I am NOT opposed to hunting. I am NOT opposed to target-shooting as a hobby. I am NOT

[Redstone]

opposed to the use of firearms for self-defense, provided the need for such is REAL, not just paranoia.

What I actually AM opposed to is the following:

-Slavish, sheeplike acceptance and espousal of whatever lunatic, dangerous crap the NRA spouts.

-The foaming-at-the-mouth elevation and glorification of firearms to an almost religious fetishism, including:

-The availability to ANYONE (EDIT: by this I mean anyone AT ALL, PERIOD, not "freely available to just anyone." I actually DO know that you can't just walk into a store and buy a full-auto firearm, OK? So let's take that particular "talking point" off the table.) of a firearm such as that "mini (or is it micro, I forget)-Uzi" or that other evil little fucker, I think it's called a Mac-10, and the like.

Can you hunt with it? Well, if you need full-auto and a 30-round magazine to kill an animal, you need to go get your eyes tested. Right now.

Can you use it for target shooting? With that short of a barrel, and a vicious tendency to climb, I doubt you're going to be end up with any tight groups. Or hit pretty much anything, unless it's REAL close.

No, it's not made for any of the above. Unlike other firearms (and, yes, swimming pools, cars, and kitchen knives), those things are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: To murder people. You can't deny that. We're not talking about a 12-gauge shotgun to hunt ducks with, here. Yeah, people will use a shotgun to kill other people now and again, but that's not how their manufacturer intended them to be used.

You all know exactly what I'm getting at here. Yes, people will use firearms that are made for other purposes to kill other people, but listen to me: When people elevate ALL firearms to such an iconic status that they're blind to ANY reasonable constraints (you have to register your car, but not your guns; allowing the manufacture and sale of firearms made specifically for murder), not to mention defending the idea that it's just fine and dandy to let an eight-year-old boy fire an automatic weapon, this is what happens, and listen to me, because I'm trying to help you out here:

The more you defend and make excuses for the above, the more likely it is that public revulsion in reaction to things like that DEAD eight-year-old boy will make it more likely that laws will be passed to restrict your ability to use legitimate firearms for legitimate reasons.

You, the gun folks, can do yourselves a BIG favor by not alienating people with your excuses and hidebound NRA rhetoric. Yeah, I know, YOU are a responsible gun owner, and use those guns for rational activities. But when you start defending anyone's "right" to own a weapon that's ONLY made to murder people, and to hand one of them to an eight-year-old kid "because it's legal," you turn a LOT of people against you.

Listen, I'm begging you here, and taking all this time to write to you because I truly believe it's important for you to think about this stuff. Most people who don't own guns think much like I do:

-You want to hunt? Go hunt. (Just EAT the animals you shoot, OK? And I'll always be grateful for any extra venison you have hanging around.)

-You want to shoot targets or skeet? Have at it.

-You live in a high-crime area, or have a job like transporting jewelry, and need some protection? Well, yeah, there's no reason you should be vulnerable to getting killed in an armed robbery.

I'm trying to be honest with you guys, here. And trying to be helpful. You want to keep the "gun grabbers" from "grabbing your guns?" Just stop making excuses and you'll go a long way toward making that happen. Stop being like the guy who was my best friend in high school and for years beyond, who stopped communicating with me just because he had turned into a raving, screaming, paranoid Gun Nut, and I told him he was welcome to come and visit any time, but that I wouldn't allow a handgun in my house because I had young children.

It's simple: Don't think of guns as more important than family. Don't think of guns as more important than friends. Don't think of guns as the single most important thing in the world.

Because if you'll be honest with yourself and really THINK about the concept, you'll know they're not.

But as long as you continue to believe and act as if guns are the be-all and end-all of your life, and that you are automatically compelled to oppose ANY rational limitations on ANY type of firearm or ammunition because of that belief, you're not going to win many friends nor influence many people, except for other people who believe the same.

I know that some of you are shocked right now, seeing me post in this forum in a calm and (I hope) helpful manner. Hey, I do have days like this now and again, when I actually think about things before posting.

One last point for your consideration, if I may: If you give a cigarette to an eight-year-old kid, you can get arrested. But, at least in Massachusetts, you can give a machine gun to an eight-year-old kid, and if he kills himself with it, you get to walk away, because hey, the kid's dead but it's LEGAL, so no matter the harm, no foul. I'd think that ANY responsible gun owner would find something wrong with that concept.

.....Edited for readibility.....

Redstone

[fascisthunter]

1. Thank you...

[TomInTib]

2. Bingo

[rfranklin]

3. Rock 'n' roll, baby! Full auto! Yeaaah!

Happiness is a warm gun!

[wtmusic]

4. Hunting is too much work

I'm waiting for the day my GPS/infrared-guided personal Sportsman Missile will save me all the aimless walking that's required for me to be self-sustaining.

[Redstone]

7. Hey, I wouldn't even NEED a gun for hunting:

We have a flock of about 15 wild turkeys who stroll through our yard every day, and a deer or two most days as well.

All I'd need would be a net (a BIG one in the case of a deer), and it would be Happy Thanksgiving All Around, With A Nice Venison Roast On The Side. I even have a wife who actually WANTS to clean the fish that I catch, because she insists that she does a better job of it than I do (and she's right).

But she, and the Little Guy, would pitch a LARGE fit if Daddy Whacked Bambi. And they've come to think of the turkeys as their buddies as well, so I'd get assaulted while plucking if I decided to go with a wild bird for Thanksgiving.

Redstone

[jeepnstein]

87. Be sure to get a video...

of you whacking Bambi with your bare hands. It would be an instant YouTube sensation. I've hit them with cars and had them run away. I knew a guy who caught a squirrel bare-handed once and he regretted it.

I'm not trying to be mean. I just have an image of a guy tossing a net over a deer and then trying to kill it. My bet is the deer would win in a messy sort of way. It would be a memorable day no matter the outcome. I miss Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, they'd try something like that.

How soon is the election?

[dairydog91]

72. You think so small...

I was hoping to get a new Bambi Blaster

[wtmusic]

81. Yields over 5MT are unsportsmanlike

Great article. 1.4% the power output of the sun?! Amazing...we really can blow up the world.

[madrchsod]

5. agreed.....former life member of the nra

[RoseMead]

6. K&R

:kick:

[Leftist Agitator]

8. Find me a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter on DU who believes...

That anyone who wants a full-auto weapon should be allowed to have one without restrictions.

No, seriously, find me one. Go through the forum and find me posts that support that position.

Couldn't find one, could ya?

That's because you have set up a STRAW MAN. A nonsensical position masquerading as the typical point of view of your opposition.

Go post this at Freeperville. A few of those idiots might fit the mold that you have so fastidiously described, but I guarantee you that you won't find a single DUer who thinks that unrestricted access to fully-automatic weapons is a good idea.

[Redstone]

13. Uh, I've SEEN people trot out the usual excuses, right here on DU.

I'd not have posted this if I had not.

Redstone

[Leftist Agitator]

17. Then put up or shut up.

I have NEVER in all of the years that I have been reading this site seen anyone support unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.

If you have, find the relevant post, and post a link to it.

Do you even know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic one?

[Redstone]

21. Uh, yes, I do know the difference. I've used both, and been shot by one of them. Also, I'm not

going to do your research for you. If you don't read the posts on DU, it ain't hardly my job to read them for you and fetch references for your convenience.

Redstone

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

36. #31 just below. That was easy. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Only he has no idea what he's talking about.

He admits to his title being misleading in the post.

David

[aikoaiko]

86. I have no idea.

Its a strange post given #31.

[DrCory]

56. LMFAO...And you believe that? N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. It shouldn't be hard to come up with an example then.

Just post a link to the comment in the thread.

David

[wtmusic]

61. Already did, Dave.

Whether you choose to dismiss it or not is irrelevant.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

64. I don't need anything more, Dave.

I provided what was asked for, and you changed the game. Yes that's an ignorant opinion, and I am heartened to know you support gun control.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Just looking for a little honesty, I guess that's just to much for you.

I glad you found the poster in question to be ignorant, it gives me hope for the rest of your cohorts. By the way, reggie isn't a gun owner so he doesn't fit the criteria. You'll have to keep on looking.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. Why didn't you just post it then and say there someone said it?

Ignorance knows no bounds.

David

[dairydog91]

70. Huh?

The most extreme position I've seen is that all military small arms should be available to any potential member of the "unorganized militia" (That is, Americans between 18 and middle age). No one, short of certain African warlords, believes that 8 year olds are suitable militia members and should be given "unrestricted" access to firearms.

[reggie the dog]

29. I think the no restrictions is fine

Before fully autos were made illegal many people stocked up on them. People in my family have fully auto AK 47's etc. They bought them before they needed to be registered etc. when bought at gun shows. They never NEVER threaten people and will only use the weapons in self defence.

ok done arguing for the devil

Now as for how shitty it is for our society that people feel the need to arm themselves with such weapons.... then again they are needed for a revolution would the need for a revolt reall arise (think gas chambers).

Now here is one for you that I use on my gun loving family members.

The constitution says people have the right to bear arms. Why should we restrict the possession of land mines or better yet "nukalar" bombs. See the constitution says we can have arms, not guns, so either you support the idea that we can all have nukes or you support "arms" aka gun controll. If you support the right to have nukes then you see nothing wrong with the president of Iran having one. Otherwise you support gun control.

Their heads spin. Then I try to ease in bans on military weapons INCLUDING GUNS into the conversation.......

[WWFZD]

39. Chem/Nuke/Bio weapons

are of no use in defending a redoubt or advancing on the nearest hostile vanguard. They are strictly offensive weapons and not covered by the spirit, if not the strict reading, of the 2A. I can't defend my home, block, neighborhood, city against a totalitarian government putsch by nuking my own joint, or one of my shooting buddy's houses 15 miles away in the eastern suburbs. Military style small arms, including full auto rifles, are useful in the preservation of our constitutional republic.
I don't own any and don't want to own any but I have no problem with a law abiding, responsible citizen owning one.

[reggie the dog]

102. this is a tricky one

what weapons should we allow civilians to have?

We have a lot less gun violence in France as well as less access to guns but I do not have any evidence of causation.

[WWFZD]

122. IMO law abiding citizens

should be allowed to own any small arms in common usage by our military, with the possible exception of grenades and launchers, but I don't lose any sleep over the current state of regulations concerning full auto firearms.
We need better enforcement of our existing gun laws. If someone attempts to purchase a weapon and doesn't pass the NICS that person and transaction should be investigated. The NICS should be open to the public for free or at minimal cost. The vast majority of firearms owners could and would use it to investigate suspect purchasers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. They bought guns in 1934 that weren't produced until 10 years later?

That's a neat trick. I'd really like to see how they did that.

David

[reggie the dog]

97. sorry I was a bad advocate for the devil

up until the point in my post where I said done arguing for the devil I was not speaking my true opinion so I guess my 'argument" was off.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. You were revealing your ignorance of the issue though.

It wasn't your argument that was off, it was your knowledge of the facts.

David

[gorfle]

49. The definition of "arms.

Now as for how shitty it is for our society that people feel the need to arm themselves with such weapons.... then again they are needed for a revolution would the need for a revolt reall arise (think gas chambers).

I do not have a problem with regulation of fully-automatic weapons because I believe current semi-automatic weapons sufficiently meet the need to resist oppression as our founders intended.

The constitution says people have the right to bear arms. Why should we restrict the possession of land mines or better yet "nukalar" bombs. See the constitution says we can have arms, not guns, so either you support the idea that we can all have nukes or you support "arms" aka gun controll. If you support the right to have nukes then you see nothing wrong with the president of Iran having one. Otherwise you support gun control.

This is a common, though invalid, argument. The assertion goes that since nuclear weapons are regulated, firearms should be regulated similarly.

There are clear, obvious distinctions between small arms and crew-served weaponry and explosives. Heller goes into some detail as to exactly what constitutes "arms" and why.

Small arms are appropriate for individual use because, used in concert, they can be used effectively to resist oppression, but used singularly, the mayhem that can be committed with them is limited. Crew-served weaponry and explosives are more heavily regulated because the mayhem that can be committed with them individually is too great a risk compared to their effectiveness in resisting oppression.

[reggie the dog]

101. ah

so the argument I should use is should revolve around the argument of small arms versus crew served arms. Thanks for the tip. I will read up on this point.

[DrCory]

58. Say What?

"People in my family have fully auto AK 47's etc. They bought them before they needed to be registered etc. when bought at gun shows."

This is some kind of joke, right? If not, well...perhaps you should do a bit of research to learn why the AK-47 is named as such.

[reggie the dog]

100. yes it was a joke

I was trying to play devil's advocate by just burping up bullshit about guns up until i mentioned the devil in my post, thanks for setting everyone straight........

[benEzra]

65. Full-auto AK-47's have NEVER been unrestricted in the United States.

All AK's on the civilian market are non-automatic civilian guns. I own one, and shoot competitively with it.

[reggie the dog]

98. poor defence of the devil

up until the point in my post where I said done arguing for the devil I was not speaking my true opinion so I guess my 'argument" was off.

[SteveM]

80. These can't be full-auto or your family is in big trouble with the law (nt)

[reggie the dog]

99. I was trying to advocate for the devil

so that part is not true anyway, I was full of shit but trying to sound like a right winger up until the point i said that i was speaking for the devil

[FunkyLeprechaun]

9. Amen

I'm not opposed to hunting rifles and shotguns. I've fired a double-barreled shotgun at a clay pigeon shoot and found it gratifying.

The main reason I mainly stopped posting in this forum was the tired old excuse that any gun fell under the "right to bear arms" and I got fed up with the arguments. I feel like no one understands the dangers of certain guns in society and that includes handguns and automatic weapons.

I know that there'll be posts after this one saying that they're a "responsible gun owner" and that I don't understand "their right". I could try to argue but I know that I won't be able to change anyone's minds, so I just respect your position and you respect mine.

[SteveM]

84. Most people understand the dangers of guns, esp. gun-owners.

One of the reasons people leave this forum is that the arguments proffered for restricting firearms can be rebutted. When you speak of "dangers," then you need to show how guns are the danger (as opposed to the people using them).

So very many of the arguments used to restrict/control/ban firearms are based on good, old-fashioned prohibition, a policy that has a profound track record of failure: booze, gay rights, ganja, guns, abortion, and now tobacco.

If one person (an 8-year-old kid) is killed in an accident involving poor supervision, do you think a national policy of banning full-auto weapons is going to solve his problem? How many other deaths like this have occurred, enough to warrant NATIONAL legislation? Legislation wrought out of emotion over one incident is very bad policy -- sort of like the knife-wielding Mexican hopped up on "marihuana" begets national pot prohibition.

[Kali]

10. what are you talking about?

I mean your reference to an 8 year old?

Not going to argue the "militia" part, but a lot of people (and courts) interpret gun ownership as a constitutional right. Using a vehicle on a public road? Nothing there that I remember.

I think aside from the weapons lunacy is the issue of going down slippery slopes - when rights are limited - even if it seems reasonable on the surface, one needs to be very wary of what is next? If we allow a morning prayer before class, how long before there is a religious test for say citizenship? Or if we allow warrantless eavesdropping on terrorists to keep us safe, how long before we start watching political "enemies"?

[Redstone]

15. You haven't read the news? THAT's the 8-year-old I'm talking about.

Redstone

[Leftist Agitator]

18. Are you deliberately obtuse, or just kind of dense?

We aren't psychic, you know. And "the news" is an awful broad category, in case you hadn't noticed...

:eyes:

[Redstone]

19. I'd think that anyone who hasn't heard about that dead kid is deliberately

obtuse, but then, that's just my opinion. Yours may differ.

Redstone

[Leftist Agitator]

23. Not all of us have TV. I, for one, don't.

And I avoid American "news" media like the plague, because it's propaganda, not news.

Now are you going to tell us who the "dead 8 year old" is, or do we keep playing guessing games?

[Kali]

30. "the news"? no, I saw your post with no link to what you were talking about.

Skimming the latest breaking news I don't see anything there either. I see someone else posted a link so now I will go read the article.

Not deliberately obtuse at all, but when you post about a news story it is common courtesy to post a link.

[Caria]

20. Christopher Bizilj, age 8, died under "expert supervision"

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/28/uzi_recoils_questions_echo/
"As his father raised his camera, an 8-year-old boy aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin set up at a shooting event. Before his father could focus, the third-grader from Connecticut squeezed the trigger, and the high-powered weapon recoiled and fatally shot the boy in the head."

The Annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo in Western MA is open to people of all ages (REALLY - you could take a toddler there!) and even has a reduced fee for children.

[Redstone]

22. Thank you.

Redstone

[femrap]

11. I visited a local gun store that advertises in the

Sunday paper. You have to take a number just like at the deli or bakery. So I did and then I looked around at the clientele. Scary. I asked why they were so busy...because of the financial meltdown? Nope, scared that Obama will be elected.

There was some huge weapon on display...looked similar to a land-to-air weapon. I asked who the hell uses that and what for? The boys take it way out in the country and shoot targets...the bullets go a mile. 'They have lots of fun.'

As I held a gun in my hand, one of the clientele walked up and said: 'You should buy that...it's a great gun.' He was covered in 'skull' wear. With that, I looked at the salesman and said, 'Now I know I'm not buying this.' And as I looked around the place, I said, 'You know if it weren't for people like this, I wouldn't need a frigging gun. You guys need to get a hobby that doesn't involve death and destruction. And if you're out there shooting animals for food....why the hell aren't you sharing with the soup kitchens?'

And I really am not interested in hearing from any of you 'lefties' who love the uzi. But my Ignore List can be added to...

[fascisthunter]

25. they are on my list as well

looks like I missed one....

[femrap]

75. you're not a very good hunter, I see. buh bye.

[gorfle]

57. Some comments.

Sunday paper. You have to take a number just like at the deli or bakery. So I did and then I looked around at the clientele. Scary. I asked why they were so busy...because of the financial meltdown? Nope, scared that Obama will be elected.

And it is a legitimate concern. The current Democratic Party platform indicates support for renewing the assault weapons ban. If I had the disposable income to buy some more assault weapons I would do so, too - if such a ban is enacted the values would go up considerably.

There was some huge weapon on display...looked similar to a land-to-air weapon. I asked who the hell uses that and what for? The boys take it way out in the country and shoot targets...the bullets go a mile. 'They have lots of fun.'

Most likely what you were looking at was a .50 rifle. These are indeed mostly used for long distance target shooting. They are extraordinarily expensive, and hardly ever used in crime. A Barrett .50 caliber will cost you around $5000+.

As I held a gun in my hand, one of the clientele walked up and said: 'You should buy that...it's a great gun.' He was covered in 'skull' wear. With that, I looked at the salesman and said, 'Now I know I'm not buying this.' And as I looked around the place, I said, 'You know if it weren't for people like this, I wouldn't need a frigging gun. You guys need to get a hobby that doesn't involve death and destruction. And if you're out there shooting animals for food....why the hell aren't you sharing with the soup kitchens?'

I used to feel the same way you did about people with tattoos. Then I realized that I was being prejudiced. Unless they are wearing neo-nazi or similiar stuff, I try not to be judgmental over the way people dress. Would it have made a difference to you if the guy wore a suit?

While it's a great idea to share your hunted food with soup kitchens, and in fact some hunters do donate some of what they kill, in fact often times its hard to give away food that has not been commercially processed. In any case as long as they are eating it themselves, why fault them? I haven't hunted in years but with the economy the way it is I'm going to go this year to try and save some grocery money.

[femrap]

74. Skulls? Symbols of death/poison?

I am prejudiced against death and poison. And who the f*ck asked him for his 2 cents anyway? Ever had someone wearing skulls come up to you and tell you to buy a gun? And if he had had a suit on, I would have been even more pissed off. Nothing has screwed up my life more than rich white boyz wearing suits.

End World Hunger. Eat the Rich.

Do Women a Favor, hunt rapists.

[gorfle]

77. Lulz.

Skulls? Symbols of death/poison? I am prejudiced against death and poison.

LOL. Have you been to a college campus lately? The kid in front of me and one row over every week wears a black t-shirt with skulls surrounding a central goulish figure. Have you heard of "goth"? Now I grant you - none of this is my thing, either, but I try not to judge people by appearances.

And who the f*ck asked him for his 2 cents anyway? Ever had someone wearing skulls come up to you and tell you to buy a gun?

Clearly you are not into the firearm scene. When you walk into a gun store it is natural to assume that other folks you encounter there are likewise similar enthusiasts like yourself. Few anti-firearm folks go into gun stores to pick fights with the folks inside as you seem to have been bent on doing. It's quite natural when in a gun store, or at a gun show, or at a gun range, or any similar gathering of like-minded folks to strike up a conversation about whatever firearm is currently being handled. It's called "being friendly". I've had similar experiences at music shops, sporting goods stores, scuba shops, etc. Bottom line is this fellow went out of his way to be helpful to you and it seems you were a dick in return.

And if he had had a suit on, I would have been even more pissed off. Nothing has screwed up my life more than rich white boyz wearing suits.

And so we come to the heart of it. I think you'd be full of hatred no matter what they were wearing.

[femrap]

91. Oh, you are so right,

little mr. perfect. I am going to march right down to that gun store and make some new friends. Sounds like so much fun.

This fellow did not go out of his way to be helpful...he interrupted the conversation I was having with the salesman.

BTW, I didn't tell the fellow to go f*ck himself. I was not rude...I simply continued with my conversation with the salesman.

And since you walk on water and have been voted the 'most friendly' person on the planet, I can only see that your judgments of me are a blessing from the Gunmighty and that I must now go yonder and babble with everyone everywhere I go...and of course always have a snappy little smile on my face. However, I will always say 'excuse me' before interrupting everyone's conversations. Then I will give them my opinion on what they should do.

I do resent the fact that I am considering the purchase of a gun. But due to the Greed of the rich white boyz, I feel we may see violence and/or lack of food. I never thought I would feel the need for a gun. Ever. I hate feeling the need to purchase a gun. That's the hate you sense, mr. perfect.

Now, go forth and judge others...little mr. friendly. I'm through defending my experiences to you.

Oh...and if he had been wearing a dress, I might have been more friendly. I have great conversations with drag queens. Or maybe a speedo...that would have been cool too. Or maybe full cowboy...spurs and chaps. Or a simple fedora would have appealed to me. A pair of tight jeans would have caught my eye.

I thought goth was done. If Sears is carrying skull skirts, I am sure goth is over.

[gorfle]

96. More lulz.

Oh, you are so right, little mr. perfect. I am going to march right down to that gun store and make some new friends. Sounds like so much fun.

I don't claim to be perfect. But it would be nice to go to your local gun store and make some new friends, and in fact you might find shooting is indeed a fun activity.

BTW, I didn't tell the fellow to go f*ck himself. I was not rude...I simply continued with my conversation with the salesman.

Well that's not what you said to start with. You posted, "As I held a gun in my hand, one of the clientele walked up and said: 'You should buy that...it's a great gun.' He was covered in 'skull' wear. With that, I looked at the salesman and said, 'Now I know I'm not buying this.'"

Certainly sounds like a snub to me.

And since you walk on water and have been voted the 'most friendly' person on the planet, I can only see that your judgments of me are a blessing from the Gunmighty and that I must now go yonder and babble with everyone everywhere I go...and of course always have a snappy little smile on my face. However, I will always say 'excuse me' before interrupting everyone's conversations. Then I will give them my opinion on what they should do.

Well, I've never claimed to walk on water or be the most friendly person on the planet, but that certainly sounds like a much more friendly way to handle social interactions. Kudos to you for stepping up to do the right thing.

I do resent the fact that I am considering the purchase of a gun. But due to the Greed of the rich white boyz, I feel we may see violence and/or lack of food. I never thought I would feel the need for a gun. Ever. I hate feeling the need to purchase a gun. That's the hate you sense, mr. perfect.

Hey, no arguments here - I've long been a staunch supporter of bearing arms for precisely the reasons you relate - as insurance against oppression, nearly always driven by greed. I'm sorry that you have only recently had your naivete smashed to bits but the concept is hardly new - our founders shared your same fears some 200 years ago when they enumerated the right in our Constitution.

Ultimately, femrap, I'm more sympathetic to you than you know. You are basically suffering from cognitive dissonance, and lashing out. The dissonance arises from the fact that you are now finding yourself in the company of people you previously thought you loathed, and you are resentful of that. I can understand that. I myself was a life-long Republican voter until the 2006 elections. Then, as you are now, I found myself suddenly in the camp of people who's ideology I thought I hated. Hopefully you will discover that not everyone who owns a gun or visits gun stores is a neo-nazi or some other villian.

[gorfle]

103. By the way.

By the way, if you are seriously interested in buying a firearm, I would recommend a .22 rifle such as the Ruger 10/22. They are cheap (less than $200), accurate, legal nearly everywhere, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap and plentiful (you can buy a box of 500 bullets for about $20), and will suffice for both defense and hunting. If I had to pick one gun to own, a .22 rifle would be it.

And I don't wear clothes with skulls on them.

[DrCory]

59. Why the quotation marks...

"And I really am not interested in hearing from any of you 'lefties' who love the uzi. But my Ignore List can be added to..."

Bracketing the word lefties?

[femrap]

73. To show hypocrisy...I have a hard time

envisioning a Leftie as someone who wants a uzi. I think of Lefties as those whose goal is Peace.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. Lots of peaceful people own guns.

[Codename46]

93. Peace Through Superior Firepower =)

[DrCory]

116. In Your Opinion...

Is someone who owns any type of firearm not a leftie, or is it just Uzis and the like that you take issue with?

[SteveM]

82. Before you cut off communication...

You make your judgments on "people like this;" presumably those with tats (esp. skull wear). You then say "You guys need to get a hobby that doesn't involve death and destruction." Finally, this: "if you're out there shooting animals for food... why the hell aren't you sharing with the soup kitchens?"

(1) You seem to have a deep prejudice against people based on skull tats. Am I miss-reading you here?
(2) The vast majority of people who have guns don't have hobbies involving "death and destruction. (guns or skulls?)
(3) If you are out shooting animals for food, then that might explain "why the hell" they aren't shared with soup kitchens.

I know you don't want countervailing arguments, but keep in mind that gun owners are much like the general population: they don't characteristically engage in crime, don't hold radical political outlooks, and are not substantially different from others regarding issues of race ...and prejudice. BTW, hunters started the practice of donating deer to food pantries. Had you asked some of the folks at this gun shop, they may have filled you in on it.

With your outlook on tattoos, you would not be happy in liberal-minded Austin, Texas.

[femrap]

94. Where the hell did I mention

tattoos? Tattoos don't kill anyone, do they? The guy who interrupted my conversation with the salesman didn't have any tattoos that I could see. He simply came up, interrupted us, and gave me his unwanted opinion...'You should buy that gun.' WTF? His clothing had skulls. They sell that stuff at Sears now...so I guess that means goth is over, right?

You are lucky to live in Austin...that would be the only place in TX that I would ever consider living or visiting.

Why don't you come visit or live in the bible-thumping, redneck, hypocrisy, IQs below 100 part of the country for a while??? You just might learn something....like another point of view.

[gorfle]

105. I think he's confused.

Where the hell did I mention tattoos?

I think he confused my post with yours. I said I used to feel the same way about people with tattoos as you do about people who dress with skulls on their shirts, until I realized I was being prejudiced.

[aikoaiko]

89. I support those who pass the required background checks owning UZI if they want.

Feel free to hit the ignore button.

[MercutioATC]

12. I'm NOT opposed to sensible gun control. I AM opposed to uninformed opinions.

They need to be turned into informed opinions.

Look, I realize that we're not all going to agree on this (or any) issue. I just want us to disagree from informed positions.


"-The availability to ANYONE of a firearm such as that "mini (or is it micro, I forget)-Uzi" or that other evil little fucker, I think it's called a Mac-10, and the like.

Can you hunt with it? Well, if you need full-auto and a 30-round magazine to kill an animal, you need to go get your eyes tested. Right now."

Automatic weapons have been illegal for most people to own for a long time...including the fully-automatic version of the MAC-10.

At issue are not automatic weapons, but semi-automatic weapons (one trigger pull fires one round, not the entire magazine). The "assault weapons" people talk about are nothing but modern hunting rifles that look "scary". No grenade launchers, no 600-round per minute fire rate, just a firearm that's mechanically identical to any hunting firearm except that it looks scary to some people.

Again, I don't expect everybody to agree with me. I do, however, expect them to understand the issue they're discussing.

[Leftist Agitator]

14. AMEN!

Thank you. These sanctimonious anti-gun types so rarely know what the fuck they're talking about.

You've expresed the crux of what is wrong with the OP quite succinctly.

[Redstone]

16. I didn't mean "freely available." I meant "available to anyone at all." I'll edit to

make that more clear.

Redstone

[dmallind]

26. OK...but let's make this a deal instead of a demand.

If you are hinging the difference between an Uzi and a .303 on whether it is made to murder not hunt, we need to make sure that this "made to murder" standrad can never, and I mean never, be extended "down" the scale. I use the air quotes because a .303 or similar hunting rifle has a lot more energy than an Uzi does. Can't fire as many rounds as fast, but each round packs a heck of a lot more ability to murder if that's what you want.

You see ALL guns are made to murder. Most gun deaths are with .22LRs, old .38 revolvers and so on. Guns ARE made to potentially be able to kill. All of them.

Don't get me wrong I know what you are trying to say, but unless you base such a law on extremely well designed specifications, and with extremely rigid protections for guns that are equally capable of killing but are more capable of being used for sporting uses, then where's the incentive to accept it? Where is the even hope let alone guarantee that the "made to kill" standard will not be extended to sporting or target shooting guns which are of course more than capable of killing.

So if you want this to have a chance in hell of passing (let alone of causing us to lose an extensive amount of support - tens of millions of Dmeocrats own guns) you have to specify what it is you want to ban, and provide guarantees (for example that any change to the list of criteria by futire amendments and reqrites will render all restrictions in that bill null and void). Fully automatic weapons? You'll get some argument - some STRONG argument, but none from me and many other moderate gun types. They are used EXCEPTIONALLY rarely in crimes, so you will only "save" isolated cases of idiocy like this kid, but then they are exceptionally useless for anything a hobbyist wants to do either as you point out. But start messing around with cosmetic details, meanaingless criteria and so on like the AWB and it becomes a farce. A different stock or grip or lug does not make a gun more dangerous. A magazine capacity limit inconveniences those who want to practice responsibly by making us reload more often. It doesn't stop mass killers. Where is ONE instance of a person being prevented from killing others because he could only put 10rds in a magazine not 15? I am no shooting wizkid but I can change magazines (preloaded) in a normal semiauto in about 1.5 seconds. Unless you have Chuck Norris standing right behind me and counting how many times I've shot it's not going to be enough for anyone to react. But what it does is make shooting practice where a normal enthusiast may go through 200-500 rounds have to reload 20 extra times (yes I suppose you could carry 50 preloaded magazines but that's about $1500 per gun.)

So make it only about full auto and make it contain a guarantee that no restrictions on non full-auto will be placed and you might have a chance. Again though remember that even though those things are the best tools for randomly killing a bunch of people they are very very rarely used to do it, and accidents with them are spectacularly rare, so you will achieve a negligible drop in gun deaths anyway. Even mass killers tend to use more manageable pistols or semi-auto rifles (with full auto you also have to change magazines very very frequently so of limited practical use even for mass murderers). You can't restrict those without restricting the valid purposes you are fine with.

[Redstone]

32. That's EXACTLY what I was talking about. I think you understood me.

No full-automatic firearms for anyone not in the military or law enforcement. Ever, for any reason, and yes, I'm advocating the termination of "special federal licenses."

We allow people to jump through hoops and get "a special license" for machine guns, well, why not expand that and provide "a special license" for rocket launchers, grenades, and artillery? Much as I'd LIKE to be able to get a license to be able to own an ONTOS with six 105-mm recoilless rifles and blow shit up with it, American society is better off that I cannot do so.

Hey, it's like whatshisname said about pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. You, and any other reasonable person, gun owner or not, know EXACTLY what I meant in my post.

Don't you?

Redstone

[dmallind]

35. Yes I understand, but I question

Why?

Frankly not having one of those loud, dust-clogging, smelly, indiscriminately-ejecting full auto things going next to me in the few ranges that permit them would be fine by me.

But you obviously are not going to sell this on range etiquette.

The reality is is we are talking handful of deaths a year. We'd get a better public safety impavt, even just with guns, on banning those cheap Filipino Saturday night specials that have a nasty tendency to use steel like tin foil and fire backwards as likely as forwards (which by the way I would not object to either). We'd save far more lives by banning paddle pools.

And whether you think we should be or not, gun owners quickly get pretty paranoid about even well-meaning legislation, because historically it's been enhanced and stretched to become a real burden. So unless there's a big enough safety improvement to balance aginst that you'll get some objections.

[benEzra]

67. Artillery is indeed regulated under the same provisions as machineguns

and can be owned under the same (very tight) restrictions.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

And FWIW, if you do indeed believe that automatic weapons have no other purpose than murder, then why are you OK with the police using them? (Curious, not a trick question.)

[SteveM]

83. Respectfully, you are EXACTLY wrong:

You wish to terminate "special federal licenses." Why? Where is the social need?

One kid was killed as a result of poor supervision/judgment with regards the operation of an automatic weapon. This is tragic, but not a social problem requiring large-scale legislation.

We get into trouble by proposing big-scale legislation (outlawing the ownership of full-auto weapons by perhaps 300,000 people) because there has been one death (by accident) of a kid. That is NOT what good government is about.

As for porn, you can still get it.

[reggie the dog]

27. I respectfully disagree with your point

In respect to automatic and semi automatic military weapons "those things are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: To murder people." TO KILL PEOPLE yes, MURDER no. Self defence is not murder. Having said that I agree with the premis that these weapons are not necessary in a NORMAL free society, such as France, Spain, The UK. Sadly the USA is not "normal".

[JoeyMac]

28. My thoughts...

First off, NFA registration is a Liberal's wet-dream legislation. Plus, due to the fact that the way it's worded, the NFA act it could probably be overturned as unconstitutional. It's a radioactive topic (machine guns and silencers) so no politician would ever let that happen. They're just going to leave that whole sector alone. But the truth is, EVERY gun-grabber would love every gun classified as NFA (will never happen though).
Federal extensive background check
fingerprints
photographs
Police Chief signature
$200 per weapon registration
1-3 month waiting periods
limited firearm access regulations to non licensees...

Secondly, your emotionally driven knee-jerk reactions/comments are polarizing and wreak of the epitome of old-school liberalism.
You can target shoot with them. There are many competitions nationwide similar to rifle and pistol competitions.
I have personally emptied entire magazines onto paper plates at 30ft. There's a good amount of people here who cant shoot handguns that well.
I honestly believe guns are very very important part of our nation and security - yet I have many friends who are not fond of guns.
Firearms (even MGs) have many legitamate uses so just because murder is illegal does not mean they are useless for any other activity.
Katanas were invented for the sole purpose of combat... should they be outlawed?

Of all the guns in America, none are used the least for crime than Registered Machine Guns.
This was a tragic incident caused by poor judgment and/or improper supervision.
It is not the machine gun's fault. There are far more ubiquitous dangers in America than MGs that need addressed.

Of all the guns in my collection. I like this one the most. :)

[Redstone]

34. First, the word is "reek," not "wreak." You can wreak havoc, but it won't smell bad. Well, maybe it

would, but it's not a given.

I might alwo mention that if you're going to charge into DU (no matter your position on firearms) and attack people for being liberal, you're not likely to make many friends here, not even among DU gun owners. We're kind of proud of being liberals here at DU, even the DUers who like guns.

"...machine guns have many legitimate uses?"

Yeah? Such as?

Redstone

[JoeyMac]

38. Hmmm, thanks - did not realize that

Sorry about the grammar. I just kinda started typing. :)

I realize what DU is, lol.
I did not mean to put a negative connotation on "liberal". The term I used was 'old-school liberalism'.
The "guns are evil" draconian type that got modern liberals need to separate themselves from that crap.

Collection
Target/Recreational Shooting
Investment
Massive zombie outbreaks
Law Enforcement (you did say "ANYONE" in the OP)
Competition shooting

In fact, just about the only thing an automatic firearm is not well suited for is hunting... which is actually not a crime in some areas.
While 9mm is not a good hunting round for most medium/large game, I could squeeze off single shots if I wanted.

[pokerfan]

60. No, you were right

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=wreak

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=reek

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/wreak+havoc

[Codename46]

31. Find me a statistic

Find me a statistic that shows that machine guns constituted a significant amount of gun crime even prior to the 1986 FOPA and your opinion may of be of actual worth.

I have the Constitution here right in front of me and I can't really seem to find the words/phrases "hunting", "self-defense", and "target shooting" anywhere. Dammit!

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Does that make his question less valid?

[JoeyMac]

48. You're as ignorant as you sounded in the original post.

That is not me, nor do I know the person.
I did happen to notice his question, while gracefully sidestepped, is valid.

Can you legitimately cite any registered NFA firearms as large contributers to violence or other crime? How about registered NFA devices as a large portion of firearm deaths (accidental or deliberate) in general? I'm sorry, but you should know as well as anyone here in the gun forum that "because there's no litigate use" is a piss poor reason to tell gun lovers why any gun should be banned.

[wtmusic]

37. Do you see the words "well-regulated" anywhere? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Not in regards to firearms.

What does nt mean anyway?

David

[Codename46]

92. Except

The words "well-regulated" as per the Founders means "well-armed", not "well-restricted". Enjoy your fail.

[wtmusic]

95. You guys are funny

What universe are you inhabiting where "regulated" means "armed"?

:rofl:

[Codename46]

104. The current one

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

"Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army."

Enjoy your epic fail.


Lemme turn the tables around, in what universe does "well-regulated" means "well-restricted"?

[wtmusic]

107. Deduce all you want, looks like you're just making shit up to me.

"we can deduce", "this indicates that", blah blah blah.

Definition:regulate

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To control by means of rules: a code of practice to regulate advertising by schools

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

Do I have to define "control" too?

"Enjoy your epic fail." How infantile. Let me know when you have an argument to go with your attitude. :eyes:

[aikoaiko]

108. So let's take a look at this.

The 2nd Amendment.
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.


The 2nd Amendment according to you and your contemporary dictionary definition.
A well controlled and directed according rule Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That works for you? Not for me.


Let's look at the rest of your reference.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Ahh, number 4.

A well maintained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now that makes sense.

[wtmusic]

109. Wow. Nice gymnastics.

Actually, #3 makes even more sense...a well-adjusted militia. Raised in a good home and psychologically sound.

Pick your meaning, as long as it's not the most common one and it agrees with your agenda. :crazy:

[aikoaiko]

110. Regulated has different meanings and yes you'll have to figure out the foudners intended.

I've made my determination, but I'm open to adjusting it with evidence.

It appears to me the word regulated was used as a synonym for 'maintained' or 'outfitted'.

[wtmusic]

111. Here's what IMO it boils down to:

who does the "regulating". Is it self-regulated, or regulated by the government?

This is the crux of the issue.

[aikoaiko]

112. OK, and I think the rest of the amendment makes it clear.

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thanks you for discussing this.

[wtmusic]

113. How so?

Acknowledging "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" doesn't imply one way or the other by whom they should be regulated.

[aikoaiko]

114. If the word regulated refers to maintained or outfitted, then..

... yes, its saying a militia is well maintained by the people being able to keep and bear arms without government infringement.

If the word regulated refers to restrictions, then you could see it as a militia is restricted by whatever arms the people keep and bear without infringement by the government.

That's just a quick thought cuz I have to go meet some friends for a beet. :beer:

[Codename46]

115. So the Federalist Papers counts as "making shit up"??

I bet you think the Declaration of Independence was a fictional piece of work too.

You have yet to provide me any historical evidence that "regulate" means anything else otherwise.

[gorfle]

40. Comments.

I agree. I am a member of the NRA, and every month I get my "America's First Freedom" magazine. For the last 3 months it has been nothing but 100% anti-Obama rhetoric. So much so that the last issue went straight in the garbage can.

Understand that most NRA members are NRA members because they are the organization most likely and proven capable of defending our second amendment rights in the legislature. Their political wing is true to one course: promoting the candidates who support the second amendment.

-The availability to ANYONE (EDIT: by this I mean anyone AT ALL, PERIOD, not "freely available to just anyone." I actually DO know that you can't just walk into a store and buy a full-auto firearm, OK? So let's take that particular "talking point" off the table.) of a firearm such as that "mini (or is it micro, I forget)-Uzi" or that other evil little fucker, I think it's called a Mac-10, and the like.

Since by your edit you indicate that machine guns are not freely available to just anyone, what is your problem with the current regulations concerning fully-automatic weapons (machine guns) like the UZI and the Mac-10?

Both of these weapons are highly regulated class III firearms that require extensive background checks to own, as well as paying a $200 annual tax.

Can you hunt with it? Well, if you need full-auto and a 30-round magazine to kill an animal, you need to go get your eyes tested. Right now.

No one has claimed that you need fully automatic weapons or 30 round magazines for hunting. As it turns out, however, many semi-automatic civilian versions of fully automatic assault weapons make fine hunting weapons. And you can just as easily put in a 10-round magazine as a 30-round magazine.

The high-capacity magazines are to make them on-par with military weapons so that they can be used against military forces.

Can you use it for target shooting? With that short of a barrel, and a vicious tendency to climb, I doubt you're going to be end up with any tight groups. Or hit pretty much anything, unless it's REAL close.

I assume you are talking about machine guns again. If so, you are correct, machine guns are not useful for target shooting. Machine guns are, primarily, area suppression weapons.

No, it's not made for any of the above. Unlike other firearms (and, yes, swimming pools, cars, and kitchen knives), those things are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: To murder people. You can't deny that. We're not talking about a 12-gauge shotgun to hunt ducks with, here. Yeah, people will use a shotgun to kill other people now and again, but that's not how their manufacturer intended them to be used.

You are making a fundamental mistake of the anti-firearm crowd. You are making the assumption that the only legitimate purposes of firearm ownership are hunting, target shooting, and personal self-defense. All of these are valid reasons for owning firearms, but they are not the reason our founding fathers had in mind when they enumerated our right to keep and bear arms.

The primary reason for having an armed citizenry was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. Since the federal army is equipped with weaponry designed to murder people, this necessarily means that The People must also be equipped with weaponry designed to murder people.

You all know exactly what I'm getting at here. Yes, people will use firearms that are made for other purposes to kill other people, but listen to me: When people elevate ALL firearms to such an iconic status that they're blind to ANY reasonable constraints (you have to register your car, but not your guns; allowing the manufacture and sale of firearms made specifically for murder), not to mention defending the idea that it's just fine and dandy to let an eight-year-old boy fire an automatic weapon, this is what happens, and listen to me, because I'm trying to help you out here:

First of all, most pro-firearm folks would be fine with regulating firearms just like cars. You don't need a license, registration, or insurance to operate a car on private property. Firearms should be the same way (and are, in most places). Only when you choose to operate it in public are you subject to regulation, both with cars and firearms.

Secondly, it's not fine and dandy to allow anyone, regardless of age, who is unable to safely handle a firearm, of any kind, to do so. The fact of the matter is the incident involving the 8-year-old and the UZI is incredibly rare. It may well be the singular case of an accidental machine gun death in 50 years.

The more you defend and make excuses for the above, the more likely it is that public revulsion in reaction to things like that DEAD eight-year-old boy will make it more likely that laws will be passed to restrict your ability to use legitimate firearms for legitimate reasons.

And the reason for this, of course, is because the public is ignorant of the safety record of such firearms and fixate solely on "DEAD EIGHT-YEAR-OLD-BOY" rather than the fact that such weapons are highly regulated and almost never involved in crimes or accidents.

It's simple: Don't think of guns as more important than family. Don't think of guns as more important than friends. Don't think of guns as the single most important thing in the world.

I don't think firearms are any more important than the founders of our nation did. That is, important enough to enumerate specifically in our Constitution.

Because if you'll be honest with yourself and really THINK about the concept, you'll know they're not.

One last point for your consideration, if I may: If you give a cigarette to an eight-year-old kid, you can get arrested. But, at least in Massachusetts, you can give a machine gun to an eight-year-old kid, and if he kills himself with it, you get to walk away, because hey, the kid's dead but it's LEGAL, so no matter the harm, no foul. I'd think that ANY responsible gun owner would find something wrong with that concept.

And it may well remain to be seen if the people responsible for this negligence get to "walk away". It would not surprise me in the least if there was a lawsuit over this case. There should be a lawsuit over this case. Clearly, someone was negligent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. A very cogent response.

You will probably in short order be called a freeper, troll or paranoid gun nut.

David

[Redstone]

51. Not by me. That was a well-thought-out response, whether I agree with it or not.

I'm not so vain that I expect everyone to agree with me. I will respect opinions that differ from mine, so long as they're well-expressed like that one, and not full of the kind of knee-jerk, venomous (and in some cases, trolish) vituperation I've seen in SOME of the replies in this thread.

I, for one, will not be saying that post is freeperish, trollish, or paranoid. I'll reserve my right to disagree with it without attacking the poster; I tried to reach out to gun owners in a reasonable manner with my original post, and gun owners are more than welcome to reach back to me with their opinions, expressed in a reasonable manner.

As long as everyone votes for Obama a week from now, gun owner or not.

Redstone

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. It will be interesting to see what he does in regards to guns when he wins.

I'm guessing they'll pass another AWB that will do nothing to prevent crime and that will piss off a lot of gun owners. If they do that they'll lose the House in 2010. I would much rather see them work on meaningful solutions that will reduce violent crime. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I won't be affected either way.

David

[jeepnstein]

88. I'm betting you're wrong.

I don't see Obama wanting to jeopardize his legislative majority with an issue like that. All it would really take is one more ruling from the Supreme Court on incorporation and he'd have a legitimate excuse for avoiding it altogether. Given the risk and the negligible benefit, I would expect him to side-step the whole topic. What really smart politician takes on a cause that will likely cost him power when it doesn't really have a direct impact on his vision? Obama is smart, very smart.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. I hope you are right.

I'm really more worried about Biden.

David

[krispos42]

46. So when know-nothings dream up useless laws and regulations...

...then whip up hysteria and accuse the opposition of being unreasonable, they should just be accommodating so that people aren't alienated?



How about....




If they don't want to alienate people, the know-nothings should take the useless anti-gun laws and restrictions that they dream up in their little fantasy worlds and just keep them to themselves.


"Compromise" because of public pressure. Yeah, that's got a stellar, ongoing record of success, doesn't it?

[slackmaster]

47. Only wealthy collectors can afford automatic firearms

I agree that allowing a young child to shoot one without proper preparation and intensely close expert supervision is a dumb thing to do.

It's simple: Don't think of guns as more important than family. Don't think of guns as more important than friends. Don't think of guns as the single most important thing in the world.

I for one do not think guns are more important than family or friends.

[Redstone]

52. I know you don't. But a LOT of people do. Yes?

Redstone

[slackmaster]

53. Redstone, I don't have much of an ability to divine what is going on in other peoples' heads

I used to be able to read my own mind when I was in college, but only when I was really stoned.

I believe I understand where the perception that some people value guns over all other things come from. Seriously, I agree that some, a very small minority among gun owners, do place an irrationally high value on their weapons. Some literally believe owning guns to be a God-given right, which seems completely absurd to me. (I am an Agnostic and regard myself as a hyper-rationalist.) Those are unreachable people way out on the far right, with whom any kind of reasonable discussion is probably not possible.

Most of us really want the same thing, and that includes people with all kinds of different interests having nothing to do with firearms: We don't want to be hassled. We want to be able to go about our own business, pursuing happiness in our own chosen ways, and as long as we don't cause harm to anyone else, that's what every human being deserves.

I have a substantial amount of money invested in a gun collection. My Federal Firearms License allows me to acquire curio and relic firearms out of my home state, and I have used it quite a bit over the last four years. When I see proposed legislation like HR 1022 (expanded and permanent "assault weapons" ban), which would without question reduce the financial value of several firearms that I bought legally and have kept and used responsibly, that really disappoints me. It would cause harm to me without any foreseeable offsetting benefit to public safety; and even sadder is that the author and all the co-sponsors are all members of MY PARTY.

So far my gun collection and a bond fund that I have invested in are the only components of my retirement plan that have not been affected by the economic downturn. It would be a real shame to have actions by well-intentioned but misguided members of my own political party cause me financial harm without recompense.

[jody]

50. Your post conveys pent up hostility toward guns and gun-owners. I doubt you will convince any

gun-owner with your tirade and gun-grabbers will applaud you.

[iverglas]

125. jody has to consult his crystal ball to see what gets posted in a thread

He can't see half the posts here, and refuses to read most he does see.

That way, he can post ignorant, insulting nonsense like this and imagine that others see it as profound and wise.

[BoneDaddy]

54. Right on!

I plan on putting my paperwork through for my gun permit soon. Have no problem waiting 6 mos for background check

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Sounds like you don't really need a gun, you just want one.

That type of behavior will not be tolerated here. Where do you live that you need a permit? I need to make sure to never move there.

David

[bossy22]

79. sounds like

New York State

[BoneDaddy]

117. "That behavior will not be tolerated here"

what the fuck are you talking about? Time to take the medication David.

[bossy22]

118. he is being

sarcastic

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. Thanks I thought it was obvious.

[BoneDaddy]

124. LOL

sometimes sarcasm is lost on me in here Dave, my bad, hehe. Glad to see you were kidding.

[JoeyMac]

127. Mac10/Uzi are capable of good accuracy (video)

I saw this vid on youtube a minute ago and thought of this thread. I just thought I'd post it up as proof that "mini (or is it micro, I forget)-Uzi" and "that other evil little fucker, I think it's called a Mac-10" can be respectfully accurate weapons. Most of the time inexperienced shooter will say that they are not accurate. With proper technique, they can be VERY accurate and fun to shoot recreationally.
I'm not quite that good with my Mac11, but with a good optic and rest I can ring the plates all day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LhAAvpg7-U


EDIT: I MEANT FOR THIS TO BE A REPLY TO THE ORIGINAL POST - SORRY I PHAILED :(

[DrCory]

55. Cite Please...

Well, if you need full-auto and a 30-round magazine to kill an animal...

Who here has suggested such a thing?

Yeah, people will use a shotgun to kill other people now and again, but that's not how their manufacturer intended them to be used.

The manufacturer intended for the weapon to deliver a projectile to the target as accurately and reliably as possible.

No, it's not made for any of the above. Unlike other firearms (and, yes, swimming pools, cars, and kitchen knives), those things are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: To murder people.

All firearms are "made" to deliver a projectile to a target. In that sense, there is no fundamental difference between an Uzi and an O/U shotgun.

[benEzra]

66. Thoughts...

I am NOT opposed to hunting. I am NOT opposed to target-shooting as a hobby. I am NOT opposed to the use of firearms for self-defense, provided the need for such is REAL, not just paranoia.

Thank you.

-Slavish, sheeplike acceptance and espousal of whatever lunatic, dangerous crap the NRA spouts.

OK, with you on that too. And I would say precisely the same thing about the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign.

-The availability to ANYONE (EDIT: by this I mean anyone AT ALL, PERIOD, not "freely available to just anyone." I actually DO know that you can't just walk into a store and buy a full-auto firearm, OK? So let's take that particular "talking point" off the table.) of a firearm such as that "mini (or is it micro, I forget)-Uzi" or that other evil little fucker, I think it's called a Mac-10, and the like.

They were banned--BANNED--in 1986. The only ones left in non-military, non-LEO civilian hands are a handful of tightly controlled, pre-1986 collectibles. I believe two have EVER been used in a homicide (in 74 years), and there has been 1 fatal accident involving a child. In 74 years.

Do you know of any serious attempt to repeal those restrictions? I don't.

No, it's not made for any of the above. Unlike other firearms (and, yes, swimming pools, cars, and kitchen knives), those things are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: To murder people. You can't deny that. We're not talking about a 12-gauge shotgun to hunt ducks with, here. Yeah, people will use a shotgun to kill other people now and again, but that's not how their manufacturer intended them to be used.

And exactly two (2) have been used in murders in the last 74 years. If murder is the only purpose they have, they are pretty damn bad at it.

allowing the manufacture and sale of firearms made specifically for murder

And what guns would those be? Manufacture of all automatic weapons for the civilian market was halted in 1986. Since then, zero (0) have been manufactured for the non-LEO civilian market. None.

It's simple: Don't think of guns as more important than family. Don't think of guns as more important than friends. Don't think of guns as the single most important thing in the world.

I don't, and I don't know anyone that does.

I do believe they are important, though.

you are automatically compelled to oppose ANY rational limitations on ANY type of firearm or ammunition because of that belief, you're not going to win many friends nor influence many people, except for other people who believe the same.

I'm OK with the restrictions on automatic weapons; I'm OK with background checks for purchase; and I'm OK with most of the gun control laws currently on the books.

I am not OK with outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out, restricting stocks that adjust for length, restricting guns to 1860's era magazine capacities, or other such measures aimed at the lawful and responsible.

[bossy22]

78. hmmm

"opposed to the use of firearms for self-defense, provided the need for such is REAL, not just paranoia."

I believe the only need someone has to show is want...provided they are not prohibited from owning a firearm. Firearm ownership for self-defense is a right...not a government granted privilage to people who "need" it

[aikoaiko]

85. Late to this conversation, but here is my response.

I am NOT opposed to hunting. I am NOT opposed to target-shooting as a hobby. I am NOT

opposed to the use of firearms for self-defense, provided the need for such is REAL, not just paranoia.

Good for you. Neither am I and I think most Americans. I even agree that if someone is clinically paranoid and adjudicated mentally ill, they should not possess a firearm.

What I actually AM opposed to is the following:

-Slavish, sheeplike acceptance and espousal of whatever lunatic, dangerous crap the NRA spouts.

I agree with this too. The NRA often takes small kernals of truth and stretches them to into exagerrations. I am equally opposed to slavish, sheeplike acceptance and espousal of whatver lunatic, dangerous crap gun grabbers spout to induce fear of law abiding gun owners and their guns. Take for example, the dangerous position of waiting periods when someone knows they are in danger from an abusive spouse and the only the police will do is issue an restrainig order. The extreme positions on both sides of the issue of fucked up morons.

-The foaming-at-the-mouth elevation and glorification of firearms to an almost religious fetishism, including:

-The availability to ANYONE (EDIT: by this I mean anyone AT ALL, PERIOD, not "freely available to just anyone." I actually DO know that you can't just walk into a store and buy a full-auto firearm, OK? So let's take that particular "talking point" off the table.) of a firearm such as that "mini (or is it micro, I forget)-Uzi" or that other evil little fucker, I think it's called a Mac-10, and the like.

Of course, as you've already noted, the guns you mention are NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE. The background checks are rigorous.

Can you hunt with it? Well, if you need full-auto and a 30-round magazine to kill an animal, you need to go get your eyes tested. Right now.

Most states already regulate hunting weapons to exclude this, but there are other reasons to own fully automatic weapons. I generally don't see people hunting with a 3 inch .380, but that doesn't make them ill suited for other legitimate purposes.

Can you use it for target shooting? With that short of a barrel, and a vicious tendency to climb, I doubt you're going to be end up with any tight groups. Or hit pretty much anything, unless it's REAL close.

Actually, you incorrect here. There are machine gun target shooting competitions. They are difficult.

No, it's not made for any of the above. Unlike other firearms (and, yes, swimming pools, cars, and kitchen knives), those things are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: To murder people. You can't deny that. We're not talking about a 12-gauge shotgun to hunt ducks with, here. Yeah, people will use a shotgun to kill other people now and again, but that's not how their manufacturer intended them to be used.

This is the most bizarre point in your post. These guns were not designed for the purpose to murder people. Submachine guns are designed for legitimate offensive or defense suppressive fire. They can be used to murder people, but rarely are in comparison to other weapons. I get the impressive that maybe you are conflating killing a person with murder.

You all know exactly what I'm getting at here. Yes, people will use firearms that are made for other purposes to kill other people, but listen to me: When people elevate ALL firearms to such an iconic status that they're blind to ANY reasonable constraints (you have to register your car, but not your guns; allowing the manufacture and sale of firearms made specifically for murder), not to mention defending the idea that it's just fine and dandy to let an eight-year-old boy fire an automatic weapon, this is what happens, and listen to me, because I'm trying to help you out here:

Actually, most killings do NOT involve fully automatic weapons. I rarely meet anyone who holds the position of no reasonable contraints on weapons. Yes, there are a few, but to me there are the opposite of the gun grabbing lunatics who wish they could collect of the guns in the world and destroy them.

The more you defend and make excuses for the above, the more likely it is that public revulsion in reaction to things like that DEAD eight-year-old boy will make it more likely that laws will be passed to restrict your ability to use legitimate firearms for legitimate reasons.

Yes, you are correct, gun grabbers will use a rare tragedy to scare people into restricting freedoms. We certainly have seen that enough with the correct President.

You, the gun folks, can do yourselves a BIG favor by not alienating people with your excuses and hidebound NRA rhetoric. Yeah, I know, YOU are a responsible gun owner, and use those guns for rational activities. But when you start defending anyone's "right" to own a weapon that's ONLY made to murder people, and to hand one of them to an eight-year-old kid "because it's legal," you turn a LOT of people against you.

This made up fantasy about automatic weapons being designed to murder people is very strange.

Listen, I'm begging you here, and taking all this time to write to you because I truly believe it's important for you to think about this stuff. Most people who don't own guns think much like I do:

-You want to hunt? Go hunt. (Just EAT the animals you shoot, OK? And I'll always be grateful for any extra venison you have hanging around.)

-You want to shoot targets or skeet? Have at it.

-You live in a high-crime area, or have a job like transporting jewelry, and need some protection? Well, yeah, there's no reason you should be vulnerable to getting killed in an armed robbery.

So its your position that people should always eat the animals that they kill? Does that include rats? Cockroaches? How committed are you to this position.

I agree that hunting, target shooting, self-defensive are good reasons to own firearms. It seems to me that you have a limited list of reasons why someone would want to carry a weapon for self-defense.

I'm trying to be honest with you guys, here. And trying to be helpful. You want to keep the "gun grabbers" from "grabbing your guns?" Just stop making excuses and you'll go a long way toward making that happen. Stop being like the guy who was my best friend in high school and for years beyond, who stopped communicating with me just because he had turned into a raving, screaming, paranoid Gun Nut, and I told him he was welcome to come and visit any time, but that I wouldn't allow a handgun in my house because I had young children.

It sounds to me like you are the one who is paranoid and obsessive about guns. Would you be against a police officer being in your house? Its sound to me like you are the one putting guns before people and relationships.

It's simple: Don't think of guns as more important than family. Don't think of guns as more important than friends. Don't think of guns as the single most important thing in the world.

Because if you'll be honest with yourself and really THINK about the concept, you'll know they're not.

But as long as you continue to believe and act as if guns are the be-all and end-all of your life, and that you are automatically compelled to oppose ANY rational limitations on ANY type of firearm or ammunition because of that belief, you're not going to win many friends nor influence many people, except for other people who believe the same.

Few people act this way, but then again the lunatic gun grabbing end of the continuum is worse.

I know that some of you are shocked right now, seeing me post in this forum in a calm and (I hope) helpful manner. Hey, I do have days like this now and again, when I actually think about things before posting.

If you say so.

One last point for your consideration, if I may: If you give a cigarette to an eight-year-old kid, you can get arrested. But, at least in Massachusetts, you can give a machine gun to an eight-year-old kid, and if he kills himself with it, you get to walk away, because hey, the kid's dead but it's LEGAL, so no matter the harm, no foul. I'd think that ANY responsible gun owner would find something wrong with that concept.

Criminal culpability in the case of the eight year olds death will be based on the specific facts and all the facts are not yet available to make the determination. I'm inclined to think that there may be a legitimate charge against the father.

[tburnsten]

121. Also late to the thread

And I don't have the stomach or patience to read any other responses. Good post Aikoko.

[aikoaiko]

123. Thanks, redstone isn't responding. I'm probably on his ignore list already

:shrug: so much for a discussion forum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Notice they only post until they start losing the argument.

Then mysteriously they disappear.

David

[Xela]

129. Very reasonable response

Good post aikoaiko.

Xela

[Owl]

128. Good, thoughtful post. Thanks.