assault rifles

[RIROCKHOUND]

So, was anyone on here's life actually lessened during the AW Ban? Did you feel inadequate as a man w/o a machine gun? :-P

Besides, I'm not a great shot... I want a semi-auto Mossberg 12ga during a zombie attack rather than a semi-auto .22 AR-15.... or a cross-bow a la the walking dead.....

and JD, while spence was being a condesending ass, he does have a point regarding the source of the article...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

and JD, while spence was being a condesending ass, he does have a point regarding the source of the article...

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

The point remains...
In science it is pretty standard to want to know not only what is said, but who said it, and who funded it....

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

There's is nothing condescending about calling a out a ridiculous and arrogant remark.

Also, good that I'm getting under your skin without even trying

-spence

[Jackbass]

I worked for a very large shop in MA at the time of the Brady bill. The day it passed every AR SKS Glock Spas etc went up in price. Then we ordered all of the large capacity magazines we could get our hands on. Considering the parent company was the distributor we had more than we thought we would need.

Every para military "tactical guy" In a 100 mile radius called and came to get the stuff. Some thought they would be a me to turn em around for a hefty profit in 2 years when people could t get them retail. My guess is the mags are still on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.

I never was into the stuff I could care less of your average citizen wants to blow through 150 dollars in ammo on Sunday in three minutes. If that is what you are into more power to you.

It is my opinion that these shootings would. E just as devastating if the individual had a 357 revolver and reloaders. The people caught in these situations are probably shocked that it is happening first and then scared to death that it is happening. More often than not flight as opposed to fight wod kick in if you are not trained in how to handle a situation like this. How many are truly trained to handle a situation like Aurora?

Ban them or not it will still happen. It is not the guns it is the individual perpetrating the act that creates the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

"Assault" rifles as sold to John Q. Public are not automatic weapons.

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[22] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.
Of course if you are in New Bedford you might have reason to worry since the cops have been losing their real assault rifles.

[PRBuzz]

Get real: people will kill people!!!! Worldwide the weapon of choice is probably sticks & stones and the main reason is differences in religious beliefs!

Are we to ban sticks, stones, etc? How about religion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

You can only shoot 2 guns at once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I think I'm going to start using TNT to catch bass and claim its just my fishing pole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, I like the notion that we respect the constitution. And I really don't like the prospect of ignoring parts of the constitution that we don't happen to like.

That is a position that no gun rights supporter can disagree with.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Along those lines, I believe that law-abiding folks ahould have reasonable access to guns for hunting, target shooting, and/or protection.

But that statement could, on it's face be seen as violating your opening sentence or at least setting it up for violation. If we were really concerned with respecting the Constitution we would not be trying to discern what the citizen is allowed to do but discussing what the government is allowed to do.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But I don't get the availability of assault rifles.

The 2nd Amendment was enacted with a very plain and understood object; to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and the federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens available to aid the civil authority. In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms and ammunition supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions. That's the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment for as long as the government obeys the Constitution.

Also part of the 2nd Amendment's object is to preserve the fundamental principle that the people retain the final right to rescind their consent to be governed by a government no longer abiding by the principles of its establishment.

The only way for the founders to ensure that those objects could be fulfilled/maintained/preserved was to secure from government's reach the means to achieve those objects; the already existing, individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Amendment does not create, grant, give or otherwise establish the right, it merely recognizes and secures it from government action. The right is not dependent in any manner on the Constitution in general or the 2nd Amendment specifically, for its existence.

Here's where it gets sticky and where it is vitally important that we do respect the Constitution . . . Even though the general right does not depend on the Amendment, SCOTUS has said the levels of government's protection of the right has been framed by the object of the 2nd Amendment's declaration and guarantee.

Long standing case law has inspected this question and has created a criteria to decide if an arm has 2nd Amendment protection. That criteria is, if it is the type of arm currently employed in civilized warfare and that it constitutes the ordinary military equipment and can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen.

If one were to apply this longstanding criteria without prejudice, the type of arms that have been assigned the moniker of 'assault weapon' are the type of weapon that near absolute 2nd Amendment protection must be applied (deemed 'strict scrutiny' when a law is challenged).

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Only law enforcement and the military are legitimately in need of that ability.

Given the fact that the Federalist's, the promoters of a strong central government, endorsed the principle that whatever federal standing army could be amassed it should be opposed by a ratio of 17-20 armed citizens to 1 soldier, I can hardly agree that government forces should enjoy such an "ability". (Interestingly, Madison's 1788 ratios remain nearly spot-on today; 308 million total souls, 2.9 million active and reserve military, a general militia of 65+ million citizens with arms in their hands)

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.

Again, none of that holds legal weight. You would need to demonstrate the source of government's power to do the actions you want.

[Nebe]

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it 😊

Ok that was a little condescending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives are a fearing bunch.

You mean like the fear of other people owning guns, especially scary guns?

I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand.

Quite a sweeping statement. Do give some examples. Are casual, unserious, conservatives more courageous than the serious ones. Are liberals, or progressives more confident and fearless about things they don't understand (of course, they understand everything, so what's to fear?) than serious conservatives?

They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs.

You mean like the serious socialist and communists (and progressives) who adhere to their secular religion of government as god and as regulator of and meddler in the lives of everyone and intolerant of those whose ideas don't jive with their's, especially those who desire freedom from excessive government?

Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night.

Conservative phobias must be very severe if they need a gun to make them feel better. On the other hand, they are cheaper and, apparently, easier to alleviate than the complex phobias that seem to attack liberals and require shrinks and counseling and government to cure.

Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A lot less conservatives, even serious ones, live in Detroit. I haven't found that they are more driven by phobias than the liberals, nor more armed. Most non-conservatives here are not infected with phobias about constitutional rights or individual liberties, but most still go to a church and have "rigid" religious lives that involve some god (beyond the government to which they are greatly dependant) and many have guns. Don't know if it's because of a special non-conservative phobia, but it not only makes many of them feel safer, but many have actually used them in defense of their lives and property. And they, for the most part, don't like homos or muslims. And, though a great number of the non-conservatives that live in Detroit could be categorized as "the less intelligent ones," even the more intelligent non-conservatives have guns. Probably a different phobia drives them to own guns.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that was interesting . . . Since we are putting on our headshrinker hats on tonite I'll share a bit about what I have learned in 20+ years of gun rights debate . . . To me, anti-gun Liberals / Progressives are an angry bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious anti-gunners I have met in my life and debated had serious anger issues when people disagree with them.

Generally, Liberals / Progressives go on and on about "values" and avoid at all costs the term "principles". Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; problem is, a Liberal / Progressive knows that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection.

That's why anti-gun Liberals / Progressives don't like guns or trust anyone with them - because they don't trust themselves with guns. (Of course, being statists, it is acceptable if not desirable when government possesses these horrible instruments of death -- just as long as the guns are pointed at people waving Gadsden flags)

Anti-gun Liberals / Progressives need to have strict control over the facts as they feel them while dismissing real knowledge.

The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything.

A direct challenge to a anti-gun Liberal / Progressive to defend their public policy positions is often met immediately with anger and vitriol because that challenge is perceived as a personal attack on one's "feelings" about the evilness of guns and not simply an intellectual challenge to logically defend policy stances in reasoned debate.

As bad as all that is, the worst of it comes out when a horrible incident like Aurora happens.

The worst trait anti-gun Liberals / Progressives display is the covetousness for the sympathy of the victimized, claiming society's pain for themselves and then dancing in the victims blood, blaming gun-owners and their evil overlords, the NRA for their pain.

Ok that was a little condescending. (but the smiley face makes it alright )

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Generally, Liberals / Progressives go on and on about "values" and avoid at all costs the term "principles". Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; problem is, a Liberal / Progressive knows that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection.

The opposing force here is conservative hypocrisy. As usual the real world has little time for absolutes.

That's why anti-gun Liberals / Progressives don't like guns or trust anyone with them - because they don't trust themselves with guns.

There is certainly some truth here although I'm not sure it has anything to do with political beliefs...people in general who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to be wary of them. I knew someone who was arrested at an airport because he forgot a hand gun in his bag. Was he just so comfortable around guns it seemed like a casual thing?

. . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything.

I guess the irony here is that you posted this remark in a thread started by an admitted conservative who also happens to be quite familiar with the use of such weapons

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The opposing force here is conservative hypocrisy. As usual the real world has little time for absolutes.

Whose real world? Is the "real world" an absolute? If not, is it a dream, a concoction, a figment of your imagination, a temproary aberation that fluctuates, dissolves, and reassembles into whatever form your or anyone's imagination desires? What are all the scientists that secular non-conservatives admire almost as demi-gods doing messing about with various laws and searching for some absolute answer or other? How can we have a conversation or an opinion of any value if it is "absolutely" relative? Isn't the function of language, communication, based on stable, determinable signals that everyone is taught and must agree on lest we all live in the "real" solipsistic world of ultimate individuality where we are just undeterminable conglomerations of particles that somehow accidentally, randomly, bump into each other in the unknowable night of existence? Isn't the need for society, government, relationships, a need for escape from chaos to stability? I don't know what your "real" world is, but if it has no time for absolutes, I don't think you know what it is either.

There is certainly some truth here although I'm not sure it has anything to do with political beliefs...people in general who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to be wary of them. I knew someone who was arrested at an airport because he forgot a hand gun in his bag. Was he just so comfortable around guns it seemed like a casual thing?

Sort of like being so comfortable with various cosmetics and stuff that you're not allowed to bring on the plane that they seem like casual things. Oh, that's right, your not supposed to feel comfortable around guns, or anything else that can cause death. Always be wary of your car when you enter it. Don't like it too much or be too comfortable with it.

I guess the irony here is that you posted this remark in a thread started by an admitted conservative who also happens to be quite familiar with the use of such weapons

-spence

So, to avoid irony, we must not disagree.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

solipsistic

had to look that one up....


Classic


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,”

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are on a roll lately

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the ignoramous' that didn't make it out of the 8th grade fear everything he/she doesn't understand, but the conservatives have a lot in common with you and many others, that is, less rules(we have enough, less government intervention)

[Nebe]

I agree about the term "assault weapons". It's a word that is much like "weapons of mass destruction".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Good stuff by ReelnRod here.

[Nebe]

^^ i agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

My posts are purely for entertainment purposes. However I do believe everyone should have sheet loads of weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Oh no he didn't.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

-spence

[Pete F.]

Timeline | Modern Sporting Rifle
Maybe someone with more computer savvy than I can paste this image in here, "Assault" rifle turning into hunting rifles are nothing new.
The ability and speed of media bandwagon jumping is very different.

[Pete F.]

I'm a lot more worried about this stuff
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

[buckman]

I have been packing and moving.....possible the best, most entertaining and informative debate yet.
Well done

[Pete F.]

Actually Assault rifles are kind of mild.
If you want to see real guns you have to go to one of these.
http://greenmountainboysshootingclub.com/2012Flyer.pdf

[Nebe]

Yep.. What's that saying?? I'd rather die standing up than spend a lifetime on my knees?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

In the past 100 years 3207 people have been killed by terrorist attacks in the continental United States. More than 622,000 soldiers have been killed in Wars protecting our freedom in that same time. Are our rights that were fought for so hard and at such a price to be written off so casually?

[The Dad Fisherman]

He didn't get shot in the end....it ends with him bouncing the ball against the wall of his cell