Ala Shooter used TWO Assault Weapons... fired over 200 rounds .... TEN Dead....

[Blackhatjack]

Just another example of why there should be a ban on assault weapons in this country.

Not to mention that obtaining guns in Mexico is difficult, and buying assault weapons here for resale to Mexican Drug Cartels is relatively easy.

[CountAllVotes]

1. no argument from me

we do not need assault weapons in our society. Period.

:kick: & recommend!!

[Taverner]

2. Please define "Assault Weapon"

Nobody's been able to give me a straight answer on that one

[CountAllVotes]

5. check here - online encyclopedia

Assault weapon refers to a broad category of firearms, including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles, and also including some pistols and shotguns. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only one round each time the trigger is pulled.

There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapon in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the US was first codified by the language defining semi-automatic rifles with certain characteristics in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.<1> Very generally speaking, a firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term assault weapon should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate as part of the arguments of gun politics in the United States.

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

[Taverner]

6. OK - so what are you going to tell hunters?

That suddenly they need to start using pistols? 22's?

Oh, and you know if we ban these, they will still exist and will be prevalent. All nations who chose gun control did it before everyone had one.

[rfranklin]

10. No, talking to gun nuts is useless...

I do own a handgun, by the way. And I think owning a gun should be at least as difficult as being licenced to drive a car.

The second amendment is wonderful but the little popguns that we own would not be much use against the weaponry of the government. So the whole argument about it protecting us from tyranny is specious.

[Taverner]

22. I don't own a gun, and hope to never have to

But I want that option should the need arise

Right now I don't want one, I don't need one - but I know how to use one should I have to.

I've never agreed with Gun Control on principle. There are some problems that come from a liberal gun laws, but in the end it does more good than harm.

[derby378]

23. So are you saying we shouldn't even try?

Government derives its authority from us. If our government turns against us, we reserve the right to stand against it - with deadly force, if necessary. That's one concept that too many Americans have forgotten in recent years.

[Taverner]

26. OK - say the US Government turns tyrannical

Are you telling me you're happy with them having all the guns?

Also - have you ever heard of the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" - one of the main pitfalls of Democracy (sure I'm for it, but that doesn't mean its not without problems)

[derby378]

29. I think you misunderstood me earlier

We need to have a way to keep the government in check. If ballots won't do the job, bullets might.

I'm opposed to any new gun bans, and I think we need to repeal some of the bans we currently have on the books.

[Taverner]

33. No I just posted in the wrong spot in the thread

It was meant for someone one post up...

Sorry...

[derby378]

34. No problem

:hi:

[Rekoning7]

208. Common sense...

Of course derby, keeping criminals from purchasing weapons by way of background checks is sensible. It in NO way violates the 2nd amendment.I even do NOT disagree with restrictions on military grade automatic weapons, being common sense that such powerful and deadly armaments can only be owned and purchased (for private use) by those with proper training and licensing (FBI special agents, approved military personnel, and law enforcement officers SWAT officers.. etc)

The AWB was more or less a steaming pile of poo in a refuse bin. Hold on... let my take my semi-auto ak-47.. remove the muzzle brake.. and bayonet lug. Yay thanks to the AWB my semi auto ak-47 is now a semi-auto ak-47!

speaks volumes to the uselessness of the legislative branch.

[Yukari Yakumo]

190. Tyrannical... in a sense like how the Bush regime *almost did.*

[Rekoning7]

206. So are you saying we shouldn't even try?

I agree 110%

BY the People. FOR the People.

Things seem to be a bit too "By the Bigwigs, F@#K the Peons"

We pay the taxes, WE make the decisions.

[Hugabear]

210. Who the fuck is going to define "tyranny"?

There are thousands of right-wing nutjobs out there howling over what they perceive as Obama's "tyranny". Do they have a right to stand up and take on the government with deadly force?

The problem with "standing up to tyranny" is that it sounds good in principle, but it's just not very practical. After all, who gets to define what is "tyranny"? If the rethugs were to start an armed revolution, and if they were to somehow topple our current government, then I'm sure they'd celebrate that day as a national holiday.

[Rekoning7]

220. Who the fuck is going to define "tyranny"?

Certainly not the people who's only concern is political affiliation, which is inconsequential. Incidentally, it is also the ad hominem fallacy that the willingly uninformed most frequently use as a crutch in place of independent thinking skills.

[Hugabear]

221. You still didn't answer the question. Is this just pure rhetoric or do you really believe it?

The next time a rethug takes office and starts trampling the Constitution the way * did, are you going to grab your gun and fight back?

These right-wingers are convinced that Obama represents real threat. Would they be justified in taking up arms?

[Rekoning7]

224. Absolutely Not

He is MY president!

I believe in THE law of the land. The original constitution. The job of the office holders are to be the defenders of the constitution, and the second they forget it, they need to be shown the door.

When congress and the president eat away at our rights and liberties by playing on fear... well, they need to leave that tactic with the mafia. Bush threw the 6th into the fire with the Patriot Act (do you wanna die? no? then let US rape your privacy!)

this admins. clear breach is the attempted theft of legal contractual bonuses to the AIG folks. Read the paper... can't do that. though this isn't a big universal breach of privacy.. this comes into play as a "sleeper". If congress can take away money from people who legally.. contracually (a word?) recieved this money... then they might as well tell all of us we can only make X amount of money. That helps a free market (which has produced the highest standard of living in the world) as much as getting hit by a train helps me to keep being alive.

Oh wait..... they did tell me how much I CANT make already. Given the chance, I will choose NOT to expand my business for fear of making over 250k a year. I did the math, the proposed "wealthy" tax would bankrupt me in 5 months. Seeing as how small business is America's #1 source of wealth... you get the idea.

take up arms? no.

That would require some dramatic action on the govs part... big time... like voting to omit the 1st, or especially the 2nd.
Thats not going to happen, because THEY know the repercussions

It's easier just to keep putting tiny ... tiny holes into it until one day it just falls apart... we are all watching it happen.

We can't wait until somthing HUGE happens to act.. because it wont. The question is now... where do we draw the line?

For me, I drew the line right in front of the patriot act.

[tangent90]

24. So you are a gun nut? How odd that you think talking to you is useless.

By the way, what country are you in? Americans don't spell license with 2 cs.

[Threedifferentones]

31. Not specious at all

Of course a rifle is no good against tanks and jets. But resistance movements don't involve pitched fights, they involve hit and run from a population that can blend in.

Think about it: have assault rifles and homemade explosives been useless against our troops in Iraq? Would our army be willing to accept a similar death toll if the people they were oppressing were their own families and countrymen?

No and probably no. If our govt. ordered our army to oppress us you can bet the troops will be alot more likely to mutiny if people are taking pot shots at them out of apartment windows.

But one can't really take potshots with pistols and shotguns against an armed opponent, since they are only effective at relatively close range. So I think the old interpretation of the 2nd is still very much valid, and I think Iraq and Afghanistan prove my point.

[TheWraith]

99. So you're going to dismiss everyone who hunts or owns a modern rifle as a gun nut?

Thanks. You just handed the Republicans the House of Representatives.

A few facts for you: the single most popular rifle in America today is the Armalite Model 15, better known as the AR-15, an "assault weapon." Most of the lower items on the list are also "assault weapons." If you want to ban them, you're talking about banning tens of millions of guns. And banning them on what grounds? Not power, certainly--the 30-06 round, commonly used for deer hunting, is 2-3 times more powerful than the .223 used in an AR-15. And not on rate of fire--"assault weapons" are semi-automatic just like any pistol and most "hunting" rifles. The AWB was a cosmetic ban on things like flash suppressors and bayonet connectors, all of which have no effect on whether or not a gun is dangerous.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had no substantive effect on crime--if you don't believe me, ask the 1998 Justice Department report which said that it didn't. It's a "feel good" law which lets people act like they're doing something about gun violence without addressing the poverty and hopelessness that breeds 95% of the gun deaths in this country.

In 2007, my state of New York had 800 homicides by gun. Rifles--all sorts of rifles, not just scary looking "assault weapons"--were used in 12 of them. Just 12. The overwhelming majority of crimes involving a gun happen with HANDGUNS, not rifles.

[Taverner]

151. Yep - most of the assault weapon paranoia came from the Sac school shooting in the 80's

I remember the hysteria "Assault Weapons used to kill kids!!"

Of course pistols would have done the same damage

[spin]

204. So hunters are "gun nuts"...

Many people hunt for food, especially in the very poor area of Florida where I live.

Surely you misunderstood the question in Taverner's post.

[derby378]

12. I have a better answer

Takes a little reading, but I think it's worth it:

http://a2dems.net/terms.htm

[tangent90]

17. It's a gun that looks really really scary.

:eyes:
:grr:

[geckosfeet]

36. These were fully automatic military style weapons.

[tangent90]

42. They were?

What is 'military style'?

[geckosfeet]

63. Uhhh, ar15, m16 type weapons.

[Pavulon]

67. Replica of a stoner design

like a 911 G2 is a REPLICA of a real gt2 race car.

They are semi auto rifles. No more, no less.

[Taverner]

49. Fully Auto is illegal

Just saying

[geckosfeet]

62. Depends where you live and what license you have.

McAliley also said McLendon had a permit for two pistols he took with him during the rampage but no license for two assault rifles he used as he squeezed off some 200 rounds.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i8CbzUeIBWcQ-VUtTTdTnlgX_oqAD96SPNHO1

[NickB79]

66. That doesnt say they were full-auto. NT

[1]

70. heh. your posts show that you are totally ignorant about guns and gun laws...

and we make fun of republicans for being uneducated.

read up a bit before you hit that "post" button again. you are embarrassing all intelligent posters here...

[geckosfeet]

131. Ooohh really. In what way am I ignorant? That state laws vary? Please - I beg for illumination.

[AtheistCrusader]

205. You're pretty ignorant if you think an SKS can be fired in full-auto mode.

Because it can't. It doesn't HAVE a full-auto capability. It was never engineered to do so.

There was a variant (Chinese type 81 and 81-1) that was produced in small quantities in China that could fire a 3 round burst, but it's a different design, was never legally imported to this country, and doesn't exist in large surplus quantities in China. The SKS is inherently a semi-auto rifle ONLY.


Still no real reliable info from the police department on the weapons used.

[Rekoning7]

216. You're pretty ignorant if you think an SKS can be fired in full-auto mode

Your fairly ignorant if you think it cant. In fact... it takes about 20 mins and a metal file to make it do so.

Sure... It was NOT designed to fire full auto... and after some number of rounds you may encounter a dangerous malfunction.

[AtheistCrusader]

217. Slamfiring or a runaway is not a full-auto-mode.

I often hear bold claims of easily converted SKS's, yet in the hundreds and hundreds of SKS's I've seen in my life, I've never seen one converted. Including some owned by some fairly dubious characters.

I wonder why that is? Do you have one? Have you done it yourself?

[Rekoning7]

219. Slamming isnt IT and a runaway just shows its EASY

No. It's as simple as I said it was.

You said out of the hundreds you've seen.... not-a-one had been converted.

That's because this modification is a self-fulfilling circumstance as I stated clearly in my post. It is FOOLISH to do it. SKS action and bolt design are NOT suitable for sustained automatic fire, and any dubious character as well as any other SKS owner with the ability to clothe and feed themselves knows that one would be just ASKING for the reciever housing to go flying through their skull.

[TheWraith]

104. No, it absolutely does not depend on that.

Automatic weapons are governed under the National Firearms Act of 1934. As such you need a whole hell of a lot of paperwork, full federal background checks, and an 8 month wait or so. And even if you get approved, you're talking about a $20,000 gun, because those rifles are collectors pieces, not active weapons. IF you can find someone willing to part with one.

Fully automatic weapons are so heavily regulated and tracked that they are effectively out of reach for use in crimes. That applies across the country. Contrary to the bad information conveyed by anti-gun groups, "assault weapons" are NOT automatic and never have been, nor can they be made so.

[geckosfeet]

134. I see. The uzi on full auto that killed an 8 year old in Springfield at a gun show

a few months ago wasn't really an assault weapon and wasn't really a fully automatic weapon. Thanks for splaining this all to me.

This so clear up my confusion around those military style AR15/M16/FAR15's,,, they are not really assault weapons. Now I can confidently run around spouting like a real gun owner.

You know, I am so sick of people obscuring the fact that even 10 round semi automatic versions of these rifles provide a tremendous amount of firepower. At least be honest about it.

[Pavulon]

154. Technical language, pot heads have it, mech. engineers, and firearms do too

you are screwing up the language. The uzi that the parent used to kill his kid is a machine pistol. Daddy killed that kid, he just choose an uzi to do it. Like his car would kill him if he drove it into traffic drunk. machine guns are regulated by the NFA and you cant have one. The M4 a machine gun that the ar15 looks like is regulated and costs 20,000 or so.

A select fire rifle is regulated. Assault rifle is orwell for semi automatic rifle. These are not military weapons. A Remington pump shotgun would be just as deadly. More so because the person does not have to aim or compensate for a moving target as much.

The ar15 is not the same as an M4, you can not make an m4/m16 from an ar15.

If you want to ban semi automatic rifles just say so, dont rely on a made up a name like assault rifle. That is to fool stupid people.

If you want to ban a bolt action rifle that will punch through body armor at 300m, that is not a sniper rifle, that is a standard hunting rifle.

Bans dont do shit except make people feel like they did something. Just to make morons feel warm and fuzzy

[TheWraith]

194. Be careful you don't get hayfever from that strawman.

People certainly do legally own automatic weapons. And an 8 year old shouldn't be handling one any more than he should be handling any other kind of gun. Trying to claim that that has anything to do with the legality of "assault weapons" or whether or not they're automatic or not is at best disingenuous and an appeal to emotion instead of facts. You might as well say that if you're not for banning guns, you're with the terrorists.

Any gun can be fatal; you're the only one deliberately trying to confuse semi-auto rifles with automatic weapons.

[AtheistCrusader]

207. Honesty?

You can't even keep terms straight from one post to the next.

Assault Weapon is a political and legal term. It's basically whatever Congress and State Legislatures decide it means from one bill, to the next. Assault RIFLE is a military nomenclature. Please stop confusing the two. When you say Assault Rifle, you are saying a select-fire weapon of intermediate caliber, between a sub-machine gun and a battle rifle.

Most AR-15's ARE 'Assault Weapons' based on legislation. They cannot be called Assault Rifles. A M-16 IS an Assault Rifle, as it fires .223, and has either 3 round burst, or full auto, or possibly both options.


Assault rifles are controlled, and not generally available. The weapon that child was killed with (due to a negligent father, and range master) was a sub machine gun. Some pieces of legislation might cite it as an Assault Weapon, I don't know off the top of my head.

As for tremendous firepower, again, you don't know what you're talking about. An AR-15 is illegal for hunting deer in my state, because it will not humanely and quickly kill a large animal. It is not powerful enough. I own hunting rifles with the same rate of fire, that are MUCH more powerful than an AR-15, and they are perfectly legal, practical, and acceptable for hunting. There is still sufficient handwringing and debate among manufacturers, soldiers, the DOD, and other interested parties on whether .223 is sufficient for hunting what amounts to deer (many deer are in the 250lb range) that may be wearing armor, and shoot back.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

222. If you say at least be honest about it, you should really try it yourself.

[TWiley]

225. Wow, at a gun show with all those experts and all those guns someone was shot and killed?

How did this happen? I thought guns were supposed to make gun shows safer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Alabama state troopers, told reporters the gunman used a semi-automatic weapon

Police trooper Kevin Cook, a spokesman for Alabama state troopers, told reporters the gunman used a semi-automatic weapon, but gave no further details.

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/regina/story.html?id=1375074

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

132. Basically, they mean a gun that looks especially scary to them

[petronius]

168. "Assault weapon" is the left-wing version of "death tax"

A made-up term intended to frighten and confuse rather than inform...

[doc03]

3. What about the one in Germany, doesn't Germany have

about the strictest gun laws in the world?

[villager]

8. in Germany, the shooter's father was a member of a gun club

n/t

[doc03]

30. He should have kept the guns out of the boy's hands n/t

[villager]

39. guess they were easy to get into his hands...

n/t

[MattBaggins]

4. Are you sure they were assault weapons?

Did you do the required exact detailed analysis of the chemical composition of the handles?

[villager]

7. how dare you blame the weapon! As many would be dead if he used piano wire

or Ninja stars!

[doc03]

25. You anti gun folks have created a feeding frenzy

for guns and ammo. You are responsible for a lot of people arming them selves to the teeth. Do you know people are buying any weapon they think you will outlaw by the dozen. People are buying ammo by the case, I had to go to 3 different stores last week to find some .40 S&W ammo. I was told they have no problem getting the ammo it just flies of the shelf as fast as it comes in, people are buying the ammo up in cases.

[geckosfeet]

37. Righto. They are holding guns to our heads and making us buy all the ammo.

Oh.

Wait.

[villager]

38. oh, you gun lovers always find a frenzy to be in...

n/t

[Taverner]

53. Nail? Meet hammer!

You hit the nail right on the head!

There would be no 'Gun Culture' if there weren't the anti gun folks

Guns are a tool, much like baseball bats, nail guns and live transformers. All must be treated with care, they serve a purpose, but they are not 'evil' in themselves.

[tangent90]

57. You haven't heard about the epidemic of guns leaping from their holsters and

committing mayhem all on their own?

[Joe Fields]

120. that, which you described is my working definition of a gun "nut."

phobic beyond all reason.

[DainBramaged]

123. That's because the gunnies are idiots. Paranoia, stoked by the NRA over a Black man as President

[LiberalPersona]

130. I'm more inclined to believe that

the fearmongering methods of the NRA are responsible for people buying guns the way they do.
You know how they tried to scare the shit out of people with their propaganda that Obama is going to outlaw guns, which caused a massive buying spree of guns.

[Pavulon]

72. Or anfo or tatp. Hit up the youtube for a step by step

to making a WMD. Just like timmy mc v did. The method is not the problem.

[ddeclue]

73. Yeah right... show me the last time there was a drive by knifing...nt

[leftofthedial]

9. If everyone was armed, say with an Apache attack helicopter and a couple of

main battle tanks, we'd have a lot fewer incidents like this.

[gizmo1979]

11. Or if you walk around holding

a hand grenade with the pin pulled.That would be a deterrent.

[leftofthedial]

16. although not for snipers

[gizmo1979]

61. very true

good point!

[tangent90]

18. We'd have goddamn little unemployment in the helicopter manufacturing business

that's for sure.

[leftofthedial]

27. It's not just gun-law reform--it's stimulus!

[TWiley]

13. Aren't assault weapons supposed to make America safer?

[derby378]

19. Again, what's an "assault weapon?"

I don't see where California's restrictive gun laws have made that state any safer...

[tangent90]

20. No. Only assholes believe that.

...

[benEzra]

60. Given that all rifles combined account for only half as many murders as shoes and bare hands,

I'd say scary looking non-automatic, small-caliber rifles don't have much effect one way or the other.

I see some are gleefully stoking the fear of black plastic stocks and handgrips that stick out, though. Just like they did in 1994.

[anonymous171]

14. Only if we ban the 4th Amendment as well.

That way the cops can search suspected gun nuts' cars and houses for contraband more easily.

[tangent90]

21. No problem for people with nothing to hide!

nu?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. 200 rounds over the course of an hour?

So... that's marginally faster than a skilled musketeer.

[tangent90]

35. 3 shots a minute...I think Blackbeard's pirates did better than that with cannons.

:eyes:

[Joe Fields]

121. Oh, that makes it alright, then.

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

71. He sure wasn't much of a marksman.

:shrug:

[derby378]

28. By the way, here's a little secret...

Lee Harvey Oswald managed to inflict more harm on America's psyche using an old Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle, with which he managed to assassinate a sitting President. Nobody wanted to ban rifles as a result of that event.

[villager]

41. If you believe the official story, sure. By the way, after MLK and RFK were murdered

Time magazine ran a cover asking if it was time America banned handguns -- which are only designed to kill people, of course.

Needless to say, the special interest, industry-lobbyist NRA still prevails in dictating gun policy

[tangent90]

43. You are wrong. I work to preserve ALL the Bill of Rights and I'm not in or ever was in

the NRA.

But let's ignore that for the moment: if you could wave a wand and make magic, what would you DO about what you obviously consider a problem?

[villager]

48. No, you are wrong. The cover I refer to really existed.

So what the fuck are you referring to?

[tangent90]

52. I am the fuck referring to your erroneous claim that

NRA determines gun policy and also that handguns are "designed" only to kill people. Maybe you believe it but that sure (as fuck) doesn't insure truth.

[villager]

55. Oh no. The NRA has little influence over our timid, craven politicos.

Just like all the other special interest industry lobbying groups.

Is that another talking point the NRA drones into you? ("Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!")

[tangent90]

56. drone is a noun, genius.

:eyes:

[villager]

64. Is there anything you're *not* wrong about? :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone

(insert snarky emoticon here...)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. From your link.

drone1    Show IPA
–noun
1. the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
2. a remote control mechanism, as a radio-controlled airplane or boat.
3. a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.
4. a drudge.
Origin:
bef. 1000; 1945–50 for def. 2; ME drone, drane, OE dran, dron; akin to OHG treno, G Drohne

Related forms:
dronish, adjective

[villager]

109. you actually deliberately didn't read the "verb" section? Is that really how you gun people "argue,"

by bringing up side issues, exhausting people as you seize on a single wrong point, propounding it over and over again?

Are any of you people capable of an actual discussion, without snark, name-calling, and misinformation?

You don't have to answer. It was a rhetorical question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. Can the word drone be used as a noun? If so then the poster isn't wrong about everything.

[villager]

115. his assertion that it isn't a verb was wrong. Ten people are dead, and you're arguing about this?

Pathetic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. So that would make you pathetic too. Welcome to the club. Thanks for unblocking me.

[villager]

117. Huh? I didn't bring this up. And off to the ignore list, Dave..

This childish shit is ridiculous.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. I knew that wouldn't last long.

[anneboleyn]

98. You are wrong. Look it up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Merriam-Webster

drone
Pronunciation:
\ˈdrōn\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English drān; akin to Old High German treno drone, Greek thrēnos dirge
Date:
before 12th century
1: the male of a bee (as the honeybee) that has no sting and gathers no honey
2: one that lives on the labors of others : parasite
3: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control
4 a: drudge 1 b: drudge 2

[WorseBeforeBetter]

108. Allow me to introduce you to "drone," the verb.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone<2>

Main Entry: drone
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): droned; dron·ing
Date: circa 1520
intransitive verb
1 a: to make a sustained deep murmuring, humming, or buzzing sound <droning bees> b: to talk in a persistently dull or monotonous tone <droning on and on about his health>
2: to pass, proceed, or act in a dull, drowsy, or indifferent manner <the afternoon droned on>
transitive verb
1: to utter or pronounce with a drone
2: to pass or spend in dull or monotonous activity or in idleness

" :eyes: "

[AtheistCrusader]

209. Well, at least one of the three was actually killed with a handgun I guess.

Still, pretty poor marksmanship in identifying and addressing a problem.

(Fun fact, RFK was murdered with a .22 caliber pistol. Doesn't get much milder than that, caliber-wise)

[slackmaster]

32. Non-starter

The expired AW ban was completely ineffective at improving public safety, and resulted in a huge proliferation of new makes and models that were not affected by it. Any conceivable ban that would not be trivial to get around, would affect tens of millions of firearms that people currently own. It would be political suicide for many members of Congress who supported it, and likely result in the GOP regaining power in both houses.

Buying firearms and selling them to Mexican drug gangs is illegal.

[hack89]

40. The German killer used a 9mm handgun

do we ban those too?

[tangent90]

44. Nine is way too many millimeters! 2 or 3 should be enough for anybody!!!

I'm series!!11!1!11!!

[Zywiec]

47. LOL - That's probably what the OP thinks!

A pistol killed more than the TWO Assault Weapons... which fired over 200 rounds .... TEN Dead!!!11!!11

:rofl:

[tangent90]

50. Hell, I'm still pondering over what would constitute a weapon with no assault abilities!

:silly: :shrug:

[Mugweed]

45. The definition of "assault weapon" needs to be modified

It's too broad to make an AWB anything but a total gun ban.

[TheMightyFavog]

46. Absolutley not.

Do you want a now fractured Republican Party to have an issue to rally around, or would you rather keep them divided?

Mark my words, if Obama passes an AWB, he can kiss his majorities in the House ans Senate goodbye.

Remember 1994!

[NRaleighLiberal]

51. Oh boy. N/T

[RamboLiberal]

54. 200 rounds 10 dead - damn poor shot

I get tired of every time one of these whack jobs goes on a rampage there are some here that think you can legislate your way to safety!

And how many "assault weapons" didn't kill anyone yesterday?

How many died in auto accidents yesterday? Where's the call to ban cars?

[FLAprogressive]

58. Every shooting is a rallying cry for the Brady Bunch to push through their feel good gun laws

that do absolutely nothing except give them a false sense of security.

[benEzra]

59. He used the most common centerfire rifle in U.S. homes (SKS),

and the #1 selling small-caliber centerfire rifle in the United States (AR-15). Not esoterica. He also used a common 12-gauge shotgun and a .38 revolver.

My wife owns an SKS. So do something like 7 million others.

As to the Mexican drug cartels, where are they getting the automatic weapons, grenades, and RPG's? Considering those things aren't available in the United States, but Central America is awash with them due to decades of Cold War Soviet-CIA proxy skirmishes.

If he had used a traditional-looking rifle with the exact same capabilities, would you be calling for a ban on non-"assault weapons"? Or is this just good old-fashioned cynical opportunism?

[Blackhatjack]

65. You want to talk guns? I'll talk guns ...

I grew up in an area surrounded by hunters. Never once did I encounter a single 'hunter' who used an assault weapon to 'hunt' game. Assault weapons are not designed to hunt game, they are designed to kill humans. Big difference.

So now I would expect the self-proclaimed 'gun experts' to come out of the woodwork and tell me I just don't know anything about guns. Wrong.

I lived in the same area with one of the largest gun stores on the East Coast, which sold guns of every type and nature to everyone from the locals to celebrities from Hollywood. They dealt in 'collectible guns' which included military issue --which were legal at that time. There is a huge difference between buying a 'collectible' weapon in mint condition and buying a mass produced 'cheap' assault weapon.

The OP did not address handguns or hunting rifles and shotguns. It also did not advocate taking guns away from people, or some such nonsense. IT was very narrow and limited.

IF you don't believe the law enforcement officers were outgunned in the Alabama shooting case, just read the accounts.

So tell me how important it is to your constitutional rights that mass produced cheap 'assault weapons' be available for purchase by people like the Alabama shooter. Go ahead .....

[Pavulon]

69. Dude

SKS is a 50 year old design and used by people who cant afford anything better as a deer rifle. They are cheap because they are generally used.

You can still buy military weapons. They cost about 20,000 a pop for a legal m16. If you are dropping that on a rifle you are generally not going nuts after loosing you shit job at a sausage plant. Same reason there is almost no murder in Greenwich ct.

This is not a gun problem. That is what lazy politicians want you to thing so they can make you feel like they do something by banning some inane thing that has no bearing on crime.

Semiautomatics are just that, one pull one shot. These were not full auto weapons. Those are basically banned.

The AR are not cheap, they start at 700 and go up. However good thing he was not using a shotgun, as they are much more lethal on average than pistols. Rifles are quite lethal, but rare in crime. More people are stabbed in a year, by far.

Assault rifle is a dumbshit orwell term. Like "sniper rifle". The remington 700 bolt action and win model 70 were and are the basis for military "sniper rifles" So everyone who owns one is a sniper!

Tactical shotguns, lets ban them, put a pistol grip on a shotgun and now it is 3 times as lethal.

It is a word game. Murder is banned. Enforce that first. Bet ten bucks both were legal under the ban anyway.

[Squatch]

76. I do!

I use an AR-15 in 6.8mm SPC to hunt whitetails and hogs. It's a great little gun...lightweight, managed recoil, easy for the wife to shoot.

Hunting arms have invariably started out as military weapons as far back as there've been guns.

[1]

78. you said it best yourself. you just don't know anything about guns or gun laws...

a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. hunters around the world use semi-automatic rifles. deny that and you will prove your ignorance on this matter.

and if you think an ar-15 is a "cheap, mass produced assault weapon", then you definitely do not know what you are talking about.

a .223 is a perfectly fine hunting rifle, depending on what you are hunting.

"assault weapon". right. your code-words give you away.

but carry on, bud. get another 1994 type ban passed. the 1994 bill did not removed a single one of these "assult weapons" from america. you knew that right?

let me say that one more time...

the 1994 assault weapons ban did not removed one single "assault weapon" from america. every one who owned one could still legally own it. they could shoot it, sell it, whatever... all it did was make them more valuable.

so go ahead. pass another ban. the effect will be zero.

ignorance is still ignorance. and you are rich in that...

[doc03]

83. That assault weapon ban removed a lot of Democrats

from Congress and gave the control of Congress to the Republicans for what 14 years.

[1]

85. my momma used to call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face"...

the 1994 ban had no real effect at all. supplies of "pre-ban" equipment and accessories (all they had to be was manufactured before 1994 to be perfectly legal) were more than sufficient to meet the needs through the 10 years of that law.

even more so in 2009. anticipation has already got everyone stocked up.

yep. go "ban/grab" them guns, loonies. a wonderful strategy. for putting republicans back in business. but carry on my ignorant buddies.

stupid...

[doc03]

86. A gun dealer told me last week if he knew

Obama was going to make so much money for him he would have voted for him himself. The sad thing is he is really a Democrat at heart. We were talking about a local double murder suicide, he said he didn't blame the gun he said the guy was unemployed and was having financial problems because of medical bills. He said what we really need is nationwide health care not gun control but the Democrats always get hung up on guns.

[Blackhatjack]

92. Unable to read and understand my post? I guess you were too busy convincing yourself...

... you are right, and I was wrong.

And you imply I am ignorant? LOL

[1]

124. no dude. you make zero sense. your posts are pathetic. sorry...

but you can read up on the issues and educate yourself. you can come back strong if you get yourself some actual knowledge about what the adults here are talking about here.

try, little buddy. i know you can do it!

[Blackhatjack]

143. Let's count the 'facts' included in your post there 'little buddy' -- Hmmm ZERO! n/t

[doc03]

82. The boy in Germany killed 15 people with a Luger

The Luger went into production way back in 1900 it is a semi-auto and the 9mm is a rather low powered cartridge. He killed 15 people with a low powered gun of 109 year old technology. The guy in Alabama shot 200 rounds from what you call assault weapons and only managed to kill 10 people. Shouldn't we ban those nasty old Lugers first? And no you don't know squat about hunting or guns. First of all what the hell is an assault weapon? Assault weapons were designed to kill humans not game, that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. You can't go out and kill a coyote with what you call an assault weapon? Besides that argument, it doesn't matter if your so called assault weapons are used for hunting or not, maybe people just like to shoot them or just want to have one. The Second Amendment gives us the right keep and bear arms in America, it is a Right the same as any other Right we have as Americans. I have a .40 caliber semi auto pistol with two 16 round magazines, if I put a round in the chamber I can shoot 33 rounds without reloading. I don't hunt with it and I probably will never need it. It's really not very likely I will ever need it for home defense because most people around here have a gun in their home and it's not likely anyone will ever invade my home. But it is my right to own it and it's my right to protect myself and family.

[Blackhatjack]

96. So is there any kind of weapon made that 'is NOT your right to own it?'

How about rocket powered grenade launchers? Do you have a right to own those too?

Your logic is full of holes.

[doc03]

136. If you have a ban on your so called (assault weapons?)

and then someone goes nuts with a revolver, you will want to outlaw revolvers. If someone goes nuts with a pump shotgun, there they go. If gun grabbers get their foot in the door they will keep wanting more and more until we won't be able to shoot a muzzle loader. Personally I had no use for any of the guns banned with the original AWB I never lost any of my guns and was never denied purchasing anything I wanted. The big buzz word before assault weapons was the Saturday Night Special, that was another BS issue to get your foot in the door. You ban a gun because it is say below $200, so then someone uses a Glock you just change your definition to include them. There are many people that want all guns banned and that is their ultimate goal. All that law did was deny a person of low income from having a gun, it will be only the rich will have guns like over in Europe then.

[Blackhatjack]

144. Can you drop the paranoia long enough to answer my Q? How about RPGs???

Shoulder fired missiles?
Vehicle mounted large caliber guns?

Do you advocate we all have these available for purchase and use in this country?

[doc03]

172. If you gun grabbers get your foot in the door

you won't stop at assault weapons (whatever they are?), your ultimate goal is to take all guns and you know it. I personally don't give a damn about the assault weapons at least the ones they outlawed the last time, I don't own any or do want any. it's assault weapons today then tomorrow it will be my .22 rifle. What about that old Luger, that kid in Germany did more damage with that than the one in Alabama with a whole arsenal?

[AtheistCrusader]

218. Appeal to Absurdity.

Crew Served Weapons and Destructive Devices are regulated differently than Firearms, and the courts have consistently held they are not protected under the 2nd Amendment.

You can't defend demonizing normal firearms as unnecessary, and bannable, by pretending we want all these other weapons that haven't been legal, available for general purchase.

[doc03]

137. What about the Luger vs your (assault weapons?)? It appears

the old Luger is even more deadly than a AR15 in this case.

[slackmaster]

140. Many of is, including me, believe the line was drawn correctly in 1934

The National Firearms Act.

[FudaFuda]

101. When did you grow up?

I'm 42 years old and can say the same thing ... when I was a kid nobody I knew used military style rifles for deer hunting. That's because the AR-15 wasn't really something old hunting fogies were buying in the 60's and 70's ... I'm not even sure if the civilian AR-15 was being sold yet then. But after vets came back from Vietnam, the semiauto version of their issued M16 started becoming popular. Some hunt with them, others compete in service rifle marksmanship competitions. And one other thing you probably didn't consider - these guns are immensely popular in the midwest as 'varmint' guns, a firearm need that doesn't really exist much on the east coast anymore, but is still a very real need to ranchers with livestock to protect.

All I'm saying is, the "assault rifle" is a lot more mainstream among hunters and sport shooters now than when you grew up. As others have noted in this thread, you're talking about the most popular variety of centerfire rifle sold today.

I think the fact that you point at hunters as the parameter for determining what kind of firearms a person in the USA should be allowed to own is enough to tell me we could never, ever agree on this issue, so I don't intend to volly with you. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, and it IS a definite part of the Constitution, with 2nd billing only to freedom of speech. It will never be rescinded, so accept it or give Canada a try.

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. You 'front' well, but you're still wrong

On at least four counts

I grew up in an area surrounded by hunters. Never once did I encounter a single 'hunter' who used an assault weapon to 'hunt' game. Assault weapons are not designed to hunt game, they are designed to kill humans. Big difference.

1. Plenty of hunters use what you term 'assault weapons' to hunt game. Granted, you may have grown
up where and when it is/was illegal or uncommon to hunt with semi-automatic rifles (Pennsylvania, for example), but most states allow it. So your first observation is limited by your age and personal experience.

There is a huge difference between buying a 'collectible' weapon in mint condition and buying a mass produced 'cheap' assault weapon.

2. There hasn't been a "'cheap' assault weapon" available in this country for many years. The nearest
thing to it *might* be some flavor of SKS, which is more accurately described as "relatively inexpensive".

The OP did not address handguns or hunting rifles and shotguns. It also did not advocate taking guns away from people, or some such nonsense. IT was very narrow and limited

3. And quite un-Constitutional. "Suitability for hunting" was never the test of whether
a firearm could be banned. Read the Second Amendment. Read the US Supreme Court decision in
Miller. Read the decision in Heller vs DC. For that matter, read the *dissents*
in Heller.

The only thing that Heller says might be banned are firearms that are dangerous and unusual.
Since what you term 'assault weapons' are neither, your proposed ban fails the Constitutional
(and political) litmus test.

So tell me how important it is to your constitutional rights that mass produced cheap 'assault weapons' be available for purchase by people like the Alabama shooter. Go ahead .....

4. I've got a better idea. You tell us why our Constitutional rights should be infringed beacause
of *your* feelings. Bear in mind, you've posted several factually incorrect items here, so try to
use facts and not 'truth'.

[Blackhatjack]

145. Careful ... you are close to exposing yourself .... nothing I posted was 'factually incorrect'

The reality is that you cannot point to any facts which disprove any of the statements I posted here.

It sounds like you got your education on constitutional law as it applies to gun ownership came directly from the NRA. (It certainly did not come from your education as a lawyer --or you would know better).

[friendly_iconoclast]

163. You still *talk* a good game, I'll give you that.

Feel free to set us straight about Second Amendment issues in light of recent Supreme Court
decisions. Something beyond "You're an NRA stooge, and *I'm* right", please.

So, how would you tailor your proposed law to pass Constitutional muster? Heller vs DC changed the criteria for gun restrictions and you still haven't addressed those here.

You don't have to like it, but you do have to deal with it.

Your old impressions of "assault weapons" are no longer valid..
And your Constitutional justification for your proposed AW ban is invalid in light of the USSC
decision in Heller. It isn't 'narrowly targeted' (no pun intended) by any means.

1. You offered up *your* youthful experience where none used "assault weapons" to hunt.
This is no longer true, and hasn't been for years (save for states like PA).

2. "Assault weapons" aren't cheap (or cheaply made). And what would their price have to do with suitabilty for ownership in any case? Bit of classism, there.

3. Your contention that "assault weapons" are just a fringe item is flat-out wrong.
They are THE most popular center-fire rifles in the US. They are neither "uncommon" or "dangerous"
(as far as firearms go.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

200. Asked a few hard questions, the OP disappears...

All wind and no windmill

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. I'm very pleased with how long the moderators are leaving these in GD. Thanks mods.

[SmileyRose]

75. It's my guess the ILLEGAL guns kill more people than legal "assault weapons".

I'm totally not into guns. I don't even hang around with anyone who is into guns. I know a couple of hunters and THEY aren't even into guns (bow). I sat and looked at pics of legal guns and illegal guns and to be honest, some of the guns they left legal seem more able to mass murder than any of the banned ones.

The assault weapons ban seemed kind idiotic to me -- as in how does it stop illegal guns. Maybe I just don't get it.

[Pavulon]

77. You got it, it is all a shell game

played by politicians to prevent them from actually addressing the root cause of violence in america. Why the swiss and canadians who have access to weapons have a fraction of the murder rate we do.

Rather than address health care (mental illness), poverty, education, and drug law, they ban guns in dc and point and say look what we did. We accomplished something. Meanwhile nothing actually happened.

Changing those things actually require effort and sacrifice.

It is a scam on stupid people, like the lottery.

[Hardrada]

79. GOOD point! I hadn't thought of this quite that way.

Scams do abound.

[doc03]

84. A teenager killed his mother with a bow and arrow

here a few years ago, he shot her like 7 or 8 times in the head.

[aikoaiko]

80. Can you tell me exactly what weapons were used?

I've been too busy at work to follow the details.

[Pavulon]

81. Sounds like an SKS an AR variant (nt)

[aikoaiko]

159. Was the SKS modified to accept higher-cap mags?

Because typically they are 10 round internal mag carbines with no pistol grip and weren't even included in the 1994 AWB (IIRC).

[chrisa]

87. Jesus. It was one incident.

Why is it that whenever ONE incident happens, people get all up in arms with the fake outrage, and want to ban everything in sight.

Yes, the shooting was bad, but even worse would be nullifying sections of the Constitution based on reactionary uproar of the moment. It would be like asking the government to take our freedoms away in the name of fighting terrorism. What's the difference?

[flvegan]

88. *Some* weapons should be banned, yes.

At least from civilian ownership.

[XOKCowboy]

89. Please enlighten us which those should be?

Please be specific also.

[1]

90. i'd like to know that myself. you can easily shoot 200 rounds per hour through a 1851 sharps rifle.

what exactly is this magic criteria for destroying the second amendment of the us constitution?

do tell?

[flvegan]

91. I see no place for the likes of

the (and knockoffs of) AR-15, AK-47, Tec-9, Uzi, MAC-10 and their ilk. I don't care for hunting, but I'm not going to suggest that *all* semi-auto or clip-fed rifle models should be eliminated.

If you've marked me as a gun-grabber, you've made a mistake. I've got three of my own, and I'm proud to be able to own and use them.

[1]

95. ok. cool. so then tell me, why are some semi-automatics ok, and others not?

obviously its not their semi-automatic nature (per your post.)

why do some semi-automatics scare you, while others do not?

i do not understand? help me understand...

[flvegan]

97. It's not fear.

I've got two semi-autos myself. Try your question again, with sincerity and without the douchebag spin.

[1]

100. wow. ok. i will state my perfectly legitimate question again without the word "scare"...

ok. cool. so then tell me, why are some semi-automatics ok, and others not?

obviously its not their semi-automatic nature (per your post.)

why are some semi-automatics cool with you, while others are not?

i do not understand? help me understand...



there, did i pass your test? do you feel like answering now?

[flvegan]

105. I'll answer your question with a question...

In what capacity does an AR-15 serve the general civilian public? Sucks to hunt with. Not much of a fun target rifle. Total joke for home defense. Short of a "holed up in the attic waiting out a zombie invasion" there's no really good reason.

I remember mine. No idea why I bought it, short of it being a cool item to own. My carry weapon was (and still is) an Officer's Compact .45 loaded w/Black Talons. My first choice for my home defense was (and still is) my Mossberg 500. Couldn't come up with a reason to keep it, so I didn't.

It's not the mode of bullet propulsion, it's the reason that the weapon continues to exist on the civilian market. Hunting? Fine. Home defense? Fine. Target/skeet/sport? Fine.

[1]

106. "Hunting? Fine. Home defense? Fine. Target/skeet/sport? Fine."

an ar-15 serves all of these purposes.

hunting? mine is incredibly accurate, it drives tacks. i can pop the head of an invasive coyote at a great distance.

home defense? i pity the fool that enters my cabin with evil on his mind.

target/skeet/sport? well, there you have me. i have never shot skeet with it. but i'd bet i'd kill them skeet too.


but friend, you didn't answer my original question.



why are some semi-automatics ok but others not?

you brought this up. i didn't.

why are some semi-automatics ok but others not?

[flvegan]

110. I did answer it.

You ignored it.

I find it odd, your type. Your answers could well be the same for an rpg. I don't support bringing the Thompson back either.

You should stop trying to turn off folks that support your stance to the 80th or 90th percentile.

And seriously, an AR for close quarters home defense? Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather live through it.

[1]

113. you answered it? where? you don't like your ar-15? how does that answer my question?

again.

for you, some semi-automatics are fine? (you had a laundry list) and some are not?

why?

[flvegan]

122. Like I said

You should stop trying to turn off folks that support your stance to the 80th or 90th percentile.

Nothing else to say to the likes of you.

Have a nice evening.

[1]

125. because the the 80th or 90th percentile can't answer a direct question?

why is that?

buddy, you are like a rhesus monkey here. you fling your shit, never actually answer a direct question, and then run away.

what is up with that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. That's why I put a short barrel on mine.

[benEzra]

148. I'm not picturing what you're envisioning here.

And seriously, an AR for close quarters home defense? Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather live through it.

I'm not picturing what you're envisioning here. How, exactly, would choosing an AR-15 instead of a 12-gauge or a pistol would get you killed? You do realize the most popular AR-15 barrel length is 16", not 20" or 24", yes? That an AR with an adjustable stock on the first or second notch is the same length as most HD shotguns?

You're not thinking reliability issues, are you?

[AtheistCrusader]

212. Hold on a sec.

This is a good line of questioning.

No one has RPG's, because they are not 'arms' in the traditional sense. Explosives are regulated as Destructive Devices. The Thompson is available as a semi-auto weapon, to civilians. I don't have one, but some of my relatives do. Perfectly capable weapon, even without it's original full-auto capability.

Why do you feel the AR is a bad close quarters design? The Carbine is about the same size and purpose as the M-4, which is what our soldiers are using right now, for this purpose.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

135. Off-topic, but what livestock do you raise?

[FudaFuda]

107. The AR-15 is an exemplary target rifle.

For medium sized game, it's a great hunting rifle. For larger game (deer), put a .308 upper on it and you're set (one of the beauties of the AR system is you can change caliber from medium to hi-power cartridges in about 2 minutes).

For home defense, it's right for some people, not for others. I wouldn't recommend it for an apartment owner, but for an isolated home in the country, nothing better. Yes, in some situations I would prefer it for home defense over the shotgun. And if you're stuck alone after a hurricane without basic services and facing the possibility of looters, it's worth its weight in gold.

As for target shooting as I said, it's tops. Go to Camp Perry in northern Ohio and watch the service rifle competition ... the AR15 dominates. A nicely set-up target AR can do 1/4moa ... i.e. shots will group into slightly over 1/4 inch at 100 yds.

[1]

111. its ok. you are new here. the anti-gun crowd here can only answer questions with questions...

they try their their best to confuse the issue. they will never answer a direct question. they can never actually state their case, because they have no case.

its their game.

they have no point. their argument is ridiculous.

whatever.

i am used to it by now. if you want to post here you had better get used to it too.

that is just how they do and play. its like trying to have a discussion with a brick wall...

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. The anti-gun crowd are like fundies talking about GLBT people.

They aren't too concerned about facts getting in the way of their 'Higher Truth'.

[villager]

147. Does everyone embedded with NRA programming project like that?

n/t

[benEzra]

149. How else would you explain the cognitive dissonance

that allows someone to believe that the predominant centerfire target rifle in America is not useful for target shooting?

[villager]

150. BenEzra, I never try to explain the cognitive dissonance of the gun crowd!

;-)

[benEzra]

155. Touche...

but the question is a legitimate one.

Why is it that so many advocates of banning "assault weapons" believe they are fringe guns that not many people legitimately own, and that they have few legal uses?

[villager]

158. Although they *can* be used for target practice -- as can numerous weapons

...aren't they *designed* for the effective, high-casualty killing of human beings?

I mean, armies and arm suppliers don't refine/buy these things for their *target* use...

And I find it disingenous when pro gun folk can't concede that carnage is the primary use behind certain weapons.

That doesn't mean I'm accusing *you* or any other target shooters. But we have to be able to ask the question: What does a society do with weapons whose primary purpose is the mass killing of human beings?

*That* is the question, and it seems pro gun folks shout and scream that question down, every time, so it won't be heard...

That said, it's nice to have a "gun issue" exchange without name-calling, snark, invective, etc.!

[benEzra]

162. Thoughts...

Although they *can* be used for target practice -- as can numerous weapons

It's not just that they *can* be used for target shooting, they dominate target shooting in this country. The most commonly used centerfire target rifle in the United States is the AR-15 platform, and the #1 caliber of centerfire rifle ammunition expended annually at shooting ranges is the AR-15's .223 Remington/5.56x45mm caliber.

aren't they *designed* for the effective, high-casualty killing of human beings?

No. Don't forget that as originally conceived, the M16 and AK-47 both made up for their relatively low per-shot lethality by being able to fire full-auto (and later burst mode). NON-automatic AR-15 are solely civilian weapons that are not used by any military on this planet.

Point a military AK-47 into a room and hold down the trigger, and you get 10 rounds per second (faster than a human could pull the trigger) until the magazine runs dry; an M16A2 gives you 3 shots in one burst so fast it sounds like a single long shot. Hold the trigger down on a civilian AR-15 or my SAR-1, and it fires one precise shot.

I mean, armies and arm suppliers don't refine/buy these things for their *target* use...

Armies and arms supplies don't use them. They use NFA Title 2 restricted machineguns, not non-automatic Title 1 civilian AR-15's.

And I find it disingenous when pro gun folk can't concede that carnage is the primary use behind certain weapons. That doesn't mean I'm accusing *you* or any other target shooters.

How would one say that carnage the primary use of an AR-15, if the primary uses of the MILLIONS of AR-15's lawfully owned in this country are recreational target shooting, competitive target shooting, and defense of home?

That is the question I was getting at above. The "primarily useful for mass murder" argument is falsified by the fact that such rifles are the predominant target rifles in the nation, yet are misused at far lower rates than common handguns are.

But we have to be able to ask the question: What does a society do with weapons whose primary purpose is the mass killing of human beings?

*That* is the question, and it seems pro gun folks shout and scream that question down, every time, so it won't be heard...

See above. The primary purpose of an AR-15 or civilian AK is not the mass killing of human beings. That may be the primary purpose of an M16 or a full auto military AK-47, but is not true of an AR-15, Ruger mini-14, or SAR-1.

The gun-control lobby has worked very hard to convince people that there is very little difference between a machinegun and a non-machinegun, but there is a huge difference between a non-machinegun with a straight wooden stock and a non-machinegun with a handgrip that sticks out. That is the crux of the issue. In my opinion, the difference between a machinegun and a non-machinegun is far more significant than the shape of a rifle's stock.

Having some military heritage does not make a rifle a military weapon if it does not FUNCTION like a military weapon. (Grandpa's .30-06 deer rifle is a lightly altered derivative of a World War I battle rifle designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges, but that doesn't mean that the purpose of a deer rifle is trench warfare.)

That said, it's nice to have a "gun issue" exchange without name-calling, snark, invective, etc.!

I agree, and even if we can't agree on this issue, we can certainly disagree civilly about it. And IMO there is great hope for this country if people with widely disparate viewpoints can sit down and discuss them rationally, even if we ultimately don't agree.

[villager]

167. A thoughtful reply. How easily can AR-15's be modified?

Additionally, there are many guns available to civilians that fire multiple rounds with a trigger squeeze -- how are those not fair game for utterly reasonable gun strictures?

As for pistols causing more mayhem - well, I've always said, keep the hunting rifles, but get the pistols off the street.

[benEzra]

177. Not particularly easy, and they were modified in 1986 to make it even harder.

How easily can AR-15's be modified?

Not particularly easy, and they were changed in 1986 to make full auto conversion even harder.

In pre-1986 AR-15's, the lower receiver (main body of the gun, to which the barrel, stock, and grip attach) was the same dimensions as an M16 receiver, but the trigger parts were different, with the AR-15 lacking the parts that allow an M16 to fire itself repeatedly when the trigger is held down. The key part necessary to convert a pre-1986 AR-15 to full auto (what was known as a drop-in auto sear, or DIAS) were tightly controlled by the BATFE (10-year felony) and difficult to construct, but if you were somehow able to get hold of one, you could install it in the receiver with a drill press and hand tools, and the restricted DIAS plus a few M16 parts would create a full auto.

In 1986, a law called the McClure-Volkmer Act was passed, which among other things required all civilian guns to be difficult to convert to full auto, and reclassified easy-to-convert civilian guns into the restricted machineguns. Because of concerns about the black market availability of drop-in auto sears, civilian AR-15's were redesigned to have different receiver dimensions than an M16, so that a DIAS would not work in the gun even if you somehow got your hands on one. So post-1986 AR's are as difficult to convert as any other civilian semiauto.

Additionally, there are many guns available to civilians that fire multiple rounds with a trigger squeeze -- how are those not fair game for utterly reasonable gun strictures?

They are fair game, and they were already restricted 75 years ago and banned 23 years ago.

The first law restricting automatic and burst-capable firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law made it a 10-year Federal felony to possess any machinegun without Federal authorization, the gun had to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, your local chief law enforcement officer had to sign off on the application, you couldn't take the gun out of state without permission, they can only be transferred through specially licensed dealers, etc.

Then, in 1986, the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act closed the automatic weapons registry to new civilian guns, thereby completely banning the manufacture of new automatic or burst-capable weapons for the civilian market; all post-1986 automatic weapons are restricted to police/military and their suppliers, no exceptions.

There are still a handful of pre-1986 machineguns in the hands of wealthy collectors, but I think only two or three have been used in a murder in the last 75 years, and one of those was by a police officer. A pre-1986 full auto M16 now costs $17,000 to $75,000 depending on rarity and collectibility.

Here is a FAQ on the National Firearms Act as it now stands, if you're interested.

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

In addition to restricting machineguns and burst-capable weapons, the National Firearms Act also restricts guns over .50 caliber, sound suppressed ("silenced") firearms, sawed off rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms (cane guns, cell phone guns), hand grenades, bombs, rocket launchers/bazookas, grenade launchers, etc. Restricted weapons are controlled under the very tight Title 2 of the NFA, while ordinary civilian guns,including AR-15's and such, are controlled under Title 1 (which are the laws that govern purchases from your local gun store).

All guns that fire multiple rounds with a single trigger squeeze are controlled under the very strict Title 2 provisions of the NFA (including the 1986 ban), and possession outside of a police/military context without Federal authorization is an automatic 10-year felony.

As for pistols causing more mayhem - well, I've always said, keep the hunting rifles, but get the pistols off the street.

Any pistols on the street in the hands of criminals are being carried illegally, and can be taken away and the criminals prosecuted; concealed carry without a state-issued license is a crime in all but 2 states (Vermont and Alaska) and in many of those it is a felony.

As far as hunting rifles, a ban on handguns and nonhunting rifles would ban every gun my wife and I own. Like most U.S. gun owners, my wife and I are both nonhunters (only ~1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts, per Census Bureau and hunting license data).

[AtheistCrusader]

214. Not easily.

There are 5 major internal components that would have to be completely replaced, because necessary metal is missing, one part is completely missing, and in post '86 AR-15's, the receiver (the metal housing containing the parts) has been changed in such a way it will not accept the fully automatic M-16 parts.

Possession of the parts constitutes possession of a fully automatic weapon, whether the full rifle is present or not, and the BATFE has absolutely no trace of a sense of humor about it, and will send people away for a very long time for screwing around with making that leap from semi-auto to full-auto. (Or burst)


There really aren't many weapons at all, capable of burst or full auto, out and about in the civilian population. Those that are, are all registered with the BATFE (the semi-auto's are not registered), the BATFE can come knocking to ensure you still have it, it's taxed, and the limited number of them makes them extremely expensive collectors items. No more may be imported or produced for civilian use.

[AtheistCrusader]

213. You are framing the purpose with your own agenda.

I see them as being designed to protect human life. That's what armies do when they use them. That's what our police do, when they use them.

To justifiably go to war, an army should be protecting the civilian population that sponsored it. For that, you select the best tool for the job. Armies and arm suppliers DO choose these weapons for thier target utility. They are extremely accurate, easy to maintain, relatively rugged, and they can stop a human being.

Most 'civilian' weapons can do all that, but also stop things much bigger and angrier than a human being.

The AR-15 launches lead at a target. It does so very well. That's why I own one.

[benEzra]

138. On the contrary, it DOMINATES centerfire target shooting in this country.

In what capacity does an AR-15 serve the general civilian public? Sucks to hunt with. Not much of a fun target rifle. Total joke for home defense.

On the contrary, the AR-15 platform DOMINATES centerfire rifle target shooting in this country (both competitive and recreational) and is the single most common defensive carbine in U.S. homes. AR's are used in everything from IPSC to F-class benchrest.

In the defensive role, it offers far more precision than a shotgun and (with civilian JHP's) less risk of overpenetration than a pistol.

[slackmaster]

141. I use mine for target shooting, and for teaching people how to handle firearms safely

Most people find them quite entertaining to shoot. The light weight and low recoil make them great for beginners.

Until recently, there was a lot of inexpensive surplus ammunition available for them.

[AtheistCrusader]

211. I would disagree

You are trying to keep this conversation respectful, and I appreciate that. See if I can express why I own some of the weapons you commented on.

AR-15: Good rifle. Very flat trajectory, since it's such a high velocity. Not a lot of mass. Useless for Deer and other large game. (Illegal in this state, in fact) What do I use mine for? Medium sized game. Gophers, coyote's, anything in-between pretty much. For non-hunting, it's a great rifle for practicing the basics. For home defense, it's a very good platform. It won't go through 10 walls like a .308 might. It's as nimble as a Mossberg 500 (Also a good choice for home defense) if not moreso, less recoil, greater capacity for volume of fire. Quicker reload.

The AR-15 is perfectly viable for target/sport, and some hunting. Good for home defense as well, even if it's not your first choice. It was better when there was cheap, plentiful ammo, but it's still good, from another point of view. And this is coming from someone who grew up on bigger calibers, like .30-06.

[Incitatus]

93. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 9mm.

Should we ban those?

[anneboleyn]

94. WHY are these legal? It is disgusting that in a civilized country anyone can buy these guns.

Really, can't we have sensible gun laws?

[FudaFuda]

112. In Switzerland the govt. gives one to EVERYBODY.

Everybody in Switzerland has to be in the active 'militia' until age 30. From age 20 until age 30, the government issues all non-officer citizens a fully automatic Sig 550 assault rifle, i.e. a machine gun. You can also own your own semi-auto's and shoot them whenever, but the issued automatic rifle can only be fired during official periodic training.

When you turn 30, your mandatory 10-yr stint in the militia is over. You can turn the Sig 550 back in to the govt., or you can choose to keep it, but they send it back to the factory to disable to automatic fire capability. What you get back is a free semi-auto 'assault weapon,' and a very nice one at that.


Last I checked, Switzerland is fairly civilized, and proof that guns are not a measurable hazard among law-abiding peoples.


edit: here are a few pics from a GUN SHOW in Lausanne, Switzerland. THe last pic shows a fully functional flame thrower for sale, no permit required.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. anne b. will along shortly to explain why CH has a lower murder & violent crime rate than the US

Or why Switzerland isn't really civilized..

[cliffordu]

188. Bitchin!!!!!

I love flamethrowers!!!! We could use a couple around here....


The rifles are pretty astounding...

Those are state of the art weapons....

[hiphopnation]

139. i'm with you

it's an issue i just don't understand because i've never been and probably never will be a gun owner. i don't even know the difference between semi- and fully- automatic weapons. they're all fucking evil and horrible to me. but, there it is, the second ammendment, and even DU crawls with enthusiasts, and all you can say is "it's their constitutional right". but most of the time, i scratch my head over this one.

[chrisa]

146. We already do.

Would you rather we ban everything and pretend that guns don't exist like the British government does? Parts of Britain have more crime than the US. They just use knives instead (which some elements of the British government want to ban too).

[cliffordu]

119. Fucking idiot was a terrible shot.

Nice try though, fuzzy logic, hysteria, you touched all the bases with THAT feel-good Pollyana argument....

TWO assault weapons!!!!! NOT JUST ONE!!! TEE FUCKING DUBBLEYOU FUCKING OH !!!!!

omfg series!!!!!!111!!!!!1

:hurts:

[WorseBeforeBetter]

153. Ten people are dead.

How do you "gun people" get this way?

[cliffordu]

156. Here's your answer:

:hurts:

[WorseBeforeBetter]

169. An idiotic smilie?

Tell the families and friends of the ten dead that he was a terrible shot. Including the father of the injured infant found clinging to her dead mother.

[cliffordu]

173. Do you rub yourself as you recall every salacious detail???

Your obsession with every horrific image reminds me of a porn addict's perfect recall.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

178. A gun nut who references porn ... how original.

Again, would you tell the families and friends of the ten dead that the shooter was a terrible shot? Or do you magically grow a pair when anonymously logged in to message boards?

[cliffordu]

179. Yet another vanilla insult by a gun nanny.

rub rub.

[Paladin]

180. Up Your Meds.

And stay the fuck out of my neighborhood.......

[cliffordu]

184. Your username was the name of a hired killer in an early

'60's television show called 'have gun will travel' starring Richard Boone.


And, ironically, the name of a character in Dungeons and Dragons....

:rofl:

My whole nasty thread is a direct response to people using these horrific acts as a step up for their political agenda.

Standing on the bodies of the dead for political gain is scummy beyond anything I could say.


I find it interesting the respondent for that little subthread jumped to name calling immediately to inflame....

And your insult is interesting, too.

Tell mom you need another mountain dew.

[cliffordu]

189. Crickets

[Paladin]

195. Sorry I Didn't Respond Quickly Enough To Suit You

I was off having what normal people refer to as "a life." Probably a foreign concept to you; give it a try sometime.

And there's no need to school me about "Have Gun Will Travel." It's one of my favorite old TV shows; Richard Boone kicked serious ass. Always glad when the "Paladin" thing knits up a gun obsessive's brow......

[cliffordu]

196. Gun obsessive?? Hardly.

I don't currently own one.

Now why don't you tell us all about your character in D&D??

[WorseBeforeBetter]

183. You've yet to answer my question.

Hmm, nearly 15,000 posts in just over 1 year. Are you a DeLay minion, or just some blowhard from Washington who gives cycling a bad name? Or both.

[cliffordu]

185. Tra la la, yet another ad hominum attack....

You know people are desperate when they resort to post count ridicule.

Don't you feel a little sick standing on the dead bodies of those poor people to further your holier than thou political stance on Ugly Guns???

How do you clean your shoes??

Have you no shame???

[WorseBeforeBetter]

186. You mock the killer's marksmanship (or lack thereof)...

and ask me about shame? That's rich.

If the post count fits...

[cliffordu]

187. The OP was started over an observation

on two guns and 200 rounds fired.

The author tried to make political hay over that fact, I countered with an equally stupid stance.

Your stance and ad hominum attacks are very telling about
your character, sparky.

Good luck with that.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Strelnikov_]

142. "Lets' just outlaw everything bad"

Wow. Deep.

[fascisthunter]

152. ban Assault Weapons...

no need for them.... whether they look more dangerous or not is irrelevant, because then it's more about cosmetics vs functionality. Those who want the means to thwart our military are dreaming a dream that will never come to fruition, and I hope it never does after speaking to a few gun nuts. We engage in politics in order to avoid an armed rebellion or a tyrannical government. The Right to Bare Arms is not as relevant as it used to be and that's a good thing.

[cliffordu]

157. Read up on the Cheney death squads.....

And then tell me everything is just fine.

[fascisthunter]

161. You think your guns are gonna do much against a death squad?

you seem to forget we still have the means to hold Cheney accountable and to prevent this from ever getting that far. I wouldn't be worried if I were you... I doubt you are on Cheney's list. But if you need an excuse to continue on this march towards arming yourself, go for it but it won't be of any use. This isn't a movie like Red Dawn.

[friendly_iconoclast]

165. Insurgents can't hold off modern armed forces-just look at Iraq and Afghanistan

Wait...

[cliffordu]

174. I don't currently own a firearm.

I just love these hysterical diatribes by the scaredycats.....

Guns bad, get rid of guns, strawberry fields forever....

[fascisthunter]

193. lol.. look who is scared! You are talking about a possible stand off with "Death Squads"

I'd say you were the one being paranoid while ignoring the dangers of guns themselves. Your own fear is blinding you.

PS - who said No guns at all? You did....

[cliffordu]

197. Paranoid? I don't own a firearm.

You need better insults.

Seymor Hersh is working on Cheney's death squads....Paranoid? After the last 8 years?

[Paladin]

181. Yeah, Dick Cheney Was Really Scared Of A Well Regulated Militia, Wasn't He?

n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

160. The Constitution is as relevant now as it ever was.

[rq4a]

203. Heller v DC

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Supreme Court case Heller v DC has made your 'not relevant arugement', irrelevant.

[backtoblue]

164. what is so hard to realize

that rifles and shot guns have no place inside city limits. If you want to be a hunter, fine, but there aren't enough deer in the city and it's best left to the forests. Handguns are great protection in an urban setting, but there are no reasons to have assault weapons exept in rural areas.

[slackmaster]

166. Are you opposed to urban and suburban people driving out to rural areas to go shooting?

I'm curious as to what you are actually suggesting here.

I live in a suburban area, and keep numerous long guns as a collection. I take a few at a time out to the country on occasion to shoot them.

[backtoblue]

170. Well..

I'm mainly saying that the inner city urban setting isn't the right medium for such guns. It is definitely a complicated debate with many facets because I agree that you should be able to go out to the country and use your guns in the sparsely populated areas.

[slackmaster]

171. Thanks, and I'll give you a data point or three for what it's worth

I own more than 50 working firearms including handguns, bolt-action rifles, semiautomatic rifles, pump shotguns, and a single-shot .50 BMG target rifle. I keep them all locked up in a sturdy safe, unloaded.

On a few occasions over the years I have been alerted to a possible prowler in the area by neighbors or the police. When that happens, I arm myself with a handgun. When the threat has passed, I unload my weapon and put it back in the safe.

There are several completely enclosed indoor shooting ranges in my area, and I live near the historic open-air San Diego Police Pistol Range, which is still used by the San Diego PD and is also open to the public. I've shot there several times, usually elbow-to-elbow with police officers. The range is close enough to my home that I can hear gunfire from it when the wind is going a certain direction. I know several police officers who are interested in firearms and collect them just as I do.

There is a public trap and skeet range within city limits, where shotguns are perfectly appropriate (in fact the only type of weapon permitted).

The fact that there is no practical place to use a rifle in my area is not a reason to restrict people from owning them.

[spin]

175. Rifle ranges exist in urban areas, for example...

Knight Shooting Sports in Clearwater, Florida.

• 8 - 25 yard Pistol lanes • 7 - 50 yard Rifle lanes

• Shoot anything, up to and including a .50 caliber BMG

• Rentals - Pistols, Rifles, & Machine Guns
http://www.knightshooting.com/

Lots of rifle shooters in the Tampa Bay area shoot at this range.

[cliffordu]

176. I am sooo glad you're in charge.....

:sarcasm:

[Retired AF Dem]

182. While you are so smug sitting at a red light that you

managed to get "assault weapons" banned when a drunk driver hits you in the rear at 70 MPH and kills you. It happened to me two years ago and I'm still recovering. You aint safe no matter what.

[Canuckistanian]

191. Hey gun nuts! How many people could a psycho kill with a knife? A baseball bat?

Sorry, I'm Canadian. We don't put up with shit like handing assault weapons over to crazed lunatics.

Or even to ORDINARY PEOPLE.

Do you EVER wonder why our murder rates are 100X lower than yours?????

[slackmaster]

192. Actually, US murder rates are roughly 4 times Canadian murder rates

And RIFLES of all types are used in only a very small percentage of US murders.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

223. No fair using facts.

[cliffordu]

198. 16 year old girl killed mom with a knife last night in Seattle,

and tonight some fucking guy used an axe on his wife and daughter.

why do you ask??

[Howzit]

199. You mean, like this guy?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7445694.stm

[Rekoning7]

215. How many people could a psycho kill with a knife? A baseball bat?

Population USA Rounded to 303 million > Murders in 2008 16,234
Population Canada Rounded to 33 million | 89.11% pop.difference| > Murders in 2008 523 |96.78% homicide rate difference

Adjusted for the population difference: %7.67 Difference between America and Canada murder totals

not alot... i thought guns were the problem.... weird

[friendly_iconoclast]

201. "dissent", "drugs", "comic books", "terrorism", and now "assault weapons"

Control freaks ginning up a moral panic for fun, profit, and manufactured paranoia.

J. Edgar Hoover
Harry Anslinger
Frederic Wertheim
John Yoo

and now, Blackhatjack and their ilk.

[rq4a]

202. Serial Number Checks

Care to elobrate on assault weapons being easy for resale?

Last I heard 0 (zero) weapons have been traced to US. Not only that but the Mexican government REFUSES to release serial number information on guns used by crimes.

Please stop spreading myths about resold guns in Mexico.