I work with a gun toting idiot.

[Josh Oakley]

I, and the NRA, do not agree with you. A gun is not a weapon UNTIL it is turned on a person. Guns have more than one use. They can be used to feed your family, for competition,........

A gun is not always a weapon. A hammer, scissors, ink pen, or car can all become a weapon, but arethey not also tools?

A weapon is a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

the deer you're killing is your adversary because he's trying not to become your dinner.

In a competition you are beating your adversary through destruction of paper.

I've yet to see a single use of a gun that would not make it a weapon, despite the NRA's creative redifinition of the word "weapon".

But you are right, a weapon is also a tool. and it has more than one use. It can put holes in things and be used as a blunt instrument.

 

[Josh Oakley]

No problem. Now we're on the same page. I think that you are one who does not fetishize weapons. Neither do I. I see them as a means to an end. That end can be hunting, or sport, or self defense, but they exist to serve me, not I for them.


-Rob

Well, yes, but at the same time, you show me a picture os a woman, and show me a picture of the same woman holding an M16, that second picture will be exponentially hotter.

 

[KenpoTex]

....allowing anybody to buy GPMG's is just as silly as I see things.

why? If we acknowledge that mere possession of a firearm does not cause someone to use it inappropriately, why would it matter what type of firearm it is?

In other words...I own a bunch of guns, would the ability to own full-auto weapons, suppressors, or SBSs/SBRs without jumping through a myriad of ridiculous formalities suddenly turn me into a nut-job? (and please, let's avoid the straw-man crap of talking about nukes and jet fighters...)

 

[Sukerkin]

As someone outside of the culture, it does seem to me that there is the world of difference between owning a shotgun for defence of the home (against criminals likely to go elsewhere once they realise they're up against armed resistance) and possessing an assault rifle.

I know it is possible to make arguments 'in extremis' for such military weaponry in civilian hands doing some good (the aftermath of the hurrcane in New Orleans for example). I also agree that a level headed chap with good intentions is no more likely to misuse an M16 than he is a .22 pistol.

However, when it comes to the general level of threat to the public and the police if possession of such weapons is not illegal, then is it not possible to argue that such threat is increased if there is no disincentive for the criminal element to use them?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

It seems that I am being ostricized by my anti-gun views, and this is quite possible.

.

No, I just this week happen to be full up past my max capacity of suffering from the reverse type of thing that Tez3 has to deal with everytime she has to hear an American saying England should be armed, and so on. It's no secret where I stand on the right to bear arms, it is no secret that I am licensed to carry, and have taken apropriate training so as to do justice to the responsibility that must accompany that right.

What is NOT generally known is that I was not always of this belief. Like tellner, I had to be SHOWN the way the real world was before those beliefs changed to their current form.

(Sukerkin's sig line recalls the conversation I had with him over this many ages past )

So when I have bothered to go to the trouble of doing the research, and taking the classes, and Learning the truth about self defense and am QUALIFIED to have an opinion on the role of the firearm in personal protection, and I see blanket "guns are bad" or " the 2nd amendment is the reason you need to own guns" or "It'll just get used against you" or "any idiot can get them" or "no civilian should carry" by any number of UNqualified people, irrespective of national origin, who Just. Don't. Have. The First. Clue........Yeah, you could say I get bent.

BUT.

That still does not mean I get to be a prick about it. I apologize to you.

 

[Thesemindz]

As someone outside of the culture, it does seem to me that there is the world of difference between owning a shotgun for defence of the home (against criminals likely to go elsewhere once they realise they're up against armed resistance) and possessing an assault rifle.

I know it is possible to make arguments 'in extremis' for such military weaponry in civilian hands doing some good (the aftermath of the hurrcane in New Orleans for example). I also agree that a level headed chap with good intentions is no more likely to misuse an M16 than he is a .22 pistol.

However, when it comes to the general level of threat to the public and the police if possession of such weapons is not illegal, then is it not possible to argue that such threat is increased if there is no disincentive for the criminal element to use them?

I don't think the argument can be labeled extreme when you follow it with a very recent and very real example of a need for such a weapon.

Yes, the existance of these weapons poses a threat. However, Great Britain is an island, where the government has almost complete control over what can and can not be imported, and yet somehow, criminals are still able to obtain weapons and commit acts of violence.

Legislating away the use of weapons to commit violence is impossible. It can not be done. All these laws do is legislate away the rights of responsible people. If you are willing to admit that a responsible gun owner is no more likely to act irresponsibly with a .22 than with a .223 than the argument quickly devolves into projecting the very logical fear of the monster onto the innocent, and very illogically revoking the rights of the innocent in an attempt to cage the monster.


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

Well, yes, but at the same time, you show me a picture os a woman, and show me a picture of the same woman holding an M16, that second picture will be exponentially hotter.

I think that's a different fetish.


-Rob

 

[Andy Moynihan]

As someone outside of the culture, it does seem to me that there is the world of difference between owning a shotgun for defence of the home (against criminals likely to go elsewhere once they realise they're up against armed resistance) and possessing an assault rifle.

While I'm at it this is the perfect post to use to kill THIS misconception too.

The term "Assault rifle" as it is bandied about in gun control circles is not a correct term. This is why we on the pro gun side always use quotation marks and you should imagine hearing the words "assault weapon" uttered with extreme scorn and derision.

The defining characteristic of a TRUE assault weapon is select fire capability. That is, the safety switch has one setting for "safe", another for semiautomatic fire ( one round for each pull of the trigger) and a third for either fully automatic, or, more often the case in modern designs, three round burst fire. These have not been available to the general American public since the National Firearms act of 1934.

where the issue becomes distorted is that in the early 90's culminating in 1994's incorrectly termed "assault weapons" ban, none of the banned firearms possessed this characteristic and were selected because they were semiautomatic-only versions of military rifles and looked scary because they happened to look like them. In fact each item which was supposed to identify a firearm as a "semiautomatic assault weapon"( Pistol grip in addition to stock, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, etc) were purely cosmetic and had no bearing on the gun's function at all.

The politicians know this, and also know that the majority of the American public does not, which was why the damn thing ever got passed to begin with and then proceeded to accomplish exactly nothing about crime.


There is no such thing as a "semiautomatic assault weapon" and anyone stating anything contrary to this FACT is flat dead wrong.

 

[Thesemindz]

While I'm at it this is the perfect post to use to kill THIS misconception too.

The term "Assault rifle" as it is bandied about in gun control circles is not a correct term. This is why we on the pro gun side always use quotation marks and you should imagine hearing the words "assault weapon" uttered with extreme scorn and derision.

The defining characteristic of a TRUE assault weapon is select fire capability. That is, the safety switch has one setting for "safe", another for semiautomatic fire ( one round for each pull of the trigger) and a third for either fully automatic, or, more often the case in modern designs, three round burst fire. These have not been available to the general American public since the National Firearms act of 1934.

where the issue becomes distorted is that in the early 90's culminating in 1994's incorrectly termed "assault weapons" ban, none of the banned firearms possessed this characteristic and were selected because they were semiautomatic-only versions of military rifles and looked scary because they happened to look like them. In fact each item which was supposed to identify a firearm as a "semiautomatic assault weapon"( Pistol grip in addition to stock, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, etc) were purely cosmetic and had no bearing on the gun's function at all.

The politicians know this, and also know that the majority of the American public does not, which was why the damn thing ever got passed to begin with and then proceeded to accomplish exactly nothing about crime.


There is no such thing as a "semiautomatic assault weapon" and anyone stating anything contrary to this FACT is flat dead wrong.

Just for the sake of clarification, from wikipedia the "features" which were banned were


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding stock
• pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine

So, just to clarify. I could have a semi-auto rifle, only capable of firing one round per trigger pull with a grenade launcher on the end, and it would be perfectly legal. But if I had added a bayonet mount, not even the bayonet just the mount, it would have become an "assault weapon" and would be illegal.

Does any objective observer really think that this law had any basis in reality? Look at the list. You could have a shotgun that could shoot more than five rounds, but if it had a folding stock, it was an assault weapon. You could have a semi-automatic version of an automatic pistol, but if it was too heavy it was an assault weapon.

This is, and was, complete foolishness. It was fear mongering designed to drive firearms manufacturers out of business. And the anti-gun lobby betrayed their intentions when they cried foul at all the gun manufacturers who abided by this law and sold guns which fit the legal requirements.

It wasn't about safety, it was about control. That's all it's ever about.


-Rob

 

[KenpoTex]

also on the topic of "assault weapons"...

In America, the primary reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is so that the general population can possess the means to resist tyranny. That being the case I feel that law-abiding citizens have the right to own the same basic types of weapons carried by the average soldier...yes, including full-auto and the other stuff I mentioned earlier. Stated another way, I feel that it is wrong for soldiers and cops to be armed with firearms that the public is not allowed to possess.

As far as crime and criminals access to these types of weapons...as with any other gun law, the only ones that follow it are the ones we don't have to worry about anyway.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I think that's a different fetish.


-Rob

Probably, but we should find a camera, some hot women, and some M16's just to make sure.

 

[Thesemindz]

Probably, but we should find a camera, some hot women, and some M16's just to make sure.

I suppose if it's for science...


-Rob

 

[tellner]

The defining characteristic of a TRUE assault weapon is select fire capability.

'Fraid you had a brain-fart, Andy.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle firing a cartridge of small-to-medium caliber. Think M-16, AK-47, FN-FAL, etc.

An assault weapon is the PR term for "ugly guns that scare the ignorant" which appeared in the execrable 1994 gun ban.

 

[Archangel M]

why? If we acknowledge that mere possession of a firearm does not cause someone to use it inappropriately, why would it matter what type of firearm it is?

In other words...I own a bunch of guns, would the ability to own full-auto weapons, suppressors, or SBSs/SBRs without jumping through a myriad of ridiculous formalities suddenly turn me into a nut-job? (and please, let's avoid the straw-man crap of talking about nukes and jet fighters...)

Thing is..you CAN get those things with a Class III license, which is fine by me. The government gets to regulate our vehicles, I don't think regulation of crew served weapons is such a large infringement on my rights.

 

[Thesemindz]

Thing is..you CAN get those things with a Class III license, which is fine by me. The government gets to regulate our vehicles, I don't think regulation of crew served weapons is such a large infringement on my rights.

Then you are willing to accept small infringments on your rights. I don't willingly accept any infringments on my rights, however I am forced to suffer them under duress.

They are your rights. No man or government should be able to restrict or deny them.

And they can't, except through force.


-Rob

 

[Archangel M]

Then you are willing to accept small infringments on your rights. I don't willingly accept any infringments on my rights, however I am forced to suffer them under duress.

They are your rights. No man or government should be able to restrict or deny them.

And they can't, except through force.


-Rob

I agree to an extent, but where is the line drawn on weaponry? What caliber, rate of fire, weapon platform etc. is "too much"? Espically if we are talking about unregulated sale and possession? I think the founding fathers had "personal small arms" in mind when the 2nd was framed. "Grab your powder..grab your gun"...not grab your cannon.

 

[KenpoTex]

Thing is..you CAN get those things with a Class III license, which is fine by me. The government gets to regulate our vehicles, I don't think regulation of crew served weapons is such a large infringement on my rights.

..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except that reasonable restrictions* and a bunch of idiotic laws concerning "scary weapons" are perfectly okay"

*and the definition of "reasonable" can be determined by whichever freedom-hating hoplophobe politician, jack-booted thug from the ATF, or black-robed geriatric is feeling frisky today.

I must have missed that addition to the 2nd Amendment the last time I read the Bill of Rights...

Sarcasm aside, I have two questions:

1) Do you (anyone) feel that things would suddenly be worse, or that things would have been worse over the last 75 years if these weapons/items were not severely regulated? Over the last 20 years or so, every time a state passes "shall-issue" concealed-carry legislation we hear cries of "dodge city, wild-west, and blood in the streets." As we all know, that has not been the case . In recent years we hear the same crap when states seek to pass Castle Doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" laws. Once again, the mass shootings committed by people standing their ground have not been a problem. What would be any different if, as I believe was the original intent, we had easy access to the same basic weapons as the average infantryman? If so, HOW would things be worse and WHY?

2) What Constitutional basis can you find for the idea that the government should be able to regulate firearms in this manner and, to a large extent, (through high permit fees, and restrictions on manufacturing and transfer, etc.) prevent us from owning them. What basis is there for the idea that an agent of the government (whether they're wearing a badge or ACU's) is entitled to better individual weaponry than any law-abiding citizen.

 

[KenpoTex]

I agree to an extent, but where is the line drawn on weaponry? What caliber, rate of fire, weapon platform etc. is "too much"? Especially if we are talking about unregulated sale and possession? I think the founding fathers had "personal small arms" in mind when the 2nd was framed. "Grab your powder..grab your gun"...not grab your cannon.

And "personal small arms" are what I'm referring to when I say "the weapons carried by an individual infantryman." In 1780, "personal small arms" meant a rifle or musket and a tomahawk or a big-*** knife. If I walked out into the street and started shooting people with my musket, then guys with muskets would shoot me to stop me.
Now, "personal small arms" means an AK, AR, FAL, or SAW. If I walk out into the street and start shooting people with my AK, AR, or SAW; people with AKs, ARs, or MP-5s are going to show up and shoot me...what has changed?

The problem is that it seems that many of those in power feel that "the peasants" should still be stuck with muskets (a.k.a. "sporting arms") while the G-men get all the modern weapons...kinda throws the whole "checks and balances" thing out the window doesn't it?...

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to say Tex, that altho' I am speaking from a long way off across a large body of water, the core logic of what you write above is hard to refute.

 

[Archangel M]

Im SO NOT against "Assault Weapons"...I own a few myself.

I never saw the big issue with suppressors, magazine capacity or weapon length.

I just draw the line at crew served weapons...belt fed weapons..automatic weapons being sold unrestricted or uncontrolled in any way.

Just my .02