Help me understand , why is semi automatic in a rifle so important to gun owners here?

[newmember]

I don't get it , is it just so you can own an AR 15 rifle.

Every gun thread seems to always revert back to an AR15 rifle by pro gun owners on the site.

What's the big deal if we just did away with them? So what....

Lets become united against the republicans and work on getting more progressives elected.

[onehandle]

1. Because it's the next best thing to a machine gun.

And if that was widely legally available, they would be complaining about limits to tanks.

And if that was widely legally available, they would be complaining about limits to gunships.

And if that was widely legally available, they would be complaining about limits to MIRVs.

It's all about the arms envy.

[DrDan]

205. I think there are mods to somewhat easily make it fully automatic

[Duckhunter935]

206. nope

not unless you machine the receiver and then get the sear which is regulated by the ATF

[DrDan]

226. so what do you think about the following response about making an AR15 fully automatic?

"If you have the correct lower receiver you can purchase a drop in auto sear. If its registered its like ten grand, if its illegal its like a hundred bucks if that. You can also purchase a thing called a lightning link. Both will make a semi auto gun full auto."

[TnDem]

227. Yeah

It's not that simple to convert, but more important, it's a federal felony to do so..

Probably at least 20 years in Federal Prison for anyone doing so.

[premium]

230. The correct lower receiver being an AR-15 made before, I believe, 1986

before ATF classified it as an automatic weapon. Todays modern AR-15's are machined totally different than their counterpart, the M-16, to be able to modify an AR-15 lower receiver, you have to add metal and then re-machine it, and if you get caught with it, be prepared to spend serious time in Club Fed.
Any modification of a semi auto that turns it into a full auto is a serious Federal crime and ATF takes that very seriously.

[premium]

210. Not even true,

and even if it were, it would still be an illegal conversion and the perp would be spending 20 years in the all expense paid Club Fed.

[booley]

2. slippery slope

heard quite a few arguments: from their use as a hobby to the "protect us from the government" to "it's a right so i dont' have to justify it"

I think most use the slippery slope.. if we ban semi automatics then we will be banning every other type of hand gun eventually.

[JaneyVee]

4. slippery slope to a safer country.

[samsingh]

7. slippery slope that leads to fewer gun deaths.

[appal_jack]

16. How about choosing a better slope?

I agree that fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal, but I prefer my slopes to slide AWAY from further eroding Constitutional rights. Please address the issues raised in reply #15 before you enthusiastically dance on that slick incline of yours.



-app

[samsingh]

111. how does gun control erode gun rights?

[SlimJimmy]

146. I don't know, ask the guy that was arrested in New York for having two extra bullets in a magazine.

Ludicrous in the extreme. Talk about a slippery slope.

http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/13/upstate-man-arrested-for-having-nine-not-seven-bullets-in-magazine/

[samsingh]

158. how about the rights of the student that was shot by a security guard?

[SlimJimmy]

160. What does that have to do with shooting rabbits with a semi-auto shotgun?

The push to include *all* semi-automatic weapons (including pistols, rifles, and shotguns) is well known to those of us following the issue. My right to keep a weapons for hunting, and weapons) for self defense of my home and my person are just as inviolate as the student's.

[samsingh]

195. but you have your guns while the student has bullets shot into his body

[SlimJimmy]

198. My right to own and use that shotgun in a lawful manner has no connection

to what happened to the boy who was accidentally shot.

[samsingh]

208. but others who own guns are hurting innocent people who are not enjoying

their rights to liberty and justice and the pursuit of happiness.

[SlimJimmy]

233. So let's remove that right from the 99.99% who are not hurting people with guns.

That's ludicrous on its face.

[samsingh]

299. wouldn't you want to examine approaches that could save innocent victims?

or is it 'no' regardless of the costs?

[SlimJimmy]

300. I'm not willing to examine an approach that removes a right from 99.99% of those that have

followed the law.

[samsingh]

302. its quite a circular argument i'm reading

they follow the law because there is NO law.

no background checks
no limits on gun magazines or ammunition
no limits on gun sizes

and no liability for the damage and destruction.

100% of the public is affected by those with guns. 100%.

[SlimJimmy]

303. What effect would those initiatives have on the 99.99% that do not commit gun crimes?

Answer: none. You really don't have a strong argument.

[samsingh]

304. i don't think you have an argument but your statement echo the circular

reasoning of the gun lobby.

[SlimJimmy]

305. Typical response. Oh, you are sooooo right, I can't think for myself or have an opinion. I

*must* be influenced by the gun lobby. (sarcasm) As I said, and I'll say again. I'm not going to be in favor of more restrictions for those that don't break the laws just so the .1% can continue to do what they do.

[samsingh]

306. i would love to c the empirical evidence to support the 99.99% claim.btw i think you mean .01 above

but maybe in your world 99.99% + .1 = 100.09 which must be the same as a 100.

also, interesting how you feel those who support gun control have nothing worth considering, but the tired nra lines are somehow original thinking.

[SlimJimmy]

307. There are approximatey 52 million households with firearms in the US, and approximately

11,000 homicides in the US were committed with firearms in 2011. It's an extremely small number of deaths compared to the 150 million or so handguns available in the US. You do the math. What you want to do is punish the law-abiding to satisfy the public, who aren't even aware that the gun death rate has actually dropped significantly since 1993. Good luck with that.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

Since 1993, the United States has seen a drop in the rate of homicides and other violence involving guns, according to two new studies released Tuesday. Using government data, analysts saw a steep drop for violence in the 1990s, they saw more modest drops in crime rates since 2000.

"Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal , "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

There were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people in 1993, the says, which dropped to 3.6 gun deaths in 2010. The study relied in part on data from the center for disease control.

"Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew," according to the Pew study. "The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75 percent lower in 2011 than in 1993."

All of that is good news — but many Americans don't seem to be aware of it. In a survey, the Pew Research Center found that only 12 percent of Americans believe the gun crime rate is lower today than it was in 1993; 56 percent believe it's higher.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

[CTyankee]

209. aw, two tiny little bullets...why,they wouldn't hurt a flea...

[SlimJimmy]

234. If you think those that would use a firearm in an illegal manner would follow this limit on

ammunition, then I have some lake front property in Arizona for you.

[CTyankee]

248. We should, as a nation, be able to solve the gun violence calamity that grips our country.

Our Constitution states why our government was created and "to ensure domestic tranquility" is one reason the founders thought that was a good idea. In the past we have been able to solve our own problems and a lot of the time it wasn't easy. For example, we won WW2 with the attitude of "CAN DO." We rationed ourselves, stopped making automobiles and washing machines, stopped building houses, created small scale "victory gardens" in order to put ourselves on a national wartime footing. We sacrificed and made smart, tough choices. We faced a massive threat and stepped up. We owned up to assuming responsibility in a national effort. We COULD do.

Now we are faced with the national emergency of gun violence all across this country and how do we respond? Not with a bang, but with a weakly whimpered "no can do..." Easy way out, take no responsibility, just whining "it won't work, waaah, nothing can be done..." with crocodile tears streaming down our cheeks...

So it is in that American spirit of CAN DO that I ask YOU, Jimmy, for YOUR plan to solve this national problem. Not just what you "think" you'd like to see in terms of curbing gun violence, but what you ARE doing to achieve that goal. What are the proactive measures that can be taken NOW to solve our own problems, just as we did in WW2 and how are you being a participant in that important effort.

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of hearing a bunch of excuses for doing nothing. I really don't have the patience for it. We're either a nation of DOERS or we are a collection of wimps who can't/won't get the job done.

So, SlimJimmy, I am all ears (so to speak) to learn of your problem solving plan.

I look forward to hearing from you!

[premium]

251. We don't have a national emergency of gun violence,

most of the gun violence is in the inner cities over drug/turf wars. You want to drastically reduce gun violence?
Start with ending this insane WOD, end these endless wars, reduce the defense budget and funnel the money to urban renewal of our inner cities, fund a program for massive rebuilding of our infrastructure which creates jobs, jobs, and more jobs, more and better funding of the mental health care system, overhaul and better funding of the education system.
Just those steps alone will dramatically reduce the overall firearm violence without trashing the 2A.

[CTyankee]

257. I agree with everything you say you favor.

But there is a problem we can figure out on the federal scale and that is the "import" of guns over state borders where one state has strict gun laws but a neighboring state doesn't and it defeats the state laws where people want them. I may want them and vote for state legislators who promise to enact such laws. Then they are effectively nullified by the fact of easy access in the neighboring state. That is a huge problem, IMO. And it limits my right to have a voice in the laws of my state.

[premium]

259. That's a fair point.

CA. often complains about our lax state laws concerning firearms, but unless you set up checkpoints at every state border, which one DU member is on record in favor of, then, no matter what laws are passed, you aren't going to stop the flow of firearms from one state to another.

I really wish I had an answer for you on this, but I'm stumped on how to completely shut it down without trashing the 2A.
I'd really like to hear your ideas on this subject, you seem like someone who isn't one of the extremists that are on both sides of this issue.

[CTyankee]

260. I'd like to get back to the point you made earlier about having a more just society, clean

air, ending the WOD, etc. There are countries, notably in western Europe, where many of the ideals we are looking for in our society are much better achieved. These countries have social justice, income equality among its citizens and low incidence of poverty. They have solved many of the social ills you list as priorities in getting to the gun violence here. But they also have strict gun laws, even NOrway with its gun loving population has regulation of guns you would not approve of. They also have far less gun violence. If, as you say, solving the social problems will "take care" of the gun violence, why do you think the far more equal countries with low poverty still restrict guns?

[premium]

261. Much different cultures.

Our country has a deeply rooted firearms culture, especially in the rural parts, where I grew up, and firearms were a big part of growing up, and the suburban parts of the country.
It's mainly the big cities where the gun control movement is the strongest.

There are gun control measures I would certainly support, things like UBC, mag. limits modeled on the recently passed CO. law, stricter enforcement of straw purchases, very strict prison sentences for gun running, more funding to the states in exchange for better reporting to NICS of prohibited persons, a national FOID card, to name a few, these measures, coupled with my earlier suggestions, IMO, would really reduce gun violence in the country.

[CTyankee]

262. That doesn't explain Norway, even if it does explain France or Germany.

So that's a contradiction right there. I've had this conversation elsewhere here at DU, where I point to NOrway's love of hunting in rugged, mountainous areas and sports shooting. AND, their strong aversion to actual, not imagined, tyranny as when they mounted fierce resistance to the German occupation of their country in WW2. Guys on skis doing rear guard action against the brutal aggressors...it's the stuff of real action movies and yet this happened. And it's actually kind of thrilling. You can't list them as big city wimps.

As to your measure, those would certainly help! Is there a group of gun owners who feel the way you do and with whom you can work to make these efforts happen?

[premium]

263. There's this group.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

This is the one I joined just the other day, there are a couple more out there that are trying to help move along the national debate without the rancor from the extremists from both the pro gun control side and the pro gun rights side.

Just as a rejoiner, I am not one of those fanatic gun rights people, I only own 2 firearms, a .357 Colt Python, and a 12 ga. pump shotgun, I've never owned an assault weapon, had my share of that shit in Vietnam, will probably never own one.
Am thinking of getting back into hunting due to the price of store bought meat, looking at a .410 shotgun for game birds, rabbits and a Savage bolt action 30.06 for larger game.

[CTyankee]

264. That sounds liike a good group and very badly needed!

Thanks for the link and good luck!

[premium]

265. Thank you,

And thank you for the reasoned conversation, too many times, debates on firearms will degenerate into shouting matches that solve nothing and create bad feelings. I look forward to more conversations.

[SlimJimmy]

253. I like Premium's answer, so let me piggyback a bit on it. Curbing gun violence is not a

matter of instituting more laws that will not be enforced or will be ignored by those that break laws as a matter of course. We, as a nation, need to concentrate on areas that will improve the lives of Amercans. As Premium said, it's not the middle America law abiding citizens that are the problem. It's the incessant war on drugs and unusually high unemployment rates in the inner cities that are the primary drivers of gun violence in this country. Let's focus on that and not worry so much that Joe citizen has nine instead of seven rounds in his magazine, or that Slimjimmy has an semi-automatic shotgun for hunting rabbits.

[CTyankee]

258. Some problems with your owning that semi-automatic. What happens if that gun is stolen

and then used in a crime such as murder? If law enforcement knows the gun belonged to you, what is your culpability?

As for hunting rabbits, how many can you bag with 9 rounds as opposed to 7? How many rabbits are you hunting at one time? I've never had an infestation of rabbits, so I just don't know...

[SlimJimmy]

266. You, clearly, have never been out hunting rabbits. A rabbit is a moving target and may take

more than one shot to hit. As to the limit, eight or ten a day is not uncommon for a typical hunter. As to the stolen weapon, good luck in them getting in my safe. Really, your arguments are just so weak as to be nearly laughable.

[CTyankee]

267. I wasn't arguing about your rabbit hunting. You are right, I know nothing about hunting

rabbits. I was seeking information from you and I wish you wouldn't jump to the conclusion that i wasn't.

My question about your hypothetically stolen gun: if stolen guns are a problem, I want to know what a gun owner's culpability is. So my assumption is that that gun owner didn't take proper care of his/her weapon since it got stolen. I'm asking about the law's response to that. I made no assumptions about your safekeeping of your weapon one way or the other.

I realize that there could be a situation where a gun owner, surprised by a home invasion, could be forced to open his gun safe and have his gun stolen through no fault of his own. Or he could be disarmed by mugger or muggers on the streets. Or carjacked. In such instances, public safety is endangered. So it is a fair question.

[hack89]

269. There is no legal culpability if the gun owner is obeying all appropriate laws

regarding the storage of his guns. There is no legal assumption that having your property stolen is automatically proof of negligence. You are the victim of a crime - that is all.

Just as you are not liable if someone steals your car and then kills someone with it.

[CTyankee]

270. OK, do you think that state laws prohibiting a gun owner from transporting his gun, fully

loaded, in his car where it is visible, would be a violation of his 2nd A rights?

I know you wouldn't do it and it is highly stupid, but we are often not dealing with responsible gun owners. I'm wondering where the protection of the public is in all of this.

[hack89]

271. What would be the point of such a law?

if I am in the car with the gun, what harm is there? I can understand the requirement to not leave a gun in sight unattended.

[CTyankee]

272. well, would state laws regulating the manner in which the gun is transported be

automatically assumed in violation of the 2nd A. I ask this because there is a law in Norway that regulates transportation of guns and it must be in the interest of public safety.

[hack89]

273. Of course not.

there are hundreds of laws regulating how guns are transported.

[CTyankee]

274. In any states more than others (as far as you know, of course)?

[hack89]

275. I am not sure.

there is also a Federal law regarding the interstate transportation of firearms. In any case it is not unconstitutional.

[CTyankee]

278. It appears that there is a "time, place and manner" restriction of some sort on the

transportation of guns, which begs the question of OTHER time, place and manner restrictions on the 2n A, just as there is on the 1st A.

[hack89]

280. Heller tells you what the limits are right now.

the issue not legal - it is social and political. There is simply no universal support in America for draconian gun control. Some states will pass stricter gun control, others will pass pro-gun rights legislation.

No one is saying that there cannot be 2A restrictions. It is simply a matter of America deciding what they want or do not want.

[CTyankee]

283. No, I don't think so.

recent polling suggests that even in pro gun states there are clear majorities of Americans who want stronger gun safety laws. Yet the will of the people is being thwarted by our federal legislators. So it is not "simply a matter" as you put it. (What is meant by "draconian" anyway? Your definition and mine would be different.)

What is and has happened is a perversion of our system. There is more support than ever for gun control among the American people. Our political system is broken and it is pretty clear. That is what is "simply the matter," hack.

And, by the way,I find it interesting that some here at DU think the Heller decision is God's Holy Writ, yet when you look at the other votes of those justices voting in favor of that decision, they hardly meet the standards of what we here would call Democratic values.

So, are we part of the system or part of the problem?

[hack89]

285. Does the will of the people always rule supreme?

shall we, for example, settle gay marriage and abortion through a national referendum?

Civil rights are not a matter of majority rule.

[CTyankee]

286. Even Scalia said in Heller that there could be regulations on guns.

So if you like the Heller decision, you should at least recognize the whole thing, not just the parts you like.

[hack89]

287. I have consistently said that there are limits on the 2A

Last edited Sun May 19, 2013, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

but if a particular law is unconstitutional, it is irrelevant how much public support it has. Basic civics.

[CTyankee]

290. well, no. If it were that simple we wouldn't have the federal courts, esp. the Supreme Court, tell

what is unconstitutional and what is not. And the fact is that Courts change their minds over time. ANd their makeup is determined b who is the President appointing them. And Presidents are elected in political campaigns. Public opinion has a lot to do with it and is not irrelevant. Otherwise we wouldn't call ourself a democracy.

Basic civics.

[hack89]

291. No shit. Who else but the courts determines what is Constitutional?

the courts don't change that fast. I give you Roe v Wade as a perfect example. It has survived conservative administrations appointing conservative judges and a conservative supreme court. It has also survived hostile public opinion.

The supreme court is not going to fundamentally change the 2A. There will be plenty of gun control laws ruled constitutional but it will not change the notion that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[CTyankee]

292. so my point is that there are lots of gun control laws that we can have but we don't.

And the reason is not that they are unconstitutional. Let's start there.

Actually, with regard to Roe, while more people are calling themselves "pro life" there is still a firm majority who reject the idea of reversing Roe. To me, that means that a) the meaning of "pro life" has expanded to include provisions that go beyond abortion and 2) most people don't want Roe reversed and have us go back to the days of back alley abortions, but they consider themselves pro life for a number of reasons.

[hack89]

293. No kidding - what do you think my original point was?

it is a political issue, not a legal one.

There is certainly no majority favoring a radical reinterpretation of the 2A. Every informal poll at DU shows strong support for the 2A.

[CTyankee]

294. two points: I don't consider going back to the law before Heller radical and

a political decision to put the justices deciding Heller then became a legal one.

[hack89]

295. There was no real law prior to Heller

it is not like Heller significantly changed anything - there were no real rulings on the 2A prior to Heller. It is certainly not the case that prior to Heller the law of the land was to interpret the 2A as applying only to the militia. Talk to the president - he was a constitutional scholar. He has said many times the 2A is an individual right. That is also the Democratic party position as seen in the party platform.

[CTyankee]

296. Sure it did change things significantly. That was the whole point.

The question of individual right vs. collective right was quite the point of the case.

And of course Obama and the DemocraticParty would say what the current law of the land is.

That doesn't mean that there cannot be restrictions of guns, as Scalia said in his decision. And that was my original point.

[SlimJimmy]

279. If the gun owner had his weapons in his home, laying outl, or in a safe, or in his vehicle for

that matter, then what culpability does he have? None. So says the law. As to your assertion concerning muggers taking weapons out of open safes, or carjacking folks, the liability lies with the perpetrator of the act, not the citizen who formally possessed the weapons.

[CTyankee]

282. actually, I was drawing that distinction between the gun owner who loses possession of

his gun through no fault of his own and he gun owner who is careless...exactly my point...

[SlimJimmy]

288. Fair enough.

[newmember]

6. But we wouldn't be , they could still own every other type

The 2nd amendment would still be in the Constitution.

We would just limit weapons that can fire at a high rate.

that's it..

[appal_jack]

18. OK, how about you can keep speaking freely, but...

OK, how about you can keep speaking freely, but from now on, you have to use quills and parchment to do so. Maybe typewriters, if you demonstrate a real, justifiable need. Every communication technology from the past century and a half though? That's all too dangerous. So no internet, no amplification, no fax machines, no photocopiers, etc. for you!

But don't worry, "The 1st amendment would still be in the Constitution."

See how ridiculous that sounds?

-app

[newmember]

31. Clearly that's a good analogy , high rate of fire weapons versus typewriters

[appal_jack]

38. See: the Rwandan genocide.

The Rwandan genocide took place with people using machetes, after ethnic tensions were inflamed via hateful radio broadcasts.

So, yes, speech can be dangerous. And some awful tragedies can happen without any guns in the picture.

So, yes, it is a good analogy, if I do say so myself. Thanks.

-app

[newmember]

43. So you want to limit speech since it can be dangerous? but not limit guns that are dangerous

Let me think about this for a while.

[appal_jack]

45. Nope. Fail.

All of my posts here at DU advocate for a robust interpretation of all rights. Just try and find a single post of mine since 2004 where I advocated for speech rights to be circumscribed. And no, an inability to interpret sarcasm does not count as a victory on your part.

I DO occasionally send money to the ACLU, because I very much DO believe in the 1st Amendment.

I have never joined the NRA, because they do veer too far rightwards on non-2A-issues and electoral politics overall for my tastes. But too many more posts like yours here at DU, and I might just have to reconsider.

-app

[newmember]

47. I was just posting in jest , I know you weren't advocating that.

[appal_jack]

55. Oh. Good!

More humor & jest is a good thing, even when discussing serious issues!



My work here is done.

-app

(Seriously, I've got to get back to work & then get home, so this will be my last post tonight...)

[auburngrad82]

151. How about you can keep speaking freely, but

you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Oh wait, you can't. But the First Amendment IS still in the Constitution and I don't see people arguing that being able to yell "fire" is protected under the First Amendment.

Explain to me how there are certain forms of speech, such as the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, that are not allowed, and it's okay, but ANY form of gun control is bad. That's the part that confuses me.

[derby378]

201. I'm not petitioning the government for unfettered access to an RPG

But I do own an AK, and insist on the right to keep and bear it. Besides, an RPG doesn't qualifiy as "arms" as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, IIRC.

If there's a fire in a crowded theater, then yell "Fire" to your heart's content - you just might save someone who isn't paying attention to his surroundings. Rights are meant to be used with reason and diligence.

[CTyankee]

297. Just to clarify: the quote is "falsely" yell fire.

[SlimJimmy]

156. If you'd ever hunted rabbits, you'd quickly understand the value of a semi-automatic shotgun.

[SlipperySlope]

105. You called?

Sorry I'm late!

[JaneyVee]

3. I don't get it either.

[newmember]

22. I'm trying to understand it from all sides

I'm trying to keep an open mind for both sides of the issue.

But I keep coming back to....it's just a damn rifle with a high rate of fire.

Keep every other gun .

[wercal]

48. If semi-autos are banned

There wouldn't be many of those 'every other guns' left. An AR15 isn't fundamentally different than rifles that have been mass marketed for sixty years....and practically every handgun functions semi-auto (even revolvers have essentially the same capability).

[Jenoch]

103. My father has a Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle

in .30 Remington with a patent date of 1900. The design of that civilian model semi-auto rifle is over 113 years old.

It has a gas chamber that surrounds the barrel to provide the recoil to chamber the next round. You are correct. Semi-autos have been around for decades.

[Eleanors38]

132. The semi-auto rifle in my safe was built in 1905.

The technology is old.

Semi-autos, IMO, represent a kind of stasis in what the civilian population can own without constitutional infringement, and it has been that way for generations. This family of rifles account for probably fewer than 300 homicides a yr.

The semi-auto rifle is becoming the core sporting/home defense rifle for millions of Americans, and this will continue to be the case for years to come. The ammunition is cheap (normally!), the recoil is low, they are indeed suitable for hunting (the much more powerful Remington semi-auto rifle has been used for years as a deep woods weapon), and they are a good home defense weapon. The semi-auto carbines are becoming the new "utility" weapon. And there appears to be little push beyond this stasis.

Frankly, gun controllers should be more concerned with the techs surrounding 3-D printers and laser/particle beams, etc. The AR-15 may become the new "muzzle loader."

[NYC_SKP]

5. I think it's more important to people who are afraid of guns than to gun owners, but that might...

...might just be me.

I can't believe how few understand the difference between semi-automatics and other actions, often confusing them with fully automatics or becoming frightened by them.

Some people even use the term "semi-automatic" interchangeably with "assault weapon"!

As for gun owners, maybe some want the large capacity magazines that are available for use with semi-automatics. I don't know, I can't speak for them.

For sheer reliability, I trust pump action shotguns over semi-autos and the same for rifles and handguns because I've had jams occur on semi-autos but never with a pump shotgun or lever action or pump rifle.

If it's for self defense, I prefer reliability, so I'm not particularly concerned automaticity or about large magazines.

You could post your question in the DU Gun Control & RKBA forum for more input, if you like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

[newmember]

8. Will I get dog piled in there?

just kidding...




It just drives me nuts that we have such a wedge issue in our party. When all of us
strive for a better America where health care , education , jobs , living wages
are so paramount for a future for our children and our nation.

[NYC_SKP]

9. I think half the tension would be gone if we could agree on some education.

And if there weren't such whacky misleading statistics out there for use by people on both sides.

[Jenoch]

104. I agree with your point on education.

Too many people know nothing about guns or the gun issue and yet they think they have all the answers.

[upaloopa]

10. Just who is it that are afraid of guns? I really

think gunners made up that meme as a way to discount people who want an assault weapons ban.
I hope some day it dies with all the other phrases of obfuscation that gunners dreamt up since Sandy Hook

[Hoyt]

11. They are good family fun. What better way to spend quality time with the family

than blasting away at things, including targets that resemble humans, with guns that look so menacing, yet are so ergonomic and just downright sexy.

[Pelican]

44. It can be good family fun...

You went downhill after that though...

[premium]

52. Well, you finally got something right,

some of my fondest memories of my father are when we would go fishing, hunting, and target shooting on the range that my dad built on our property.

Family shooting can be an excellent bonding experience, my family, including my kids and grandkids, are proof positive of that.

[Hoyt]

57. I grt it was good for you. Unfortunately, guns are not so good for others and society.

[premium]

61. Only if they're used in a bad way or irresponsibly. nt.

[Arugula Latte]

113. Which, of course, they routinely are. And thousands of innocents pay the price.

But, I guess bloodshed and unnecessary death are the Amurikin Way.

[Eleanors38]

129. Rifles of ALL sorts account for <3% of ALL homicides.

That's a fraction of one thousand/yr. And semi-auto rifles are only one type of rifle.

You may be thinking about handguns which account for several thousand lives/yr.

[Recursion]

177. Nope. We're talking about rifles

You're thinking of handguns.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. Did you find semi-automatic rifles a necessary part of hunting?

A lot of people in other countries manage to go hunting without them.

[premium]

124. When out hunting rabbits, squirrels, game birds with my .22,

yes, a semi auto is much better. Never hunted bigger game with a semi auto, but I don't care if other hunters do.
A lot of hunters use the AR platform rifle chambered for .308, .273. 8mm. They make excellent hunting rifles, so I'm told.

And what other people use in other countries for hunting is of no concern to me, I could care less what they hunt with, it doesn't apply here in this country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. Would you be able to hunt with a restriction to, say, 3 rounds before reloading?

I can't believe a hunter needs to put more than 3 shots into an animal.

[premium]

135. I don't hunt anymore,

but I think most states allow only 3-5 rounds in the mag or tube.
If I still hunted, I would have no problem with that.

Been thinking about getting back into hunting for food, seen the prices for meat lately? Just outlandish, I'll have to go out and buy a good hunting rifle, I prefer bolt action to semi auto, something like a nice Savage bolt action.

For the smaller game, I'll probably buy a .410 pump shotgun.

[Eleanors38]

137. In areas where feral hogs are over-running the landscape, AR-15s are the choice

For discerning eradicators in-the-know. The aim of these eradicators is to kill as many of the animals as possible (or the farmer/rancher will hire/permit another group), and getting off as many rounds as possible into a sounder of hogs is the objective. Mind you, this is really more about eradication than hunting, but even deer hunters increasingly come prepared for hogs as they are likely to be encountered opportunistically. As coyotes populations increase, the use of med. cal. semi-autos will increase.

You can Google hog hunting videos to get an idea of these practices. Further, there are outfitters one can pay for the "opportunity" to eradicate hogs, but the outfit itself answers to the land-owner in terms of hogs killed. Take a look at the weaponry. It is usually semi-auto, even the more "benign" walnut-stocked rifles are usually semi-auto.

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. Anyone out to 'eradicate' an entire population of animals ought to have a special licence

and be heavily regulated. This would be like, say, leaving poison out - only to be done by professionals, for ecological reasons. It's not the pastime or way of living of the typical person.

[Eleanors38]

147. I used "eradication" more as wishful thinking...

since everyone involved with the feral hog problem agrees this ain't gonna happen. But some ranches & farms can get a reprieve in order to resume planting and live stock operations. I would note that land-owners and some counties even pay by the ear, often to no avail in terms of eradication.

I'm not sure how "professionals" will help, since they have tried for years; in Texas Parks & Wildlife has been using Full-autos from helicopters, and the hogs keep expanding. Frankly, I wish this "pastime" or "living" were taken up by more people. Incidentally, there is no season, bag limit, size/sex/age restriction on taking hogs, and the challenge for government is to get MORE typical persons into hunting/eradicating these hogs.

[beevul]

84. They only look "menacing" to those that don't know any better. N/T

[Hoyt]

90. And that's the reason folks who covet them are attracted.

They Look menacing. Why would any reasonable person be attracted to a gun because it looks menacing? Those folks have issues that should prohibit them owning guns.

[beevul]

91. You keep asserting it as if it were true...

You keep asserting it as if it were true, yet you fail to substantiate it every time.

In fact, you don't even try.

Keep the pejoratives coming though, they're doing wonders for the pro-more-control side.

[Hoyt]

93. You just said it in post above.

[beevul]

98. No hoyt, I did not.

I said that they only look "menacing" to people that don't know any better.

You on the other hand, said this:

"And that's the reason folks who covet them are attracted."

Unsubstantiated assertion, right there, by you.

[Jenoch]

106. I realize you are making an attempt at sarcasm.

But with the exception of the '...targets that resemble humans...", and the sexy comment (I have never seen nor heard of a sexy gun) I agree with you without sarcasm.

[sarisataka]

12. Most unfortunately...

I was born with a fear of shadows and solid objects. My pantophobia is untreatable.
In addition through a freak of genetics I have the genitalia of an undersized common shrew. All of the other boys laughed until I bought...

oh, wait, I don't own a semi-automatic rifle. I did enjoy shooting the one the government let me borrow for some years

[Jenoch]

108. Wow. I have never known

someone to confess to something as tragic as your condition on an internet message board. How have you learned to deal with your condition. (I refer to your physical limitations, not your phobia.)

[sarisataka]

143. Through trial and error

I discovered that any rifle, even if it had a setting marked FULL, did not make the little guy grow. Instead I found my soulmate who works wonders in that department.


So much is said about guns being penis substitutes and masterbatory aids. I hear lots of talk about it but IME it is internet myth

[HeiressofBickworth]

13. why is semi automatic in a rifle so important to gun owners?

Bigger orgasm.

[Mojorabbit]

80. My husband and I have fun shooting at the range.

It certainly is not the way I get my orgasms. I don't know a single gun owner who looks at their guns that way. I know they are out there as I have seen some ridiculous video but I hate when that phrase is used as it paints a whole lot of people with a broad brush.
Peace, Mojo

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. Would your fun be diminshed by having to pause between shots?

Wouldn't that actually increase the skill involved?

[premium]

82. Pretty obvious you don't know jack about gun owners.

#implied%20facepalm%20640x496

[Junkdrawer]

14. Finding courage in the wrong place:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022835900#post9

[appal_jack]

15. Yeah, what's the big deal about any Constitutional rights?!1??11/!!

What's the big deal, 'newmember'? Oh, just that the majority of firearms technology during the past century-plus has been in the areas of semi-automatic weapons (as well as, of course machine-guns, which are already heavily-regulated enough to be effectively banned for most people of moderate means). Banning semi-automatics would send citizens back to the 19th century, while criminals (and law enforcement, etc.) would still access modern firepower: a clear violation of the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. If the issue of gun control is as cut & dry as you pretend it is, just advocate repealing the Second Amendment. Or save yourself some time and admit that you have no chance of doing so.

Our Constitution protects the expression of dangerous ideas (via the 1st Amendment), because dangerous ideas are necessary and potentially helpful to an open society. The Constitution also protects the possession of potentially dangerous (but also potentially helpful) tools via the 2nd Amendment. Privacy and waiting for due process can be dangerous (or helpful) to society; we (should) protect them too, as enshrined in the 4th and 5th Amendments.

As far as I am concerned, the debate about guns (i.e.- individually-deployable 'arms', i.e.- NOT tanks, helicopter gunships, etc.) should have been settled once and for all when our Founding Fathers reserved to citizens the right to keep & bear military-grade arms via the explicit text of the Second Amendment. We have fallen away from this ideal considerably already, what with NFA regs for fully-automatic firearms, but it's here I draw the line. My semi-automatic pistols and rifles will not harm you, newmember. Indeed, they are not intended for offensive use against anyone.

I believe that citizens have the rights to think dangerous ideas, speak dangerous words, protect dangerous privacies, and, yes, possess dangerous weapons. Your choice to forego weapons (or only buy bolt action rifles & revolvers if you so choose) is fine by me. My weapons will not harm you. Nonetheless, I will remain that peaceable, but armed, citizen.

The Democrats' history with gun control begins in the late 1960's at the earliest. That's hardly some bedrock tradition, nor does any gun control platform (banning semi-auto's especially) rest upon any foundation of coherent principles that I can tell. One can be against innocents & children dying at the hands of crazed criminals (I certainly am) yet seek to redress the roots of these problems in manners that do not undermine yet another piece of the Bill of Rights.

The rational consistency and electoral platform for which I call rests on American traditions stretching back to 1789. It may still be radical (for our Founding Fathers were indeed both liberals and radicals in their day) to demand that the Bill of Rights guide all our policies and laws, and consistently constrain the power of the state, but it's a lot more rational than speaking about Constitutional rights only some of the time, on some issues, and most particularly when an 'R' is president.

I want to see the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, & 15th Amendments enforced more vigorously than they ever have been in my lifetime. I believe that these Amendments enshrine not only Democratic principles, but truly American values. Being forceful about these views, all of the time, is a recipe for electoral success for Democrats. Wishing rights away when one finds them inconvenient or disturbing is a recipe for either electoral failure and/or tyranny. I'd prefer to avoid both of these outcomes, thank you very much.

-app

[newmember]

17. No where did I say your rifles would harm me.

And I don't have a fear of guns but why is your line drawn at semi automatic weapons?
Why not have as strong of a belief you have for the 2nd amendment that for the good of our society .
Limiting high rate of fire weapons would be better for our country's future and also our children's future

It's just a rifle with a high rate of fire.

[appal_jack]

20. If you are not afraid of harm, then why ban? n/t

[newmember]

24. for the good of our society ,future of our country

I don't want to ban them , I would rather see gun owners insist that.

[appal_jack]

28. Not gonna happen.

Asking gun owners to advocate for the ban of the majority of contemporary firearms technology is a non-starter if I've ever heard one. I might as well ask that you lead the charge to open the NFA registry (i.e.- allow the importation and manufacture of new machine guns for private citizens). You game to take this courageous stand on behalf of Constitutional rights "for the good of our society, the future of our country?"

I didn't think so.

The natural right of self-defense goes far, far back into English Common Law. The Second Amendment has been with us since 1791, and there is no sign that it is in any danger of repeal by US Constitutional processes. So let's start from there. Semi-automatic firearms are necessary for effective self-defense and fit well-within the scope of the Second Amendment. If you want to discuss ideas that will reduce unjustifiable violence, let's do so within a 2nd Amendment/ 4th Amendment/ 9th Amendment 10th Amendment/ 14th Amendment-compatible framework.

Here's my first thought on that front: the surest method toward reducing violence is attacking root causes: poverty, mental illness, lack of economic opportunity, an education system that fails to adequately cultivate empathy and civic engagement, and a failed and misdirected war on drugs contribute far more to gun violence than the presence or absence of any particular hardware or attendant features.

-app

[Pelican]

46. It seems like you do...

[newmember]

49. I do think the future of our country is our children and the state we leave it in .

[thucythucy]

138. It's hard to believe someone on DU would post

such an incredibly condescending and trivializing little snippet, in the wake of Sandy Hook, not to mention the recent spate of stories about six year-olds and four year-olds and even two year-olds being shot and maimed and killed.

This is the sort of insensitivity I'd expect from the NRA and their ilk.

I expect someone will flag this post, and I half expect a jury of pro-gunners to vote to hide it.

But really, this is just so low and obtuse. I would have thought Democrats, even pro-gunners, would have a tad more class.

[alfredo]

25. I think the Dems are sensitive to the gun issue because so many of our leaders have

been assassinated by gun toting right wing nuts.

[Eleanors38]

141. The passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act was due primarily to

Fears of armed blacks. Even gun-controllers remarked on this at the time.

[alfredo]

157. I wonder what percentage of gun sales are because of the fear of Blacks?

[Eleanors38]

159. The present massive increase is more likely due to

Persistent calls for bans, restrictions, taxes (on ammo), etc. This brings out the speculators, horders, and those putting off purchases. I think many of the hundreds of thousands at gun shows were also making in effect a political statement against those who have sought to blame and demonize gun owners.

Those who fear some group or race have long since made their purchases (I personally know of people who have bought guns as protection from extreme RW-types who they think may pose future threats, and as protection from some anti-gay bigots -- see the Pink Pistols).

Gun control laws since Colonial times have been rooted in racial and ethnic prejudice; the 1968 law is no exception.

[alfredo]

171. There's always a surge in gun sales whenever a Dem takes office. I still haven't seen any real

attempt at taking away our guns. I think it is paranoia fed by the NRA and their Republican clients.

[Eleanors38]

172. Actually, the big increase in gun sales has been going on

For several years, and started before Obama was even nominated.

After President Obama was in office, both Nancy Pelosi and AG Holder both called for bans on many popular rifles. So it is understandable if many Americans think bans are in the offing. Personally, I don't think it will happen because the political power if gun control groups is too weak and concentrated within institutional elites instead of at grass-roots levels.

I remember when the NRA was principally a hunting, marksmanship & safety/training group. It is now quite powerful mainly due to the attacks of gun-controllers since the late 1960s. There are also several more "gun activist" groups even more militant than the NRA, some of which did not exist before gun control was adopted as a goal of some Democrats. Not a very good development for us progressives.

[alfredo]

174. We know we are the targets.

[Eleanors38]

179. Who is "we," and who is doing the targeting?

[alfredo]

180. That's up to the right wing media and the Tea Party. One week it is gays, next week it is Muslims.

Ratings determine the target. It's only business, nothing personal.

[premium]

182. Well, they'd have a rude surprise when they discover

that Dems./Liberals/Progressives shoot back at them. We're not sheep waiting to be picked off by the crazy ass RW assholes, and many, many of us do have combat experience.

[alfredo]

183. True, I just don't want it to come to that.

[premium]

184. And neither do I.

If things got that bad, then all bets are off and there would be anarchy in this country.

[alfredo]

186. Anarchy only serves the powerful.

[premium]

187. You've got that right. nt.

[Eleanors38]

281. Keep safe. Try to stand up to 'em.

[CTyankee]

298. Here is Chris Rock's take on the Columbine shooting

[hughee99]

190. Really, which of our leaders have been assassinated by RW gun toting nuts?

MLK, certainly, but I'm having a tough time coming up with elected officials assassinated by RWers.

I'm not sure you can really call the killers of JFK, RFK, Huey Long, Harvey Milk, Allard Lowenstein or Leo Ryan RWers.

[alfredo]

197. Sirhan Sirhan was a Christian nationalist angry over RFK's support

Of the "Zionist."

[hughee99]

199. I'm not sure he's a fit with what is considered RW nutbags these days,

but even if I concede that, I'm still not sure that 2 leaders, 45 years ago, qualifies as "so often". I don't think it's even close to the influence that the daily news has.

[alfredo]

204. When we see or hear of armed right wingers shooting Obama targets, or Hillary targets,

and talk of armed insurrection, we can't help think of the great trauma of JFK, MLK, and RFK.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. What? Does the 3rd Amendment mean nothing to you?

Yeah, go ahead and take it for granted until that one day you come home and you find a whole army platoon lounging in your living room, making snacks in your kitchen, swimming in your pool.....



In all seriousness, though, really? You see restrictions against fully automatic machine guns as a bad thing? Are you kidding me?

And yes, your semi-automatic rifles and pistols can harm me.

Really. They can.

James Holmes' semi-automatic rifles harmed people. So did Nancy Lanza's.

Think about it.

[appal_jack]

36. I am pleased with my current ability to exercise my 3rd Amendment rights.

Tommy, I am glad that you caught my (deliberate) omission, and responded with humor!





My omission of any mention of the 3rd Amendment is because I am pleased with my current ability to exercise my 3rd Amendment rights. However, were any people here saying that what the 3rd Amendment REALLY means is that a whole army platoon lounging in my living room, making snacks in my kitchen, and swimming in my (nonexistent) pool is ACTUALLY totally compatible with the Constitution, because, hey they're not sleeping in my bed (yet), then yes, I'd have issues. I see things similar about the 2nd Amendment pretty often here at DU.

I support laws against committing murders with firearms. James Holmes and Adam Lanza committed horrible crimes, for which I hope Mr. Holmes gets punished severely (I hope that Mr. Lanza, being beyond our reach, has come to an appropriate reckoning in the afterlife).

I posted my thoughts about the best strategies for preventing violence in reply #28, but to reprise:

The surest method toward reducing violence is attacking root causes: poverty, mental illness, lack of economic opportunity, an education system that fails to adequately cultivate empathy and civic engagement, and a failed and misdirected war on drugs contribute far more to gun violence than the presence or absence of any particular hardware or attendant features.

These are issues that ALL Democrats can (and should) rally around in unison!

-app

[morningfog]

29. I don't get the people who cite discrepancies in fire power between individuals and cops or military

You will never be able to match the fire power of the state. The state has a monopoly on the use of force. I question the plans and the sanity of anyone who thinks they need equal firepower or that it means anything.

[Skittles]

33. it's one of their paranoid fantasies, morningwood, er, fog

GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!

[Megalo_Man]

81. One doesn't need to match the firepower of the state.

And I'm sure a lot of British loyalist said the same thing.

[morningfog]

88. So, people who use this argument are suggesting that

the purpose is protection against or to attack the state? To bring it down? Are you suggesting that the guns allowed under current law are, in part, in case they need to be used against the state? And that the gun allowed under current law would be successful in either stopping or overturning the state?

[Megalo_Man]

97. RE:

So, people who use this argument are suggesting that the purpose is protection against or to attack the state?

I don't what argument anyone is making, all I'm saying is that you don't need to match the firepower of the state because the other OP implied that it was necessary to do that in order to be victorious in some sort of imagined scenario.

To bring it down?

What, exactly, is "it"? Buildings? Probably not. Powerlines? They'll do that. Radio antennas, power generators, I mean, some things are a little thicker than others, but for most things, they're pretty effective.

Are you suggesting that the guns allowed under current law are, in part, in case they need to be used against the state?

No, you can't shoot an abstract concept. The guns "allowed" under current law are "in-case" they need to be used against people.

And that the gun allowed under current law would be successful in either stopping or overturning the state?

The arms allowed under current law would be successful at stopping breathing. I don't know anything about stopping states, just stopping people.

[morningfog]

120. Then you are imagining some act of war

and using them to defend against the state. Idiocy.

[Megalo_Man]

122. Re-read what I said a few times.

I don't think you understood it. You are the one that started out imagining some sort of war between "the state" and.. I'm not really sure who, but I'll guess gun owners. I then explained to you the role that firearms would play in this very vaguely defined scenario. I answered your questions, and I hope that helps.

[morningfog]

148. You can't have it both ways.

What is the point if the argument that a citizen needs to be armed as protection against the state? That idiocy is proffed often, but never to any logical conclusion.

[RedstDem]

35. exactly what i've been thinking for a long time

people have been steadily losing rights for the past 40 or so years, we want the rights taken away from us back, before we talk about limiting yet another.

[markpkessinger]

40. What about that "explicit text" of the Second Amendment?

You write:

As far as I am concerned, the debate about guns (i.e.- individually-deployable 'arms', i.e.- NOT tanks, helicopter gunships, etc.) should have been settled once and for all when our Founding Fathers reserved to citizens the right to keep & bear military-grade arms via the explicit text of the Second Amendment.

If you're going to talk about the explicit text of the Second Amendment, there is nothing in there about "military grade arms." If you are suggesting that "military grade" is implicit in the text's reference to a "well-regulated militia," you are reading something backwards, chronologically speaking, into the text that makes no particular sense. In the 18th C., there was no practical distinction between the arms soldiers used in battle and those they used for hunting or self defense. The description of "military grade" only makes sense, and only comes into play, when there is such a clear distinction. Thus, to suggest that the framers, who not only did not use the phrase "military grade" in the text because it would have been a meaningless phrase in the 18th C., but also could not have envisioned what such a term would encompass if and when that phrase ever did become meaningful, is simply absurd.

[CTyankee]

216. Oh, I'd love to see an overhaul of our outdated, outmoded constitution to one of

useful, helpful enforcement of rights of citizens to clean air and water, to women for their full rights of citizenship, to all people in society for health care, education and worker rights. To me, our present constitution does NOT "enshrine Democratic principles." We also need a revision of our 2nd amendment, to mean what it should mean, or, failing that, to be re-interpreted to put it in the context in which it was written (18th century gun technology and also to clarify "militia&quot .

[appal_jack]

247. If you'd just expand rights, we could work together.

If you'd just work to expand rights, we could work together. I too favor "rights of citizens to clean air and water, to women for their full rights of citizenship, to all people in society for health care, education and worker rights." but, if you think that these rights can be achieved and protected by an authoritarian society that first nanny-states away one of the important rights we already have (for citizens to keep & bear arms), I'm afraid that you are delusional. Taking away liberties is opposite what Democrats should stand for.

Do you support people only having the right to 18th Century healthcare technology? How about only protecting people from the toxins we knew about in the 18th Century? Of course you don’t. That's because rights are grounded in principles, not technologies. The Founders granted Americans the right to keep & bear the very same arms employed by the military & police of their day. Our present right to keep & bear arms is already much narrower than that. If you really want to narrow it further, then I'm sorry, but we are anything but allies.

-app

[CTyankee]

284. Well, my right to work for election of my state legislature to pass stricter gun laws is

usurped when guns can be more easily obtained by a shooter just by going over state lines. I am for federal legislation that would expand my right to be democratically represented to make laws in my own state.

Where do you get the strange idea that only authoritarian societies have strict gun control? It is laughable when you can easily be directed to the constitutional democracies around the world that enjoy social justice AND freedom at the same time they restrict guns. Hell, I was just reading here on a DU thread about how we are below many countries in PRESS freedom and quite a few of them were among the most progressive in social services and education, such as Scandinavian nations. I can only imagine what a citizen there would think of your remark. Perhaps a shaking of their head, after they stopped laughing.

And where do we get the notion that the 2nd A as interpreted by the Heller decision is a good bulwark against tyranny? Do we have ANY idea what it is like to be in the grip of real tyranny, to fight, suffer and die in a major conflict in our own society? Well, guess what, the nations of western Europe knew that all too well during WW2. Now wouldn't you think they'd be passing their own versions of the 2nd A if it is such a "bulwark"? Are they all stupid, and we're so smart, especially since many of people here mouthing off about "protecting our liberty" don't know what the hell they are talking about?

And while we are on Heller, take a look at the voting record of those justices in the majority. A good, close look. Are they consistent, strong supporters of the principles so dear to the hearts of Progressives here at DU? Or are they authoritarians on other issues and we can go down the list: a woman's right to choose, racial equality, strong environmental policy, all First Amendment freedoms and please feel free to fill in here. Take that look and then get back to me what that tells you about these justices. Just for fun, you could also look at the voting record of the justices who voted AGAINST the Heller interpretation. See how they rank on the "authoritarian" scale!

[ileus]

19. My SKS, BAR, and 10/22 are pretty nice also.

It's easy to support Democrats and still be progressive on the 2A. Remember the 2A isn't a R v L right...it's a right we all should support if we call ourselves progressives.

[Hoyt]

32. Guns - as discussed here - is/are hardly "progressive."

[galileoreloaded]

173. no. actually they are. the issue is more that you dont have

a functional understanding of the issue.

[Hoyt]

178. Sure I do. Some people care more about their guns than society.

[premium]

185. It's true that some care more about their guns than society,

but that is a miniscule percentage of gun owners, the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, including those that own "assault weapons", care more about society than their guns, and don't give me this crap that if they cared more about society, then they wouldn't buy the rifles.
The fact is that the AR-15 is the most popular center fire rifle in the country today and the vast majority are used in a responsible manner.

[Hoyt]

188. Being popular ain't necessarily a good thing. I'm sure the majority of Tbaggers love them.

[premium]

189. It's necessarily a good thing for those that do own them

and I'm fairly positive that there are thousands of Dems. who own AR-15's and enjoy shooting them, either in competition, or just a fun day at the range, or even pest control.
Just because you have a phobia for them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be owned as long as they're used and stored responsibly.

[NickB79]

191. In this case it is, from a purely practical view

When I was in the market for a new gun 5 years ago, I bought an AR-15 for hunting and target shooting because it was so popular. Since I actually use my gun in the field, rather than let it sit in a safe, things wear out on it. The fact that so many other people own this type of gun means that ammo, magazines, optics, spare parts for when something breaks, and other accessories are all easily found and inexpensive (well, they were until the gun nuts started stockpiling like Armageddon was coming).

It's much like buying a car: I look to see whether replacement parts are easily found and cheap at the local auto supply shop, or if I'll have to pay $500 for a set of brake pads custom-made in a factory in Japan and shipping on a slow boat.

[Hoyt]

194. Clearly important to be "practical" and callous when selecting from your lethal weapon options.

[NickB79]

211. Of course it's important to be practical.

Like I said, I USE my rifles for hunting. My AR-15 is used for coyotes, woodchucks, small game and even deer (it is legal to use in MN provided you only have a 5-rd magazine in your rifle). I didn't want a safe full of rifles sitting around, so I sold most of them and bought one gun that could do all I needed. By changing the barrel, I can hunt anything from squirrels to black bear with the same gun.

Hell, I even sold my 30-rd magazines and bought a bunch of 10-rd magazines instead, simply because they're more reliable, make the gun less nose-heavy, and the idiot who bought them had more money than brains (I almost feel guilty taking so much money from him. Almost).

As for your "callous" remark, I'm not sure what to make of it. Personally, I think any dick driving anything bigger than a Prius is being callous in their disregard for the environment, but that's just me.

[derby378]

213. The size of the magazine you use is completely inconsequential at this point

Owning an AR-15 in any configuration is now considered "politically incorrect" because of Aurora and Newtown. Never mind that our cops and soldiers use the same rifle while on duty; the fact that you, as a civilian, own a Stoner rifle means that there are a lot of gun-control supporters who frankly couldn't care less if your magazine capacity was 10 or 100 - you own one of those "evil black rifles."

Then again, I'm used to owning a "politically incorrect" rifle, myself, so I just follow a little piece of advice from Eleanor Roosevelt, paraphrasing here: "Do what you feel is right, because you'll still be criticized anyway."

[Hoyt]

220. This is not a war zone, or crime scene. You guys crack me up.

[premium]

223. Just curious Hoyt,

you keep saying that this country is not a war zone, and that's true except for a few places in some of our inner cities, have you ever been in an actual war zone?
No aspirations intended.

[Hoyt]

224. I've had yahoos pull guns on me. Again, this is not a war zone, even

Those inner city areas that seem to concern you so much. Your arming up does nothing to help that.

[premium]

225. Hoyt, as you know,

I don't even carry a gun, I only own 2 which I haven't shot in 10 years. Why do you have such a hard time remembering this? I've only told you like 5 times now.
Still didn't answer, have you ever been in an actual war zone?

And what did you do to have someone pull a gun on you?

[Hoyt]

237. I made the mistake of living where confederate flags and guns are considered normal.

Just jerks who need a few guns to feel worthwhile.

[premium]

238. I asked what did you do to have people pull guns on you?

You had to do something. Strangers don't normally walk up and pull guns on people. I'd say it had something to do with your attitude just by judging what you post here about gun owners.

[NickB79]

231. Which is why I don't own a weapon of war

Someone fielding my AR-15 sporting rifle equipped with 10-rd magazines would be woefully outmatched by the opposition in any combat zone since World War II. An M1 Garand or Browning BAR in .30-06 makes my AR look like a BB gun.

My civilian-legal AR-15 as currently configured is as much a military firearm as a bolt-action .30-06 Springfield or Russian 7.62 Mosin-Nagant is. In fact, a mil-surplus Springfield or Mosin-Nagant might have actually seen real combat in WWII.

[Hoyt]

239. You shouldn't feel out manned because a few folks have bigger guns than yours.

As to WWII rifles, why does something that killed perhaps millions intrigue you guys. I could field strip a 1911 in challenging situations, at a young age, fortunately I grew up.

[premium]

240. No WWII rifle killed millions, none.

The reason for owning on, besides the historical value, they make great hunting rifles.
Field stripping a 1911? BFD, just about anyone can do that after a few lessons, I could field strip mine in darkness with no problem.

[Hoyt]

219. I agree on car, promoting guns, not so much. Did you check buyer's background?

[premium]

212. Nothing callous about it,

just practical and prudent.

[Travis_0004]

229. Wern't you a theif a few years ago

I apologize if I'm wrong, and have you confused with somebody else, but I thought that at one point you were a thief.

[premium]

236. Maybe that's why he's had guns pulled on him. nt.

[arely staircase]

21. In a shotgun it is helpful

when bird hunting. using a pump action weapon makes it harder to stay on the moving target. but either way you are usually limited to three rounds for game management purposes. so I agree with you, but just want to clarify the "semi-auto" concept.

[Crepuscular]

23. so important?

I don't think that it's that they are so important, more so that there is no good reason to ban them and bans are ridiculous and ineffective, as we learned with the Volstead act and 30 years of the "war on drugs".

I own about a dozen different rifles, including muzzle loaders, .22's, lever actions, bolt actions, single shots and three semi-auto's. No AR-15's, though. The semi-auto's are fun to shoot, 2 of them are strictly for plinking, I use one that is chambered in .44 Magnum for hunting, in an area where rifles are restricted to being chambered in pistol calibers only. The fact that I own semi-autos poses no threat to anyone and confiscating them would accomplish nothing in terms of making society "safer".

If you want to make any progress in "banning" any sort of weapon, then a good starting point would be to provide some actual proof that there is something unique and ban-worthy about those particular weapons, that results in dramatically greater potential for harm, than is posed by various other firearms that would not be banned. That has not occurred to this point, instead the focus has been purely emotion driven and has focused on ridiculous features like bayonet lugs and plastic stocks.

The fact of the matter is that long guns, including so called "assault weapons" are used in a very, very small percentage of gun crimes. As much as the media wants to create the illusion of some kind of an epidemic of long gun related crimes, the facts just don't support such a fantasy.

[Jenoch]

110. I'm curious where you are hunting

where rifles are limited to pistol calibers. Where is this the law? I will guess that your rifle is a .44 magnum Ruger. My dad has one. It's a pretty good brush gun.

[Crepuscular]

121. Indiana

legalized rifles in pistol calibers (and a few other straight walled calibers) for deer a couple of years ago. Yes, it's a Ruger but it's the old style with an internal mag, instead of a detachable one. A Bill has also been introduced in Michigan, to allow pistol caliber rifles to be used in the Southern Lower, which is currently shotgun and muzzleloader only.

[Jenoch]

128. In Minnesota

the lower half of the state is a shotgun zone for deer hunting. I would not be surprised if the regs are changed to allow handgun caliber rifles and carbines. My father's Ruger .44 is the same as yours. They quit manufacturing those quite some time ago. I think they may have also stopped making the model with the rotary magazine as well.

[Skittles]

27. gives them bigger boners

[morningfog]

30. We have a right to hard dicks!

[Hoyt]

37. And so do people paralyzed/disabled by someone's irresponsible use of their guns.

[Half-Century Man]

34. Semi autos

Semi-automatic guns use the a portion of the energy in a just fired cartridge to cycle the action (bolt), eject the spent cartridge, reload a fresh round, and return the gun to a fire capable state.
This has been around or over 100 years.
If you cut through the bullshit and misleading names, the core issue is magazine capacity. How many bullets are available, one after each other in each magazine. How many times can a weapon be fired before reloading?

Everybody has conflicting opinions about it.

[Hoyt]

41. There's your problem. Sadly, those that covet these abominations can't live without

high cap magazines and similar lethal accessories adapted for war zones.

When gunnys tell me they need such and such in case they have to clear a room, it's obvious folks have become irrational.

I think serious restrictions on the weapons that get gunners giddy, will really help, especially in long term.

We need to follow Australia's lead on this one.

[Yo_Mama]

39. Semi auto guns became pretty common in the early 1900s.

Semi-automatic just means that you don't have reload or chamber or do anything else before pulling the trigger again. If you wanted to retroactively ban semi-automatic revolvers and pistols, you'd be taking most of the guns sold for more than 50 years out of the hands of gun owners.

Even the old types of double-action?? (I think that's right) revolvers in which the cylinder automatically rotated are semi-auto, although revolvers are usually discussed separately (revolver has multiple chambers, semi-auto has one chamber with a clip or a magazine holding the extra cartridges).

The first semi-auto pistol was made in the later 1800s, I think. Trap or skeet guns are semi-automatic.

I think that people who don't know anything about guns think "semi-automatic" means military. This is not so. The old shotgun you inherited from your grandpa may well be semi-auto.

I don't know much about guns - I'm not into them. Here's a wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. Why only semi-automatics? Why not ban bolt-action sniper rifles?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022746518

Here, for example, is a Remington 700:



Some civilians own this type of rifle.

Note, too, the automatic pistol laying on its side. If someone is going to own a pistol, why would anyone need to own an automatic pistol?

[Hoyt]

51. I agree. Why do people practice to shoot others at 1000 yards.

I'll have to post the sniper rifle ad that simply says, "one shot, one kill" with photo of someone in an army helmet for those who say gunners don't acquire them for that.

[premium]

56. That's the snipers creed,

"One Shot, One Kill".
Sniper rifles are nothing more than what a hunting rifle is based on.

Here's a sniper in Vietnam carrying a Remington 700 hunting rifle.

[Hoyt]

60. Pre, we aren't in a friggin war zone. I beg you understand that.

[premium]

64. Hoy, I know that,

I spent a year in a war zone, but the fact is that sniper rifles are based on hunting rifles.
BTW, that rifle the soldier is carrying, is what a typical hunter uses.

[Hoyt]

68. They are marketed in this country to yahoos, many of whom look forward to fighting here.

[premium]

71. They're marketed in this country to hunters. nt.

[Hoyt]

74. Not the ads I've seen from manufacturers and lethal weapons traffickers.

[premium]

76. Uh Huh.

Suuuuuuuure Hoyt, I totally believe you.

[rdharma]

66. How many years ago was that?

Just wondering. Much better stuff today.

[premium]

67. That picture was taken of a soldier in Vietnam.

I met a couple of snipers during my tour, very fucking serious guys.

[rdharma]

70. Very serious antiquated shtuff.

Just sayin'! 'Cause that's the way it is.

[premium]

72. Agreed,

but still just as deadly in a trained snipers hands.

[rdharma]

75. Against who?

The gubmint?

[premium]

78. Against whoever the govt. determines

that someone needs to be touched at long distance.
I was talking about military/police snipers.

One of the snipers I met in nam told me that his job was to reach out an touch the enemy at long distance, always thought that guy had a screw loose.

[appal_jack]

116. The Kalashnikov rifle was designed ~20 years prior to that picture.

The Kalashnikov rifle was designed ~20 years prior to that picture being taken. That very soldier probably faced Kalashnikov-armed enemies, So you're clearly OK with us citizens having that sort of "Very serious antiquated shtuff" too, right rdharmio?



Also, if that American soldier could engage his enemies at distances of >300 yards, then he had the advantage over the Kalashnikov-toters.

-app

[rdharma]

130. Huh? What are you talking about?

[hack89]

142. That "modern stuff" we have today has been around for decades

the AK-47 is a 70 year old design. The AR-15 is a 50 year old design.

That's what he is talking about.

[rdharma]

232. Well, then he didn't follow from my post #66 referring to that Rem. 700 in Vietnam. eom

[hack89]

242. "Much better stuff today"

The stuff you want to ban is old. That's all.

[premium]

243. To be fair,

I don't think he's ever been in favor of banning anything, just UBC and registration.

[rdharma]

245. Exactly! eom

[premium]

246. It's all good.

[rdharma]

244. I don't want to "ban" anything.

Where did you get that idea?

[hack89]

249. Sorry - I thought you supported the AWB.

my apologies.

[Honeycombe8]

50. Are semi-automatics all assault weapons? nt

[newmember]

58. I don't think I wrote assault weapon anywhere in my posts

I said a high rate of fire semi auto rifle

[Honeycombe8]

85. You said AR 15. That's not an assault rifle? nt

[Duckhunter935]

94. Nope

It is not fully automatic

[newmember]

96. Some say it is , some say it's not

That's why I don't like using the term.

I would rather say any weapon capable of a sustained high rate of fire

[riqster]

59. Nope.

I have an old .22 semi-auto that is used for varmint hunting. It would be laughed off any battlefield on Earth, believe me. A comfy gun to shoot, though. And it's easy to be accurate with it too.

[Honeycombe8]

86. That was my understanding. I thought maybe I'd misunderstood semi-automatics.

So...guess I don't understand what's wrong with semi-automatics, unless they take high count mags, I guess.

I don't know much about rifles, I guess. I have a revolver.

[newmember]

102. The term is confusing mostly because there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is

Take for instance the rifle used in Newtown , under the definition on what an assault weapon is in CT.

That rifle did not fall under the definition used by the state of CT

Take that same rifle into California and it becomes an assault weapon by the states definition
of what an assault weapon is.

That's why I use the term , weapon capable of a sustained high rate of fire.

[Mopar151]

65. No, not at all

A lot of high-end hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-auto.

[Honeycombe8]

87. Thx. I was confused a bit about that. nt

[krawhitham]

53. well REGULATED militia

all we want to do is regulate it so we do not have the wild wild west again

[rdharma]

69. The "Well regulated militia" crap died after the War of 1812. eom

[truebluegreen]

131. "crap"?

Are you referring to our Constitution?

[rdharma]

133. I'm referring to the "militia" clause. The idea of "citizens militia" became obsolete ......

.... at about the same time that the third amendment became obsolete.

I haven't heard of too many people lately who have been forced to quarter red coats. Have you?

[truebluegreen]

136. References to the 3rd are a straw man argument and off point.

But let me get this straight: references to the "well-regulated militia" is obsolete /of no account / doesn't exist, but the rest of the 2nd is vital / inviolate / of great importance?

Is that what you are arguing? And if so, on what grounds?

[rdharma]

139. No. It just points out how irrelevant the "well regulated militia" clause is today..... eom

[truebluegreen]

140. Non-responsive.

My question was WHY is one part of the 2nd irrelevant and one part is not?

[rdharma]

144. Why are you asking me? I never made that claim.

The REASON for the 2nd Amendment was based on the need of "a well regulated militia".

But then I'm not on the Supreme Court..... so my interpretation of the 2nd's obvious meaning is irrelevant.

As are my opinions on "corporations being people" and "money being free speech".

[truebluegreen]

150. I was asking you because you sounded like you knew.

You stated that the well-regulated militia part of the 2nd was obsolete and crap, as of the War of 1812. I'm asking, if that is the case, why is the rest of it not crap? Did the Supreme Court say so?

[Megalo_Man]

83. You want to issue cleaning kits, give out ammo, and instruct everyone

in how to properly maintain and use their weapons? Because that's what the term regulated means in the 2nd amendment.

[SlimJimmy]

256. Actually, the "wild wild west" had less violent gun crime than we have in major cities today.

The myth of a wild wild west is just that, a myth.

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year. In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

http://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Violence-Another-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195020987/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234881730&sr=8-1

[riqster]

54. The spring's the thing

With my physical limitations, having something to soak up the recoil makes all the difference.

Only reason I have, but it is a big one.

[jberryhill]

62. Because Oswald Only Got Three Shots Off

If you are going to overthrow a government, manually chambering a round takes too long.

[JohnnyBoots]

63. gas lawn mower vs push mower

It's the modern standard and had been for 100 years.

[Monk06]

73. Could it be that Bushmaster is the largest producer of the AR15 and also the largest donor to the

National Bushmaster Association?

Sorry, I meant, the National Rifle Association. It's so hard to tell the difference between the two organizations lately.

[ManiacJoe]

115. Is Bushmaster both of those things?

[SlipperySlope]

153. Bushmaster doesn't really exist anymore.

Bushmaster doesn't really exist as an independent company any more (although the owners try to keep up the facade).

Bushmaster was basically bought out by Remington. The old Bushmaster factory was abandoned and "Bushmaster" brand rifles are now made in Remington factories.

[newmember]

155. They still do under another name

http://www.windhamweaponry.com/

[TheKentuckian]

77. Common use for nearly a century and probably make up the majority of firearms owned.

The class includes all kinds of guns other than the AR15 platform.

[mwrguy]

79. Because you can't kill everyone in the room with a single shot weapon.

And that is just unacceptable.

[rrneck]

89. Because you might have to shoot more than once quickly. nt

[newmember]

100. You could do that with a revolver , lever action , pump shotgun or even a pump action rifle

But you do away with a sustained high rate of fire .
Seems like a good compromise?

no?

[rrneck]

107. It's really a distinction without a difference.

I haven't been to the range in years and I can put just as much lead in the air with an Remington 870 as most people could with an AR15.

There are really only three kinds of cyclic rates in firearms today.

1. Single shot.

2. Autoloading.

3. Full Automatic.

It really doesn't matter whether the action is cycled with energy from the cartridge or from the operator if you're the one getting shot at. The rate of fire is really not that different.

[Megalo_Man]

109. I might need to shoot

more than 6 or 8 times without reloading. Hell, I might need to shoot more than 17 times, which is why I carry a reload. When you've actually been in a gun fight you realize that you want as much as you can carry. When you're dealing with the stress of a life threatening situation your ability to perform fine motor movements is reduced greatly. I've seen a person shot 19 times and still able to shoot back, killing another person before they finally bled out enough to lose consciousness. He wasn't wearing body armor or on drugs.

[newmember]

112. Are you military ?

[rollin74]

92. rifles (semi auto or not) are only used in about 4% of gun murders in the U.S.

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)

why focus on doing away with rifles? why not handguns or other weapons that kill more people and are far easier to conceal?

FBI statistics for 2011

murders with rifles: 323
murders with shotguns: 356
murders with handguns: 6,220

[Duckhunter935]

95. does not

fit their narrative. They do not care about the kids killed by handguns. Sorry but the truth hurts.

[raouldukelives]

117. Yeah, I don't get it. Always made sense to me but then most things that do, don't for many others.

Easily concealable & only designed for one purpose. Worthless for hunting but great for lots of kills in a small area. And of course, the numbers are undeniable.

[Jenoch]

127. "Worthless for hunting..."

Are you a hunter? It is legal to hunt deer and bear with handguns in Minnesota. My brothers have both hunted deer with large caliber handguns.

[raouldukelives]

149. Sure, done quite a bit of hunting.

My main concern was always assuring what I was shooting didn't suffer unnecessarily. My experience has shown me the way best way to achieve that is with a rifle.

[SlimJimmy]

161. They are also carried extensively in areas of Alaska for self protection from

bears and other large predators.

[Jenoch]

163. I read an account of a couple guys moose hunting in Alaska.

While they were field dressing their moose, a huge brown bear approached and started huffing. The problem was, that guy that had the large caliber pistol (I don't recall what it was) had taken his jacket off and hung it on some brush. (That's why it should be strapped to your hip.) Anyway, he did manage to get the gun and when the bear finally charged, he put all six into the the bear and dropped it next to the moose. The photos were amazing.

[SlimJimmy]

164. That happens more often than people realize.

[Jenoch]

165. Here is a link to the story I mentioned.

http://thegreatwhitehunter.wordpress.com/the-longest-minute-terrifying-bear-attack/

I remembered part of the details wrong. The guy dropped the bear with one shot, then put three more into him. His hunting partner asked if the bear was dead, upon learning that it was dead, he said to save the last two shots because he didn't have any more ammo and they still had to hike out of there. It turns out the guy wrote the story and put the photos in because he got tired of retelling the story.

[SlimJimmy]

166. Excellent link. I skimmed it for now, but will go back and read it in its entirety later.

I especially liked the "lessons learned" at the end.

[aikoaiko]

99. I prefer a semi-auto for self defense.

[newmember]

101. I know , many gun owners say that.

[SlimJimmy]

162. And they are correct when they say it.

[ManiacJoe]

114. Why a semi-auto?

Ease of use and reliability. Any time you can remove human fallibility from the system often gets you better results during use under high-pressure like competition and self-defense.

Yes, semi-autos have increased reliability issues due to more moving parts. However, most of those issues are easily and quickly worked around usually by changing magazines.

[hack89]

123. The AR15 is merely a rifle

t is accurate, light, very ergonomic, and easy to shoot.

It is perfect for hunting and target shooting (which is what I use it for).

Like every generation before, a large group of men in the military become familiar and comfortable with a certain type of rifle. The AR-15 is a 50 year old design - is what two generations of men think of when they hear the word rifle.

[VOX]

200. into which one can insert a 100-round dual drum mag...

If someone wants to dispense a large amount of death and pain in mere moments, the military-grade semi-auto is the default choice.

[hack89]

203. So ban high capacity magazines. Problem solved. nt

[Duckhunter935]

207. and probably jam

as they are highly unreliable. It would also melt the barrel. AR's are not designed for that number of rounds.

[hack89]

125. Why is banning them so important?

when they are not the weapons killing people? Rifles of all kinds account for 1% of all gun deaths. We are talking about a couple of hundred people at most shot by semi-automatic rifles. Shotguns kill more. Knives kill four times as many. Blunt objects kill four times as many. Handguns kill a hundred times more people.

When you ban rifles and the death toll due to guns remains basically untouched, what then?

[premium]

126. Then it's, well, this didn't work,

so now, let's try banning semi auto handguns, and when that doesn't work, then it's, let's try banning all handguns.

I know that's not supported here with the exception of a few very vocal members, but there will be national voices calling for it.

[SlimJimmy]

167. Agree. That's the start of the slippery slope, isn't it?

[clarice]

152. You can put bullets into the bad guy faster. NT

[Erose999]

168. Because most of the gun nuts are "shooting blanks" if ya know what I mean.... gotta compensate.

[premium]

170. Of course,

the obligatory penis/compensate insult. How original.

[Recursion]

176. why are anti-gun people so obsessed with penises?

It doesn't seem healthy

[NickB79]

169. Why drive an automatic instead of a stick?

Convenience. It's far easier to simply pull the trigger, make the gun go bang, and do it all over again until your magazine is empty. Then, put in a new magazine.

It takes a bit more skill, more patience, to work an action after every shot. It's really not hard at all to do, and some people actually enjoy the feel of it, but many more find it tedious, just as most people find it tedious to constantly shift manually while driving.

Thus, semi-autos have become the most common gun sold in the US today, because they're convenient to use.

[Recursion]

175. Nobody is talking about getting rid of them

People are talking about saying they can have this shape of grip but not that one. It's offensively stupid.

Also, going after rifles while ignoring handguns is offensively stupid.

It's not really about the rifles; is about legislation from a position of ignorance.

[librechik]

181. cuz they are all crazy cowboys who love to play with things that explode in their hands

and they don't want to have to wait 3 seconds.

[JCMach1]

192. Stop calling them gun owners and call them what they are: gun hobbyists

it's about toys...

toys that unfortunately kill people.

[premium]

193. Actually the term would be firearms owners.

They are firearms and they are owned, ergo, firearms owners.
Just because someone owns a semi auto rifle, be it an AR-15, WASR, Mini-14, Ruger 10-22, doesn't make them a gun hobbyist.

[Electric Monk]

214. Someone posting 500 pro-gun posts a month online sure isn't just a hobbyist either. They're a NUT.

[premium]

215. Your opinion

your welcome to it, my opinion is that your opinion is wrong.
BTW, you never did answer me about that movie, is it worth downloading from Graboid?

If you're referring to me as far as the 500 posts, I'm hardly a gun hobbyist, I own a whole 2 firearms, a .357 Colt Python and a .12 ga pump shotgun of which I haven't even shot in about 10 years.
Gun hobbyist? Yeah, right.

[premium]

218. Guess I'm not going to get an answer from you about that movie. nt.

[Electric Monk]

221. imdb gave it a 6.1/10 but I think I'd give it a 7. nt

[premium]

222. Thanks.

Sounds like it's worth downloading from Graboid and watching.

[MineralMan]

196. My car has a manual transmission. My rifle is a bolt action.

My car gets me where I want to go. My .30-06 rifle is sighted in at 300 yards, and is accurate to just under 1 minute of angle (MOA). That represents about a 3" circle at 300 yards. It was built for deer hunting in the Sierra Nevada mountains in California. I no longer hunt, however. It was sighted in at 300 yards before I put it away for storage. If I take it out and load it, it will still hit exactly what I aim at at 300 yards if it is ever needed. I know the sight picture intimately at 100, 200, and 400 yards, as well.

An AR-15 that may be carried by some beer-drinking militia moron does not represent any sort of competition for that deer rifle.

If the right wing nutcases take up arms at some point, they probably should stay out of my neighborhood. I'm not the only Democrat on the block with a deer rifle. I have no use for an AR-15.

[Agnosticsherbet]

202. More efficient at putting bullets in six year old heads n\t

[Mopar151]

217. Because there are thousands, if not millions, dating back about 75 years

of high-end hunting rifles and shotguns which are semi-automatic (Google Remington Model 1100 or Ruger Mini-14 for examples) The magazine capacities are regulated under state and Federal hunting laws. The traditional styling and limited magazine capacity makes them unattractive to the backyard Rambos and wannabe Jokers - for whatever reason.

[Hugabear]

228. There's a perfectly legitimate need...

[newmember]

235. I know it's a movie quote but what would make a gun owner buy

and wear a shirt like that?








sick..

I won't believe a member here wears something so sick

[kudzu22]

241. Same reason I write emails instead of letters

And use an electric mixer instead of a hand cranked one. It's just better.

[Sancho]

250. Pretty soon, gun owners will all go out and buy this one!!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184223110/new-rifle-on-sale?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130516

"A new rifle goes on sale on Wednesday, and it's not like any other. It uses lasers and computers to make shooters very accurate. A startup gun company in Texas developed the rifle, which is so effective that some in the shooting community say it should not be sold to the public.
It's called the TrackingPoint rifle. On a firing range just outside Austin in the city of Liberty Hill, a novice shooter holds one and takes aim at a target 500 yards away. Normally it takes years of practice to hit something at that distance. But this shooter nails it on the first try."

No matter what, there will eventually need to be restrictions on guns, or else we'll all be living in the wild west again...it's getting crazy out there. I'm a gun owner, and I support licenses, background checks, gun registration, mandatory training, and mandatory gun-owner's insurance. I don't think that guns need to be semi-auto. I have a single-action handgun, a pump shotgun, and a bolt action rifle. That's it and I've had them for decades. No problem. If you're an impatient gun owner who can't wait to shoot more bullets faster, then you probably shouldn't possess a gun. If you want a thrill, try sky diving. Otherwise, seek counseling.

There will always be technical gun improvements (more deadly), and it's way past time to have limits on both the guns and the gun possessors. I'm sure folks realize the great military rifle of WWII (M1) was a simple semi-auto with a limited clip to load it. These AR-15's with large magazines are much more deadly than most battlefield rifles of the 20th century.

[premium]

252. Your average gun owner isn't going to go out and buy that system,

minimum cost is $22,000. Very few average gun owners can afford this rifle, this is more of a rich persons toy.

[Sancho]

254. I bought an Apple II for over $2000 about 30 years ago...

If sales are allowed, there's nothing to keep the price from coming down until there's a price point that makes a profit...hmmm...sort of like the AR-15, etc.

Nothing on that new gun that can't be reproduced more cheaply. A laser scope and the processor of an IPAD? It's game logic in real life parked on the top of a real rifle!!

The only thing that's gonna keep kids and criminals from something that can kill you at 500 yards first shot is a law that you can't sell them; and kids and criminals can't possess them; etc.

Simply put, there must be restrictions and we're way, way past the point of good sense in my opinion. I'm still in favor of laws that would put serious limits on gun possession, use, sales, and ownership.

[premium]

255. Bullshit.

With a Remington 700 and a good scope, I can put a round on the bullseye at 700 yards, a really good sniper could probably do it at 1000 yards, cost, around $500.00. The average sniper in Vietnam carried the Remington 700 with a decent scope and was able to reach out and touch the enemy at great distances.



He's carrying a standard Remington 700 with a good scope.


The WWII M-1 Garand, with a decent scope, also made a very good sniper rifle. I met a couple of snipers while I was in Vietnam, one carried the M-14 with a scope, very good sniper rifles. The average gun owner isn't going to spend $22,000 dollars on this system when they can spend $500.00 and get basically the same results.
You would have to put restrictions on every hunting rifle and scope to get what you want and it just ain't gonna happen.

[Sancho]

268. I have a Remington 700..and you're wrong...

a 12 year old, inexperience shooter can't do what you're saying. The new rifle described on NPR would allow a child to shoot like a sniper out of the box with no experience. And that technology should be sold at Walmart? It may cost 22K today, but it will be made cheaper and cheaper IF it's allowed to be sold. I don't think such guns should be sold to any civilian.

And you make my point. The M1 and AR 15's shouldn't be sold either. An emotional teenager with a R700 can't do mass killings with only video game practice. If you add laser sights, computerized targeting, and the gun now makes a sniper out of anyone regardless of background it would be crazy to sell that on the internet.

Trained snipers used to take time and practice to develop. What I arguing is that semi-auto, easily fired weapons should be illegal with the possible exception of licensed and practice and vetted people who really need such guns. As long as there is a profit to be made and folks who won't accept any restrictions, we'll continue to have unnecessary shootings. It's time to put a stop to selling this stuff willy-nilly. The streets of America are not a war-zone.

I think there should be limits to gun ownership. As described before, you should have a background check, mental health check, license, and specified need to own semi-auto, powerful weapons. You should carry a license indicating your training, have your guns registered, and you should be insured specifically for gun ownership. Some guns and types of guns should be banned. In my view, that includes semi-autos.

[Travis_0004]

276. I own one just to piss you off.

[spin]

277. The AR-15 is a very easy rifle to modify to better suit the owner...

and this can be accomplished without the aid of a gunsmith.

GUNS
The Wild and Crazy World of AR-15 Modification

By Adam Clark Estes

The AR-15 has become the most infamous gun in America in the last few month. The rifle, originally designed for United States troops in Vietnam, has been flying off the shelves since the Newtown and Aurora shootings. In fact, the AR-15, which fans also refer to as the Black Rifle, has been flying off the shelves for years. There are now around five million AR-15s in the hands of everyday Americans.

Exactly why the Black Rifle has become so insanely popular is up for debate, but Wired's Jon Stokes makes a strong case in an article that declares "The AR-15 Is More Than a Gun. It’s a Gadget." Among other revelations, Stokes attributes the AR-15's popularity in part to the gun's hackability. Like the hot rod craze, high definition stereo trend, and the fixed gear bike phenomenon before it, the AR-15 appeals to the American desire for individuality and customizability.

"I always tease that it’s like Legos for grown men," Jay Duncan, the vice president of sales for AR-15 maker Daniel Defense, explained to Wired, “because there’s plenty of guys that get one, two, six ARs. And they’re constantly tinkering with them — changing barrel lengths, changing optics, putting different sights on them. It’s the same reason that a guy gets into remote-controlled cars or fly tying. Because it’s a fun hobby, and it’s a distraction from reality sometimes."
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-wild-crazy-world-of-ar-15-modification

History of The American Rifle

***snip***
For well over a century, many of our most popular sporting rifles have directly evolved from a service rifle of a particular era. Battlefield requirements in a rifle such as accuracy, ruggedness, reliability and fast follow-up shots are features equally sought by hunters and target shooters.

The bolt-action centerfire rifle, for many decades America's classic deer hunting rifle, is a descendent of the First World War battle rifle, the 1903 Springfield. The bolt-action of the Springfield offered smooth and rapid cycling of the action and allowed for the use of a more powerful cartridge, the .30/06, accurate at ranges out to 1000 yards. More than a hundred years later, the .30/06 remains as America's most popular big game hunting cartridge.

The first semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) U.S. service rifle, the Springfield .30 M-1, popularly known as the Garand, saw service initially in the Second World War. Not long after the war, a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles as well as semi-automatic shotguns were developed by sporting arms manufacturers and have gained widespread popularity among both hunters and clay target shooters.

Today, the AR-15 looks like the M-16 service rifle that first saw combat in Vietnam. To be sure, the AR-15 does not look like a traditional sporting rifle. Neither, in their time, did the Spencer or the Springfield. What the AR-15 does look like is the latest iteration of a modern rifle that employs advanced technology and ergonomic design to produce an exceptionally reliable, rugged and accurate sporting rifle. Produced in different configurations and chambered in a variety of calibers, AR-type rifles not only can be used for, indeed are exceptionally well suited to, many types of hunting, precision target shooting as well as personal protection. In recent years, AR-type rifles have become among the most popular sporting rifles sold in the United States.
http://www.nssf.org/msr/history.cfm

I also feel the reason that many people have bought AR-15 rifles is because of all the publicity they have received in the movies and in the gun control debate. I remember the Dirty Harry movies and his S&W .44 magnum revolver. Prior to the movie, .44 Magnum handguns were firearms only used by serious hunters and were considered far too powerful for the average person. The Dirty Harry movies caused many people to run out and buy one just to show to their friends and the price increased dramatically. For several years it was difficult to even find one in a gun shop as gun stores had a long list of buyers waiting to purchase one.

I should point out that I do not own an AR-15 at this time as I have no reason to own one. However I plan to move to a rural area of Florida in the future and may decide to buy an AR-15 to hunt feral hogs on my property and to target shoot.

[Rex]

289. Kewl story bro!

nt.

[Iggo]

301. Because the government.

Jeez.