What the 1980s Toy Industry Teaches the 2014 Gun Lobby

[krispos42]

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]I was two years old in 1980, young enough to experience everything the Me Decade had to offer across the full spectrum of childhood – toddler to pre-teen. As a 36 year-old adult, I remain imprinted by the decade’s pop culture (punk, pop and yuppie), politics (regrettably, I voted for Reagan in the first grade mock election at Pilgrim Lutheran School) and material goods.

As pertains to the latter category, as someone who spanned the ages of two to 12 across the 1980s, I feel qualified to comment on the era’s unofficial status as the Golden Era of Toys. My younger sister and I pined for the first editions of many of the greats that live on today: Nintendo, My Little Pony, Transformers, Strawberry Shortcake and more. Toys R Us was the most magical land this side of Chuck E. Cheese, and it was possible to love Cabbage Patch Kids and Garbage Pail Kids at the same time without a hint of irony

It was also possible to get hurt. Before the 1990s phenomena of helicopter parenting emerged, leaving no edge unblunted for Little Johnny and Jane, the Slinkys were made of metal. Earnest efforts could be and were made by the mischievous to unwind and turn them into long, thin saws. Children across the nation pulled Big Wheel emergency breaks while riding downhill at top speed, sometimes producing a gnarly spin effect that just as often launched you into a hard surface. And the day wasn’t really complete until you’d given your sister vertigo from the comfort of the family hallway, atop the Sit ‘N Spin.

Of course we know what happened. Parents got tired of the same nausea, cuts and head injuries and complained to manufacturers. The toys became safer. Goodbye Big Wheel parking break, hello hard plastic Slinky. Not quite as fun as the former models, but the great thing about kids is that if you give them a year or two they become a new demographic. Generation X was full of goth ennui by the time it noticed its cousins no longer swallowed little green army men.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/31/1980s-toy-industry-teaches-2014-gun-lobby.html


The reason this is a poor comparison is that a) toys are for kids, and guns are for adults, and b) guns don't have inherent flaws that need correcting.

In fact, the people that want to ban "assault weapons" are actually PREVENTING guns from being safer.

Really? Yah, really.

Pistol grips on a rifle or shotgun are more ergonomic, and tame bone-jarring recoil better than the traditional straight stocks. Yet, because they're "military" styled, there are people out there, usually Democrats, that want this features outlawed. "Assault weapon", you see.

The barrel of a gun gets hot during use. On any other product, a manufacturer could get sued for NOT putting a heat shielding device on the part that gets hot. But, because it's a "military" feature, gun makers can't put them on guns. Another "assault weapon" feature.

People have variations in the lengths of their limbs, and also variations in the thicknesses of the clothing they wear. They also can gain or lose weight. One way to make the process of shooting a gun the most comfortable for the shooter and the safest for the people around them is to make the buttstock of the gun adjustable in length. This way the shooter can properly position the gun and aim it, regardless of stature or clothing. But, making this feature available without tools on a gun? Yeah, that's another "assault weapon" feature that pro-control people want outlawed.


Assuming the author of the article is on the pro-control side of the argument, he's actually arguing against himself!


And, of course, the author the talks about the 40 kids under age 13, who, in the 7 months since Newtown, have died from accidental gunshots in the context of "...the proliferation of child psychological terror and death by the collective relaxing of gun limits (literal and culturally)...", accidental gun deaths among children continues to decline.















It's really rather overblown. The impassioned but fact-free hyperbole we've come to expect.

We can and should discuss the wisdom of letting kids use appropriate guns, and banning the use of inappropriate guns. I cannot comprehend the adult saying "here's a lightweight, full-auto, full-power machine pistol. Let'er rip!" to anybody under the age of 15.

But let's not also forget that, when a little kid accidentally (due to parental negligence) shot his baby sibling with an age-appropriate gun designed specifically for children the collective response of DU was "how DARE they make kid-sized, single shot, low-powered rifles AND MARKET THEM FOR USE BY CHILDREN!!!"

[NYC_SKP]

1. They use fear, lies, and propaganda incite fear and terror, even in little children.

There's a word for that.

Starts with the letter "T". As in "Terrorism".

And it's OK to even do this, exploit the images of tiny coffins:

3. Politicize Disaster, Unabashedly
This may make some progressives queasy. But if you don't have the stomach for hardball politics, just accept that you're going to be steamrolled by the NRA — which shamelessly stokes the emotional power of national tragedies like 9/11, Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy to convince Americans that social collapse is around the corner, and you really should be buying that AR-15.

This isn't complicated: Making a political issue of the tiny coffins of dead children in the wake of a school shooting isn't just a thing that helps pass strong gun-control, it's practically the only thing in the last quarter century that's moved the needle on anti-gun-violence laws. Recall that the catalyst for the 1994 assault weapons ban was a 1989 school shooting in Stockton, California, that killed five kids and wounded 29 other children.

It's not distasteful to act in the name of victims of gun violence. What's distasteful to squander the burning anger and intense political focus that such senseless bloodshed inspires. There's nothing dishonorable in taking the swift and necessary action to prevent other children from being massacred by an idiot with a war rifle.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-to-beat-the-nra-in-7-not-so-easy-steps-20140714#ixzz3C6nvs6sJ
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[derby378]

2. Kick (n/t)

[Duckhunter935]

3. Thanks for putting that all together and

and just destroying that article.

I am really surprised I lived through the 60's and 70's

Imean shooting toy guns, bikes without helmets, lawn Jarts, Big Wheels, Tricycles. Man lots of death machines back then. Hell, we used to play war and shoot each other with BB guns, them things sting.

[SQUEE]

4. Nice to see facts and analysis

This is a good response..

needs a kick

[Eleanors38]

5. First-class analysis, first-class host. Kick. nt

[DonP]

6. NRA Talking Points!

I've learned that it's OK to use that response to any fact you don't like. Then you don't have to actually think or respond to the information.

Then you can feel like a "good person" with the moral high ground for facing down the evil NRA. The best part is you don't have to actually do anything in the real world,

You don't join or financially support any gun control groups ("isn't Bloomberg doing that anyway for me?&quot and you can sit on your half moons on the couch assuming paid flacks like Shannon Watts are out there working for you.

I had a boss once that described that kind of useless behavior as; "Like standing in the rain in a dark blue serge suit and pissing down your leg. It might make you feel all warm but nobody else notices or cares."

[blueridge3210]

7. I wonder where our resident "Google Dump" expert is?

Surely he would wish to comment on the issue? Bueller? Bueller?

[NYC_SKP]

8. Damn. This author, Becky Sarwate, is a vacuous narcissist, isn't she?

First, with this:

As pertains to the latter category, as someone who spanned the ages of two to 12 across the 1980s, I feel qualified to comment on the era’s unofficial status as the Golden Era of Toys. My younger sister and I pined for the first editions of many of the greats that live on today: Nintendo, My Little Pony, Transformers, Strawberry Shortcake and more. Toys R Us was the most magical land this side of Chuck E. Cheese, and it was possible to love Cabbage Patch Kids and Garbage Pail Kids at the same time without a hint of irony

"Golden Era of Toys"? Really? Golden Era of Consumerism and Branding and the end of meaningful toys that teach.

My Little Pony and Strawberry Shortcake aren't toys, they're crosspromotions pieces of turd.

I remember when the Strawberry Shortcake "Brand" was launched in the NY Times in the 80's and it just made me sick.

Anyone who remembers quality toy departments and hobby stores knows that a trip into a Toys R Us is like a trip into a commercial world of distraction and made in China crap, all competing for your attention and dollars.

Before this "Golden Era" was a truly remarkable world of Erector Sets, Microscopes, Culinary Sets, and more.

And the toys were made to last.

Reading through the article, she's clearly off her rocker:

How did we get here? How did we get to fourth graders being taught to view the handling of a semiautomatic weapon and the consumption of a hamburger with equal casualness? We won’t let our grown children show up for job interviews without us, but we’ll let the babies wield Uzis? And before you Internet trolls start your work, advocating for everyday common sense such as keeping weapons of war from the arms of kids, is no threat to your freedom.

It’s broken. It’s sick. And for the sake of our children, the limitless reach of guns has got to stop.

She knows nothing of the history of firearm manufacture and testing and safety, much less the US Constitution.

Rather than smear all gun owners as trolls who would support a Bullets and Burgers franchise in every city, maybe lowering the age to 3 months, maybe she should do a little research or talk to a historian to learn how shit works.

And I would start her off with a trip to the Smithsonian one day when they have historic toys out.

Two of these toys created scientists and artists, the other two created, well, you decide:



...

[jimmy the one]

9. war rifles, what are they good for?

krispos (I think): In fact, the people that want to ban "assault weapons" are actually PREVENTING guns from being safer. Really? Yah, really.

BS; ... then you provide specious reasons thinking you prove your case. Do those rose colored glasses you're wearing help reduce muzzle flash on your assault rifles?

krispos: Pistol grips on a rifle or shotgun are more ergonomic, and tame bone-jarring recoil better than the traditional straight stocks. Yet, because they're "military" styled, there are people out there, usually Democrats, that want this features outlawed... The barrel of a gun gets hot during use... But, because it's a "military" feature, gun makers can't put them on guns. Another "assault weapon" feature.

.. Your specious reasons pertain more to prolonged use of the gun, not for the usual home defense scenario where a drawn out gun battle is so remote as to make your contention laughable.
If the rifle or shotgun gives one 'bone jarring recoil' then it's the wrong gun for the person, he/she should get another gun with less recoil (& recoil concern is not applicable to m16 or ar15/bushmaster - aks ok, but a bone jarring recoil is 'desirable' in a criminals hands).
Pistol grips are suited for soldiers & marines on battlefields where they are indeed in drawn out gun battles.

krispos: People have variations in the lengths of their limbs, and also variations in the thicknesses of the clothing they wear. They also can gain or lose weight. One way to make the process of shooting a gun the most comfortable for the shooter and the safest for the people around them is to make the buttstock of the gun adjustable in length. This way the shooter can properly position the gun and aim it, regardless of stature or clothing.

I can't believe this a serious reason for making firearms safer, by allowing assault rifles to have their buttstocks adjustable - it could also alter the shooter's aim due a sudden change from his normal position, couldn't it? causing a button to hook on the trigger where it didn't prior the adjustment?

krispos: accidental gun deaths among children continues to decline.

Thanks in good part to child access prevention laws in gun control states, as well as other safe storage laws. You want reflected glory from gun control, eh?
.. and your graphs provide a one sided picture of cars vs guns, bathtubs vs guns, lightning vs guns, all from the accidental aspect. But tell us, how many cars MURDERED people compared with guns? what's the ratio of 'bathtub murder' to gun murder? & who should we blame for lightning strike murder, Zeus? Provide a graph of MURDER comparisons & see how firearms rank as number one killer.

.. and tell me more, what good do assault rifles do? what practical function do they perform, what overall good for society? other than to stroke the egos of gunnuts all over the country, thinking they have assault weapons just like the army & marines do, making them little big macho men.
.. is it for hunting? most hunters will say no, overkill & too much addendum, & would rather a normal hunting rifle.
.. is it for home defense? most all relevant gun owners will say no, prefer a handgun or a smaller rifle due easier to swing about inside the home & less fear of blasting thru walls into side rooms.
.. is it for target shooting? putting holes in paper targets? a tiny percent of gunnuts wanting to waste good sums of money on fmj ammo to do that is counter argument enough, then tack on 'for what'? stroke that ego about military style firearms? to appease a lunatic fringe is hardly a reason to allow such potent firearms, readily convertible to automatic too.
.. open carry down mainstreet to demonstrate 2ndA RKBA? enough said about this insane reason?

.. well, did I leave any others out? Yes, the big one, the only one: to thwart a tyrranical govt. What better weapon to fight against a tyrranical army than the very small arms they use. And if guerrilla warfare could do the damage the mujahedeen did in Afghanistan against Russians, & al Q & Taliban against US in Iraq/afghan, think of the success the unorganized militia could do against a turncoat 101st airborne. Think of the killing to be done against those awful unpatriotic American soldiers trying to uproot the constitution.
There's your main reason to allow assault rifles in America. To do the killing better, against a tyrranical govt, just like the founding fathers warned about, in that outdated & often obsolete thingy called the constitution, & bill of rights.

[NYC_SKP]

10. More words don't make your argument stronger, friend. Here, I'll demonstrate:

Ahem.

Barrel shrouds:
One never knows if in defense of the home, for example, a barrel might become hot.
That time may never come but in any event, nobody ever died from a barrel shroud.

Pistol grips:
There is no question that these, at least for some, make for a more secure and comfortable and ergonomic grasp on the weapon. Again, nobody was ever harmed by one and they should be permitted.

Adjustable and cushioned butt-stocks:
See explanation of pistol grips. These are used in competitive events for good reason. Fear of them is pure and utter nonsense. Accuracy equates to safety, there is no disputing that.

Assault rifles:
Assault rifles exist only in very small numbers in private hands, as possession of a fully automatic rifle is highly restricted. An AR-15 is not fully automatic and is thus not an assault rifle.

Tyrannical Government, etc:
Were we to ever face a coup or fascist police state conditions, many of the troops would likely bail and join the resistance. Beyond that red herring, however, are potential instances of natural disasters and other events which would, to many of us, make access to reliable firearms and ammunition, including high capacity magazines, indispensable.

There, you should try to be concise. Less is more.

[jimmy the one]

11. more specious reasons, is all

To rebut you provide a list from a pro gun baised source?

Barrel shrouds: One never knows if in defense of the home, for example, a barrel might become hot. That time may never come but in any event, nobody ever died from a barrel shroud.

Lack of a barrel shroud could help to reduce mass shootings, at least from one gun (tho hardly a solid counter reason). If a gun gets too hot, put it down, you're shooting too much, and is not the preferred method of home or self defense.

Pistol grips: There is no question that these, at least for some, make for a more secure and comfortable and ergonomic grasp on the weapon. Again, nobody was ever harmed by one and they should be permitted.

.. how do those without grips do without them? they facilitate a higher rate of assault rifle fire, & more accurate. Since these are not assets for the normal gun owner, so what?

Adjustable and cushioned butt-stocks: These are used in competitive events for good reason. Fear of them is pure and utter nonsense. Accuracy equates to safety, there is no disputing that.

.. who gives a whit whether some civilian gunnut does better at a stupid target range with his bushmaster?

Assault rifles exist only in very small numbers in private hands, as possession of a fully automatic rifle is highly restricted. An AR-15 is not fully automatic and is thus not an assault rifle.

.. author is a blind man to events in reality & makes no point; the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle capable of 3 rd bursts to 120 to 600 shots per minute. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

Tyrannical Government, etc: Were we to ever face a coup or fascist police state conditions, many of the troops would likely bail and join the resistance. Beyond that red herring, however, are potential instances of natural disasters and other events which would, to many of us, make access to reliable firearms and ammunition, including high capacity magazines, indispensable.

Beyond that red herring there is no reasonable argument for allowing assault rifles, just specious gunnutted crap.

nyc skip: There, you should try to be concise. Less is more.

I'll post the way I please, keep your silly advice to yourself.

[NYC_SKP]

13. "gunnetted crap"

Well there it is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. It got a well-deserved spot in the "Just looking for input thread":

WARNING: Contains posts by DUers using phraseology strongly reminiscent
of the more unhinged utterings of teabaggers (or their godmother, Phyllis Schlafly)

You've been warned...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=9858

[IronGate]

14. Bullshit!!!!!

.. author is a blind man to events in reality & makes no point; the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle capable of 3 rd bursts to 120 to 600 shots per minute. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that, and the so called conversion kits?
Those are tightly regulated by the ATF and anyone caught with a converted semi auto is going to spend some significant time in the Fed. lockup.

[NYC_SKP]

17. Can't even pick up a dictionary definition of "assault rifle". Here, for others:

Wikipedia:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.

(select fire means semi and full automatic modes, aka machine gun)

Merriam Webster:

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

Dictionary.com:

a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

Anti gun rights propagandists and the popular media would like to redefine the language:

First, it is important to understand what an assault weapon isn't. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I prefer honesty and integrity in discussion.

.

[jimmy the one]

18. no way? way....

iron gate: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that, and the so called conversion kits?

I said semi auto assault rifles are generally capable of being converted to full auto, & they are, they have been, & they can be, that is the point of what I wrote, not that it is widespread. Would the unorganized militia fighting a tyrranical US army care what BATF said?

iron gate: Those are tightly regulated by the ATF and anyone caught with a converted semi auto is going to spend some significant time in the Fed. lockup.

... clickon links & let me know if they're kosher & where these gunnuts are doing time then:

Published on Feb 20, 2013 UPDATE: I just went to arfakit.com to get another kit and it looks like they are now offering a raw materials kit for those who are concerned that the kit is not legal in their area but would still like to see how it works. This kit is freaking amazing! Convert a stock AR-15 to full auto and back again in seconds.

albeit slide fire - gasp, does BATFE know of this?????: For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire. And it’s perfectly legal. .. a company called Slide Fire Solutions introduced a replacement rifle stock called the SSAR-15 that, for $369, allows you to bump fire your AR-15-style rifle from your shoulder while still retaining accuracy and control... the SSAR-15 lets a shooter “unleash 100 rounds, in 7 seconds
... (slide fire) with just $299, you can modify your semi-automatic AK-47 and probably fool your neighbors

dec 2013, click on the youtube links: http://search.juno.com/search?source=topsearchbox&action=search&query=conversion+kit+for+ar15+to+full+auto&sbuttonT.x=39&sbuttonT.y=10

http://www.ftfindustries.com/category/M16FA.html

[beevul]

19. You know better than the police huh?

[IronGate]

20. It's still not a conversion kit to full auto,

it's still one pull of the trigger for one round fired, the slide stock just uses the action of the recoil to make it faster.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-676131.html&s=bd604753d5e4022df33db2972b5d48a1&

So, your assertion that this is a conversion kit is crap, if it were a true conversion, the ATF would be all over it.

On Edit: in some states, those kits are illegal.

[jimmy the one]

22. be *extermely* careful (in sp)

irongate: So, your assertion that this is a conversion kit is crap, if it were a true conversion, the ATF would be all over it.

Well personally I think your counter assertion is crap, since the slide fire info was only one link:

You don't have to modify anything on the firearm itself. There are two parts. The first attaches to the bolt carrier group. The second simply drops into the lower receiver. They sell it in kit form and it is legal because you have to make one final bend in one of the pieces of metal. Once you do that, you better keep one of them hidden.

What is an ARFA Kit The ARFA Kit contains all of the materials necessary to make the parts that will convert a Bushmaster AR-15 (or other AR-15 with similar specs) from semi-auto to full-auto.
The ARFA Kit includes the following:
•Completed Bolt Carrier Group Counter Weight and detailed instructions for installing the completed part.
•Mostly completed material necessary to make a Trigger Control Group Travel Reducer and detailed instructions for making the last and final bend to make the completed part. The instructions include a diagram and layout that can be used to determine when the part has been formed correctly. (Because the part is not completed until you make the final bend in the metal, using a pair of pliers, the kit, as-sold, is legal to own.) To make the completed part, you will need a pair of pliers. 8" Lineman Pliers work well.

As an option for those who are concerned that the ARFA Kit may not be legal in their jurisdiction, but would still like to know how it works, we offer a RAW Materials Kit.
The RAW Materials Kit includes the following: Non-completed material necessary to make a Bolt Carrier Group Counter Weight and detailed instructions for bending, drilling, and installing the completed part. The material is cut to the correct shape necessary to make the part, but is left unbent and undrilled, and thus is simply a flat piece of metal.

Is it legal to buy this kit? We can legally sell and you can legally purchase and own this kit because the kit does not contain completed parts, but only provides the materials necessary to make the completed parts, meaning they cannot be used to convert an AR-15 to full-auto as-sold, but must be completed by you by bending the provided materials into the correct shape, prior to them being useable.
This means you can legally keep these kits on hand with no worries until such time as you decide to bend the parts into the correct shape. Once you have made the completed parts from the materials provided, we suggest you be extermely careful and cautious about the laws that may or may not apply to you, including the National Firearms Act if you reside in the United States.

Which firearms does the ARFA Kit work with?
In general, the ARFA Kit works well with AR-15s that have the same specs as our test firearm, which is a Bushmaster XM-15 M4-A2. http://www.arfakit.com/

[IronGate]

23. Look, the bottom line is that if you convert a semi auto rifle to full auto,

you better be prepared to receive a very unpleasant visit from the ATF.
It's still illegal to convert a semi auto to full auto.

Did you even read and comprehend this?

This means you can legally keep these kits on hand with no worries until such time as you decide to bend the parts into the correct shape. Once you have made the completed parts from the materials provided, we suggest you be extermely careful and cautious about the laws that may or may not apply to you, including the National Firearms Act if you reside in the United States.

That means that it's legal to have the parts, but once installed, you're in violation of Federal law.

Oh, and any AR-15 made after the passage of the NFA are designed so's not to accept any part of the M-16 lower receiver, you would have to actually add metal to the AR-15's lower receiver and then mill it to specs for M-16 parts to fit, and then, again, you've violated Federal law.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. *Someone* has yet to learn that repeating an assertion does not serve to prove it...

...nor is the number of words used in an argument a marker for the veracity of said
argument.

[IronGate]

26. All his word salad doesn't change the fact that,

A. Semi auto rifles are very difficult to convert to full auto,and, in the US, is highly illegal,

and,

B. An assault rifle is not the same as a semi auto rifle.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. All that bafflegab about rifles was straight from the Book of Sugarman

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

That line was being pushed hard in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172152360

[samsingh]

32. you present a sound argument.

[IronGate]

33. No, he really doesn't.

He doesn't even know the difference between a semi auto and a full auto, or if he does, he's purposely comparing the 2 as one and the same.

He also claims that converting a semi auto is a simple exercise when in fact, it isn't and is highly illegal.

[jimmy the one]

70. you all make me ill

To irongate & icon, your replies are either idiotic, backpedaling, specious or wrong. I know what the technical differences regarding assault rifles are, & I was correct in my previous remarks, it is your own opinions which don't hold up to scrutiny.

I wrote: ... the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle capable of 3 rd bursts to 120 to 600 shots per minute. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

IRONGATE replied: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that, and the so called conversion kits?
Those are tightly regulated by the ATF..

Now defend your asinine & INANE contention that I was 100% incorrect in what I'd written, when everything there turned out to be pretty much true. Your INANE contention that no semi auto asslt rifle is capable of being easily converted to auto turned out to be demonstrably wrong, didn't it? tho I didn't actually write 'easily', I wrote 'generally', a big difference.

on converting an AR15 to full auto: Published on Feb 20, 2013 .. it looks like they are now offering a raw materials kit for those who are concerned that the kit is not legal in their area but would still like to see how it works. Convert a stock AR-15 to full auto and back again in seconds.

iron gate: Look, the bottom line is that if you convert a semi auto rifle to full auto, you better be prepared to receive a very unpleasant visit from the ATF..

That might be 'your' bottom dwell, but it has little to do with what I'd written, & is ridiculous rhetoric to boot since the batf can't regulate over 10 million assault rifles; your argument is so sophomoric & rhetorical bombast that it makes me sick to think you actually feel this a worthy counter. What has your rebuttal to do with the ar15 being readily convertible to full auto via the above method? you backpedal.

iron gate: He doesn't even know the difference between a semi auto and a full auto, or if he does, he's purposely comparing the 2 as one and the same.

You know, you make me sick. I shot the m16 in the navy at a qualifying round at Annapolis, as I qualified as marksman (with a 45 pistol).
Reread my top paragraph where I clearly wrote 'THE TERM assault rifle' which has become the issue rather than gunworld's idiotic attempt (as yours & icons) to belittle with immature cheap shots trying to undermine any argument over asslt rifles, with red herrings about specific definitions.

iron gate: He also claims that converting a semi auto is a simple exercise when in fact, it isn't and is highly illegal.

Please copy & paste where I'd said converting a semi auto to full auto is a 'simple exercise', or sit down & shut up on putting words in my mouth.

[IronGate]

73. More wharguffle from JtO.

You have implied that converting a semi auto to full auto is a simple exercise, which in fact, it isn't and is highly illegal.

You also equate a semi auto with a full auto, which is a lie.

I don't give a fuck what you qualified on, but let's compare, I'm qualified on the M-16, M-4, 9mm, .45 ACP, .50 Barrett, been through the Scout Sniper course, have 2 combat tours.

And as far as sitting down and shutting up, take your own advice and follow it or go back to your little protected group where dissent isn't tolerated.

[jimmy the one]

80. lies, lies & more lies

the backpedaling iron gate: You have implied that converting a semi auto to full auto is a simple exercise, which in fact, it isn't and is highly illegal.

what iron gate first wrote: He also claims that converting a semi auto is a simple exercise when in fact, it isn't and is highly illegal.

Are you purblind or something? post where I ever said it was a simple exercise; You do realize you backpedaled above, right? first saying I actually 'claimed' it, then backslid to where I 'implied it'. Ha.
What you are doing is fabricating your own interpretation of what I wrote, & then lambasting me based on your own faulty premise. You'd make a lousy lawyer.

iron gate lying: You also equate a semi auto with a full auto, which is a lie.

You lie & call me a liar. Post where I wrote that, or equated the two as the same.
I called the term 'assault rifle' as connoting similarity, but I have never said the semi auto & full auto are the same. I clearly referred to the assault rifle as becoming a 'term' where politicians conflate the two. Now that you've had it explained to you with kid gloves, I hope you can man up & apologize & retract.

irongate I don't give a fuck what you qualified on, but let's compare, I'm qualified on the M-16, M-4, 9mm, .45 ACP, .50 Barrett, been through the Scout Sniper course, have 2 combat tours.

I have no interest in knowing you, you sicken me; nor do I give a whit about what kind of guns you're qualified on, nor do I care where you shot your guns or how long you did. The only comparison I make is that I'm not a gunnut.

irongate: And as far as sitting down and shutting up, take your own advice ...

Forgot about the first amendment? I'm not the one putting words in your mouth where I deserve to 'sit down & shut up', whereas you're backpedaling or revising or lying as you go along.
You made several accusations above which I asked you to copy & paste. I know you can copy & paste you recently did about 'war rifles', so stop your tapdancing & post about converting being a 'simple exercise', & where I allegedly equated semi to auto. If you continue to fabricate, then do indeed sit down & shut up.
(.. out for the day.)

[IronGate]

82. More wharguffle from JtO.

The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

You are implying that a semi auto is "generally" capable of being converted, that's a bold faced lie.

Your the one who brought up what weapons you were qualified on, not I, so there's another lie.

Your the one who told me to sit down and shut up, so who is trying to forget about the 1A?
Why, that would be you.

And don't try to weasel out of trying to equate assault weapons with assault rifles, you can, in your own words, tap dance all you want, it's still what you meant.

[jimmy the one]

84. back sliding away

You answered so quickly I didn't have time to leave.

iron gate: You are implying that a semi auto is "generally" capable of being converted, that's a bold faced lie.

Another back slide replacing 'easily' with 'generally', at least you finally read it correctly, bravo. But sad, you didn't fully comprehend. What I wrote was: The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit. .. semi auto assault rifles are generally capable of being converted to full auto.

The above is demonstrably true. I did not contend that every owner can do it, just that it's possible to convert them. Stop calling truths lies, you look stupid.

iron gate: Your the one who brought up what weapons you were qualified on, not I, so there's another lie.

.. How's that a lie? I mentioned my quals only to counter your charge that I didn't know the diff between automatic & semi-auto. I had no desire to open a comparative discussion about you or your quals. It's not about you, irongate.

iron gate: Your the one who told me to sit down and shut up, so who is trying to forget about the 1A?

Justifiably did I tell you to sit down & shut up since you were putting words in my mouth: Please copy & paste where I'd said converting a semi auto to full auto is a 'simple exercise', or sit down & shut up on putting words in my mouth.

So I ask you again, post where I said converting a semi auto to full auto is a simple exercise, or do indeed, sit down & shut up. So far all you are providing is your 'say so'.
(out for the day I hope)

[IronGate]

85. And more Wharguffle from JtO.

Have a safe day while out and about.

[beevul]

88. You should be ashamed jimmy.

"I wrote: ... the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle capable of 3 rd bursts to 120 to 600 shots per minute. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit."

The only people, in whos eyes the term has evolved, are those that seek such evolution as a means to obfuscate the facts of the matter, to inveigle those who may be unaware and thus easily led to a conveniently predetermined conclusion: One based on few facts, many falsehoods, and anti-gun bias (my bad on the redundancy there).

But nobody has a vested interest in that happening, right jimmy?

Oh, wait:

" The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

Oh, and by the way, ATF has a standard about semi-automatic weapons. Anything that can be "easily" converted, is already considered a machine gun by ATF. Most if not all open bolt semi-autos for example.

And that just leaves the question of how often it happens. After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of having a solution in search of a problem would you? Lets have a look:

Quoting the detective from the video:

"Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."


And that brings us to the immortal words of one of our old friends:

"It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value."

[steelsmith]

57. That is the

most uninformed line of garbage I believed I have ever read. So you are against accurate shooting, pro burned fingers, and against comfortable length of pull? Great show of disdain for those who enjoy target shooting, and those increasing numbers of hunters that prefer the AR platform.

[IronGate]

12. Spot on.

On another note, it would seem that SecMo, for whatever reason, has disappeared, no posts since last Monday.
Hope he's ok.

[NYC_SKP]

15. It's not rocket science.

Also, check out the Outdoor Life group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1214

[IronGate]

16. Interesting.

Thanks for the link, added it to my subscriptions.

[jimmy the one]

21. plummeting sales of assault rifles

Plummeting sales of assault-style weapons, also known as modern sporting rifles or “black rifles,” has led to an oversupply of unsold guns and is hitting the bottom lines of the big arms producers. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC) shares yesterday fell the most in more than two years after the Springfield, Massachusetts-based gunmaker slashed its full-year sales and profit forecasts.

Assault Rifles Pile Up as Gun-Law Gridlock Crimps Makers ... Assault-rifle sales stopped in their tracks,” .. He estimated sales of the long guns are off 70 percent from last year. “It’s hard to give an AR away.”
Assault-rifle sales are falling after a huge run-up last year over concerns that legislators would put restrictions on the weapons following the December 2012 mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. More recently, lawmakers have pulled back on threats of new assault-rifle legislation.
.. “Everybody wanted to buy one before Congress passed legislation that might take away the right to have one. Of course, Congress never passed that legislation,”... “The best thing for firearms demand is to have the constant threat of legislation without ever actually having the legislation.”
... Slumping Prices As enthusiasm for stricter gun control has subsided, prices for the long guns have slumped and desperate wholesalers have offered incentives like “buy four, get one free,” .. During the rush, he had to pay wholesalers incentives to get access to inventory. “There’s not an immediate fear the government’s going to take them away so sales are back to a more traditional pace,” .. Assault rifles more expensive than $700 are the hardest to sell now,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-27/assault-rifles-pile-up-as-gun-law-inaction-crimps-makers.html

Won't do much good imo, too many out there already, millions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. *These* paragraphs don't fit your narrative, jimmy. Is that why you didn't include them?

Note-emphasis added:

Smith & Wesson did benefit from demand for small, polymer pistols and revolvers. Over the past decade, handgun sales have risen industrywide amid increasing “concealed-carry” permits and a growing number of female gun customers. Hornsby hung white ceramic deer and moose heads in his hunting section to appeal more to women, who make up 37 percent of his sales, he said.

“Gun ownership has become normalized among a greater demographic,” said James, adding that the long-term trend is still favorable for gun makers. “Are people buying as many guns this year as they were last year? No. Are people buying more guns than they were three years ago? Yes. The industry is pretty healthy.”

[IronGate]

28. Funny how the gun control folks will leave out pertinent info

that doesn't fit their narrative.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. It's sheer hubris to think your opponents lack research skills. A sure route to failure...

[Duckhunter935]

37. I see Bloombergs old rag

Does not know what an assault rifle is. They are quite expensive to buy.

[jimmy the one]

71. faulty icon

icon posted: Over the past decade, handgun sales have risen industrywide amid increasing “concealed-carry” permits and a growing number of female gun customers.
... Are people buying more guns than they were three years ago? Yes. The industry is pretty healthy.”

icon wrote: These* paragraphs don't fit your narrative, jimmy. Is that why you didn't include them?

Duh, no, it's that my post obviously was focusing on assault rifles, duh.
DUH. Your comprehension skills are atrocious.

[IronGate]

74. And your petty little insults are funny.

Hey, JtO, do you know want the AR in AR-15 stands for?
Here's a clue, It don't stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. I'm not insulted, as you obviously don't know what an assault rifle is...

...and a slight downturn hardly means much during a long rise:



https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/cy2011-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf

RIFLES 2,318,088


https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/afmer_2012_final_web_report_17jan2014.pdf


RIFLES 3,168,206


Banners are really going to have a sad when they read this:

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/052013-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-update.pdf

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. Incorrect

Assault Rifles Pile Up .... It’s hard to give an AR away.

An AR is NOT an "assault rifle".

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172153693

[jimmy the one]

75. encore, encore

iron gate: Hey, JtO, do you know want the AR in AR-15 stands for?
Here's a clue, It don't stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle.

discntnt_irny_srcsm, Incorrect ... Assault Rifles Pile Up .... It’s hard to give an AR away.
An AR is NOT an "assault rifle". http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172153693

Yes I am well aware what AR stands for:

jan9, 2013: upaloopa: The AR-15 is patterned after the M-16.
{jimmy the one}: I'm with you most all the way upaloopa, but is it the other way around? the AR15 came first? (The AR stands for first two letters in 'armalite' I believe).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=101810

what do you two comedians do for an encore?

discntnt_irny_srcsm, Incorrect ... Assault Rifles Pile Up .... It’s hard to give an AR away.
An AR is NOT an "assault rifle".

You have the appalling habit of taking things out of context, & sometimes attributing to your adversaries. Please retract & apologize for your disgusting behavior.
In fuller context, here is what was written in the link I posted previously:

Assault Rifles Pile Up ... “Assault-rifle sales stopped in their tracks,” Jim Hornsby .. said as muffled gunfire popped off from the attached shooting range. He estimated sales of the long guns are off 70 percent from last year. “It’s hard to give an AR away.”

It's weird logic to think Hornsby was saying AR stood for 'assault rifle', when AR is a proper abbreviation for AR15.

[IronGate]

76. "Please retract & apologize for your disgusting behavior."

This statement from you?
Fucking hilarious.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. A mere misunderstanding

Perhaps it is you projecting how you feel about me in your reference to "adversaries".
I don't consider you an adversary.

In quoting the "bloomberg.com" piece you posted, one can only infer that you agree or, at least accept, what is being said. Having a eye to correct terminology, I prefer to agree on the meanings on words and phrases. AR does originate from the Armalite company. I'm guessing most everyone here, if asked directly, knows that civilian AR style rifles are semi-auto only. They aren't and shouldn't be referred to as assault rifles. My response is mostly for the benefit of the casual/new reader.

Various types of heresy can grow from a misunderstanding of the basic and function of a device and understanding begins with terminology.

I'm inferring that your demand for retraction/apology was tongue-in-cheek.

[jimmy the one]

83. let's review what's been said & what you missed

discontent: .. I prefer to agree on the meanings on words and phrases.. I'm guessing most everyone here, if asked directly, knows that civilian AR style rifles are semi-auto only. They aren't and shouldn't be referred to as assault rifles.

.. if you're not citing out of context you're not keeping up with the class. I did not call a semi auto technically an assault rifle on this thread; what I'd said is that the TERM assault rifle has come to conflate semi & auto, politically & generally speaking in the gun control debate (exception gunnuts).

I wrote: ... the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle capable of 3 rd bursts to 120 to 600 shots per minute. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

discontent: I'm guessing most everyone here, if asked directly, knows that civilian AR style rifles are semi-auto only.

on converting an AR15 to full auto: Published on Feb 20, 2013 .. it looks like they are now offering a raw materials kit for those who are concerned that the kit is not legal in their area but would still like to see how it works. Convert a stock AR-15 to full auto and back again in seconds.

What do you say about it now, after I've schooled you on the thread?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. re: "What do you say about it now..."

What I say about it now is that you learned nothing.

You read that some journalist (and I use that term loosely) is conflating the terms 'assault weapon' and 'assault rifle'.
You quoted via copy and paste that person in a post, which serves to further the confusion.
I didn't mention converting an AR.
I didn't say you said a semi-auto is an assault rifle. I said that you quoted someone who did and appear to at least accept that since you quoted that part of the article in your post. You now seem to be defending that idea which implies that you do agree with the author and take issue with the article(s) I pointed out.

I would further suggest that should that should you come across an article from anyone named Henny Penny, you should look for some serious corroboration before passing on that the sky is falling.

Have a nice day.

[IronGate]

78. From the other gun group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627189#post7

jimmy the one (1,303 posts)

7. War Rifles, plain & simple

Call them what they are, what they were designed for.
If you want one, join the army or marine corps.

Except they're not, not even close.
Show us what military issues it's members semi autos as their battle rifles?

Interesting that you didn't post that nonsense here where it could be refuted.
Very interesting indeed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Some apparently believe that repeating something enough makes it true

Not that we haven't seen the technique before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

[oneshooter]

87. And both "Army" and "Marine Corps." should be written with the

proper capitols.

[jimmy the one]

89. another conversion

I wrote: (asslt rifles are) War Rifles, plain & simple
irongate wrote: Except they're not, not even close. Show us what military issues it's members semi autos as their battle rifles?

Assault rifles were designed as automatic/select fire war rifles, & in modern usage the term assault rifle has come to include a semi auto version.

I wrote: .. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.
IRONGATE replied: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that, and the so called conversion kits? Those are tightly regulated by the ATF..

Observe these chaps corroborating me as being '100% incorrect':

http://cnqzu.com/library/Guerrilla%20Warfare/Eltink,%20Royi-AK47%20Full%20Auto%20Conversion%20for%20Dummies-ACADEMIC%20USE%20ONLY.pdf

[IronGate]

90. Calling bullshit again.

Any semi rifle imported into this country is not easily capable of being converted.
And this video proves nothing, did you see it being fired in full auto mode?
No.
Any idiot can make a youtube video claiming something or the other, but that doesn't make it so.

BTW, even if this were true, it's still highly illegal and will earn someone a quick trip to a Fed. prison.

[jimmy the one]

91. boatload of links re conversions

irongate: Any semi rifle imported into this country is not easily capable of being converted.

Never said it was 'easily' converted, will you stop repeating this logic fallacy which icon tried to pin on me? (repeated assertion). And I only contend rifles based on actual assault rifles, certainly not 'any semi rifle'.
In fact it's very rare that a semi auto version of an assault rifle is converted to full auto, due the illegality. But I suspect there's a small percent of ak & ar owners who have done just that, couple percent who like to live dangerously, or possess the conversion kit (in case of tyrranical govt appearing).
But this is immaterial to what I'd said, simply that the semi auto versions can generally be converted to full auto, which they can.

irongate: And this video proves nothing, did you see it being fired in full auto mode? No.

Live in denial, couldn't care less that you're trying to save face. There is a boatload of links you get when googling 'convert ak47/74 to full auto', or m16. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=convert+ak47+to+full+auto

irongate: Any idiot can make a youtube video claiming something or the other, but that doesn't make it so.

... any idiot can deny their credibility too, when it stares them in the face. Check out all the sites which list conversions & tell me they're all fake.

Now, even I'm skeptical on this one, but access denied here at library:

BATFE says "easy" to convert US AK to full auto - AR15.Com ...
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=118927

irongate: .. even if this were true, it's still highly illegal and will earn someone a quick trip to a Fed. prison.

Beside the point, a red herring.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. "Beside the point, a red herring." Like your schtick about convertability?

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. I can find a "boatload of links" about 'alien abduction', or 'Satanic ritual abuse', or...

...'President Obama's secret Muslim plan'- so sheer weight of verbiage proves nothing

[jimmy the one]

96. you need a prosthetic leg

icon: I can find a "boatload of links" about 'alien abduction', or 'Satanic ritual abuse', or... ...'President Obama's secret Muslim plan'- so sheer weight of verbiage proves nothing

'Sheer weight of verbiage', like the straws that ultimately broke the camels back, well icon, all I need is one credible straw amongst that entire weight to prove what I said was true (and I have).

You keep trying to disprove what I contended about asslt rifle conversion kits & convertability, either with ad hominem towards myself, or rebuttals similar to the above, which prove nothing.
Why don't you post some link where it says semi auto versions of ARs, AKs, are NOT capable of being converted to full auto? THEN you would have a leg to stand on, for a change.
.. irongate said I was 100% incorrect, do you agree?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. for that matter...

...GM proves everyday that 2200 lbs of steel, copper, plastic... can be converted into a car.

I'm sure one can manufacture a lower for a full auto with not much more difficulty than modifying a lower from an existing semi-auto. What is your real point here?

[beevul]

98. You need a premise that meshes in some way with reality...

You need a premise that meshes in some way with reality, preferably, a meaningful way.

Nobody here argues that conversions can't be done.

The argument, is that:

A. Yes, conversion kits are available, HOWEVER, they are considered NFA items in themselves. That means, jimmy, that they're papered registered and sold through that process.

B. Yes, its possible to convert semi-autos without a kit, HOWEVER, in most cases, it would be simpler safer and less time consuming, to aquire a fully automatic weapon through one of numerous other means, because without a kit, its all "make it and test it yourself". And I say that as a machinist.


What really matters, is: How often are fully automatic weapons used in crime, how many of them are semi-automatic weapons that had been converted, and what kind of crime problem are either causing?

But you don't want to talk about that, do you.

[jimmy the one]

99. nobody? ... somebody

beevul: Nobody here argues that conversions can't be done.

Oh no? do I have to spoon feed you people to what's already been said here?: irongate: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that,

So go soak your head beevul.

beevul: What really matters, is: How often are fully automatic weapons used in crime, how many of them are semi-automatic weapons that had been converted, and what kind of crime problem are either causing?

That's a peripheral issue & a red herring from you, which has nowt to do with what I'd written. Do you expect I should touch on all aspects of assault rifles? go soak your head:
I wrote, my 'premise': ... the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle .. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

beevul: You need a premise that meshes in some way with reality, preferably, a meaningful way.

My post meshes with reality, whether it's meaningful to you & the other biased gun enthusiasts on here I couldn't give a whit.
You're the one who needs get a grip on truth & reality in what you counter post.

Addendum: predominance of assault rifle fanatics would rather a semi auto rather than full auto, latter would be a waste of ammo without a super hi cap magazine, & less accurate. So that's not my point, just that it is possible to do so, which generally distinguishes them from conventional rifles.

[NYC_SKP]

100. Maybe you should just start a new thread, this exchange is falling off the right side of my 27"

Screen.

Why, seriously, don't you author an OP in this group with some original thoughts?

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. I think our interlocutor is here merely as a placeholder- to 'show the flag', so to speak

It's not as if the tsunami of bafflegab is winning any new followers- some people
are simply unable to acknowledge that the tide really isn't going to turn their way
Real Soon Now, and in fact is going the other way...

[Duckhunter935]

104. One of the last ones

The two main ones that used to post from the pro-control group seem to have mysteriously disappeared.

The tide is turning though.

[beevul]

103. You don't know what you don't know.

Oh no? do I have to spoon feed you people to what's already been said here?: irongate: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that,

So go soak your head beevul.

That's a true statement, seeing as ATF standards, otherwise known as law, state in no uncertain terms, that semi-automatic weapons that can be converted easily are already considered fully automatic weapons. See, you'd know these things, if you had a firm grasp on the subject matter. But you don't. Please, tell us more about how flash hiders work and what they're for now, wont you?

That's a peripheral issue & a red herring ...

And there you have it folks. Whether or not people actually are converting semi-autos to fully automatic, and whether it is a crime problem or not, or to what degree, is a peripheral issue, and a red herring.

Yet you have the nerve to say "You're the one who needs get a grip on truth & reality in what you counter post".

That about says it all, I think.

[jimmy the one]

105. I play it again, sam

irongate, to me: You're 100% incorrect, no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that,
'beevul': That's a true statement {from irongate}, seeing as ATF standards, otherwise known as law, state in no uncertain terms, that semi-automatic weapons that can be converted easily are already considered fully automatic weapons.

Chicanery, what a dazzling smoke screen from beevful, to avoid having to admit he told a lie. Why did beevul ignore that what I posted refuted beevul's contention that:

beevul: Nobody here argues that conversions can't be done.

So what does the deceptive beevul do? ignores his gaffe & blows smoke. Reread irongate's top sentence above & see how it refutes beevul. ADDRESS THAT, beevul, what I checked you on, instead of tapdancing.

beevul: you'd know these things, if you had a firm grasp on the subject matter.But you don't. Please, tell us more about how flash hiders work and what they're for now, wont you?

What did I say that was incorrect? post it.

dbeevul: And there you have it folks. Whether or not people actually are converting semi-autos to fully automatic, and whether it is a crime problem or not, or to what degree, is a peripheral issue, and a red herring.

Exactly; what you write above is indeed a peripheral red herring to my premise that semi auto versions of common asslt rifles, can generally be converted to full auto with a conversion kit or simple tools. Your red herrings were not my concern in my remarks, they're yours which you brought up to distract attention. When one makes a statement here he's not obliged to touch on every peripheral concern surrounding it, that's ridiculous (Only when it would leave a misleading impression due omission).

beevul: Yet you have the nerve to say "You're the one who needs get a grip on truth & reality in what you counter post".

Yep, & I play it again.

[NYC_SKP]

106. Feel free to call another DU member a liar.

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

It makes no difference, I don't think anyone reads your TLDR replies who doesn't already know that they are just word salads tossed against solid arguments.

You are the one who, failingly, suggested that semi-auto rifles were easily converted. You then try to back it up with the implication that it was only meant in the context of "assault rifles", which aren't legal to begin with.

So you're slipping on a banana peel that you threw out there and want to distract from your failed argument.

Pathetic, is what it is.

Just admit that assault rifles aren't common, and that most semiautos aren't easily converted.

Can't do it, can you?

Can't admit a mistake?

[jimmy the one]

107. makes me sick, too

nycskp:You are the one who, failingly, suggested that semi-auto rifles were easily converted

You are lying. Copy & paste any post of mine where I wrote that semi auto rifles could be EASILY converted (whether asslt rifle versions or all semis). You only APE what irongate miswrote, & even he backslid on that.

nyc skp: You then try to back it up with the implication that it was only meant in the context of "assault rifles", which aren't legal to begin with.

You distort what was written. That's what you people do here, distort, fabricate, lie, ad hominem; you people make me sick.

what I wrote: ... the term assault rifle exists to distinguish it from a more conventional rifle, the term has evolved over the past two decades & is commonly accepted as (in part) defining the semi automatic version of an automatic military rifle capable of 3 rd bursts to 120 to 600 shots per minute. The semi auto is generally capable of being converted to full auto with a conversion kit.

nyc skp, distorting: Just admit that assault rifles aren't common, and that most semiautos aren't easily converted.

Since I never said they were easily converted nor that 'asslt rifles' were common, what is your point here? semi versions of asslt rifles are 'generally' capable of being converted & that is true; Observe readers, what this creep has done, taken his own misinterpretations of what I wrote & ascribed his idiocy to myself. So why don't you stop taking my posts out of context & distorting what I wrote, con artist.

nyc skp: So you're slipping on a banana peel that you through out there and want to distract from your failed argument. Pathetic, is what it is. Can't do it, can you? Can't admit a mistake?

Your juvenile ad hominem makes me sick. How old are you?

[NYC_SKP]

108. I accept your apology.

And I'm anything but juvenile, but I will stoop to making one point. I see patterns more readily than most.

An 88 score on the MAT bears that out. IIRC, 66 gets you in Mensa.

You should check it out.

[jimmy the one]

109. what rot

nyc skp: I accept your apology.

What apology? I didn't realize till now what an ego you have.

nyc skp: And I'm anything but juvenile, but I will stoop to making one point. I see patterns more readily than most. An 88 score on the MAT bears that out. IIRC, 66 gets you in Mensa.

Is this rot supposed to somehow excuse you from answering expressed concerns in my post 107, where you lied & distorted? and are now obviously ducking behind your monitor?

.. it's not everyday we get to read juvenile ad hominem from a mensa man, but here it is:

nyc skp: So you're slipping on a banana peel that you threw out there and want to distract from your failed argument. Pathetic, is what it is. Just admit that assault rifles aren't common, and that most semiautos aren't easily converted. Can't do it, can you? Can't admit a mistake?

[beevul]

110. Poor poor Jimmy, playing so off key as to make the dogs whine.

"Exactly; what you write above is indeed a peripheral red herring to my premise that semi auto versions of common asslt rifles, can generally be converted to full auto with a conversion kit or simple tools. Your red herrings were not my concern in my remarks, they're yours which you brought up to distract attention. When one makes a statement here he's not obliged to touch on every peripheral concern surrounding it, that's ridiculous (Only when it would leave a misleading impression due omission). "

Your "premise" that "semi auto versions of common asslt rifles, can generally be converted to full auto with a conversion kit or simple tools", is based upon flawed understanding of flawed information, flawed (or none) understanding of law, lack of attention to detail, and sheer equivocation.

But that isn't the worst of it.

You have taken it upon yourself to craft this "premise", and arrogantly expect the rest of us to agree that it matters.

"It matters whether these guns can be converted or not."

That's the message all your efforts in this thread are intended to convey, and you laughingly attempted to characterize my disagreement with that message as a "red herring".

You're no different than the rest of the loud anti-gun folks. You don't want a discussion, you want a monologue, and others right to disagree becomes troublesome for you when it makes you look foolish. And so you attempt to mis characterize as a red herring, disagreement with your underlying assumption that "it matters", accordingly.

Sophomoric, at best.

[jimmy the one]

111. do not attempt to adjust your tv set

beevul: Your "premise" that "semi auto versions of common asslt rifles, can generally be converted to full auto with a conversion kit or simple tools", is based upon flawed understanding of flawed information, flawed (or none) understanding of law, lack of attention to detail, and sheer equivocation.

well here then, argue with yourself, since you somewhat contradict yourself:

beevul: Nobody here argues that conversions can't be done.

beevul also contradicted by IRONGATE (writing to me): .. no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that, and the so called conversion kits? Those are tightly regulated by the ATF..

He's contradicting the contradiction! I'm hearing the twilight zone theme in the background!

beevul: You don't want a discussion, you want a monologue,

Mild correction; I don't expect a rationale or reasonable discussion, I expect adversarial duplicity; I'm well aware the 2nd amendment mythology is embedded deep in gun enthusiasts souls. I don't really want a monologue, just to expose the lies & hypocrisy & half truths which permeate that 2nd amendment mythology.
And your usage of 'monologue' is demonstrably ridiculous, since I've gone in depth to reply to the distortions & lies which gun enthusiasts have leveled against me in this rkba kangaroo court. I think most of my replies have been rebuttals & refutals to you people.
It's rather you people who attempt to dominate with distortion & ad hominem, including using intimidation tactics.

[beevul]

112. You fail to even understand what it is you quote, so how could you possibly spot a contradiction?

You fail to even understand what it is you quote, so how could you possibly spot a contradiction?

"He's contradicting the contradiction! "

Nope.

There is no contradiction.

Only a failure to understand whats plainly in front of you, possibly a deliberate and purposeful one.

"It's rather you people who attempt to dominate with distortion & ad hominem..."

Ad hominem? As if it isn't your side of the debate that loudly proudly regularly and consistently reverts to the "small penis/compensating insults. So much in fact, that its become a widely known and predictable tactic that fits neatly into its own category. Tell me more about hypocrisy.

Perhaps you define ad hominem differently than the rest of us...more...uh...selectively. Now, what was it you were saying about hypocrisy again?

And distortion? You're the one that doesn't want to talk about whether weapons being converted from semi to full auto unlawfully actually happens in the real world, and what degree of a crime problem it represents or doesn't.


"...including using intimidation tactics."

Intimidation tactics? On a message board? That's your trump card?

[samsingh]

31. did you know that hunters are actually good for the

wildlife they kill?

really, they are.

sarcasm off

[blueridge3210]

34. As opposed to said wildlife dying of starvation, disease or being struck by automobiles?

Given the lack of natural predators for many wildlife species careful management through controlled harvesting during designated hunting seasons is the most cost effective way to manage populations. The hunters support the economy by purchasing ammunition which is taxed to support wildlife management and the sale of hunting permits which do the same.

So, yes, hunters are a net positive overall for the species which they harvest in compliance with game laws.

[samsingh]

35. that thinking seems to be wiping out the elephant and rhino herds

If hunters want to kill animals, they should stop being cowards and just admit they don't care about killing animals. there is nothing good from what hunters do (save the ones who hunt for food).

[blueridge3210]

36. Elephants and Rhinos are being killed by poachers who are killing in violation of game regulations

Not by licensed hunters following established law. An example of the "tragedy of the commons"; because the elephants and rhinos belong to no one there is no incentive to preserve them. Allow private individuals to maintain herds of animals and permit hunting a selected number for a fee and the population would be maintained out of the self-interest of the owner and the species would be less likely to face extinction.

[samsingh]

40. can you not empathize with what a deer must feel when being

hunted and shot to death?

and the deer's children that will subsequently starve to death?

[gejohnston]

41. are you vegan?

If not, go to a feed lot "meat processing plant" aka slaughter house and ask the same about cows. That is the real reason I don't eat pork.
hunting season is in the fall, the fawns are self sufficient. Also, most seasons are bucks only, at least around here.

[samsingh]

43. i am

[gejohnston]

94. then you have my respect

your opposition to hunting is based on principle (IIRC, the idea that either nature did not designed to eat as much meat as we do, and we can make a conscience choice to eat non sentiment beings like plants, while the cat does not have that choice.) Who I don't respect are culture warriors who say "just go to the store and buy beef" as if paying someone else to do your killing for you (really, that is what it is) somehow makes you more urbane and civilized.

[samsingh]

95. thank you

[blueridge3210]

42. Can you not empthize with what a deer must be feeling as it dies from starvation or disease?

Deer hunting season occurs in the Fall/Winter when the offspring are mature enough to fend for themselves. Is a deer any less dead from disease or starvation, or being hit by a car than if shot by a hunter seeking to feed themselves?

[samsingh]

44. i can empathize with those. that's why we try not to hit deers with cars. The primary

purpose of a car is not to hit deers. In terms of starvation, I support the environment and plant trees and bushes. I don't think shooting a deer is intended to save the deer.

[blueridge3210]

46. Yet many people hit deer with cars without intending to.

I'm not sure planting trees and bushes in a non-rural environment will do much good. The intent of shooting deer is not to save that particular deer; it is to keep a balance in the population related to food supply. Given the lack of natural predators this is necessary and allows people to feed themselves as well.

[spin]

54. Actually if you are wise you attempt to avoid hitting a deer as it can cause considerable ...

damage to your vehicle.

[samsingh]

45. i wouldn't take food away from a deer to starve it to death. i wouldn't

run a deer over on purpose. Shooting a deer is direct act of killing another living thing.

[blueridge3210]

47. It doesn't matter to the deer if it is hit by accident or dies of starvation due to overpopulation.

Dead is dead. Yes, shooting a deer is likely to kill it. Usually more humanely than allowing it to die of disease or starvation. The hunter is able to feed themselves as well.

[samsingh]

48. it's about intent. i'm not killing the deer

(I do feel terrible if a deer dies of starvation).

hunters are pulling the trigger that launches the bullet (or bullets) that kill the deer.

[Straw Man]

56. Intent means nothing.

The fact remains that of the three methods of death under discussion -- starvation, being struck by a car, being shot by a hunter -- the last entails the least amount of suffering.

It may come as a shock to you, but animals in the wild don't die in bed surrounded by their loved ones. Their deaths invariably involve a great degree of suffering.

i wouldn't take food away from a deer to starve it to death.

By your opposition to hunting, you are helping create a situation in which there are too many deer for the available food supply. Some will starve, a slow and painful death.

[NYC_SKP]

49. By design, the "deer's children" will not starve to death.

Fauns arrive in the spring and are weaned after 8-10 weeks, typically, and can live independently of their mothers by then.

Deer season is typically in the fall, late fall, in any event deliberately timed to prevent the terrible starvation that might occur otherwise.

It varies by state and by zones withing each state.

Most hunters use their catch for food or donate to shelters, and it's much more humane than typical store-bought animal protein.

[krispos42]

51. A brief, sudden pain, then nothing.

At least, that's the ideal situation.


There are more deer now than there were a hundred years ago.


Besides, if it saves just one life in a car-deer collision...

[samsingh]

52. there's a lot of justification there for killing harmless animals

and the comment at the bottom leaves me speechless - I've heard that with innocent people going to jail - "they must have done something" people like trump say.

[NYC_SKP]

53. Chili Con Carne, Chicken Nuggets, Grilled Salmon.

Do you not eat animal protein?

[krispos42]

64. It's the justification used by the gun-control movement.

Besides, shooting and eating deer replaces factory-farmed meat. Truth?

[samsingh]

65. not for the trophy hunters

[NYC_SKP]

66. Responsible trophy hunters still use the whole animal.

And with respect to the car/deer comment, you might not know about the dynamics of animal populations when there are lack of predators.

Part of hunting season is that the take is carefully crafted to thin the herd, as it were.

Too many of any species is never a good thing, for the environment and not good for that species.

We are witness to the effects of our own overpopulation, now that I think about it.

Our herd, too, will be thinned.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. re: "Our herd, too, will be thinned."

And many will be okay with that if the means is the death penalty apportioned by the government but not so much if dealt out by threatened and assaulted citizens.

[NYC_SKP]

68. And it may well come from the processed meat and foods industry and what corporate agriculture does.

We're killing ourselves, really.

And any we miss will likely be taken out by mother nature.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. Mother nature or the soylent factories

[Duckhunter935]

38. I did not know you could hunt those

in the US, learn something new every day.

[gejohnston]

39. those aren't licensed trophy hunters

those are commercial poachers for the ivory and horns. One rhino horn is US$300K That is about money, not trophies or anything else.
For more information, here is a start.
http://wesmantoddshaw.hubpages.com/hub/African-Elephants-And-Their-Struggle-To-Survive

Personally, I believe in the "you kill it, you eat it" philosophy. Food and defense are the only legitimate reasons to kill any human or animal (and maybe euthanasia, but I pay the vet to do that.) However, as blueridge explained, the reality is what it is and I have to accept that. The only solution I can think of is instead of destroying or warehousing confiscated ivory, governments should flood the market, pushing prices so low that poachers won't think it is worth the effort. Oh, game departments using killer drones would be OK too.

[The Green Manalishi]

50. I still miss lawn darts. EOM

[spin]

55. They were great fun. (n/t)

[blueridge3210]

58. I had an uncle who was a lawn darts champion.

Pretty impressive for a guy with one eye, ear chewed off by a bear, lost 2 fingers to a table saw and had his foot crushed by a tractor. We nicknamed him "Lucky".

[spin]

59. "Lucky" was a good nickname indeed. (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Please tell me...

...there's nothing flammable in his house.

[blueridge3210]

61. Not sure.

He's self employed; runs a mail order match and gasoline business. And blasting caps.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. Let me guess...

...you're here all week.

[blueridge3210]

63. Try the chicken.

And, tip your waitress. ba-dump dump.