Simple - and serious - question - why is anything other than a handgun, shotgun or rifle needed?

[NRaleighLiberal]

self defense, target practice, hunting/farm purposes. I don't like it, but I get the second amendment and understand it is different strokes for different folks...but doesn't that selection cover it?

[MrSlayer]

1. Suppose you have to overthrow the government?

A ludicrous response, yes?

But that's what idiots will tell you. That's the point of the 2nd amendment. Tree of liberty and all that horseshit.

The fact is there is no reason to have guns at all anymore. But it's way too late to do anything about it.

[baldguy]

24. The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defend the govt, not overthrow it.

That's what a militia is for, after all. This simple fact is lost on the gun-worshiping idiots.

[DocMac]

28. This is why I love DU.

The post set out by Mr.Slayer, and your response, is sufficient to end any discussion. What more do people need to know?

[MrSlayer]

68. Yes but try telling them that.

Might as well philosophize with a walrus.

[thucythucy]

99. Excellent point!

Thank you.

[Vattel]

113. Do your history.

It is pretty clear that part of the rationale for the 2nd amendment was fear of the government. You are partly correct, though: another part of the rationale was to provide for national defense.

[ellisonz]

149. "The Antifederalist Mysteries"

The funny thing is that a logical basis outside of the Constitution showed up in a Supreme Court decision (Scalia writing for the majority in Heller vs. DC):

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[baldguy]

151. Hey, clueless: if you want to defend freedom & liberty

Antonin Scalia is not the best source for supporting quotes.

The fascist pig's quote just fosters the RW extremist fallacy that the militia is somehow different from the govt. They are comprised of the same thing: THE PEOPLE!

[Chemisse]

162. Was there really a need for name calling?

Why stoop to RW tactics to make your point?

[baldguy]

165. A RWer quotes a RW fascist, trying to foster a RW extremist myth in favor of a RW policy

And you think *I'M* using RW tactics?

[permatex]

156. Thats the supidest thing I.ve ever heard

the purpose of the 2A was to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical govt. if it ever came to it.

[baldguy]

159. Maybe because your head is full of RW bullshit.

Try again.

[permatex]

170. RW bullshit?

whatever dude. Show me one constitutional scholar that agrees with your position.

[baldguy]

174. The Founders feared a standing army much more than the remote possibility of domestic tyranny.

That's why they created the 2nd Amendment, to give the responsibility to defend the country to militias instead. And those militias were to be well-regulated - under the control of the govt on the local, state & ultimately, national level. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to create an artificial separation between the govt and the militias. This is a RW myth. The Founders knew & understood that in a functioning representative republic, the constituency served by both the govt and the militia are identical - it's THE PEOPLE.

The 2nd Amendment certainly is not there to allow a failed rent-a-cop to pretend he's John Wayne by blowing away a kid carrying nothing but a suspicious bag of Skittles. Or to allow crazies unlimited access to deadly firearms designed only to kill massive numbers of people. The old saying applies: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The RW that's supplied the bullshit in your head seems to think it is.

[permatex]

175. So again show me a majority of constitutional scholars that agrees with your position

and then I will concede your position on the 2A.

[bongbong]

176. Hilarious

When the right-wing wants to defend their Precious (guns to us sane Liberals), they either use "show me a Constitutional scholar" (IOW, modern day thinking), or they use "I'm an Originalist!" (IOW, original thinking).

Whatever they need to defend their Precious. Flip-flopping like R-money.

[baldguy]

178. It's because they need authority figures to tell them what to think.

They're not capable of doing their own research & forming their own opinions. And when someone exposes a flaw in their second-hand reasoning, they're unable to defend it.

[bongbong]

179. Stock Talking Points for gun-relgionists

There are SO many, and the counters are SO OBVIOUS, that there must be a website with them all listed. I've seen plenty of them, repeated almost verbatim from different gun-relgionists on DU.

The gun-relgionists are so clueless that they think their eons-ago-discredited Talking Points matter.

There is one very annoying gun-religionist on DU who keeps posting the same tripe after I've corrected him over & over - and he has responded to me and said "I didn't do that!". A few threads later, he does it again. It's the NRA Spokesman who keeps posting "we have lots more guns and we've never been safer".

[Scuba]

78. That's exactly what they tell you, to which I respond....

... good luck with your AR-15's against the National Guard. You'll lose before the big boys are even involved.

[amfortas the hippie]

117. i assert

a 2nd Amendment Right to Ak-Ak Guns, and Tactical Nukes..
(sarcasm, of course)

[Scuba]

118. Sarcasm noted and appreciated. Welcome to DU.

[rbixby]

152. I remember someone saying....

"Better to have a gun and not need it, than need it and not have it"

I asked if the same stood true for tactical nukes....no response

[Iggy]

84. LOL....

look, even in the most remote case of us having to "overthrow the gov't", they are so
overwhelmingly more equipped/trained to protect our gov't-- the idea is horseshit as
you intimate.

in fact, I'll go futher.. the RWNJ's suggesting this in their little "posses" etc are in fact
cowards. they are for the most part blowhards who are not going to do anything.

[Zorra]

91. *sigh* (How soon we forget) You mean, like this?

Soviet war in Afghanistan

American Revolutionary War

French Resistance

Dutch Resistance

German Resistance

Native Americans in the United States

And so on, and so forth, throughout the history of humankind.

But don't worry, that's all over now, corporations...er, I mean government, will protect us we're safe. It can't happen here.

[thucythucy]

109. The examples you cite illustrate the absurdity of the

"over throw" argument. Was that your intention?

The Afghan rebels you picture (and is that bin Laden up there?) are shown with rocket propelled grenades. Is the gun lobby arguing now that they be included under the 2nd amendment? They were also equipped with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, provided by the CIA. Is anyone seriously arguing that citizens be able to purchase a Stinger surface to air rocket, for daily use in their own neighborhood? Because, in this day and age, that's what's needed for a successful insurgency, even in terrain as unfriendly to occupying forces as Afghanistan.

American Revolutionary War -- was only won after the intervention of the French army and navy. Otherwise Washington et al. would have been hung for treason. And this was the case even though the range of lethality of the weapons on both sides -- muskets and smooth bore cannon -- was roughly equivalent. You might have also included the American Civil War -- another insurgency in which the 2nd amendment was already in place -- that failed without foreign intervention.

The French resistance, likewise, had no possibility of driving the Wehrmacht out on its own. As I recall, that took 60 or more American, British, Canadian and Allied divisions, with thousands of strategic bombers and close air-ground support, tanks, heavy artillery, flame-throwers--not to mention the 200 plus Soviet divisions on the Russian front, without which even that effort would have failed.

Likewise the Dutch resistance didn't liberate a single inch of Dutch territory until the Allied armies were on the scene. And the link you posted on that discusses how the Dutch resistance was predominantly nonviolent.

German resistance: not even the German military (or portions of it anyway) were able to overthrow Hitler. Besides which, they used bombs, not guns. Every attempt on Hitler's life, as far as I know, was done with a bomb.

Native Americans in US: really? Do I really have to point out the obvious?

Maybe I'm reading you wrong here. Maybe you meant to say that small arms (guns, rifles, even machine guns) are useless when fighting a repressive regime? I'd say that was definitely your point, but I can't be sure. Or are you saying, yes, private citizens need to be armed with rocket propelled grenades, surface to air rockets, etc.? Not to mention, it helps being aligned with and receving aid from a foreign power?

Either way, "the right to bear arms" in the current American context has nothing to do with "resisting tyranny"--unless by tyranny you mean unarmed people flocking to see a movie premier.

[Zorra]

154. Those appear to be disingenuous half truths expressed for the sake of defending an untenable

position.

If we ever need to struggle against tyrannical oppression, it is certainly your individual right to roll over and die, or welcome your new masters. Just submit, if that's all you feel you are capable of, or what is most comfortable and convenient for you.

Personally, I would do whatever necessary to stop them, even if had to throw rocks and sticks. Like my ancestors did. Personally, I'd prefer to use something more effective in order to try to stay free.

And that's my point. Guerrilla tactics use every means available to throw off oppression. And a rifle is usually a more effective means than a stick for helping deter an oppressor.

And as for your apparent insult to American Indians, yes, please, go ahead and point out the obvious to us.

Those incredibly brave people who fought in resistance movements used every resource available to them to fight off their oppressors, and diminishing their efforts as basically valueless and ineffective is extremely lame.

And despite your lack of acknowledgment of this fact, the American Colonists, and their itty bitty muskets, and their bravery, and their sacrifice, had an enormous amount to do with defeating the British and gaining independence from Britain.


It seems possible that you are not well versed in history, otherwise, I doubt that you would be putting forth these half-truths. No one is denying that assistance from other peoples has not contributed to the success of resistance/guerrilla movements. But that assistance was just part of a whole, and in most cases, one would not have succeeded without the other.

And this fact illustrates that your argument here is flat out pure bullshit.

The people of Vietnam repelled the vastly superior armies of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and sent them packing. Yes , they had help. But many Vietnamese children, women, men, fought with every means possible in a desperate guerrilla effort to demoralize and defeat the vastly superior armies that invaded heir country in order to take away their land...and they succeeded against all odds. Guerrilla resistance relies not on superior firepower, but on demoralizing the oppressor. The Vietnamese and Afghani have been doing it for centuries, they are expert at it, from long, hard experience.

More recently, the Iraqi people used IED's, and every other means available, to attempt to retain their sovereignty. They had no real army. They will continue to demoralize their temporary conquerors with guerrilla. I could quote examples of guerrilla resistance and adapted tactics ad infinitum, but I believe my point would now be clear to any reasonable, literate person.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-26-arms-iraq_x.htm

WASHINGTON — Iraqi guerrillas have an abundant supply of small arms and explosives that could allow them to maintain their pace of attacks indefinitely, Pentagon and U.S. Central Command intelligence analysts have concluded.

The guerrillas' shoot-and-scoot tactics use up relatively little ammunition while inflicting serious casualties and even deeper psychological damage.

At least 107 U.S. troops have died in guerrilla attacks and other hostile action in Iraq since May 1. And although Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has argued that the attacks are relatively few considering the size of the country, he acknowledges they have succeeded in intimidating Iraqis who might otherwise support the coalition.

Iraq's armed forces disbanded and melted into the countryside in late April during the final stages of the U.S.-led effort to topple Saddam Hussein's regime by force. The Iraqi soldiers took their weapons home with them. Coalition forces took note of an ominous sign at the end of the fighting: hundreds of disabled Iraqi military vehicles along roads and in fields, stripped of any ammunition.

The US is very insular country, and many people in the US are extremely provincial in their worldview. Too much narrowly dispersed information on all pervasive televisions can do that to a population. As a matter of fact, I believe that TV is a far more deadly weapon than all the hunting rifles in the US combined. Probably often plays a big part in contributing to the mindset of the wackos who blow people innocent people up, and who shoot innocent people.

The totally unnatural state of existence we experience in this totally contrived consumer society is going to continue to drive more than a few people insane to the point where they simply can no longer handle the craziness of it all, and lose all reason and hope, and go totally off the rails. Hence, we will continue to get the bombers and shooters. It's not totally the fault of guns. It's primarily the fault of this FUBAR culture that creates the mental illnesses that lead some to become violent lunatics.

Video lobotomized and comfortably numb, until somehow their switch gets flipped.

I suggest, rather than outlawing guns, we regulate them more effectively, and then we outlaw profit producing TV and the insane consumer system of the 1%. People going of the rails and bombing and shooting innocent people is just a a symptom of this disease.

The disease itself is the vast materialistic emptiness of the Corporate created American Consumerist Value/Belief System. It's absolutely enough to drive a person insane.

I've been a yellowdog Democrat since birth. I'm not a "gun nut". I grew up in the country, have lived in the country all my life, I know how to hunt, but am a vegetarian now, and I'm so dead set against taking life that instead of killing insects that invade my home, I prefer to catch them whenever possible, and let them go free outside. My family has had to seriously depend on hunting in the past. Now...I have a deer rifle that I haven't fired since 1984 (and I aim to keep it, too). I detest the NRA. I fully believe that their should be very strict gun control laws.

But I surely don't want some lifetime city person straight out of American Beauty Reality, who wouldn't know a bullfrog from a duck fart, and never produced a single item of their own food for themselves, making it so that I can't hunt for my food if I need to, or have some reasonably effective means, as an individual, of protecting myself and my people if I need to.

I absolutely do not believe that the corporations/government have the right to tell me I cannot own a deer rifle, or a shotgun, that I might effectively use to gain sustenance, or to use to try to defend myself or my people if need be.

Anyone who thinks they have the arbitrary authority to take this most basic natural right away from me can go frack themselves.

If those who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment really want to stop all the insane violence and get some real world cred, they need tosupport and join in the struggle to change this totally unnatural insane corporate controlled consumer system that makes so many millions upon millions of people become mentally ill, instead of simply maybe believing they are going to change it by voting, and then sitting on the couch watching infomercials about how to get rich quick by being a really clever trick for the corporate whores.

The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America

Mental Disorders in America

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness.1 In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada.3 Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.

[thucythucy]

181. Let's see, you start off by accusing me

of being disingenuous and using "half truths" but then follow up with this lovely straw man argument: "If we ever need to struggle against tyrannical oppression, it is certainly your individual right to roll over and die, or welcome your new masters. Just submit, if that's all you feel you are capable of, or what is most comfortable and convenient for you."

Yeah, right, anyone who disagrees with you that automatic weapons need to be legal and easily obtainable is a coward who loves tyranny. Like those famous gun-haters Mohandas K. Gandhi and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.-- who BTW were among the most successful social activists in human history (and who somehow didn't make your who's who of successful struggles against tyranny and oppression). Gandhi didn't see a need to walk around with grenades, Dr. King never owned a machine gun, so they both obviously loved tyranny and did "what is most comfortable and convenient."

"And as for your apparent insult to American Indians, yes, please, go ahead and point out the obvious to us."

"The obvious" in the context of your post about the effectiveness of small arms against artillery and other heavy ordnance is that the American Indians lost. Understand? They put up a spirited, sometimes tactically brilliant "guerilla" war that went on for several centuries, and yet were defeated militarily and their sovereignty limited to "reservations." You don't know this?

The rest of your post avoids all the points I make. Yes, the Vietnamese drove out the French and then the Americans. They had heavy artillery at Dien Bien Phu, against the Americans they had rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft cannon, SAMs, and the final push on Saigan was done in tanks. TANKS. Surely you've seen the films.

And I'm not disputing people's right to resist an imperialist power. I AM saying that the argument that semi-automatic or automatic weapons being legal and easily obtainable in the context of a post industrial society can be justified by such a right is absurd. Not unless you're willing to also declare that private ownership of SAMs, tanks, flamethrowers, IEDs, RPGs, Stinger missiles, etc. should also be legal and easily attainable by most anyone in pursuit of the same right. That was the point of the OP, with which I agree, which I guess makes us both lovers of "tyranny." That's what this discussion was about, not mental illness, vegetarianism, city slickers telling country folk what to do, and all the rest of what you throw up.

Not to mention, in support of your position that we should all arm ourselves to the teeth to resist the coming tyranny, you link to a site on the Danish resistance of 1940-45, which was noted for its nonviolence. Talk about "disengenuous" and "half truths."

As for the rest of it, I'm not trying to limit your right to hunt for food, own a "deer rifle," eat meat or not eat meat, kill insects or not kill insects, or all the rest of it. And I have no idea what American Beauty Reality is, nor do I particularly care. Diversions, personal invective, and straw man arguments all. And while I might be tempted to agree about the evils of consumerism and the corporate state (a part of which is the gun industry and corporate gun lobby), you have no idea what kind of progressive work I do or don't do, and know nothing about what kind of "cred" I have or don't have.

BTW: pointing out that a large percentage of Americans have what some see as significant mental health issues is not exactly a winning argument for why everyone should have the right to own a fully automatic rifle. Just saying.

[DCBob]

97. HA! It is absurd but many RW gun nuts sincerely believe that.

I guess many are planning for an "overthrow" if we win again in Nov. It would be kind of funny to see them try.. a bit like the "Mouse that Roared".

[scarletwoman]

2. Why? Profits for the arms industry, of course. (nt)

[DocMac]

29. That is a symptom of the disease. nt

[sarisataka]

3. That is the basic choices.

but there are so many versions based off of those three. The AR-15 is, in the loosest sense, just an offspring of the Civil War era Henry repeating rifle, a Glock from the Single Action Army.

The tools change over the years. The operator is what is constant. The west had Wes Hardin. We have our murders that I will not give the respect of posting their names.

Changing the operator is what will have a lasting effect. We need to find out why people do these things and see what can be done to correct them.
IMO removing the mystique of guns will help more than removing the guns.

[Johnny Rico]

4. What other weapons are you speaking of besides these?

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. anything multiple shot, automatic, rapid fire - anything other than really basic.

anything that adds more than is needed for the task at hand.

I know absolutely nothing about guns, and don't want to - don't want one, never had, never shot one, never will.

But it seems to me one of the issues is that what is being used in these horrific crimes is way, way, way over the top.

[4th law of robotics]

13. Automatic weapons are intensely regulated

and pretty rare.

And in reference to the CO case they were not used.

He used a rifle.

[Iggy]

85. Umm are you sure?

Holmes had _four_ weapons. including an AR-15.

Still, James Holmes, 24, the former neuroscience student believed to be the lone gunman in Friday’s shootings in Aurora, armed himself with an assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun to allegedly kill 12 and wound 59 others, many critically. All were weapons that would probably be legal for him to possess.

•And one Smith & Wesson AR-15 type rifle, .223 caliber, called by some an "assault rifle." These weapons can accommodate large ammunition clips, and Holmes had one "drum clip" that would have carried more than 100 rounds, Oates said. With that clip, he could have fired 50 to 60 rounds in a minute, even if the rifle was considered semi-automatic, not automatic, Oates said. He had 3,000 rounds of ammunition for this rifle.

I don't care to get into slicing hairs over whether this is a "fully automatic" gun. if you can fire 60 rounds per minute, there is NO reason for regular citizens to own such weapons.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12854157-aurora-suspect-james-holmes-was-buying-guns-dropping-out-of-graduate-school?lite

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-gun-laws-remain-lax-despite-changes-after-columbine.html

[Johnny Rico]

89. I'm sure. His AR-15 wasn't a full auto weapon. Period.

It was a rifle. Period.

if you can fire 60 rounds per minute, there is NO reason for regular citizens to own such weapons.

So you want to outlaw every semiautomatic weapon in the country? 100 million guns? Good luck with that.

[panzerfaust]

94. You are sure because ... ???

No reason for semi-autos (except possibly for handguns) anyhow - unless you can't shoot worth a damn.

[Johnny Rico]

100. I'm sure because if his AR-15 had been fully automatic it would have been huge news.

Feel free to show any link demonstrating that it is, in fact, a machine gun. Bear in mind that the mainstream press regularly refers to semiautomatics as automatic weapons.

No reason for semi-autos

What's your public policy solution, if any, for this "problem"?

[panzerfaust]

108. My solution? Same as two-time Republican Candidate for President Barry Goldwater's

Senator Barry Goldwater (For those just joining us: A major conservative figure of the last half of the last century) said in 1990

I am completely opposed to selling automatic weapons. I don't see any reason why they ever made semi-automatics. I've been a member of the NRA. I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or a semi-automatic for hunting. There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal.

Emphasis added.

As gun-gophers are now popping up from underground (as expected) am shutting down - with one last comment: If you want assault weapons, join the military.

Otherwise use sporting arms - and develop the shooting skills which allow you to use lever, pump or bolt without spraying the background. A skill which I often observe at the range is lacking in those who favor the big-black bang-bang-bang guns.

The day is too pretty to spend inside playing whack-a-mole.

Bye.

[thucythucy]

182. Great post!

Absolutely perfect.

Enjoy your day.

[HooptieWagon]

135. And if his AR15 were automatic

He would likely not have hit 70 people with 100 shots. Automatic weapons are designed to throw a lot of lead in the air, not have a high percentage of hits.

[Johnny Rico]

138. Quite so. The vast majority of anti-gun posters on this topic obviously

get their knowledge of firearms (such as it is) from action movies.

[HooptieWagon]

142. Yes. Same hysteria that inspired witch-burning 400 years ago.

They dont understand it, therefore they dont like it. They cant define it, but they know it when they see it. Ban everything I dont like! Yes, even the "left" has its brand of intolerance...

[Iggy]

95. You didn't read/comprehend

my post.

[Johnny Rico]

98. Sure I did. You don't want and "regular" citizen to be able to own semiautomatic weapons.

What's your public policy solution to this "problem"?

[4th law of robotics]

116. Yes, sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[Johnny Rico]

72. So you're speaking of banning anything the can fire more than a single shot without reloading?

That would be almost every firearm invented in the last 150 years.

Surely you're not serious...?

[HooptieWagon]

140. "There are none more righteous than the ignorant"

I have no idea who said it. If no one has, then someone should have.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Very good question.

Posting to follow this.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. I am serious - really feel I need to be better educated - all part of getting to root causes.

Nothing can be solved unless all factors are well understood (that's the scientist in me!)

[rrneck]

30. It seems to me

that there are three ways to regulate a firearm:

1. Caliber
2. Capacity.
3. Rate of fire

Caliber:
That's the size of the bullet. Anything over .50 cal is heavily regulated as a destructive device. When it comes to getting shot by anything smaller there is really no difference. There is no such thing as a benign bullet.

Capacity:
That's those famous high capacity magazines. You can limit them I guess, but even a rusty operater like me can switch mags in under two or three seconds. Guns that accept magazines are designed to be reloaded quickly.

Rate of fire:
Full auto means continuous fire as long as you hold the trigger down. Those are very expensive and highly regulated. Semi auto means one shot per trigger pull. People have been buying over a million of them a month. A semi auto firearm is a standard gun these days. Again, rusty as I am I can empty a Colt 1911 (seven rounds) in under two seconds. It's almost a distinction without a difference.

The number of guns is not the problem. There is no way to regulate them any more than they are now. The distinctions between "civilian sporting arms" and "military hardware" are almost non existent and not much more useful from a public safety standpoint. I haven't seen a single public policy proposal that couldn't be sidestepped by someone intent on doing harm before the ink is dry. Not one.

[DocMac]

33. Those roots are deep.

I follow your posts and we agree on so many things.

As a former Marine, i'll tell you that there are as many good people as there are assholes. That may not bring you comfort, but people just like me have laid down those weapons. However, it would take a lot to pick it up again, and that is how things should be.

I guess people do not remember General Cincinnatus.

[NRaleighLiberal]

34. Thanks - and I do realize that. I know far more good people than assholes.....

It's been quite a day. Off to bed...can't keep my eyes open.

[DocMac]

43. Sleep well. Have no fear. nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

77. Thanks - I did sleep well - I actually never have any fear!

Kind of Monty Pythonish, but I always try to look on positive sides of things....and admit it's gotten tougher, esp since the Bush years.

happy Saturday!

[Iggy]

86. "All the factors understood"

I get it, but... you realize with the frequency of these mass murders the past ten years-- the
VA Tech shooting, the NW IL Univ shooting, the shooting of congresswoman Giffords, etc., there
is already a pattern which has emerged?

How much more "analysis" and discussion do we need before we act?

[immoderate]

8. To knock over a bank, or armored car...

Seriously, I think a regular gun is enough. Unless somebody's got issues.

I have a 9mm hand gun. It's not for defense (or offense either.) It's for shootin.'

It's for shootin' at things that can't die, or shoot back. Things that splatter are the best.

Long ago, at a gun show far away, I bought a magazine that held 30 rounds. That's a lot of shootin.' But I only used it once. There was no grip that was comfortable.

BTW, assault weapons is bullshit. Most of the modifications are aesthetic. Pistol grips, spark arrestors, and skeleton stocks do little to make a gun more lethal. High capacity magazines have some effect, but you can carry more of them.

--imm

[morningfog]

9. Nothing more is legitimately needed. Fuck the apologists who defend more.

[4th law of robotics]

12. Right, could you point out the people on here

demanding flamethrowers and grenade launchers?

[4th law of robotics]

10. What other weapons are there

that are available to the general public?

So-called "assault weapons" are simply rifles with cosmetic differences.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Should the caffeine content in iced tea be regulated?

I mean, how much do you need, really?

[DocMac]

44. Is that a snark sandwich? nt

[Posteritatis]

52. All of it. I need *all* of the caffeine.

Grumble mutter neighbour mowing at dawn in July...

[jberryhill]

14. Uh, and?

The CO shooter had a shotgun, a rifle, and handguns.

[rustydog]

15. Hey Man,If the Gubmint comes for my guns, If Obama keeps trying to take my guns

I need more than my .357, my glock 17, my .30-30..I need FIREPOWER to stop them black helicopters...
Yes I'm being sarcastic. but, I am a gun owner, I do not think Uncle Sam is gearing up to "take my guns"
(Sorry to say that Wayne Lapierre, you goober)

We do need to regulate the sale of guns plain and simple. It won't stop the shootings at all, but it might, just might stop the shootings of 50 plus people in one incident.

[4th law of robotics]

16. How?

What regulation would have stopped this kid who apparently had a clean record until now.

[rustydog]

18. who needa an AK-47 assault rifle? My 30-30 has a limited round capacity

In order to shoot 50 people I'd have to reload seven times. shot guns could be 2-shot only. If you can'thit a pheasant in two shots, quit hunting.

This is a bit snarky, but multi-round weapons serve no purpose to the hunter. This country isn't so bad that I feel I have to carry to protect myself. I work in security and have made dozens of enemies, my life has been threatened uncounted times. I still am not afraid to walk these streets unarmed.

This is a touchy issue, but it MUST be addressed.

[NRaleighLiberal]

21. it is touchy, and my attempt at this post (not going too badly) is simply to learn.

[michreject]

70. Only 17% of gun owners hunt

The rest of us own guns for several reason.

[4th law of robotics]

166. "who needa an AK-47 assault rifle" . . . not the kid in CO

He didn't have one.

[Mojorabbit]

146. It would not have done a thing

It is the same type of thinking I am seeing on this board that got us the patriot act which we will be forever stuck with it seems. It is all coming from an emotional place which I understand but that is not a good way to make public policy. Like another poster stated in another thread, Norway has some pretty strict laws but it did not prevent their massacre. The UK has one of the most restrictive laws on handguns in the world and from wikipedia(because I am too tired to search further) "However, in 2006, writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis [12] instead the opposite happened, gun crime went up. [13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

[uppityperson]

17. Hobbyists and collectors like to have different types and varieties.

Is that what you mean?

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. I guess - but if they get used (which they seem to), it goes beyond hobbyists....

I told you, I just don't get guns at all. Too much of a complete dove, I guess.

[HooptieWagon]

41. Some people like gardening.

They dont all plant the same flowers. Some people like reading, they dont read the same books. Some people like hiking, some like boating, and some like making left turns all afternoon in a loud car. My point is, people enjoy all kinds of different leisure activities that others may not understand, or even hate. Some people like shooting guns, or maybe even just possessing them. Who the hell am I to judge? - I have four old motorcycles in the garage that dont run, and likely never will. I like having them. You may never understand why a gun enthusiast likes his guns. Doesnt give you the right to take his (or hers) pleasure away. Rather than that, try enlisting his aid in keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

[Posteritatis]

50. That'd apply to pistols as much as automatic rifles

Well, maybe a little less since hobby shooting with pistols is much more common - as other people have pointed out the worry about automatic rifles is a straw man, since even the US regulates those very, very strictly - but it's still close enough for the purposes of this conversation.

There doesn't have to be some specific, practical, visible application to want to collect something, and collecting it without any such applications in mind doesn't mean it's going to be used for criminal purposes. Some people collect weapons out of historical interest, or because they happen to like the aesthetics of one, or because they appreciate the design or craftsmanship in same.

I've actually been starting a sword collection in the last few months myself, on top of starting to make old-style armor. Both of those obviously have even fewer normal applications than a target pistol or the like - people fence with sport weapons, not actual rapiers, for instance - but I still enjoy the things out of my historical training, and I find the things kind of fascinating both as pieces of design and as pieces of art. This is despite the fact that, as with the scarier firearms out there, their sole purpose in being created is to harm other people. That doesn't mean I'm going to be using them to that end; I have my reasons for wanting a few, I know my own judgement, and rarely feel any particular need to have to justify either to others.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

20. No. And not even those without an extensive mental health examination. nt

[OffWithTheirHeads]

22. Why is anything besides a VW bug, a minivan and a truck needed?

It's not but different people like different toys.

If the logic I've been hearing today about guns was applied to cars and the # of people killed by them, we would all be riding bicycles.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

23. You can't harm 70 people with a car. nt

[ohheckyeah]

25. Sure you can. n/t

[Tejas]

62. You don't get out much, do you? (NSFW picture)

http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/holy-shit-04.jp g


edit: broke link due to NSFW

[coalition_unwilling]

67. Actually, there was an incident in Santa Monica, CA

in 2003 where a motorist drove into a crowd at the Farmers Market and killed or injured 70 people, IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

[obamanut2012]

80. I thought of that immediately

[NRaleighLiberal]

26. strictly speaking, you are stating logic - but....

the main purpose of a weapon is to kill (you can say for collection, for target practice - but the reason guns are manufactured is as an instrument of killing).

the main purpose of a vehicle is transportation. Of course cars can kill, but if they are misused. Cars are not manufactured with a primary use as a killing machine.

Big difference. Same goes for some of the other arguments here - alcohol, for example. Main purpose is as a beverage to enjoy. when misused, of course it can kill.

So to me, it is all about the original purpose of something. But I respect your viewpoint and position. I also recognize that guns and what happens when misused produces a visceral response - an emotional one - that will be felt differently depending upon which side of the issue you find yourself, and what your individual lifestyle choices are.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Bows and arrows were designed to kill.

Theres plenty of people who enjoy archery for sport. Javelins were designed to kill. So were boomerangs. Slingshots. Martial arts. Fencing. Just because original intent was for killing, doesn't mean that it cant now be enjoyed for leisure.

[NRaleighLiberal]

75. yes, that's fine - and I choose to not participate in any of those either.

What it comes down to, I guess, is that I've never had any desire/quest for power or dominance. For me it is about finding a life of peace and harmony with my surroundings - my choices are always toward nature, not man-made things. And I don't think any of the things I don't choose are inherently bad - just not for me.

My whole point of this post - and it's worked pretty well - is a civil attempt to understand why people want guns, but especially why guns that shoot more/faster/more lethally.

[HooptieWagon]

128. Thats my point.

Some people find peace and relaxation by harmonizing with nature. Others by reading a book. Some by making or listening to music. Others by riding a motorcycle. To understand enjoyment others get from their chosen activities, think of the enjoyment you get from yours, rather than trying to fit everyone into your box.

To make another analogy, you are trying to understand what gays find attractive in the same sex. This is no possible if you are straight. What you can do is understand that gays have the same feelings for their chosen partners as you do yours. Its all about accepting that not everyone fits in the same cubbyhole, and no ones cubbyhole is superior to anothers.

[NRaleighLiberal]

129. show me where I am trying to fit everyone into my box. I am listening and reading and

gaining an understanding. Again - don't project.

[HooptieWagon]

136. Well, you said you didn't understand fascination with guns.

Gun enthusiasts may not understand your hobby or leisure activity. Is one superior to another? No. Different strokes for different folks.

[NRaleighLiberal]

148. Yes, I did say that - which is why I started the thread, so I could learn. I am not judging,

not putting in boxes - just keeping an open mind and learning about things that are not familiar to me. And nowhere have I implied superiority.

No harm, no foul - it's all been a pretty good dialog.

[HooptieWagon]

153. Well, I didnt mean to imply that.

I was just trying to make the point that people arent pleased by the same things. That would be pretty boring anyway.
I'm not a gun enthusiast myself. While I can admire a beautifully made or cleverly designed gun, I have no interest in shooting or collecting them. Other people have the same thoughts about my hobbies and activities, I'm sure. Theres a guy in this thread who collects old swords. Not the thing for me, but its great he has a hobby he enjoys. I doubt hes going to go all ninja on a crowd, so who am I to decide what he should and shouldn't derive pleasure from?

[NRaleighLiberal]

155. agreed. n/t

[OffWithTheirHeads]

51. Well, I respect the fact that you are really trying to understand the issue

and not going into the whole penis size thing.

I really enjoy my guns. Shooting well is an art. While it is true that the purpose of guns was primarily to kill, the same could be said about Karate. Karate is an art, a skill, and a discipline. Nonetheless, it's primary purpose was to hurt or kill people. Both Karate and shooting have evolved over time and both are now considered by many people to be a legitimate sport that requires art and skill.

I think you stated earlier that you have never shot a gun. I respect the fact that you have chosen not to engage in this sport but I sort of feel like I'm hearing the argument that "I have never read that book, seen that movie, etc. but i know that it's bad."

Hitting a bullseye at 100 yards is just as exciting as a birdie in Golf. If you really think about it, guns are just an advanced form of throwing rocks. People will continue to kill other people weather guns exist or not but the fact is that guns are just another tool, like a slingshot or a sword.

Guns are not going away. Even if they did, people will still figure out ways to kill each other but, as a sport, guns are fun. Many of us enjoy the art and the skill that it takes to shoot well and while I respect the fact that you would rather not participate, it beats the hell out of bowling.

I've been shooting guns since I was a little kid. You claim to have never shot a gun. Perhaps you should go out to a range and blow off a few hundred rounds before you pass judgment on me for enjoying it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

73. I am not passing judgement - and I don't need to go to a shooting range because

I've got way too many hobbies and interests already.

When you say that as a sport guns are fun, you are speaking for yourself - I actually find bowling a lot of fun - also softball, basketball, football.

So please don't project and accuse me of something you are doing. Thanks. I really am trying to understand the issue.

[HooptieWagon]

157. I commend you for your intellectual curiosity

in trying to understand the issue... and for what appears to be tolerence and respect for others viewpoints.

[NRaleighLiberal]

158. thanks, I try - don't always succeed but try.

appreciate very much the recognition to do so.

[geckosfeet]

27. My weapon of choice is the hand grenade.

I would fly an F16 except the fuel bills alone would bankrupt me.

[DocMac]

32. Don't milk it! nt

[HooptieWagon]

31. An AR15 is a rifle.

So the shooter had two handguns, a shotgun, and a rifle.

[DocMac]

36. I get the impression that you are

responding to a woman, maybe not. At any rate, why do you assume that this person (having read the posts) is even remotely involved with the weapons you listed?

Do you know what a MPFW and LAW is? MOS 0311? Maybe 105's or 155's?

Slow down on this member, they have already said that they need to learn more. Allow them that, if you would.

[HooptieWagon]

39. I dont think it gets any slower than to tell them an AR15 is a rifle,

also pointed out upthread.

[DocMac]

40. Ok. Have the two of you come to a conclussion?

Are you so steadfast that you cannot give someone time to address and understand what it is that you're saying?

I think this person is trying to gather their thoughts on the matter.

Now i'm interested in yours, all of a sudden.

[HooptieWagon]

48. I think people have the right to own and use firearms for sport, pleasure, and defense if necessary.

And that would include handguns, shotguns, and non automatic rifles.

I also think the responsible owners of above mentioned firearms should give the NRA the middle finger, and work with legislators to craft enforceable laws to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them. That assistance won't be forthcoming as long as there are shrill cries of "ban all guns".

And while I have fired guns, it gives me no particular thrill, and I dont own any. Not going to disparage those that do. It appears that I am part of a small group who are middle of the road on gun issues.

[DocMac]

54. And I think people should leave their guns at

home. I guess you wasn't there the night I went through this.

So, what do you have to defend yourself with, besides a gun? Oh, and what is your age and health?

[HooptieWagon]

65. I defend myself by staying out of situations where I need to defend myself.

Only time I was ever attacked, in a bar in U.P., I found a broken glass worked quite well. That was twenty years ago.

[DocMac]

66. That's bullshit.

So, at which point in the grocery store...when you crash my cart and snap on me, do I defend my self? And don't say when the hand meets the nose bullshit. What if my son and your son get into it at wildwings? What if your wife goes off on some guy and you have to defend her?

Do you have recipes for these scenarios?

So, we just avoid these situations? C'mon man.

[HooptieWagon]

69. Dude, you're unhinged. Whats your problem?

If I bump someone with a shopping cart, I apologize. Not married, but I wouldn't marry a woman who "goes off on someone". Its called basic civility. Maybe you should try it.
What is your obsession with me anyway? You dont seen interested in discussion, just issuing challenges. g'night to ya.

[DocMac]

71. I am not a dude.

Maybe you live in a bubble. Anyway, i've heard this nonsense before. You are magically able to avoid ALL conflict. You wouldn't
over react, of course not.



I'm done with you. I bet that makes some sense.

[obamanut2012]

81. What does the poster being a woman have to do with anything?

[DocMac]

82. It wouldn't be a stretch for

someone to understand that a woman is less likely to know about firearms.

[obamanut2012]

120. You know different women than I do

[Logical]

92. The response was not rude or mean. Just the facts. WTF is your issue? Calm down. n-t

[DocMac]

103. Maybe you just didn't get the answer

you wanted. Are you trying to stir shit here?

[Logical]

105. You are the one trying to create an "issue" where there is none. Quit....

attacking valid posts where nothing is wrong.

[Pholus]

83. I like searching on how to "convert" AR-15's.

Seems there is a LOT of fascination on how to increase the rate of fire.

Can I do that with my Springfield m1903? No?

Seems there is more to being a "rifle" then.

[HooptieWagon]

150. Yes, and there are lots of kits to modify Mustangs to 800 hp.

Its a popular car. There is going to be a degree of oneupmanship with anything. Some people want the fastest computer, others may want the nicest garden or most audio-perfect stereo.

[Pholus]

167. So the highest rate of fire is about oneupmanship?

I guess the penis comparisons *are* apt then...

[HooptieWagon]

168. My neighbors like to one-up me on their lawns

I guess they're also compensating for small penises. I feel sorry for them, so I set the bar low...

In all seriousness, sometimes its just a matter of pride in having something different. My 82 year old mother is proud of her self made quilts and antique silver collection... whats wrong with that?

[Pholus]

169. You made me laugh.

(not sarcasm -- I had that coming and I had a funny picture about a "one-up on the lawn" for a minute) And I appreciate historic firearms. But to get to the point, converting a AR-15 is a slightly more serious form of "different" than a quilt or antique silver.

And to go back to my original topic, an AR-15 is fundamentally a different kind of rifle than my Springfield. You CAN increase the rate of fire. I find it slightly dishonest to try to downplay and AR-15 by saying "it's just a rifle."

[HooptieWagon]

171. A Springfield is a hundred year old design

Although the military used them into WW2 until enough M1s were shipped to troops. Now, that would suit some enthusiasts fine. Others want a more modern weapon. Just like some auto enthusiasts are happy with a stock '55 Chevy, and others aren't happy unless they have a 2012 Mustang. And some aren't happy unless their 2012 Mustang has 800 hp. Hell, for the once every 10 years I go bowling, Im happy renting shoes and using whatever ball. Bowling nuts buy their own stuff. Its all about whatever makes you happy when you're having fun.
Friend of mine, a county judge, says there's two types of people in the world: Those who like to have fun, and those who are angry that someone other than them is having fun. I suspect hes on to something...

[Pholus]

172. Well at some point your Mustang isn't street legal anymore either.

Then again, there is a culture that says "to hell with the law cause it's all about me."

Your country judge pal seems like a real straight guy. Course the problem is that my fun (breathing) could be interrupted permanently by your fun at any moment.

[HooptieWagon]

173. Mustang was an example, I dont own one.

And with modern technology, 800hp is not only legal, but perfectly driveable on the street. Not cheap, though.

However, there are some people who race on the street. Not legal, of course. And YOU could be killed. Responsible car enthusiasts wouldn't do this. Just like responsible gun enthusiasts don't rob liquor stores or commit mass murder. The key is to eliminate irresponsible and criminal behavior, not to take away "toys" from those who are enjoying them safely and responsibly.

Yea, the Judge is pretty cool. Pretty talented amateur musician, and big supporter of local musicians. Ex-republican. Thinks current crop are bat-shit crazy. Used to be a professor, holds PHDs in finance and economics. Hes quite interesting to listen to, able to put things like the Wall St bank crash into understandable language and concepts.

[panzerfaust]

90. No, the AR-15 is an ASSAULT rifle (but some are carbines)

In any event, all AR-15 variants are assault weapons which fire 800/rpm on full auto. No civilian should have access to such a weapon.

All AR-15 variants can be made fully auto with inexpensive (and possibly/probably illegal) drop-in replacement parts Drop in Auto Sear Conversion for the AR-15. All of these conversions should be illegal as well.

Civilians simply do not need automatic weapons! Except maybe this guy ...
Wonder if he still missed?

[Logical]

93. Jesus Christ, another post discussing automatic weapons where none existed in the shooting. n-t

[panzerfaust]

101. You missed the target.

The point being that there is no reason for semi-auto "Assault Style" weapons to be available to civilians.

The reason for mentioning full-auto fire-rate is that it is very easy to covert many semi-auto weapons (ALL of the AR-15s for example) from simple "Gee, I don't have the skill to work a bolt without losing the target" semi-auto to the even more dangerous full auto version.

Want to bet he had the 30-round clips?

Assault weapons - either full, or easily made full auto - do not belong in the hands of civilians.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary ..."

That would be this guy?


Or perhaps one of these?

[Logical]

104. How do you define "assault style"? Serious question.....

What does that even mean? A rifle bullet coming out of a deer rifle kills as easily.

[slackmaster]

96. Drop-in auto sears are regulated as machineguns, and are not cheap.

$200 transfer tax, Form 4, federal background check, chief law enforcement officer sign-off. Buying one is exactly the same process as buying a legal, registered machinegun.

[panzerfaust]

110. When machineguns are outlawed ...

My point: It is an easy conversion ... and dropins are easily bought (gasp) illegally.

Hard to imagine, I know.

A legal semi-auto AK-47 can be made full-auto with a bit of file work - and, depending upon the model, perhaps drilling a single hole.

Semi-autos are simply full-autos waiting to be converted. NOT that they have to be converted to be incredibly destructive.

30-round clips for the AR-15 are legal in many places. Given semi-vs-full auto rate of fire, and the clumsiness of most non-military trained shooters in changing clips, I doubt that the sustained rate of fire (from your average mass murderer) would really be much faster on full than semi.

Either semi-or-full the rate of fire of semi-autos is not something that any civilian needs.

Really am going outside now!

[slackmaster]

115. Repeating a LIE doesn't make it true

If those conversions are so easy, why are they almost unheard of in the news?

[HooptieWagon]

134. Permits for automatic weapons are very difficult to get.

And anyone who owns an AR15 converted to automatic without the permit is going to spend a long time in jail if caught.

And, as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, "assault weapon" is just rhetoric based on the guns appearance. Adjustable skeleton stock = assault weapon... fixed wooden stock = hunting rifle. Many rifles come with either, functionally the same.

To make an analogy,its like bolting brush guards and roll bar on a pickup to make it an off road vehicle. Functionally its the same. Some people like the look of an off road vehicle, others like the look of a standard pickup. So by wanting to ban assault rifles, all your doing is banning a certain appearance, not the weapon.

[chknltl]

35. Because they are cool. (not snark, i promiss)

This is an alien hand weapon from the video game series HALO. I added the specs here because there are those who read this who are unfamiliar with this (and some who are) who would want this 'gun' for the 'cool-factor' alone. I have a point to make, I will make it after the specs stuff.



Model Type-33 Guided Munitions Launcher

Type Munitions Launcher

Technical

Needler (Halo: Combat Evolved) Length: 66.8 cm (26.29 in.) Width: 20 cm (7.87 in.) Height: 60 cm (23.62 in.) Needler (Halo 3) Length (o/a): 57.8 cm (22.75 in.) Length (barrel): 16.25 cm (6.4 in.) Weight (empty): 3.74 kg (8.25 lbs) Weight (loaded): 4.3 kg (9.5 lbs)

Damage Per Hit

Variable - Low to Instant Kill

Magazine Size

Halo Combat Evolved: 20 needles Halo 2: 30 needles Halo 3: 19 needles Halo: Reach: 24 needles Halo 4: 18 needles

Maximum Ammunition

100 needles (Halo: Combat Evolved) 120 needles (Halo 2) Dual-wielding: 240 needles 95 (Halo 3) 96 (Halo: Reach)

Fire Mode Automatic

Ammunition Type Crystalline Explosive Projectiles

Operation Unknown

Rate of Fire 8.5 rnds/sec (Halo 3)

Muzzle Velocity 54 m/s (177 f/s)

Accuracy High (Homing)

Range Short-Medium Range

So that is a Covenant Needeler, ranked one of the top ten guns of all time in a video game and by far my gun of choice against those who sought to snuff out my HALO characters.

At some point in our future, a handgun such as this might be designed created and marketed. But today that tech is far and away beyond what our science can create. Such a weapon is useless for target practice, the needles tend to bounce off solid surfaces. I suppose one could hunt with the thing, if one was interested in bringing back hamburger, you see when enough of those needles penetrate flesh, they react with each other in a nasty explosion. From prey to hamburger just like that! Home defense would not be such a good thing either as the detonation is one that requires a moment to build. Many a HALO player learned that the hard way when their victims took that moment to close the gap between them before exploding-doubling up on the hamburger. So why on earth would anyone want one of these things? One reason and one reason only: because they are cool!

If we could use Carl Sagan's Ship Of The Imagination, and go to a replica of the America we have today, exactly the same but with one exception: Tomorrow Colt firearms will be releasing the Covenant Needler and ammo for sale. Hundreds if not thousands would fly off the shelf within a few months. Why? Because they are cool, no other real reason. Do you suppose the NRA would step in the way here? Laughable, they would be the last to step on MY Second Amendment right! What about the government? At best they would want Colt to change out the automatic fire feature, turning it into a single pull single shot weapon. You could still pull the trigger fast enough to send enough needles downrange to make hamburger.
So if the market wants it, and basically it gets the blessing of the NRA and their bought and paid for government, their is no-one out there to prevent the Needler from hitting the shelves.

Let me make my point here, as of right now, on this good Earth, there has not been a single accidental maiming, not a single victim, not a murder nor even a stray needle puncture from a Covenant Needler. Obviously because one doesn't exist. But there are those reading this right now, who would love to have one and the ammo that goes with it. Why? Because they are cool.
And because they are cool, there will be accidents and homicides and all the same horror we face today from other types of handguns. How often I ask YOU, have we suffered these tragedies, because of COOL.

[NRaleighLiberal]

37. good food for thought (and many points for creativity and effort!). thanks...

[chknltl]

38. The 'cool' factor is one i've yet to see discussed. nt.

[HooptieWagon]

42. There is an element of that.

But most people who own guns for coolness or status dont go shooting up movie theatres.

And this guy appears to have had no interest at all in guns until this past May, so you cant call him a gun nut. A gun was merely the tool he decided upon to commit his rampage...

[DocMac]

47. Not a trained asassin, just crazed kid.

Columbine taught us that kids with guns are deadly.

I lived up near Boulder, up the canyon in Nederland. A co-worker used to hang out with the owner of the "Soldier of
fortune" magazine. They had a private ranch up there. They were a crazy bunch and people feared them. But that was a "bully fear" and if I had the same mind set, woe would be them.

[DocMac]

58. BTW, Columbine is the State flower. nt

[chknltl]

59. No disagreement. Wasn't even talking about him. That said...

....for many who purchase guns, the cool factor is VERY important. If not, there would not be much in the way of show and tell. I would venture to say that the vast majority of gunowners have at some point shown off their gun(s) to a friend or friends. That video game Needler, without question, would be damn cool to own!

Sadly cool kills. That same Needler would sell, easily at first but eventually the novelty would wear off and nobody would be buying it. Outside of cool it is pretty much useless. It would take no time before there would be innocent victims from that weapon. On one hand there would be those who wanted these things banned wholesale and on the other there would be those who stood their ground behind their Second Amendment rights.

Regardless of which side of that debate one may be on, there are those who purchase handguns for their cool factor alone. The buried point in my Covenant Needler example is that because nobody has any of these cool items, there have been no tragedies from them.

What it boils down to is that age old argument, one I will never win or lose to in a debate: The fewer handguns out there, the fewer tragedies we shall suffer as a society from handguns. If somehow, we as a society could remove all the cool out of these things.....slowly we have done just that with ciggarettes so I know it can be done.

[Posteritatis]

53. And it's very much one, and every bit as valid a reason as others, too

Of course, I might be biased, as I'm currently drooling at a spectacularly out-of-any-sane-budget rapier right now.

[aikoaiko]

46. Some say all you need is a .38 snubbie, 10/22 rifle and a wheelbarrow.

[DocMac]

49. Some people are right.

"I don't know why the spider swallowed the fly, I guess he'll die."

[Loudly]

55. Because there is an outmoded belief that

you need to reserve the right to go to war with your government.

I think we took care of that misguided notion during the Civil War.

And in fact the Civil War disposed of several myths of the founding.

There should be no doubt whatsoever that it disposed of this one.

[RegieRocker]

125. So no citizens of any country should ever go to war against their government?

[Fire Walk With Me]

56. The Bush family and the Neocons. Checks and balances.

I despise guns, but I despise even more those who would steal total power in their absence.

I can't believe I'm talking like this, honestly. But there it is.

(((UNCOMFORTABLE)))

And don't anyone get the idea that I condone in any way the atrocity yesterday or any similar. NOT AT ALL.

[Zoeisright]

60. You think that people armed with assault rifles can take on the US ARMY????

Dream on. That is a pitiful excuse.

[Tejas]

63. Who suggested that?

But as to your query, visited scenic Kabul or Baghdad lately?

[Fire Walk With Me]

64. Die on feet > live on knees

[GarroHorus]

121. "assault rifle" is a media term

The AWB only banned the cosmetics of weapons. The looks changed but the functionality did not. You CANNOT ban semi-automatic functionality without banning the majority of weapons in existence. It is that simple.

All the AWB did was make you FEEL better about the weapons and nothing more.

[RegieRocker]

127. So good to see a sane response here.

and factual. Thanks

[DocMac]

61. I feel you!

But you already live in a police state. What now?

[Tejas]

57. Mayor Bloomberg's bodyguards carry machineguns, ask him.

[raccoon]

74. ITA. nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

76. This has been a worthwhile/interesting exchange - thanks to all for taking it seriously,

keeping it civil and providing good points of view all around. I really appreciate it.

[Honeycombe8]

79. Assault weapons are not needed and should be against the law. nt

[OneGrassRoot]

87. I hope it's okay to piggyback here with my own question re: military veterans & guns

I wonder if there is a difference in how weapons are viewed by military veterans who have been in the theater of war versus other gun "enthusiasts"?

And, I wonder if there is a difference in how weapons are viewed by those same veterans based on age?

For example, most military members I know who are over 40 and have personal weapons don't glorify them. Yes, they want to protect their right to have them, but they don't gloat and preen over them as many people do with cars and other possessions. They see it as what it is: a weapon, and thus not to be taken lightly.

The other people I know who are avid gun collectors have never served in the military; heck, some of them aren't even avid hunters. Yet they have the AK-47's, Glocks and other guns, and fawn over them.

It's not only men; I know women who, even though they may not have a big collection, they have this weird ego attachment to their weapon, rather than a pure respect for it, imho.

[panzerfaust]

88. I am a former NRA member - and still enjoy shooting - BUT ...

I quit - along with about 30% of the membership (including Bush I) - when NRA turned from a conservative gun-sports association, into a conservative fascist organization and embraced the need for real (white?) Americans to have military assault rifles.

As Barry Goldwater (For those just joining us: A major conservative figure of the last half of the last century) said in 1990

I am completely opposed to selling automatic weapons. I don't see any reason why they ever made semi-automatics. I've been a member of the NRA. I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or a semi-automatic for hunting. There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal.

The closest we came to getting rid of assault weapons in the hands of civilians was Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Sadly, this ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment - but it was a start.

The Ban had a 10-year sunset provision and expired in 2004.

Our current president has shown no backbone for having it reinstated: Not even when Democrats controlled congress - well, at least when Democrats were a majority of those sitting in congress acting on behalf of the corporations who control them.



AR-15: 800 rounds/min (Full Auto)
A light-arm favored by militaries, gun-nuts, and mass murderers.

(If your's ain't full auto - which is still illegal (I think) - you can easily get a drop in sear to make it so)

[backstory]

183. looking for former NRA members

Hi panzerfaust (and anyone else in the same boat),

The radio program I work for is doing a show on the history of guns in America, and we're working on a segment about the Cincinnati Revolt in 1977. We're looking for anyone who was a member pre-1977 and left the organization when its focus changed -- which sounds like you, maybe. If it is, or if you can point me in the right direction, would you drop me a line at our website or [e-mail]? Thanks!

[leveymg]

102. The NRA says we should have AR-15s because the gov't won't let the citizens have nuclear weapons.

Assault rifles are a compensation prize. If you want to play with anything bigger, join the military or carry out a coup d'etat.

[RegieRocker]

106. A AR-15

is a rifle. Actually it's a 22 caliber rifle.
Only when it's able to fire full automatic is it any different than most rifles.
Fully automatic weapons are illegal and you will be thrown in jail for having one.
A 30.06 is more dangerous (a common rifle used by many hunters)

The term "Assault" is bogus. All firearms are dangerous.

[leveymg]

107. Unlike an AR-15, a bolt-action rifle can't be easily adapted for full auto fire.

That's the difference. That's the point of banning assault rifles.

[GarroHorus]

122. Bolt action rifles are a rare breed these days. nt

[RegieRocker]

123. This person wants a ban

on all semi automatic weapons

[GarroHorus]

130. Yeah, right, nearly half of all weapons in circulation.

Like that's gonna happen.

[RegieRocker]

131. I was referring to leveymg

not you.

[Posteritatis]

132. Aren't semiautos way more than half at this point?

I thought they were basically the norm as far as firearms design goes. Are there that many lever action/single shot/etc firearms around?

[GarroHorus]

139. Pretty much. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

160. I cant cite the figures, but I think you are correct.

In rifles, semi- automatic are the majority but there are still many who use a bolt-action with 3-6 round clips. Single shot bolt-action might even be rarer than muzzle-loaders.
As for handguns, semi-automatics are the vast majority, theres still some revolvers around. Single shot pistols are museum pieces.

[RegieRocker]

124. No semi automatic weapon

is an assault rifle.

Not all semi automatic weapons are rifles.

[leveymg]

137. All (or nearly all) semi-auto pistols and rifles can be converted into assault rifles

There is only three differences between a semi-auto pistol and an assault rifle: 1) a stock or forward grip, 2) a longer barrel; and 3) a continual fire pin, chambering, and ejector mechanism.

Not so easy to make an assault rifle out of a revolver or bolt-action rifle. Any reason why hunters and home protectors couldn't live without semi-autos?

[RegieRocker]

141. Plenty

and you will never ever be able to ban those. Period. It's this fallacy and endeavor that ruins the Democratic Party and loses elections.

You haven't thought about this have you? Why do I say that? Because the question should be self answering. Does a police officer need one and why?

As for hunters sometimes it takes more than one shot to bring the game down or you're dead and second some game can move in groups and you can take multiples.

So no. Semi automatic weapons will never be outlawed. Period.

[leveymg]

143. Sounds like the sort of "will destroy the Party" argument that sustained Jim Crow.

Police and military obviously have different needs. As for charging rhinos, how often do you hunt rhinos? How many do you hunt in herds, and how long to chamber that second shot with a bolt-action Mauser?

Don't assume so much. Your arguments aren't very convincing.

[RegieRocker]

144. I am already aware

that my ability to convince those that don't listen or truly avoid the truth is futile.

It's also obvious you've never hunted. Your statements show your ignorance on the subject. I suggest you do some reading or researching. I hope you become more enlightened.

[leveymg]

145. I am always wary of those who confuse their opinions with "the truth"

but because their arguments aren't the least bit persuasive, and knowing nothing about who they're speaking to, assume the other party is too "ignorant" to be "enlightened."

Sorry I wasted my time. You may return to the gungeon now.

[RegieRocker]

147. You have no argument

and you resort to hogwash and untruths. You have nothing.

[spin]

180. Fully automatic rifles are NOT illegal for civilians to own ...

providing you live in one of 37 states that allows ownership and comply with all the rules and regulations.

Is it legal to own or buy a fully automatic firearm?
Would I be able to go buy a full-auto AK47 or M16?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
There are currently 37 states here in the U.S. that allow the possession of automatic weapons. The requirements are that you submit an application to BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco &, Firearms & Explosives. As part of that application a complete criminal background investigation is done and you must submit a set of current fingerprints as part of the process.(Finger Prints fee's vary from $15-$20 depending on the state of residence)

Once approved, you will be required to pay a one-time fee of $200 for a Federal Tax Stamp per weapon (There are NO, REPEAT NO additional FEE'S,Dealer's Licenses or anything additional required!!)

With the GCA of 1986 (Gun Control Act) Civilians are not allowed to posess fully automatic weapons unless they were manufactured prior to 1986. The weapons manufactured before 1986 are "Grandfathered" meaning they can still be LEGALLY transfered thru a licensed/bonded Class III NFA Weapons Dealer.NO fully automatic weapons made after 1968 are legal for civilians to own or possess.

In addition the permit once issued requires that the permit be with the registered licensed weapon at all times and especially when transported. You must also show proof that the registered weapon is stored in a safe or locked container that meets BATFE guidelines. Issuing the Permit also allows BATFE to make a personal inspection of your residence or storage area once annually.(Usually announced prior by appointment)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080102143807AAH6ghX

[raouldukelives]

111. I've always thought a good compromise would be banning handguns.

I really see no need for them aside from finishing off a charging grizzly. I think getting all of the Saturday night specials of the streets would cause the most noticeable change.
Of course it would do nothing to stop a maniac determined to kill but I think the overall effect would be very positive.
Of course, that's as likely to happen as Romney putting America first.

[RC]

133. Compare with Canada

Are Canada's gun laws effective? Here are some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre:

There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500c.htm

Handguns with a barrel shorter than 105mm (4.14 inches) and/or in caliber .25 or .32 are prohibited in Canada and are illegal to possess in Canada.
DO NOT EVEN THINK OF ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE BORDER INTO CANADA WITH A PROHIBITED FIREARM!

http://panda.com/canadaguns/

[Marrah_G]

112. I have no problem with heavily regulated handgun ownership.

I think hunting rifles (not machine guns) should perhaps depend more on the area that you live in.

What might be reasonable in Rural Maine, Montana or Alaska might not make much sense in Boston, LA or NYC.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

114. Did the second amendment specify the type of gun?

can't one amend the second amendment?

[GarroHorus]

119. You do realize James Holmes went into the theater with a handgun, shotgun, and rifle...

don't you?

[Ian David]

126. You need a 100 round magazine if you want to shoot at bees. n/t

[Redford]

161. After losing 30 + acres to feral hogs I bought an AR-15

Hogs are hard to hunt. I would lure them in with fermented corn in a clearing and when the herd came up I could kill several very quickly before the rest of the herd would disappear back in the woods. I could not do that with a deer rifle or a hand gun.

[REP]

164. ... which is just a rifle

[Chemisse]

163. While it would not have prevented this particular tragedy, I agree with you 100%.

I am glad that we have the right to own a gun if we want to. But we should outlaw automatic weapons and give the people a fighting (or fleeing) chance!

On edit - I read elsewhere on DU that this was a semi-automatic rifle that would have been prohibited under the old assault weapon ban, so it WOULD have prevented this tragedy, or at least reduced the scope of it.

[cindyperry2010]

177. well if this has already been said sorry for the duplication

my thing is that there is no need for a drum magazine don't they if i remember correctly hold at a minimum 100 rounds or more? there is no reason for that other than to inflict mass casualties and why have them available for some knucklehead off the street to buy?