Look at this! Do you see what is wrong here?

[janx]

I was no stranger to firearms as a kid, having almost fallen down with my first shot at a clay target with a 12-gauge and my camp training with a 22 before that, but there is something different going on here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119421/replies?comment=5

[boobooday]

1. "We teach our youngsters about target-rich environments"

Very messed up.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[janx]

5. What is a target-rich environment, according to that guy?

That was very strange.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Exactly, and did you see the pics

of those young kids learning to shoot? DISGUSTING! They all sound like a bunch of paranoid militia members. Oh, wait a minute.........

[FeebMaster]

20. What's wrong with the pictures? (nt)

[liberalhistorian]

26. Maybe it's just me,

but I find pictures of children shooting guns to be pretty disturbing. But, like I said, maybe that's just me.

[Columbia]

27. Hey liberalhistorian

I thought you were for concealed carry? I am wondering what has changed your mind over the last few months?

[FeebMaster]

28. I don't find it disturbing at all. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

34. It depends on the picture.

If the kid is in the company of a responsible adult and is handling the weapon in a safe manner, I have no problem with it. If the kid is doing some kind of "gangsta" gun handling technique, it makes me sick, too.

[progressivebydesign]

87. The big gun-lovin' lie..

They'll tell you that if you teach kids to handle a weapon, and how to shoot.. they'll be responsible, etc. Most times, when kids go nutz and go ballistic (literally), they are kids who have learned to fire a gun at an early age, and have them in the house. Who'da thunk it?

[DoNotRefill]

97. Sorry....

but teaching a kid how to shoot and safely handle guns isn't to prevent the kid from going postal, it's the prevent the kid from getting a gun and ACCIDENTALLY shooting himself or somebody else.

How many kids go postal in a year on average?

[DoNotRefill]

2. What's wrong with teaching guns responsible gun handling?

It's an excellent way to prevent accidents from ignorant people playing with real guns.

[janx]

8. You have clearly missed my point.

I was taught responsible firearm handling as a kid. The link I provide, however, points to something different. Look at it again.

[Gildor Inglorion]

3. It's a way of life in the south...

I was brought up shooting, too. It really has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican. My family is practically 100% liberal Democrat, and every one of us can shoot. I never took to hunting, though. I just flat-out refused. Too messy. And then I got drafted!

[Mountainman]

7. I remember having to turn my gun in at Fort Knox when I was drafted

My dad use to hunt but I could never bring my self to kill an animal for sport. I would not eat what my dad killed and that made him mad. He made me clean the rabbits and pheasants he killed to "make a man out of me." Well that didn't make me like hunting any more than the war did. I still own guns but I would only kill in self defense.

[janx]

14. I don't understand killing for sport either. For food, yes. For

sport, no. (See my other posts.)

My brothers were sent out with 22's once to hunt for rabbits on an Illinois farm. (I was younger than they were and a little pissed that I had been excluded at the time--I followed them.) My oldest brother shot one, but he really couldn't get into the skinning of the rabbit (rabbits being especially RED in that process), and none of us really appreciated the taste of the rabbit even though it had been marinated in milk and apples or some damn thing. It was very gamey in its taste, and we really didn't need to go through that to survive.

It was supposed to have been some kind of rite of passage, and it turned out to be just that, but not one that my father or his gentleman farmer friend envisioned for my brothers or me.

[janx]

9. Well, as my father put it:

If you were hungry enough, you would hunt. You just haven't been hungry enough.


He was right. (And he didn't hunt.)

[Mountainman]

12. I'm a vegetarian so I would probably gather my food from plants

[Maestro]

4. I took my first shooting class when I was ten

with .22 caliber rifles. But I am wondering what in the heck that kid is going to use that .50 caliber for and what do they mean by "target rich environment?" "Deer?"

[janx]

11. Me too, and I wonder the same thing.

What constitutes a "target rich environment" ?

[Columbia]

13. Perhaps

They mean that all of us are potential victims and it is important to be aware of our environment so as to be exposed as easy prey.

[janx]

15. That would be sick. Where does such a victim mentality

come from?

[Columbia]

18. Evolution?

[janx]

29. Paranoia, more likely. n/t

[Columbia]

35. I think survival is quite a natural instinct.

[eleny]

38. Did you Google the phrase?

I Googled "target rich environment" and here's one of the links that showed up http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7416_The_Definition_of_a_Target-Rich_Environment

[Beam Me Up]

17. what to do with the .50

In case you were wondering what they have in mind. You should follow some of those images to their source.

Here's one from http://www.tomeaker.com/SAShoot

[DoNotRefill]

23. Here's the website for Serbu firearms...

http://www.serbu.com

"The BFG-50 is constructed using the most modern manufacturing methods (CNC machining, laser cutting, automated welding) and is made from the highest quality MIL-spec alloy steels. The safety factors to which all the critical parts are designed are very high; more than double what one finds in a typical production military rifle. While the price of this gun is incredibly reasonable, the low quality that one usually expects with a low price is not a fact of life with the BFG-50. How can this be done? Low overhead, and a design that's optimized for manufacturability as well as performance and quality. Plus a labor pool made up mostly of illegal immigrant children toiling in a hellish environment, subsisting on a diet of water, rice and cockroaches. The BFG-50 is a perfect gun for the enthusiast who has always wanted to have a .50 BMG rifle, but doesn't want to spend $3,000+ to get one. The BFG-50 is fully $1,000 cheaper than the nearest competition. And probably looks cooler, too."

http://www.serbu.com/bfg50.htm

[Kanary]

42. Thanks to your picture,

I have started a file "disgusting freepers"

Do we have a very sick country, or what.......

all our founding fathers are doing a lot of grave-spinning

Kanary

[Beam Me Up]

57. The majority of my family are FREEPS -- story for ya. . .

Born-again FREEPN' fundies. How or why I was born into that family--and how I managed to escape (I'm gay, live in California)--is a story that may never be told. But here is just one little episode for you:

My dad had taught me to shoot from the time I was six or seven years old. I was a pretty good shot, and so was he. One Sunday day when I was about nine or ten the old man and I had been target practicing with the .22. All of a sudden for some reason he said to me, "BOY how about you go over there and stand on that stump, put the tin can on yer head and let me see if'n I can SHOOT IT OFF." Taking the DARE, I marched over to the stump, put the tin can on my head and stood REAL STILL. My dad took aim and for a brief moment in eternity we stared each other down. Finally there was a crack, zip and PING--and the tin can flew off my head. I almost fainted--knowing from that moment that I could NEVER trust my father in anything ever again.

Many years later on the occasion of his 85th birthday, the old man laid his great heavy paws on me with big tears in his eyes and said: "Son, I just want you to know, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT OF MY LIFE." I looked him right in the eye and said, well, dad, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE AND YOU MISSED.

Is it any damn wonder I want to get BEAMED UP off this god forsaken planet!

[Kanary]

62. I'm sorry you had such a sorry excuse for a family

I did, too.

I respect you for coming out of that, and going in a much different direction.

What we need to do is somehow figure out how we grow people (and I use the term lightly!) like that.

Because we need to stop growing them.

Thanks for sharing......

Kanary

[buff2]

10. Oh,that's nice.......

Freepers training their kids today to become tomorrow's snipers. Sick bastards.

[napi21]

16. Don't get too crazy guys! I learned to shoot when I got married

at 21. I'm a damn good shot too! I've hubted, cleaned the game, and cooked it for dinner. We tought our sons to respect guns, shoot them well, and not to misuse the right of owning them.

Yea, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a female, a proud tob be able to brag a little about being able to match quite a few of the guys I meet at the shooting range.

BTW, snipers are not shooters or hunters. They're sick people who need hospitalized or incarcirated!

[janx]

21. You missed my point as well. I learned to shoot a.22 at the age of

10 and fired a 12-gauge at around age 12.

You totally miss the point.

[FeebMaster]

22. Apparently quite a few of us have missed your point.

Maybe you could enlighten us.

[janx]

25. Look at the link.

I think you can figure it out. It has nothing to do with the common use of firearms under the second amendment at all.

Most people don't need enlightenment when it comes to that.

[FeebMaster]

31. I still haven't figured it out.

What is the common use of firearms under he second amendment anyway?

[janx]

36. See #32. n/t

[janx]

32. Okay. You think this is normal?

[DoNotRefill]

37. What's wrong with it?

He's handling the weapon in a responsible manner, he's at a real firing range, shooting at the 200/300 yard line. He's wearing hearing and eye protection. The only thing I see wrong with the picture is that the girl doesn't have her safety goggles on, and she really should.

[janx]

47. Yes? Look at his firearm. Do you think

that he is being taught to protect his property or to shoot deer or squirrels with his firearm?

Ot do you think that it's just so macho and hip that he should learn to handle that particular firearm?

[FeebMaster]

49. Why would someone shoot a deer or squirrel

with a .50 caliber rifle? Why don't you tell us what's wrong with that particular firearm, since you seem to have a problem with it.

[janx]

53. I don't have a problem with the firearm. I have a problem

with the freepers' rendition of what their children are doing with it.

Do you have a problem with that?

[FeebMaster]

54. I have no problem with kids firing any kind of rifle

or of pictures being taken of it and posted online if that's what you mean. If that isn't what you mean, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

[janx]

61. I am so impressed

with your sense of the macho

and so impressed

with your sense of the connection to the

snipers in Iraq.

You must really know American culture and history.

[FeebMaster]

63. Macho?

"I am so impressed with your sense of the macho"

What are you talking about?

"and so impressed

with your sense of the connection to the

snipers in Iraq."

Sense of a connection? Snipers in Iraq? I thought we were talking about a picture of a kid firing a .50 caliber rifle.

"You must really know American culture and history."

What does my knowledge of American culture and history have to do with anything?

[janx]

68. For pete's sake, take a look at the original post and link.

Please.

[FeebMaster]

72. I've looked over your post

about shooting a 12 gauge and a .22 when you were a kid and I've looked over the pictures at the link a few times now and I must say I'm still scratching my head wondering what all the fuss is about.

Are you disappointed that there weren't any affordable .50 rifles for you to shoot when you were a kid? If you're old enough to have been a kid before 1968 you could have gotten a 20mm cannon for under $200 back when you could order them mail order. I'm disappointed that when I was a kid getting a 20mm cannon was somewhat more expensive and time consuming. Not to mention the pictures, fingerprints, paperwork, and background checks.

[janx]

81. HA! I'm old enough and smart enough.

Three degrees and three kids, all of whom are doing well. My firearms training was pretty good. Most of it took place when I was a kid, but I revisited it as an adult when I enjoyed shooting skeet and trap with a .28 gauge in my twenties.

I write books and educate college kids about how to write.

Thanks to my now dead parents, I was portaging in the Quetico when I was five, riding horses when I was six; it is said that I was on my back in a Wisconsin canoe before I could walk or crawl. I was catching fish in Canada before I was six years old and loving every minute of it.

More firearms (as a political matter) was the last thing on my mind.

[FeebMaster]

92. Unfortunately for me, by the time I was old enough

to care about such things, Reagan had already banned civilian production of machine guns, effectively driving up the prices of the ones that were already around. Not that I'm particularly interested in going through the hassle of buying a machine gun.

I don't see what your three degrees have to do with anything.

[DoNotRefill]

55. yuppers...

gotta stop those kids from shooting rifles at earthen berms...they might kill a worm or bug or something!

This kid isn't even hunting, unless he's hunting for the mentally challenged deer population. Your average deer or other four-legged critter doesn't generally hang out at a shooting range.

[janx]

71. I explained my experience with firearms at the beginning.

That should suffice.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Your experience with firearms...

is sketchy at best.

Based upon what you've said, I doubt that if somebody handed you a centerfire rifle today with open sights and asked you to hit a 10 inch by 10 inch target at 100 yards that you could do it, without considerable practice first.

Shooting a .22 at camp and a shotgun once doesn't make you competent with firearms. Hell, in my book, it makes you a "rank novice", around 20 minutes away from being a complete newbie. It's not like you're ready to compete at Camp Peary...


BTW, I got my first rifle at the age of 10. I'm sure I shot 50,000 rounds before I was 18, in the early 1980s.

[janx]

90. I'm SO impressed....

;)

[DoNotRefill]

99. 50K rounds in 8 years isn't that much....

when you consider that most of it was .22LR, because it was cheap and I had to buy my own ammo.

[kiahzero]

95. .50 caliber rifles is solely for anti-armor, are they not?

I was under the impression it was against international law to turn them on people.

Assuming that, why is such a weapon in the hands of a private citizen?

[FeebMaster]

98. You're wrong.

So there's no need to assume anything about such a weapon being in the hands of a private citizen.

In any case, even if they were used only in an anti-armor function, why shouldn't a civilian be able to own one?

[kiahzero]

103. To answer your hypothetical question:

The rights protected by the Second Amendment (to keep and bear arms) are not listed in the Constitution as invioble (there is an additional clause placing restrictions upon it, just as there is an additional phrase placing restrictions on the rights against search and seizure). The government can restrict which arms a private citizen may keep, so long as it has a significant governmental interest. Unfortunately, Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment is few and far between, so there really aren't a whole lot of guidelines to go by.

[FeebMaster]

107. I didn't realize that

"shall not be infringed" actually meant "not listed as invioble." I guess I should have paid more attention in school.

"Unfortunately, Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment is few and far between, so there really aren't a whole lot of guidelines to go by."

Like it matters. Both sides cite US v Miller as if it supports their side of the argument. Meanwhile no one pays any attention to the 2nd amendment or the courts and they just keep passing new laws.

[kiahzero]

112. "Shall not be infringed" is not the only statement in the Amendment

The Constitution must be interpreted holistically, not one individual word at a time.

When you look at the First Amendment, what do you notice? There are no words in there to interpret and allow for restrictions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For instance, it doesn't say "abridging the freedom of reasonable speech" or something along those lines. Same thing with the Fifth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

There's no wording to allow that right to no longer be protected... it doesn't say "and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, so long as it does not threaten national security."

Other amendments, on the other hand, are not worded with such strength. Take the Fourth, for instance:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You have a right to be secure in your person, your house, your papers, and your effects, but only against "unreasonable" searches or seizures. Similarly, you have a right to keep and bear arms:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If possession of a weapon actually threatens the security of a free state, it is not a violation of the Second Amendment to prevent citizens from keeping or bearing that weapon.

[FeebMaster]

113. That's an interesting interpretation.

It doesn't say anything about banning a weapon if the possession of that weapon threatens the security of the free state. It says a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It also says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. How is preventing the people from owning a weapon not an infringement?

[kiahzero]

114. The two are not independant

The sentence forms an implication:
A -> B

A: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

B: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If in a given circumstance, A does not apply, B does not have to apply. A justification for the right is given; hence, if the circumstances of a specific situation falsify that justification, the right is no longer protected.

[FeebMaster]

115. Implication?

Please reform the sentence into if-then form for me.

[kiahzero]

116. It's of the form

Given that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FeebMaster]

117. That's not an implication.

"Given that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

is equivalent to:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Any way you slice either of those "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" isn't dependent on a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

[kiahzero]

119. Oh, but it is

An implication is a hypothesis and a conclusion. "Given x, y" is a valid implication - one assumes x as a fact, and therefore use that to demonstrate that y logically follows from x.

You actually demonstrate this in your equivalent statement:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

You yourself state that the right should not be infringed because "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

[FeebMaster]

120. And where in this interpretation

where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does the ability to infringe the right come from?

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" might be looked on as one reason that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but how does "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" nullify the "shall not be infringed" part?

[kiahzero]

121. It doesn't nullify it

Since it is of the form A -> B, there are two ways for the Amendment to be satisfied. Either B can be satisfied, or A can be unsatisfied.

If the situation makes the first statement unsatisfiable, the satisfiability of the second statement is inconsequential.

The only way for the Amendment to be unsatisfied (meaning that the situation resulted in a violation of the Constitution) would be for A to be satisfied, and B to be unsatisfied.

So the question becomes, when determining whether a given regulation preseves Constitutional validity (does not violate the Constitution), is whether or not A is satisfied or not.

[FeebMaster]

123. How can the first statement become unsatisfiable?

"The only way for the Amendment to be unsatisfied (meaning that the situation resulted in a violation of the Constitution) would be for A to be satisfied, and B to be unsatisfied."

So since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, if the right of the people to bear arms is violated then the 2nd amendment is violated. I'm glad we agree.

"So the question becomes, when determining whether a given regulation preseves Constitutional validity (does not violate the Constitution), is whether or not A is satisfied or not."

And the question remains. "Given that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How can A not be satisfied when it is a given?

[kiahzero]

125. So your argument is that the first statement is valid (always satisfied)?

What then, if we are talking about a weapon which threatens the security of a free state?

I'll admit that interpreting this Amendment in general is a difficult proposition: the introductory clause must be accounted for in some way, but it is not as straightforward as other Amendments such as the first.

[FeebMaster]

126. You're the one who argued that it was given.

"It's of the form
Given that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1428751#1431363

The amendment doesn't mention weapons that threaten the security of a free state.

A as we've been referring to it is: "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." No mention there on regulating weapons. Simply that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

B as we've been referring to it is: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You can't be more straightforward than that. You can't infringe the right to bear arms.

You're trying to argue that if there were some weapon that somehow threatened the security of a free state then that weapon could be regulated because of A. But A only says "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." It says nothing about being able to violate B if the security of a free state is in jeopardy.

[kiahzero]

127. The Amendment is arguing that the right needs to be protected

to preserve the security of a free state. Given a weapon X that is a threat to the security of a free state, applying Second Amendment protections to that weapon would be contradictory. That was all I was saying.

[FeebMaster]

129. No.

The amendment is arguing that the right needs to be protected because a well regulated militia is necessary to preserve the security of a free state.

Applying second amendment protections to a weapon that is a threat to the security of a free state (assuming such a critter exists) isn't contradictory because the amendment doesn't say anything about restricting access to such weapons.

The amendment doesn't say: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the security of a free state must be preserved." It says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state."

You know, usually it's us pro-gun guys who are accused of trying to ignore the militia part.

[kiahzero]

131. I'm not ignoring the militia part, I'm interpreting it

I'm ignoring for now the argument that the right only exists insofar as there are well-regulated militias that call for the weapons of private citizens.

You do raise good points however, and I do admit that my knowledge on this area is not up to par with my own personal standards, let alone enough to argue with someone whose is. So while I don't agree with you, I'll concede that your argument is better until such a time as I can reexamine my own.

[DoNotRefill]

108. The ONE SCOTUS guideline we have...

is from US v. Miller in 1939, where SCOTUS ruled that in order for a gun to be protected by the Second Amendment, there had to be at least SOME showing that such a weapon had SOME military utility. It's only "absent some showing" that a gun has military value that it isn't protected. There was no showing that the gun had military value because Miller wasn't there when the case was heard, his lawyer wasn't there, and there wasn't even an amicus brief filed on his behalf. In other words, there was no argument put on to the Supreme Court from Miller's side AT ALL.

It's interesting to note that Defendant Miller was not only not in a militia, but he was legally prohibited from being in a militia due to a previous felony conviction. If the Second Amendment applies only to people in the militia or candidates to be in the militia, that fact alone would have been dispositive.

[DoNotRefill]

101. 50 bmg will not do much to armor....

unless it's extremely thin. It will not even scratch a WWII tank.

It's not against international law to shoot people with a .50 cal, unless it uses a non-FMJ bullet.

[kiahzero]

104. OK, must have had bad information (n/t)

[DoNotRefill]

50. It looks like...

he's target shooting.

NOBODY would use a single shot bolt action rifle for self-defense, unless it was the only gun available. A .38 revolver would be a better self-defense gun. Hell, no military would issue a single shot bolt action rifle even to their snipers. It's inefficient as hell, having to manually completely reload the gun each and every time it's fired.

I don't think it's macho or hip. But then again, I never bought into that whole "guns are penis-substitutes" argument that seems so prevalent among the anti-gunners.

[Columbia]

39. Where's the problem?

Safe shooting in a supervised environment teaching children respect for firearms and safe handling techniques.

[FeebMaster]

40. What's not normal about it?

It's a kid shooting a rifle. He's wearing hearing protection as is the girl in the background, has his finger off the trigger presumably until he's ready to fire. What's the problem?

[Streetdoc270]

122. I think the problems is the text of the post above the pic...

that says "sniper training 101" Implying that the parent of the children in the picture is training them to be killers, not safety conscious responsible gun owners.

[FeebMaster]

124. Other than the lack of safety glasses on the girl

in the background I still don't see a problem with it. What's wrong with learning about remaining undetected while firing from a position of concealment? None of which appears to be happening in the picture other than the firing of a rifle.

[Maestro]

41. I dunno

the Queen of England could try to come back and reclaim her territory in the name of King George.

But seriously, I have nothing against gun ownership, I just don't see the reason for the opposition to waiting periods, strict gun lisencing and the outlawing of military grade guns. I mean why would anyone need a gun like the one above? I have been a gun owner in the past. I grew up in a military and hunting family, but I choose now to steer clear of them. I just couldn't live with myself if something stupid happened in my house because of them even though I taught my kids how to use them.

[janx]

44. I agree with you. n/t

[DoNotRefill]

46. It's a frigging single shot rifle.

it doesn't even HAVE a magazine or a bayonet lug!

Oh, BTW, the Serbu BFG has never been used by the military. It's specifically designed and made for the civilian precision bench-rest shooter market.

[solinvictus]

48. "Military Grade Guns"??

Please elaborate.

[patriotvoice]

64. M2, M82A1A, M85

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m82.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m85.htm

[patriotvoice]

82. No, it's not "normal." It's also not improper.

You don't normally run across youths handling weapons responsibly, especially weapons of this caliber. As DoNotRefill pointed out, this scene portrays mostly safe and appropriate handling for a shooting range.

On edit:
Correction to match DoNotRefill's actual statement. :thumbsup:

[DoNotRefill]

84. It's mostly safe...

the girl should have her safety glasses on. She's also sitting in a particularly stupid place if the rifle is about to be fired, but that's not really dangerous, just uncomfortable.

[progressivebydesign]

89. The kid with the machine gun freaked me out..

.. deer hunting, perhaps? Gross. I'm afraid this thread has attracted the gun-lovers here. DU has changed A LOT since I came here a few years ago.

[FeebMaster]

93. What kid with what machine gun? (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

102. Why?

there are 250,000 machineguns legally in the hands of private individuals in the US. They're practically NEVER used in crimes (since 1934, when they started tracking that, there have been a grand total of TWO legal machinguns TOTAL used to commit crimes, and one of those two incidents involved a police officer committing a crime with a personal weapon) so you can't justifiably use the "machineguns should be banned to prevent crime" argument.

Hell, even KERRY claims to like guns.

[patriotvoice]

110. "Every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right" -- Ani D'Franco

Moreover, even a spoon has a military application.

I am (again) in agreement with DoNotRefill: guns are not a problem. The only problem is people using weapons as an aggressive solution, rather than a defensive last resort.

Fight first with words, for the pen is mightier than the sword.
Fight next with compromise, for a burden is best shared.
Fight last with a weapon, for its consequences cannot be undone.

[FreakinDJ]

19. Too SICK for words even

It has nothing to do with gun / anti gun sentiments

All of those comments were made under this headline...

Fighting around Fallujah a Marine sniper's 'dream'

I think their sentiment was more about teaching their children to HATE and fight a RACE WAR.

AND JUST WHAT USE IS A 50 CALIBER RIFLE ANYWAY AND WHY IS THIS JERKS CHILDREN USING IT

[janx]

24. EXACTLY.

It has nothing to do with the common use of firearms in this country--nothing at all.

[patriotvoice]

43. .50 caliber

A .50 caliber is a long-range rifle that has a host of different uses depending upon the cartridge selected and any automatic drum attached.

The US Army issues 8 types of ammunition for its .50 caliber, including anti-personnel (light material targets), tracer, armor-piercing, and incendiary. Most simply, the Army uses the M2 ball cartridge for marksmanship training, which is most likely what the kids in the image are doing. You will notice in the photo that the range from which he is shooting is marked as 200-300 yards.

[janx]

51. That is so cute. I can't believe it.

I've had enough of this malevolence. I was taught about firearms when I was a kid, but the current emphasis on this sort of thing has me sick.

I'm tired of the connection between what our military has been doing for the past few years and what we should be teaching our kids, and I'm appalled at this freeper rendition of the American child.

[DoNotRefill]

52. there's a slight difference...

between a military .50 caliber machinegun and a .50 caliber single shot rifle.

[patriotvoice]

59. Correct, a machine (or "chain") gun is not a rifle.

The kid is using a single-shot, bolt-action rifle.

My point is not so much the automatic nature, but the munitions and use. On closer inspection, the munition is either black-tipped or silver-tipped, both of which are armour-piercing.

On edit:
In another photo () he's holding a natural, which is a marksman round. Probably just shadow making it look dark. Looks to be simply target practice.

[joe1991]

105. Still, that is a HUGE round

even if they do their own reloading, thats probably a buck or two per shot. If you just want to teach a kid target practice, a cheap .22
and a 5 dollar box of 100 rounds would be a lot better.

To me it's just seeing the huge gun and shell, kinda like seeing a child holding a stinger missle. There's very few reasons for an adult
to have gun like that, much less a kid.

[DoNotRefill]

109. Nah...

you can get loaded "ball" ammo for $1 to $1.50 a round, and reload your own for well under $.30 a round once you get the press and dies. It's only the exotic stuff that's expensive, like APIT or Raufoss.

And somehow, I don't think it was the kid's gun. I doubt a kid could afford, much less legally purchase, a gun with a MSRP of $2195.00 the kid was shooting his father's gun, most likely.

[FreakinDJ]

30. What if it was the War on Drugs

and Bush ordered the marines to encircle East Los Angeles

[kiahzero]

33. At least in context, it's much more understandable

The sniper in question is talking about how the environment is well-suited for sniping. Hopefully he's sniping the right people.

The freepers, as usual, are disgusting.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

45. As far as a freeper thread goes, it's far from the worst I've ever seen

but I'm an armed liberal, so I guess that's why it doesn't bother me. There will ALWAYS be gun nuts. I don't think anyone needs Uzis or assault weapons, but as for other guns, it's a big shrug of the shoulders for me, but then my 100% Dem family has always been trained on guns and owned guns.

[GernBlanston]

56. I think the main point is...

Not that they are teaching children to shoot. I am all for responsible gun ownership and a child who is trained in the proper use of firearms is infinintely less likely to accidentally shoot himself or anyone else - ever.

The picture of "Tommy shooting a .50"

There is NO REASON that this gun should be legal to own by a civialian in this country - or any other for that matter. It is among the most powerful weapons in the world, and iirc, is capable of killing another human at a range exceeding 800 yards.

THAT, my friends, is a problem.

[DoNotRefill]

58. Wrong.

"There is NO REASON that this gun should be legal to own by a civialian in this country - or any other for that matter. It is among the most powerful weapons in the world, and iirc, is capable of killing another human at a range exceeding 800 yards."

It's one of the most powerful RIFLES. Artillery, cannon, et cetera are all far more powerful. And you can kill deer or people or whatever with a .308 or a .30-06 or a .300 WM or a bunch of other hunting calibers at 800 yards. It's done all the time. The limiting factor is the accuracy of a rifle at that distance, generally not the caliber, unless it's a rifle shooting a pistol round. Even a .22LR (one of the least powerful rifle rounds out there) can kill at a range up to 1 1/2 miles, at least according to the boxes of .22 LR ammo that I normally buy.

[janx]

66. Tommy is not exactly shooting deer with this rifle though.

Let's be direct about it.

[FeebMaster]

67. Let's.

Tommy is probably shooting a paper target. That's pretty direct.

[janx]

74. You don't see a connection with our culture? You really can't

see that?

I come from many generations of American soldiers, and I am amazed that others can't understand things like this.

[FeebMaster]

75. Christ, I feel like I'm in Literature class or something.

I don't see whatever connection you seem to see.

Maybe you could just explain what you're talking about instead of remaining amazed that the rest of us have no idea what you're talking about.

[DoNotRefill]

76. Who founded the NRA?

It was a Union Army general in 1871, who found during the Civil War that soldiers from urban environments were poor marksmen compared to soldiers from rural areas, who had years of experience with guns.

Teaching kids to shoot isn't a new idea. Teaching kids to shoot military guns isn't a new idea. Teaching kids to shoot using single-shot rifles isn't a new idea. And the .50 BMG cartridge has been around since WWI.

You're getting all indignant, and I don't understand why. It's not a new phenomenon.

[DoNotRefill]

70. So...you have a problem with Tommy shooting paper and dirt?

He's at a firing range, not a schoolyard, fer chrissakes!

[American liberal]

60. please explain it to me, janx

what is wrong with those pictures other than that little kids are handling big, scary-looking weapons, not only are the adults rednecks, but also some of them have red faces, too, and the "Vote from the rooftops" T-shirt?

I hate guns. I think they should all be banned. These kind of photos scare me. but, because I am so far removed from this sort of thing, I do not understand the underlying context you are getting at. Please explain.

[janx]

65. Okay. I will explain. I can't believe I have to, but I will.

It is unbelievable to me, someone who has been unaffiliated with either party for most of my voting lifetime, that I would have to explain this sort of thing after providing freeper comments and photos.

Just unbelievable.

I explained in my initial post that I have had experience with firearms at an early age, from the age of ten (.22 camp stuff, nothing unusual) and at the age of 12 (12-gauge). I had some later experience that I did not mention, but that is beside the point.

These photos, particularly, have me concerned. Perhaps it is the weird culture that we live in today, the US versus THEM kind of thing. I don't see myself, in my youth, firing these weapons when I look at these pictures, although I was young and blonde when I fired them. There's something else going on here.

[DoNotRefill]

73. I never fired a .50 as a kid....

but I learned to shoot on guns like the British SMLE, the Mauser K-98, and the M1 Garand. All three are military weapons, and the SMLE and K-98s were routinely used by military snipers. All three can kill a person at 800 yards if they are being shot by somebody capable of hitting a target that far out.

To quote Bugs Bunny: "what's the hubub... Bub?"

[hiphopnation]

79. You aren't making any sense.

There's something else going on here.

You're getting huffy cuz no one is getting the point. Let's see here, is it possible that everyone here is missing your point or that you're not being clear? :shrug:

What else is going on? The subversion of our anti-gun, peace-loving society? Oh wait, no such thing.

Why are you so surprised or disgusted to see pictures like these coming from freeperland? All I see are kids with their parents firing weapons in a supervised, controlled environment. Disturbing? A little. But that's about it.

[janx]

83. Disturbing? A little?

Ask yourself the same question.

[hiphopnation]

96. see the title of my last post.

I'm done with this pap. :boring:

edit: I meant post.........still :boring:

[hiphopnation]

100. On second thought,

Hey Janx!! You want to see a picture that disturbs me more than those photos by orders of magnitude??

[aquart]

80. They are not being taught to defend themselves.

And they are not being taught to hunt for food or sport.

They are being taught to hide like cowards and shoot human beings.

Is that what you meant?

[janx]

86. YES

[FeebMaster]

94. They don't look like they're hiding.

What kind of target shooting couldn't be utilized for shooting at human beings?

[mulethree]

85. Nothing New

I went through the same as you it sounds, though the 12ga that knocked me over was shooting a thrown corn cob. Then went through it again with all my uncles and again with work buddies and friends dads who hunt.

My dad was a sharpshooter in the air force and died doing signal intercept in Viet Nam. My male relatives from Georgia, Wisconsin, Texas and Illinois considered it their duty to make sure I could hit a bulls eye at 100 yards. Even my anti-war uncle (Wisconsin) felt that way. You want to see a nervous man, take a hick into NYC without his gun.

Of course most your work will be with 22's cause the bullets are 3 cents each, you only get to fire the big guns 2 or 3 times since the bullets are expensive even when you hand reload the shells.

No they make no bones about the fact that they are shooting long range weapons at human shaped targets. I expect that by now they have laser and night vision scopes.

I think they expect to need to defend their property from mobs of city-folk fleeing a riot or an A-bomb attack.

[Citizen Daryl]

69. Teaching kids to handle guns safely is okay for the Right...

...but teaching them to handle their genitalia correctly is wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

78. personally....

i'd prefer kids learn to handle both safely. It prevents nasty accidents. ;)

[Beaker]

88. i see what's wrong-

you put up a link to free republic.

[janx]

91. Yeah--I should not have done it.

It was stupid.

[Arianrhod]

106. "We teach our youngsters about 'target rich environments'."

They live their lives between their legs. :)

[thebaghwan]

111. Most of these right wing gun nuts have watched Full Metal Jacket too

many times. What a bunch of "I am a Warrior" worthless fucks they are!!!

[mzmolly]

118. Yikes!

:scared:

[MAlibdem]

128. I met a girl at Junior Statesmen who was proud that she taught 8 y/os

how to shoot.

Everyone else there just sort of went :shrug: What?

[FeebMaster]

130. What's wrong with teaching 8 year olds to shoot? (nt)