your thinking is in a distinct minority of American military vets.
Response to billh58 (Reply #102)
shintao This message was self-deleted by its author.
LTX
(1,020 posts)are the product of NRA political influence, and date from the 1970's. If you would like to learn about the history of 2nd Amendment interpretation, you may want to read this:
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_Heller-HLRev.pdf
Response to shintao (Reply #112)
billh58 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to billh58 (Reply #115)
shintao This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are in luck though, I don't alert. I prefer this bilge to be there for all to see.
billh58
(6,635 posts)prefer to let this stand as typical NRA talking point garbage, and be seen for what it really is.
shintao
(487 posts)I deleted my posts, so thanks for the sound advice. I on the other hand find his posts offensive and will alert. Thks!
Toronto
(183 posts)We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note that Life is the first inalienable right
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)You've got all the usual cliches and false equivalencies down pat.
calimary
(81,322 posts)especially those who still suffer from PTSD).
I am in no way demeaning your service or sacrifice, or those of your brothers in arms. The ridiculous mis-read of the "right" to bear arms needs VERY BADLY to be revisited and rewritten. YES. And I think perhaps YOU should go visit the grieving moms and dads and siblings of those 20 children whose deaths you so cavalierly shrug off, and explain to them why this nutcase who killed their babies had the "freedom" to mow them down just as pretty as he pleased, because his "right" to have those mow-down machines is so damned sacrosanct and untouchable. Because heaven forbid, we're not allowed to try to keep extreme death-machines out of his cold dead hands, either, can we? YEAH. DAMN RIGHT I want to see that changed.
As I write this, I've got CNN on, and they're reporting about YET ANOTHER gun-crazy who took out a couple of volunteer firefighters TRYING TO FIGHT A HOUSE FIRE, as well as his sister, in upstate New York. And he finally relieved us of his own miserable self, too. The guy had another one of those bushmaster dream machines that you seem so adamant about any nutcase having. Without any background checks. Hell, his MOTHER owned the guns. She was a law-abiding citizen. Look how well that worked out for her.
And truly, I have to ask - have even you not had enough of this by now? You don't think this is an utter abomination? A complete abominable misread and misinterpretation and utter reckless abuse of the "right" to bear arms? I'm seriously not so sure that this would have translated from the original, or that the Founders of this country had in mind the "right" to mow down innocent people, NON-combatants, when the Second Amendment was crafted, and intended for the ability to resist an invading army from another country. Were those 20 children and their teachers some invading army from another country??????? And even if so, to follow the strictest interpretation of the Second Amendment, we'd all have to be using muskets - for all those self-titled "originalists" out there who think all things surrounding the Constitution should be interpreted and acted upon - with an 18th-Century mindset. Last time I looked, it was the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.
I recognize the sacrifice the rest of us are being forced to make, against our will and at great threat of bodily harm or death, for the freedom others feel they simply MUST have, to possess personal weapons of mass destruction. AS I'VE SAID in an earlier post - nobody's trying to take your handguns away. It's the assault rifles - instruments designed SOLELY AND SPECIFICALLY for mowing down large quantities of people, not just one enemy at a time. YES I'm against that.
And you and your fellows fought and sacrified, and indeed some of them died - for MY right to express my outrage about these needless crimes and senseless deaths, and to try to do something to stop them.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Really. We just had lots of children murdered by your jackoff fantasy. Take it somewhere else. I'll take my lock now.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
***
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourteenth+Amendment
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Only two acceptable opinions these days:
1. The crazy opinion.
2. 80% of the crazy opinion.
See? No room for making sense.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)On the plus side, this OP does do well for playing buzz-word bingo!
jal777
(59 posts)is not legal in some states for hunting deer sized game because it it's not big/powerful enough to bring deer down if precise shots aren't taken. Please inform yourself before making statements like "I believe in many states it's ILLEGAL to hunt using such huge cartridges". It just brings down your whole ideology in the eyes of the well informed.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)lack of understanding as stating "hunting rifles have a legitimate purpose, hunting (ducks from PETA nuts)"..of coarse hunting ducks with a rifle is a federal crime..
Amaril
(1,267 posts)The OP wasn't talking about hunting ducks with a rifle. He was saying that the legitimate purpose of rifles is hunting and that he was ducking (i.e. hiding) for cover from any passionate PETA supporters that might be reading his OP.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so what are you talking about?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)given the context of the past couple of weeks....which is why this conversation is going on in GD in the first place?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Without having to stoop to learning all the lurid jargon.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)All one needs to know about using weapons, is how to point the killing machine in the general direction of the target and how to pull the trigger. How many mass murders can site the statistics on hundreds of types of guns and ammo? They don't need that information to kill people and neither do the saner among us that want to ban military weapons and their knock-offs in civilian hands.
What is so hard to understand?
sir pball
(4,743 posts)Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle. Also issued by the US Army as the M24 Sniper Weapons System.
Mine has a heavy barrel, scope, bipod and is even (gasp) BLACK...at a glance it's hard to tell it from the genuine military article.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Mass murderers also aren't the one's who will be writing the laws designed to try to reduce the number of these atrocities. What they might or might not know about the objects being potentially regulated is utterly irrelevant. For those who will write these laws, however, familiarity is important. Without it, you end up with a laughable sham like the first AWB. If some effort is going to be made to ban or severely regulate paramilitary firearms, then it behooves the legislators and those who make proposals to them to know what they're talking about.
RC
(25,592 posts)And not a binary bit more.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)an actual "military weapon". I've also hunted with my AR-15, which is not a military weapon.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)guns have murdered 200 people in the last week
sounds pretty criminal to me, the details aren't important.
there are going to be laws made, you are wasting your time nitpicking
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If you actually believe that, then I suspect there's no point whatsoever in attempting any dialogue here, but what the hell. It's a discussion forum. Might as well give it a try.
"there are going to be laws made, you are wasting your time nitpicking "
"Nitpicking," as you call it, is precisely what making laws should be about. That's because precisely what happens after a law is enacted: the legal system nitpicks it to the point of absurdity. If a law is not to have horrible unintended consequences, if it is not to end up making things worse, then it has to be nitpicked just as finely before it is made as it inevitably will be after.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If only that were true...
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)3 guns 20 bullets total no MAGAZINE over 8 ROUNDS- any GUN you want
anything else you need a federal license, background, and insurance
there's the details. i repeat, if you ask me another ? i won't answer
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)That's more relevant than the size of the bullets.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sounds convenient and expensive
calimary
(81,322 posts)Glad you're here. As you can see - lots of passions aflame about this issue. Mine included!
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The cartoon is a panel that shows various tools.
It shows a chainsaw, then says
Use: cutting wood
It shows a Kitchen Knife
Use: cooking
It shows a baseball bat
Use: sports
It shows a hammer
use: construction
It then shows an ak-47
Use: killing people.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)as the relative of people that bowhunt, I have to say this.
If you need an ak-47 to shoot deer, you are WEAK
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)uses a cartridge that is roughly .30 caliber, it is a shorter round (less powder) than most cartridges used for hunting deer. I guess you don't understand how to make your own point.
Most assault weapons use much smaller rounds.
AllyCat
(16,189 posts)a less than complete understanding of the workings of a particular killing gun makes a whole argument against guns killing somehow nonsensical. You know darn well what the poster means.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)...but it was enough to blow away half my jaw and teeth in Vietnam. I spent 18 months in the hospital having my jaw reconstructed.
Tell me again how these weapons are so benign...
hack89
(39,171 posts)you would be dead.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)It was only thanks to a nurse at the evac hosp who noticed when I stopped breathing and got me trached that I survived.
The entry wound, midway between my nose and upper lip, required only one or two stitches. The exit wound (after the round blew away half my jaw and teeth and put a baseball-sized hole in my shoulder) was huge.
Yeah, I was lucky. But not thanks to the round. It was only thanks to the medical professionals who cared for me--and my own determination--that I survived.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that was the standard military round before the advent of the smaller, lower powered rounds that were developed for automatic assault rifles. A 30-06 would be a perfect example. It would have hit you with almost three times the energy.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)"It would have hit you with almost three times the energy." Do you even listen to what the fuck you are saying???
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)have some respect. do you think he really cares what size bullet it was?
the point is if you can kill a deer with a arrow, needing a AK47 is kinda weak and unsportsmanlike, get it?
hack89
(39,171 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)you get-
3 gun limit. 20 bullet limit.
two 6 shooters and and 8 round rifle
2 10 round pistols
2 8 round pistols and a 4 round rifle
anything over 8 rounds is a federal license, background, license, INSURANCE
hack89
(39,171 posts)got it.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)like i said. you said nothing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)think about it.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)the solution is in the future. please go away
hack89
(39,171 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Would somebody argue with a vietnam vet who talked about getting his jaw shot out, and then say "well it was still less powerful than such and such."
Pinboy, kudos to you and others who try to educate people and what assault weapons really do. You are the sort of person many of these suburban rambos want to be, and never will be, no matter how many gun they have locked away (or unlocked waiting for their teenage son to use.)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Hell, I didn't even mention how my bone graft had to be re-done (twice) when it failed 7 years later.
The original, experimental graft by my Army docs used bone marrow from my hip. When it failed 7 years later, Navy docs re-did it, first by taking one of my ribs for the graft, and when that failed they went into my other hip for bone to reconstruct my jaw.
Fuck those internet Rambos. They don't have a fucking clue.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The poster was implying an AK 47 is much too powerful for deer hunting. I was simply providing correct information.
Why is it ok for someone who knows little about guns to post (incorrect) particulars about guns, but it is not ok for someone knowledgeable about guns to post corrections
You used a talking point that minimized the lethality of the weapon and its ammo.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)over yours, frankly, as he shot people and was shot by people.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Pretty good for white-tail deer.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Psycho with Hunting rifle:
Bang
Bang
has to reload, gets tackled, off to jail.
Psycho with AK-47 or AR-15
bang bang bang bangbang bang bang
quick reload..
bang bang bang
In short, hunting rifles are seafer because they have a much large and easier reloaded magazine. They are meant for firefights, not deer hunts.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)When used in hunting, they have exactly the same magazine restrictions as any other hunting rifles, usually 5 rounds or less, depending on state. (Oddly, in California, you can use 10 round magazines.... )
That made no sense at all.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)My typo aside, the idea is, hunting rifles will never pack the massive magazine that combat rifles do, and that is because, well, they are not built for firefights. Why someone would need anything with more than a dozen rounds to short deer is ridiculous, especially since Deer have been hinted with Bow and Arrow (and still are.)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Mauser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin_nagant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_Garand
I have several varieties of the top three. Every one was originally built for "firefights". So was the Winchester .30-30. Every common hunting rifle in existance is derived directly from a military rifle.
And, as stated, you can't generally hunt with "more than a dozen rounds", by law.
We moved on from the bow, for the most part, for many reasons, including efficiency. By that standard, we should still be restricted to hand-powered printing presses and horse-transportation.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)what happens to an Adam lanza or any numerous ones when these weapons, which are not equipped with easy, clip on magazines with more then 12 shots, run out of ammo?
The heavy clip, easy reloaded weapons are meant so that any fool can spray into a bunch (like the trenches the Tommy Gun was originally meant for) or where someone can keep shooting without reloading, because even these psychotic shooters know that once they have to reload, they go from Superman to a mortal man.
These assault weapons were built to carry more ammo, because in warfare, soldiers could not take time to reload.split seconds, as any veteran can tell you, can make the difference between going home and going into a body bag. The key word is, in warfare. No hunter has to worry about reloading in a split second because the Deer in front of him is firing an AK-47.
Heaven knows that if Deer could just drive down I-75 to a Florida "Gun Show", there would be no shortage of merchants selling them ammo, turning Bambi into Rambo. Actually, that won't happen, the merchants merely stick to ex-cons jacked up on anti-depressant medications, or his good buddy, who will sell it to him.
OH, and about the full auto conversion question you had in the other reply: (no one could really convert these into full auto)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090606132933AAhTf7I
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-359034.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x463417
Granted, I will bet half of these can get you killed, maimed, or worse) but, keep in mind, we asre dealign with people who do nto intened to survive their killing sprees.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I see you're not really here for a rational discussion, so have a great day.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)can make a murder, but are not as likely to be used in shooting sprees. Also, many gun "enthusiasts" brag about how easy it is to change a semi auto into an auto.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Well, it's nowhere as "easy" as some people claim. (And I'd like to see a citation to such.) Such conversions are also generally quite dangerous to the user, as the fire-control mechanisms are usually very failure-prone. (At least the ones I've actually heard of.) Oddly, we don't hear about such items used frequently, or even infrequently, in crimes. If you know of any, please present them.
As an aside, if you have the tools and training to convert a semi-auto to a full-auto, you're equiped to make a full-auto from scratch.
Regardless of all that, just having the parts available is a Federal crime. Hell, they put people in jail for have a firearm malfunction to full auto due to wear or breakage. They don't sell "kits" at gun shows, or through the internet.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Which has been used for deer-hunting for over a century. It's at the lower-power end of the deer-hunting calibers. If you use it for hunting deer, it's actually rather challenging becaus you need to be fairly close, and a good shot.
shintao
(487 posts)Well I must ask you, what is wrong with having a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people? As to whatever reason you have, is of little reason to me. The 2nd clearly states, "shall not be infringed," and there is only one reason why the founders used that language. So that people like you will not infringe on people like me.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)aardvark401
(11 posts)words "the right of the people" in the second amendment only refer to a militia then when those same words are used in the 1st and 4th amendments who gets to decide what group they are referring to?
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Depending on what era in which one looks, "the militia" bore a very, very strong resemblance to the levee en masse invoked by revolutionary France at about the same time. For the French, that meant everyone including women, children and old men, were conscripted to defend France for the duration of their emergency.
In 1792, Congress defined the militia as "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years." Service in the militia was directly tied to citizenship--at least for those who fell within the proper age, gender and status of servitude brackets.
Congress can and has changed the exact definition over time, but the bottom line is that the people are responsible for "the common defense," and you can bet your ass that the framers at the time considered the government they were creating as one of the entities from which the people needed to defend themselves.
I would argue that the last time the prospect of "the people" exercising their right to a common defense was the most important thing--perhaps the only thing--that prevented the Bush cabal from extending their stay in Washington indefinitely. Think about what they did: they entered by virtual coup d'etat, broke every law and convention of decency they felt like breaking, ruled by fear under the veil of wartime secrecy--a war they created out of thin air, I might add--and then just walked away when the Constitution they trampled every fucking day told them it was time to go.
So why did they follow the Constitution on that day, the day they had to leave? I think it is because millions of undocumented firearms in the United States would have pointed squarely at them if they had dared to try to stay. It was a line that even they dared not cross.
So, there's that.
shintao
(487 posts)2nd Amendment
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.
It doesn't say, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say, A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No, no, it does say, 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.
That is because the 2nd Addresses the militia and the people, which form the balance of power between government and citizens.
micraphone
(334 posts)REGULATIONS!
What part of that bit is not clear?
edit: sp
hack89
(39,171 posts)From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)So, by your own reading, the 2A tells government to keep their hands off the arms of well-regulated militias.
As to whether said militias can have nukes...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)the militia was the people as a whole, not a government organization. The right belonged to the people, like every right in the Bill of Rights. There is not a single collective right or government power enumerated in the the BOR. Militia service was one reason for an armed populace but not the only one. The militia clause is certainly not a limiting clause.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Can you point to any similar bits in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which comment (rather randomly, if you're correct) rather than limit?
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)It is pretty clear what the framers of the Constitution meant
you should probably let the supreme court know about that, it will be a big relief to them
The militia was ordinary Americans, that would be called to duty by the government. Like the National Guard, civilians go and do a duty practice for the government each month. While there they are government, when they leave thay are civilian. And while they are there as government, it is the armed populace of citizens that strikes the balance of power to protect themselves from the militia (NG).
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)In that context, would you say it refers to the people as a whole or a government organization?
hack89
(39,171 posts)it encompassed what it meant to be a citizen.
Which is how the unorganized militia is still defined by law today.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)refers to the people as a whole and not a goverment organization? If you're not saying this, then my question remains unanswered.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it had no application beyond that. The militia was the body of armed citizens from which the federal government could call on in times of emergency. However the militias were not by definition Federal military organizations.
Owning a gun was a civic responsibility protected by a civil liberty. And don't forget that there are two kinds of militia recognized in US law - the organized militia and the unorganized militia. You are a member of the latter.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)Maybe the text of the Fifth will help. I had assumed familiarilty, now i'm not so sure.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
emphasis not in the original.
This militia refers to the people as a whole and not a government organization?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the unorganized militia and the organized militia.
The unorganized militia is the people as a whole (actually all free men). From that large group a smaller group can be trained as military units and taken into federal service - they are the organized militia mentioned in the 5A.
You are a member of the unorganized militia but you are still able to enjoy your 5th Amendment rights because the militia clause only applies to the organized militia.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)'Militia' refers to a goverment organization. In your post to which I initially replied, you stated that "the framers of the Constitution meant the militia was the people as a whole, not a government organization". So, this statement is not as self evident as you'd like it to be.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Would the Ku Klux Klan be considered an unorganized Militia? Would their killing of black people be considered a strike by said militia. I ask this because I actually had a Klans person from Mississippi use your same talking point to say JUST that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it says nothing about unofficial militias kind the plan.
US law simple says that all men are part of the unofficial militia. That is all.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)regulated past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
so by your (pasted) logic, the militia is a machine?
or the 2nd amendment is about nutrition?
hack89
(39,171 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)the militia was supposed to protect the country as a back up for the army.
the still do, ever heard of the national guard?
and don't post any crap about the definition of a militia, i just told you. i don't care a whit if you disgree
hack89
(39,171 posts)you will most likely find that you are a member of a militia.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)great. i have 1 gun. i'm all set. go away
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)That is because the 2nd Addresses the militia and the people, which form the balance of power between government and citizens.
on what planet?
the militia was supposed to help fight the brits. now it is the national guard.
it doesn't say 'make up your own version of the 2nd" anywhere
shintao
(487 posts)jp76
(28 posts)Everyone always argues about what the Framers meant...what do the Federalist Papers say? Those were articles written by the primary authors of the Constitution to explain things to the common person in plain language, right?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)jp76
(28 posts)The last couple of sections.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)His vision came to be after the civil war.
jp76
(28 posts)And the two were still friends!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)barbtries
(28,799 posts)whatever happened to the well regulated part of the 2nd amendment
shintao
(487 posts)Here is a lil history on how the states militias proceded and eventually changed into the National Guard of each state we have today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
barbtries
(28,799 posts)refuses any regulations even on assault rifles, high volume clips or whatever they're called. how does that square with the 2nd amendment.
since we have a national guard, not to mention a standing army, navy, air force and the marines, there is no reason that every citizen needs to be armed. especially not with certain weapons for which there is no good reason.
shintao
(487 posts)I am no fan of the NRA Mouse Club, so whatever they think or do is no concern to me. I refuse any regulations on the 2nd because it clearly states, Shall Not Be Infringed.
It is because you have those mentioned military that citizens have a right to bare arms. Balance of power means I can protect my family from my own government.
And while you might think there is no good reason, why don't I come over and tell you what you don't need at your place for any good reason. I will start in your closet of clothes, throw out the make-up, get rid of the lamp shades, and dig out your front lawn. LOL!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Concepts.
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.
RC
(25,592 posts)Or when pressed, maintain that means anyone with a gun?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....to prevent private citizens from acquiring a bazooka?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)You may have trouble getting the rockets...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So you would be fine with prohibitive regulation of ammunition?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If the government can regulate any small arms ammunition it can regulate all small arms ammunition, for example the .233 bullets used in AR-15 style weapons could simply be prohibited for civilian use.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Rockets and other explosives are destructive devices. As indiscriminate weapons, they serve no legitimate purpose in the hands on civilians due to them causing death/damage to things other than your target.
What about the .223/5.56 ammo used in non-AR-15-style rifles?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"Arms" a modern militia would have to keep. But it was you who started in with bazookas being ok for purchase. Changed your mind maybe?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The original intent was for standard military grade weapons kept by civilians as part of a citizen militia. Lets leave the militia part out, are you seriously proposing that all military small arms should be available for purchase and possession by all citizens?
RPGs, hand held SAMs, hand held atw, full auto assault rifles, machine guns, mortars?
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)fraudI repeat the word fraudon the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072202
please open your mind a little
Well I must ask you, what is wrong with having a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people?
geez! its against the law to kill people.
if that is the guns only purpose, you can't shoot it until your life is threatened-which will probably never happen
what's the point of having a gun you can't shoot?
billh58
(6,635 posts)the Gungeon where people who think like you will not laugh at you. You are out of your depth here.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)i'd buy you a beer if i could!
Response to Odin2005 (Original post)
Post removed
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And inheritance should either be heavily taxed or simply burned?
Grins
(7,218 posts)I was in the Army in 1969, and on the 45 pistol range. Range officer was a Major who I can still see in my head. Super serious guy.
During the range safety briefing he went out of his way to say the ONLY reason anyone wold have a pistol is to kill someone.
He did think it o.k. For a legitimate hunter to have a pistol for the coup d'grace on a animal they had wounded, but also said they should have been better marksmen to begin with.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)but I have two brothers who have hunted deer with handguns.
A friend of mine in Montana had to use his .45 to kill a deer a few weeks ago. His neighbor hit the deer on the road out to his place, and the deer's pelvis was shattered, but was still alive. He said "It just sucked". But yea, generally pistols are made to kill people.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I take anything an officer offers a pronouncement on with a barrel of salt.
Mister Ed
(5,940 posts)...then how can I possibly fight off the Government when they come to confiscate my arsenal of high-powered weapons?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Mister Ed
(5,940 posts)...so's I can fight off the Government when they come to confiscate my AR-15.
Thanks again!
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Your OP states the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people. Aside from the fact that it's not the ONLY reason to own one (hunt, target, competition, etc.) it presumes that killing people is never acceptable. That's incorrect.
What about self-defense? While the odds of actually needing to use deadly force are extremely slim, such unavoidable situations do arise occasionally. And not only is the killing of others never not acceptable, it even has a legal precedent known as justified homicide (ie: self-defense).
While your emotionally-charged buzz-word word-salad sound great and stuff; it ignores the standing fact that sometimes people need killed. If you had to shingle a house with nails, would you rather use a hammer or air-powered clip-fed automatic nailer? So if the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people, and you have one such situation on your hands... might as well use the better tool for the job, eh?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The idiots who buy these Bushmaster rifles are getting them so they can "defend themselves" from UN Black Helicopters.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)just tell me, how many times do you mean by 'sometimes'? it doesn't sound like very many!
Sometimes, killing people is a legitimate solution to a dire situation.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Gee, this game is fun!
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)nope. not fun. easy enough to win, but not fun in the least!
edit: you didn't answer this question. you don't know the answer. there isn't one.
sometimes? how many times?
so what you really said was- KILLING PEOPLE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOLUTION
i'll agree with you then, if that's what you meant!
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)Its true that an AR15 is not the only firearm that work well in that type of situation.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Ignoring the fact that "assault weapon"'s definition is a failed attempt to draw a line between "legitimate sporting" and illegitimate weapons of terror", yeah, the weapons that fall under the arbitrary definition are generally intended for killing people.
Of course, in states that have assault weapons bans, there are tons of weapons that are not assault weapons but are as close as the law allows, and they are ALSO optimized for killing people. That's what was used in Newtown, by the way.
And, finally, there are tons of weapons that are not close to being assault weapons, but are also optimized and intended for killing people. They're called handguns.
I'm continually mystified that people that surprised that a weapon that is optimized for self-defense is also optimized for offense. I'm also continually mystified that people don't realize that there's generally not that much difference between a rifle optimized for self-defense and those optimized for hunting, sport shooting, and target shooting.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You'll get no respect for that here...
ReRe
(10,597 posts)1620rock
(2,218 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)AR-15s usually shoot an anemic 5.56mm round which is too small for many kinds of hunting (deer). There are special hunting AR15s chambered in larger calibers, but they typically don't have large capacity magazines.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)game that are hunted.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)And that is the one that is primarily found in the 30 or 50 round magazines.
And I know of no states that have banned that cartridge for hunting.
PLEASE, if you're going to advocate for banning rifles or pistols get familiar with the nomenclature before you rant.
Thanks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The problem with the NATO round is the other things that it does when it hits..see cavitation...
But the round is all but that large for a rifle round.
All the wonderful things one learns when trying not to get hit at shootouts...
Also the 30.06 has a greater effective range than the NATO round.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Some of the rifles in question are 30.06
Little knowledge goes a long way. Some AR type weapons are chambered for it.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...because here in Minnesota using such large magazines for hunting is illegal
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To hunt deer?
Or for that matter any other 30.06 chambered deer rifle?
What is illegal for hunting is, like California, the extended magazine. States have actually put a limit how many rounds you carry on you when you go hunting. The Garand is very much hunting legal.
What is illegal is the 30 round magazine.
(For the record, the Garand does not use detachable magazines either)
As I said, a little knowledge. Not because the gunnies will not go crazy if you call a clip a magazine and vice versa, they have and will continue to do such.
But seriously, both rounds are hunting legal across the United States.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)Submachine guns likewise.
Almost any realistic self-defense need can be met by a pistol or shotgun. The only people who need assault rifles for defense are those who expect to be attacked by a gang or a mob or an army. So unless the Chinese invade, or the illuminati bring out the One World Government, or there's a universal class/race war, or the zombies rise...
I have relatives who like to list lots of cases where a crime or a crazy killer was stopped by a good guy who was armed. But I've never heard a story where the moral was "Thank goodness this brave samaritan had an assault rifle and plenty of clips, instead of just a revolver or something."
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)on their person so your scenario would be illegal in any event
eta your allowed to load 4 times thats1 shell in the chamber and 2 in the magazine * 4
the type of gun you are speaking of here is also illegal to hunt ducks with a rifle would make no sense anyway there'd be nothing left of the duck, it is shotgun only
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Never heard that one before.
3-rounds-in-the-gun limit is a Federal law for hunting migratory birds.
One could hunt water-fowl with an AR, but I'd want a scope good enough to do head shots... and you can't shoot them sitting on the water anyway, so moot point.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Hunting Restrictions
Hunters are limited to 12 shells per trip in possession.
Within one hour of hunt completion, each party must return their entry
permit to the check station and report number of geese harvested.
Waterfowl and small game hunters must have guns unloaded and cased
except within 10 feet of assigned hunting stations.
Hunters are limited to one trip to the blinds before noon, and one trip after
noon, per day
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2012/waterfowl.pdf
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)In 2011, only 323 people were murdered with rifles. That's all rifles combined, not just "assault" weapons. By comparison, 496 people were murdered with blunt objects, 728 by bare hands, and 1,694 with knives.
[url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8[/url]
renie408
(9,854 posts)I cannot believe this is even a debate. As another poster showed, you can't buy a game of JARTS in this country because a couple of kids in the history of Jart throwing managed to get killed. But we have this HUGE argument about whether or not we should regulate a weapon that has little or no practical use and is used to kill dozens of people every year.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...the rates of violent crime more generally have been going down since 1994. That's because having guns with 30-round magazines makes it much easier to kill large number of people.
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)Remember Virginia Tech? Cho killed 32 people, and he didn't use an assault rifle, 30 round magazines or even 20 round magazines. He had 2 ordinary pistols with 15 round and 10 round magazines. Google Patrick Sherrill. He shot and killed 14 coworkers and wounded 6 others. You know what he used? 2 .45 pistols that hold 7 rounds each.
billh58
(6,635 posts)pointless statistics. What in the hell difference does it make to those who are dead what kind of a fucking gun killed them? 85 Americans die every fucking day from guns. Homicide, or suicide, assault rifle, or .22 single shot -- it makes no difference because the fucking NRA and people like you enabled and assisted with these unnecessary deaths. Americans are dying because of guns every day, and gun deaths are on pace to outnumber automobile deaths. But you want to have a discussion about which weapons are more efficient at killing?
Statistically speaking, Americans are more likely to die from guns than citizens from any other country in the fucking world! Are you NRA puppets proud of that fact as you hide behind the 2nd Amendment and twist its meaning? We hold the world record for gun deaths, and you people are proud of that? Statistically speaking, the NRA bought and paid for politicians who support gun manufacturers and their fucking "right" to spread death and misery all across this country.
Keep using meaningless statistics to support your NRA-directed positions, and watch as the American people begin to dismantle your stranglehold on our communities. Recent polls show that you are, at long last, losing the battle for your fight to place a gun in every hand, and for any reason.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)just a suggestion, could you post your eloquent answer here? maybe minus the gungeoneer part(first sentence)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022074455
billh58
(6,635 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)very cool, bill. what are your interests? besides the truth? i'm a farmer.
billh58
(6,635 posts)interests are pretty much getting up every morning...
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)rock on!
malaise
(269,054 posts)so who cares who dies???
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)malaise
(269,054 posts)You should post this article as a separate thread - it is must read!!
Ohio Joe
(21,758 posts)The whole freedom non-sense is exactly that.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Or are government and police only allowed to commit mass murder?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...because they don't need them.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)What others have you seen?
I've worked in England, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Turkey, Portugal and Greece.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)try reading something besides a 'how to not argue' book
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Japan is not in Europe.
Japanese police also carry the Nambu .38 pistol.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Through a suitcase nuke though!
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)they protect us.
they aren't. they have, but they aren't ALLOWED. NOBODY IS!
Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)Don't purchase one then...
patrice
(47,992 posts)weapons. You and your weapons, intentionally or accidentally, can become involved in events, which by virtue of the fact that those events include ASSAULT weapons, makes it necessary for me to consider the necessity that I own an assault weapon too.
Were we talking about other types of guns, non-assault weaponry, the increased possibilities that I might need those kinds of guns is qualitatively different, probabilities of my unsought involvement. are significantly much lower. If this wasn't true, there would be no such thing as assault weapons.
patrice
(47,992 posts)with the fact that a trait that can be called ASSAULT capable is inherently RECIPROCATING, ergo, regardless of causes and other effects, public resources are entailed without our consent and that violates the "security of a free State" clause in the 2nd Amendment.
Here's how I tried to parse out the various assault scenarios:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022074031#post49
patrice
(47,992 posts)manifest? As long as they aren't used, why should we be concerned about assault weapons?
I was just sorting through the types of scenarios in which the private ownership of assault weapons could become an assault upon the public and I happened to remember that states that have high Koch involvement against unions lately happen somewhy/somehow to border the Great Lakes, i.e. lots of fresh water. What are water rights like in that region?
typeviic
(61 posts)"Assault weapons" and "military style" weapons can only be purchased by law enforcement and the military. The reason is because they are FULLY AUTOMATIC capable.
However, the AR 15 rifle is not an "assault" weapon. It is semi-auto ONLY.
So if you want to ban semi auto weapons, like the AR 15, then so be it. Just trying to correct the misnomers
spin
(17,493 posts)Most if not all states limit the magazine capacity of any semi-auto center fire rifle used while hunting game such as deer. Florida's limit is 5 rounds. I believe that Florida does allow a hunter to use a higher capacity magazine while hunting feral hog which are considered a pest as they are not native to Florida and do considerable damage to the environment.
F&S Picks the 25 Best AR-Style Rifles
Photo Gallery by Michael O. Humphries. Uploaded on May 13, 2009
An Intro to the AR-Style Rifle
Black guns often get a bum rap. They can look a bit menacing, and their configuration and controls are radically different than those found on traditional sporting firearms. But the hunter who automatically dismisses AR-style rifles as legitimate sporting guns would be doing himself a major disservice. Why? Because the AR is one of the most capable, adaptable, and appealing firearm platforms on the market today. And these characteristics are helping it gain traction in the civilian market in its semi-automatic-only form.
***snip***
Over the past 50 years manufacturers have taken advantage of the guns modularity to attach optics and accessories, add new operating systems, allow larger chamberings, and even create civilian-legal semi-automatic-only versions. These guns have proved capable and popular with shooters of all stripes, especially varmint hunters. And recent developments have expanded the platform to big-game hunters as well.
This is because the qualities that make AR rifles so successful as a military design also make them highly capable as hunting firearms. Many models boast sub-MOA accuracy right out of the box, with some variants featuring performance that rivals that of custom target rifles.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles
The AR-15 is also used for competitive target shooting.
Basics of High Power Competition
Rules, Equipment, and Course of Fire
The most popular form of organized rifle-only competitive shooting in the United States is NRA High Power Competition. There are more High Power matches held across the country than benchrest matches by a huge margin. High Power Competition encompasses primarily Service Rifle and Match Rifle, with the lesser subdiscipline of Sporting Rifle. If you think F-Class* or Benchrest shooting is tough, High Power presents another level of challenge altogether. Apart from a sling, there are no mechanical crutches in High Power--your arms and body must support the full weight of the rifle as you engage the target from a variety of positions. The vast majority of High Power matches are iron sights only**. These factors place a premium on good eyesight, training, and overall fitness.
***snip***
The rifles currently defined as "Service Rifles" include the M1, M14, M16 and their commercial equivalents [such as the AR15 and Springfield M1A. While aftermarket triggers and barrels are allowed, along with other minor modifications, Service rifles are otherwise held to fairly strict one-design standards. In Service Rifle competition all of the top shooters' rifles have very similar performance so it is shooter skill rather than expensive technology that wins matches--at least in principle.]
http://www.6mmbr.com/highpowerbasics.html
Of course these facts are rarely mentioned by the media.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so your post is truly nonsense.
have you ever heard of sportsmanship? i doubt it.
do you need a black gun to shoot targets?
spin
(17,493 posts)rifles such as the AR-10 or AR-15 and similar rifles. The terminology is confusing. I could call them "assault weapons" but there is considerable confusion about the meaning of that term.
Assault weapon
This article is about the American politico-legal term. You may be looking for Assault rifle, or for FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon), M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon), or Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon.
Assault weapon is a classification of semi-automatic firearm utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge and is frequently conflated with assault rifle, a firearm with full-automatic (that is, machine gun) capability. Unlike the firearms related term "assault rifle", however, the term 'assault weapon' has no consistent or specific definition across all legal jurisdictions in the United States, and is, therefore, subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that can include military firearms in some states. In the United States, there are several statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes described as military-style cosmetic features. Using lists of cosmetic features or lists of specific firearms in defining semi-automatic assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1][2]
***snip***
Nonetheless, assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings.[6] For example, some pistols are also classified as assault weapons, despite clearly not possessing the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, under both state and Federal laws.[7] Another definition is any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.[8] The reason is that since the definition of assault weapon is only defined by cosmetic features, both semi-automatic firearms that possess these cosmetics, as well as full-auto firearms that possess these same cosmetic features, irrespective of the presence or absence of the operational functions of assault rifles, is enough in some states to cause a firearm to be classified by the term assault weapon. Federal Laws, however, clearly make the distinction that assault weapons that possess both the cosmetic and operational features of assault rifles are Title II weapons, not assault weapons, and Title II weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, passed in response to infamous Prohibition Era use of machine guns. Some state laws, however, make no such distinction, classifying all firearms with either the cosmetic features or the actual operational features of "assault rifles" as "assault weapons". Hence, some state definitions of assault weapon explicitly include assault rifles.[9] For example, in the State of Connecticut, an assault weapon is legally defined as "any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user".[10]. Only seven states have such state-level assault-weapons bans in place[11]; in all other states, assault weapons are considered semi-automatic only, per prior definitions established by Federal law.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
You have every right to call my post "nonsense" as that is your opinion. You might note that I did not ridicule the original post when I replied to it. I merely pointed out that it was factually wrong.
Are you suggesting that hunters who use a traditional style semi-auto rifle are better sportsmen than those who chose to use a more modern AR style rifle with a five round magazine? Perhaps you feel that a true sportsman would use a single shot rifle or a bolt action rifle to hunt. If so I will point out that the one of the most popular hunting rifles for deer in our nation is the 30-30 lever action rifle which holds 5 or six rounds and one in the chamber.
No you don't need a "black gun" to target shoot. I enjoy target shooting revolvers and while some of mine are black, others are stainless steel or nickle plated.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)At least to a lot of people
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so your post is truly nonsense.
have you ever heard of sportsmanship? i doubt it.
do you need a black gun to shoot targets? please go away
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't understand why you care so much that he used that word?
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)because he replied to the OP, and the word black does not appear in the title. perhaps his words are meaningless, therefore a wate of my time.
thanks for asking
now go away
Rex
(65,616 posts)They cannot invalidate your comment, so the propaganda is all that is left for them to use. Wayne LePew would be proud.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Like 80% of gun owners, I don't hunt.
Why should I care, and what relevance does it have, what hunters do or don't use?
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Odin-
The only purpose of "assault" weapons is to kill people.
hunting rifles have a legitimate purpose, hunting (ducks from PETA nuts), there is no reason for a civilian to have these "military-style" fire arms with magazines with 30 or 50 rounds of ammo. Hell, I believe in many states it's ILLEGAL to hunt using such huge cartridges.
spin () to ODIN
159. Hunters do use black rifles and they are definitely gaining in popularity with hunters. ...
Danang1968
(18 posts)I'm not sure why i was in viet nam. Besides almost dying in a rocket attack about all i saw was corruption on a massive scale and people who would do anything to get out of the field. This is just what i experienced, i dont pretend to speak for anyone else. Well, that was another lifetime and fortunately one that is growing dimmer for me every passing year.
i used to go target shooting on a regular basis but had to give it up because of the cost. I always wonder where some people get the money to buy these incredibly overpriced weapons and the stacks of ammo to service them.
Personally, i see no need for a 30 or 50 or 100 round magazine for a civilian. I certainly dont feel my 2nd amend. Rights are being violated if i cant buy one.
We need to do something to stop these mass killings. I really dont want to feel i or my granddaughter need a gun to go to the grocery store.
Just the thoughts of a tired old man who cant believe my country has gotten so violent.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)i actually shed a tear, keep it up. don't let any jerks on here argue with you. ignore them.
please send exactly what you wrote to Joe Biden as soon as possible. Please!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Danang1968
(18 posts)Im really glad that violent crime is at its lowest point in 20 years. Who wouldnt be happy about that?
However, when we have firemen being shot and killed and first graders being executed in their classroom, plus the daily barage of gun deaths every day i believe we live in a violent society.
Like i said, this is only my opinion.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)those are the guys to avoid!
I agree with you. There is no question really. If violence happens every day, well, geez...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But trying to restrict access to objects does squat to fix the causes of the violence.
Danang1968
(18 posts)I'm not certain of all the things that need to be done to lower gun violence.
Since you don't want to restrict objects, what exactly would you propose to lower gun deaths.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)stop over-jailing non-violent criminals, balance the Federal budget and pay off the national debt so we can pay for all the above.
Actually, ending Prohibition II will make us money. Less wasted on useless "law enforcement", more collected in taxes.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)a big gun.
leave the man alone, he has more important things to do than argue with you. like buy groceries.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But then, they know such action is quite safe. They're in far more danger trying to drive home, given the crap parking lot exits and the traffic density on the main road.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)go away
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You seem to be projecting. I don't know why you want to do that.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)go away
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Have a great day!
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)and leave the guy alone. he obviously knows you are full of crap.
have a great time with the new gun laws!
Danang1968
(18 posts)I agree with all your proposals. They are noble ideas. However, I can't imagine when this will ever happen with our current political climate. Congress can't even agree to keep our taxes from going up or to raise the debt ceiling without us looking like a 3rd world country.
Also, we will have to agree to disagree on restricting objects. I guess I just have a hard time with a civilian owning a magazine that holds more ammo than mine did when I was in Viet Nam. I'm probably just getting old or perhaps my PTSD is acting up again.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)you'd think these people would have some respect!
Danang1968
(18 posts)Many thanks for your kind thoughts. It means a lot to an old broken down geezer like me.
However, my ptsd is kicking in and i think i will give this blog a rest. I really dont want to do another all nighter.
Thanks
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)i don't know your views on other things, but maybe this would help...
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-14/opinions/35277099_1_medical-marijuana-post-traumatic-stress-ptsd
spanone
(135,844 posts)Whovian
(2,866 posts)The gungeon has observed their perceived moment of mourning and will now continue to attack posts and posters again in a method that if not paid for is simply driven by hate.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)what a combo! sounds yummy!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Please review and revise.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Because it is almost the case that it is associated with RW talking points.
When did we let the wing-nuts monopolize the word?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Goo is not a life
Some guy who broke into your home and is trying to run is
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)pretty much says it all!
count up 16 spots from this one
spanone
(135,844 posts)therefore we'll never outlaw him.....i swear it's true.