People that know nothing about assault weapons

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

No, the guns will be collected as they come into public light.

There is no reason to go banging in grandmas door searching for guns.

I don't think most people who consider themselves "law abiding" would willingly risk life in prison if they were caught with an unlicensed gun.

For the same reason most people don't possess heroin now.

The penalty and risk is too high.

Lets do the same for guns.

Lets make it so MOST people don't have guns.

That's not what I meant about warrant less searches and seizures. I meant if you're removing the right to keep and bear arms, why not remove some more rights while we're at it? I mean after all, it would make Leo's jobs much easier on the war against drugs. Another problem we seem to face. Which is also one of the biggest reasons for violent crimes.

Oh, well still, no. It's not needed to reduce the level of guns in my plan, so I wouldn't need to do that.

ETA: Im not removing the right to keep and bear arms, Im restricting it heavily.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban assault weapons know nothing about them. In other words, don't even know what they're talking about. Here is an example from former D.C. Police Chief/now police commissioner: Mr. Ramsey. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

"Ramsey, the former police chief of Washington, D.C., also discussed the details of 10 assault weapons displayed at the event, similar to those used in some of the most recent mass shootings.

“If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up, because I don’t know what else will,” Ramsey told the crowd. “We have to pass legislation, we can’t allow the legislation to get so watered down and filled with loopholes that it is meaningless and won’t do anything.”

Then, turning to the weapons, Ramsey said: “Look at this and tell me why any of this needs to be on the streets of our cities. … How are you going to go hunting with something like that? If you kill something, there's nothing left to eat.”

When we think of assault weapons, the first thing that comes to mind is the AR-15 which fires. .223/5.56mm bullet. This particular caliber also known as a .22 caliber is considered by many to be too weak for whitetail deer, however is perfect for small to medium sized varmints. So, how in the hell would nothing be left when you kill something with it.

Classic example of someone who knows nothing about guns, trying to place a control on them. I would imagine the majority of the people who regularly post against assault rifles in here would fit that category

One last thing, if you want to argue that the larger assault rifles are what he is talking about then here ya to: the other common caliber would be the .30 ie: 308, 7.62, 30-06. All of which are very common hunting calibers. So, again how is that too much for hunting? The fact that it is an assault rifle makes it no more powerful than if it were a Remington 750. Assault rifles don't have turbo chargers making the bullet more dangerous.

Its not nice to call little children varmits.

Lets keep it classy.

When was the last time documented that little children were killed with an assault rifle in this country?

Well, actually, I suppose I should say, "correctly documented".

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What experience do you have with firearms?

Enough to know that no matter how much it is, a rabid voice on the internet will claim it's not enough.

I'm proud of you, Quade. You're admitting that you don't have enough experience with firearms. That's a start.

Well, then, don't be because that's not what I said.

No matter how experienced a person is, if he's against the NRA position, somebody is going to bitch about it. I don't care if he's a member of SEAL Team Six and was the guy who shot bin Laden, some asshole is going to say, "yeah, but you didn't do it with an AR-15."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[fpritchett64 0]

I agree with you that there should be more control on firearms. ALL firearms. I also agree the standards should be tightened, but not to the point it's virtually impossible to own a firearm.

Currently, it's not illegal to own a fully automatic weapon by a civilian. However, the standards are so strict that it is nearly impossible to do so by the average civilian and rightly so. I really don't see the need for a civilian to own a fully automatic firearm. Which is the true definition of an assault weapon.

I feel one way to tighten those standards would be to implement some sort of registration process for each and every firearm to a specific owner. Much like registering your vehicle. Contrary to popular belief, that isn't currently the case. Firearms won't show up into NCIC until they are either reported stolen or lost by the alledged owner. Even then it only happens if they either remember the serial number/OAN (owner applied number)or have it stored away somewhere. When an applicant attempts to register their firearm they must then pass the background checks including fingerprints sent to both FBI and Interpole along with a psychological exam by someone certified to give such exams. Basically the same process a police officer applicant would have to pass.

If that is what you mean, then I agree.

ETA: this is something that could be put into place now with no "Grandfather clause". If you pass, you get to keep your firearm, if not then you don't. Also, this would apply to anybody in possession of a firearm, not just someone who owns one.

[billvon 2,384]

>What is an assault rifle? Seriously?

Originally? A term used by gun aficionados to describe a cool military-looking gun.

Now? A term that causes blood pressure rise, spittle formation and angry ranting in gun aficionados.

>So ya know, AR as in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite.

Hey, I don't wanna spend the rest of my life looking down the barrel of an Armalite.

[regulator 0]

A vast majority of the people on these forums couldn't tell the different between a bayonette lug and a muzzle break. In their little pea brains all they see is rambo with a class 3 weapon blasting people to hell and back.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

>What is an assault rifle? Seriously?

Originally? A term used by gun aficionados to describe a cool military-looking gun.

Now? A term that causes blood pressure rise, spittle formation and angry ranting in gun aficionados.

>So ya know, AR as in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite.

Hey, I don't wanna spend the rest of my life looking down the barrel of an Armalite.

Nope. You are making the same mistake that so many do.

An assault rifle is a specific and technical term describing a select fire (capable of full automatic fire) rifle shooting a mid-range caliber cartridge.

An assault weapon is a political term originated by journalists, but popularized by politicians looking for a "boogeyman". It's a military style semi-auto rifle. Some are based on real assault rifles (AR-15 based on M-16, AK-47) some are based on sub-machine guns (Uzi) some are based on Battle rifles (M1A based on M-14, FAL, H&K91) - Battle rifles are full power caliber, usually 308 (7.62x51) for NATO countries.

The chief quoted in the OP clearly implies that these guns are too powerful and destructive for hunting. "Nothing left to eat" pretty much says "too damaging," which is a bunch of garbage.
The mid-caliber cartridges of "real" assault rifles are marginal for deer sized game. Most "deer rifles" are full power callibers. 30-06 is very popular, .308 (a descendant of the 30-06) is too.
They aren't too powerful or too destructive for hunting.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[regulator 0]

Grandfather clause or not...if people like dianne feinstein get their way it will be...just come in and REGISTER your firearms...then someone will get killed with a shotgun...oh now register THOSE too! She has already mentioned several times she would like nothing better than to have all the guns 'off the streets'. Which means disarms private law abiding citizens. She couldnt give a shit about criminals. ANY registration is the first step towards confiscation. She can suck a nut because I'm not registering shit.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

I agree with you that there should be more control on firearms. ALL firearms. I also agree the standards should be tightened, but not to the point it's virtually impossible to own a firearm.

Currently, it's not illegal to own a fully automatic weapon by a civilian. However, the standards are so strict that it is nearly impossible to do so by the average civilian and rightly so. I really don't see the need for a civilian to own a fully automatic firearm. Which is the true definition of an assault weapon.

I feel one way to tighten those standards would be to implement some sort of registration process for each and every firearm to a specific owner. Much like registering your vehicle. Contrary to popular belief, that isn't currently the case. Firearms won't show up into NCIC until they are either reported stolen or lost by the alledged owner. Even then it only happens if they either remember the serial number/OAN (owner applied number)or have it stored away somewhere. When an applicant attempts to register their firearm they must then pass the background checks including fingerprints sent to both FBI and Interpole along with a psychological exam by someone certified to give such exams. Basically the same process a police officer applicant would have to pass.

If that is what you mean, then I agree.

ETA: this is something that could be put into place now with no "Grandfather clause". If you pass, you get to keep your firearm, if not then you don't. Also, this would apply to anybody in possession of a firearm, not just someone who owns one.

its close enough!

ill take it.

[fpritchett64 0]

I think you hit the nail on the head about causing blood pressures to boil.

One thing I want to put out and this isn't meant directly at any one particular person but more so everybody against guns. Not gun control, but guns as I think a lot of people still have the misunderstanding that the gun is the problem when in reality it's the person behind the gun.

I've been lurking around SC for quite a while now, making a few posts here and there but SC isn't really my cup of tea. I'm more of a Bonfire person. I finally decided to speak out because guns are a subject in which I'm very passionate about. It literally is a way of life for me and has been since a little child. Just like skydiving is a subject that we all have in common. Im sure we'd all agree that the wuffos just don't understand us. I'm sure most of us would fight to keep skydiving allowed and the various disciplines within the sport. Some of those battles have already been fought and are currently being fought I'm sure. From the age of 4, when my dad bought me my first firearm (.410 shotgun) I have owned several and gun safety was drilled into my head beginning even before that. Surprisingly, I don't currently own an "assault rifle" although I am issued one.

I just want you guys/gals to understand that for a lot of people, if our gun rights are taken away, even if the right to own certain types of firearms (excluding full autos by civilians) are taken away then a LOT of people are going to hurt that shouldn't have to.

I do understand that innocent lives shouldn't be lost just so people can enjoy a way of life but at the same time, applying certain restrictions on certain firearms won't make that difference. The restrictions need to be placed on the person and I'm all for that. As long as they're reasonable. My definition if reasonable was posted a few posts above.

To all the people I have argued with tonight, please don't take any of it as disrespect toward you. I'm sure each of you are very well meaning, warm hearted people and I would love the opportunity to jump with you someday. After I get current again.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Grandfather clause or not...if people like dianne feinstein get their way it will be...just come in and REGISTER your firearms...then someone will get killed with a shotgun...oh now register THOSE too! She has already mentioned several times she would like nothing better than to have all the guns 'off the streets'. Which means disarms private law abiding citizens. She couldnt give a shit about criminals. ANY registration is the first step towards confiscation. She can suck a nut because I'm not registering shit.

That would be your choice, but I think most people with families and real lives to lose if they are sent to prison will have to think long and hard before they become willing felons.

....as a general question since I dont get guns and ammo.....is a shotgun not considered a firearm??

let me be clear, in my plan, shotguns are considered firearms. so are bazookas, handguns, rifles....ill hire someone really smart to word it properly according to the physics of projectiles getting fired out of barrels or something so there is no confusion.

[regulator 0]

My father is a LEO. I know the sheriff personally. If push came to shove Id give my rifles to my dad. If criminals dont have to give up their weapons I can find a way around it too.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

I think you hit the nail on the head about causing blood pressures to boil.

One thing I want to put out and this isn't meant directly at any one particular person but more so everybody against guns. Not gun control, but guns as I think a lot of people still have the misunderstanding that the gun is the problem when in reality it's the person behind the gun.

I've been lurking around SC for quite a while now, making a few posts here and there but SC isn't really my cup of tea. I'm more of a Bonfire person. I finally decided to speak out because guns are a subject in which I'm very passionate about. It literally is a way of life for me and has been since a little child. Just like skydiving is a subject that we all have in common. Im sure we'd all agree that the wuffos just don't understand us. I'm sure most of us would fight to keep skydiving allowed and the various disciplines within the sport. Some of those battles have already been fought and are currently being fought I'm sure. From the age of 4, when my dad bought me my first firearm (.410 shotgun) I have owned several and gun safety was drilled into my head beginning even before that. Surprisingly, I don't currently own an "assault rifle" although I am issued one.

I just want you guys/gals to understand that for a lot of people, if our gun rights are taken away, even if the right to own certain types of firearms (excluding full autos by civilians) are taken away then a LOT of people are going to hurt that shouldn't have to.

I do understand that innocent lives shouldn't be lost just so people can enjoy a way of life but at the same time, applying certain restrictions on certain firearms won't make that difference. The restrictions need to be placed on the person and I'm all for that. As long as they're reasonable. My definition if reasonable was posted a few posts above.

To all the people I have argued with tonight, please don't take any of it as disrespect toward you. I'm sure each of you are very well meaning, warm hearted people and I would love the opportunity to jump with you someday. After I get current again.

I consider it discussing, not arguing.

I think people that are "pro-gun" misconstrue what people who are "anti-gun" are against.

Or they mistakenly think we honestly believe guns are capable of moving around and killing people.

Of course the problem is the PEOPLE with the guns.

We just have no way to stop manufacturing stupid people.

We can stop manufacturing guns.

Pitbulls arent going around killing people and attacking old ladies ...or fighting each other to the death....because thats what they do.....PEOPLE acting irresponsibly leads to that type of thing....

We cant stop pitbulls from existing, we can restrict the ability for people to possess them.

I UNDERSTAND you dont want to lose something you have, the ability to have a personal collection of guns to use responsibly.

I would like to have a pit bull so I understand your desire to do what you want....

I also understand society has decided the only way to deal with the irresponsible ones among us is to take away the ability to BE irresponsible by restricting access to whatever it is people are being stupid with.

We agree on making guns harder to get, not quite on the degree but much closer than most "pro-gun" people I have discussed the issue with.

I really would be sympathetic to my dad losing his rifles because he has no real need for them (and would never be out murdering kids) but if that helped save a class of kids some day, i can live with that.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

My father is a LEO. I know the sheriff personally. If push came to shove Id give my rifles to my dad. If criminals dont have to give up their weapons I can find a way around it too.

Lol well yea dude, you become a criminal....i.e...don't turn in guns once they are banned

Thats how you do it.

Then you can be like them.

Its not that tricky.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

That would be your choice, but I think most people with families and real lives to lose if they are sent to prison will have to think long and hard before they become willing felons.

And therein lies the rub. You've got on individual who violently killed 26 people. In response, the government tells 10's of millions if not 100+ million americans, "ok. Here's the game plan and if you don't comply your a felon and we'll throw you in prison (another form of violence)...but you should be on-board because maybe...possibly..it could..save one child." As proposed I don't see justice being done.

It's not just guns. Everyday new laws are being passed which make otherwise law abiding citizens suspects and criminals. Guns I think are just the line in the sand for many. I'm glad this proposed legislation is not going to pass...we need less violence, not more and this proposed legislation is a great way to get more violence.

I think it's fair to revisit the issue in the future. However, for the government to have any credibility it's going to get the rafter out of it's eye before trying to remove the straw from the peoples....

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

That would be your choice, but I think most people with families and real lives to lose if they are sent to prison will have to think long and hard before they become willing felons.

And therein lies the rub. You've got on individual who violently killed 26 people. In response, the government tells 10's of millions if not 100+ million americans, "ok. Here's the game plan and if you don't comply your a felon and we'll throw you in prison (another form of violence)...but you should be on-board because maybe...possibly..it could..save one child." As proposed I don't see justice being done.

It's not just guns. Everyday new laws are being passed which make otherwise law abiding citizens suspects and criminals. Guns I think are just the line in the sand for many. I'm glad this proposed legislation is not going to pass...we need less violence, not more and this proposed legislation is a great way to get more violence.

I think it's fair to revisit the issue in the future. However, for the government to have any credibility it's going to get the rafter out of it's eye before trying to remove the straw from the peoples....

no. you have a country with more guns than any other, and firearm murder rates competing with third world africa.

and...

you should be on board because otherwise you risk losing your family, job, home, and life when you go to prison.

Laws infringe on individual liberty for the good of the whole, thats life.

I want a pit bull, why can't i have one!!!! shit is unjust as hell.

[champu 1]

Quote

...the AR-15 which fires. .223/5.56mm bullet. This particular caliber also known as a .22 caliber is considered ...

uh... the .223 (5.56x45) is not "also known as a .22 caliber" except maybe as a joke amongst people who prefer the .308 (7.62x51)

The .22 LR (5.6x15) is "also known as a .22 caliber"

[fpritchett64 0]

Also keep in mind that we're in a fairly unhealthy economy. There are many many gun manufacturers in the U.S. Browning, Remington, Winchester, Marlin, Ruger, Savage, Smith & Wesson are only a few of those many manufacturers. If we stopped the manufacture of firearms, which would also stop the manufacture of ammunition then think of the countless people that would suddenly lose jobs. In an economy with horrible unemployment rates already, I don't think that would help. In fact it may even add to crime as people will find a way to feed their families one way or another. With or without a firearm.

To answer your previous question about shotguns. Yes, they are considered firearms. They just aren't talked about as much in the political arena because they're not an AR and typically don't look as "mean" as an "assault rifle."

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Quote

...the AR-15 which fires. .223/5.56mm bullet. This particular caliber also known as a .22 caliber is considered ...

uh... the .223 (5.56x45) is not "also known as a .22 caliber" except maybe as a joke amongst people who prefer the .308 (7.62x51)

The .22 LR (5.6x15) is "also known as a .22 caliber"

The .223; 22-250; .22 short; .22 long; .22 long rifle; .22 WMR. All .22 caliber.

.30-06; .308; .30-30; .300 magnum; .338; etc. all .30 caliber

Caliber is only the diameter of the bullet in inches. In other words a .223 is just that, .223 inches in diameter. Obviously a .22 rim fire and a .223 center fire are entirely different rounds. They are however, both .22 caliber.

Edited to add: your post got me to thinking so I looked into it a little. The .223 and .22lr are apparently both .224" in diameter. At least from what I've read. The internal bore diameter for the .22lr is .217" in diameter and the .223 is .219" in diameter.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

no. you have a country with more guns than any other, and firearm murder rates competing with third world africa.

Agreed. It's sad that these are facts. It needs to be addressed. I would love to see a world with zero guns. I would love to see a world where no one ever raised their voice agaist another person, let alone their hands. But we don't live in that world.

While we are talking about american violence, let's open up the discussion beyond street violence. Do you care to comment on the amount of violence commited by the american government in relation to other nations?

Quote

you should be on board because otherwise you risk losing your family, job, home, and life when you go to prison.

I'm threatened with violence as a result of someone elses actions. That makes me feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy. Humanity at it's finest.

Quote

Laws infringe on individual liberty for the good of the whole, thats life.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. History can show over and over again where laws infrienged on liberty for the "benefit" of the collective whole with very bad outcomes... that's why america was a special experiment for as long as it was. "We" recognized that and enshrined personal liberty and freedom in our collecrive value system.

Quote

I want a pit bull, why can't i have one!!!! shit is unjust as hell.

I have two that live with me. They are amazing and enrich my life.

Life is unjust in many ways, but if we value liberty, freedom, justice, truth and peace...and don't turn our backs on those values in the name of expediency we might just be pleased with the outcome.

It's to easy to believe in some kind of exceptionalism where we just make it someone elses reponsibilty to make the world the kind of better place that we would all like to see.

[regulator 0]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=977_1358957795

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

no. you have a country with more guns than any other, and firearm murder rates competing with third world africa.

While we are talking about american violence, let's open up the discussion beyond street violence. Do you care to comment on the amount of violence commited by the american government in relation to other nations?

sure.

We shouldn't be policing anyone but ourselves.

when Bignugget is president our foreign policy has the same military profile that Brazil and Iceland have.

That helps pay for when I put all the people out of business who are making guns in the USA.

[BartsDaddy 4]

Quote

Quote

...the AR-15 which fires. .223/5.56mm bullet. This particular caliber also known as a .22 caliber is considered ...

uh... the .223 (5.56x45) is not "also known as a .22 caliber" except maybe as a joke amongst people who prefer the .308 (7.62x51)

The .22 LR (5.6x15) is "also known as a .22 caliber"

Another post that shows just how much an antigun knows. A. 223is definatly a 22caliber. But I
The people here that own them and understand the termonology obviously are not as the ones that oppose guns.We obviously dont even know what we own.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[quade 3]

Hey, remember that thing I said earlier tonight about it didn't matter how much you know about weapons, there will always be somebody who says you don't know enough?

Then, almost immediately you guys started bitchin' at each other about the exact terminology for a round?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

I think you missed the point.

That gun can also be used, quite effectively, to kill people....including small children. Add that to your list.

Any gun can be used quite effectively to kill a grown adult, the AR-15 is no more lethal than Remington 750 rifle chambered in .223. What is the difference in the two? One is made of synthetic materials and looks cool.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind the gun. I have absolutely no problem with making it more difficult for ALL guns to get into the hands of the wrong person.

Maybe it cant stop the full grown deer....but it has no problem destroying a 7 year old kid.

That's what im talkin about!

Step 1

Reduce levels from highest in world, to second highest in world.

Achieve this by stopping all manufacturing of firearms in the USA. Then offer a buyback of public firearms at some determined market value. Stiffen penalties for unlicensed firearms, and strip away all existing licenses. Those who wish to be legal can reapply and hope to get their guns licensed, those who want to become felons can roll the dice. As guns come into the LEO system, they are removed.

We are on our way after that Im pretty sure.

Id bet money we get down to 2nd highest in the world.

Diane, is that you?

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!