0
fpritchett64

People that know nothing about assault weapons

Recommended Posts

Quote

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



If that was a joke I missed it, but....I am a man, and I am not named Diane although that would have made growing up more interesting.


ETA: I think I got it now! i had to sip my beer a bit more but the senator who wants to ban the guns is named Diane right?

That idea wont work unfortunately.

You cant just ban a small slice of the pie.

Gotta ban the whole pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



you have no right to dictate to anyone that they can't have guns unless they are a convicted felon, or mentally unstable.

Similarly, there should never be a registration of firearms, because, speaking from experience, it can lead to confiscation. This happened in canada with certain firearms just in the last year or two when they decided to re-classify some rifles.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well "I" don't. It was a broader discussion implying that a law restricting access in ways described had been legally passed through the legislature and signed into law by a president.....

Sorry if that wasn't clear in that post.



fortunately, as far as I know, such a law hasn't been passed.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. It is a fictional term with no definition.

2. Someone who carries a gun because of work is no more an expert on guns than drivers of cars are expert mechanics. Most of the police officers I knew when I was one were hard pressed to qualify. They fired their weapon when required to. I saw more than one who could not remember how to reload on the qualification range. I once saw a revolver that was locked up from rust because it had not left the hoster since the last mandatory qualification.

People keep running out the opinions of prominent figures to support gun control because those prominent figures work in an industry that uses weapons. They ignore the fact that weapons carried by cops and weapons carried by military are unrelated to the second amendment. It's like asking your wife her opinion of restrictor plates in NASCAR. She drives a car (possibly really fast). She must be an expert, right?

This is a social issue. People are getting to a place in their mind where they want to kill people who did them no harm; and possibly die thereafter. If you take away their firearms, they will do it with something else, but their victims might not be able to defend themselves. The first step in problem solving is identifying the problem. The problem is clearly something in the head of these people and how it got there. All of this effort at eliminating the tool is NOT aimed at solving the problem.

Political elite who want to disarm the population have made this about tools when it should be about real problems. They have no idea how to help improve the culture, so they are going after something easier. They also want to frame the issue as one of sports activities and self defense. The second amendment is about neither. It is about keeping the political elite in their place. It is about ultimate power (brute force) being in the hands of the people. The vast majority of America is completely missing the point...including people on this forum.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1. There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. It is a fictional term with no definition.


Nonsense. It's a legal definition. It was legally defined in the last ban. It may be redefined in a new one. You might not like the definition. It may be completely based on cosmetics or this time something else, but it absolutely was defined legally.

Quote

She must be an expert, right?


How do you define "expert"?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

1. There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. It is a fictional term with no definition.


Nonsense. It's a legal definition. It was legally defined in the last ban. It may be redefined in a new one.

Quote

She must be an expert, right?


How do you define "expert"?



Exactly my point. The 'definition' is fluid...which is the opposite of 'defined', isn't it?

Apparently an expert is anyone who has an occupation somehow related to the subject, has experienced some measure of success, and agrees with the opinion of those reporting the opinion.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The 'definition' is fluid...which is the opposite of 'defined', isn't it?


Negative.

Legal definitions can and do change depending on circumstance and over time. Again, you might not like it, but it's true.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ETA: I think I got it now! i had to sip my beer a bit more but the senator who wants to ban the guns is named Diane right?



Right. Why bother debating social policy on its merits, when it's so much more fun to focus on making someone you disagree with a poster child of Hitler's goat-fuckers? Just repeat it over and over again, until the noise drowns out everything else. Works for toddlers, so why not everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

ETA: I think I got it now! i had to sip my beer a bit more but the senator who wants to ban the guns is named Diane right?



Right. Why bother debating social policy on its merits, when it's so much more fun to focus on making someone you disagree with a poster child of Hitler's goat-fuckers? Just repeat it over and over again, until the noise drowns out everything else. Works for toddlers, so why not everyone?




amazing. thats what I think about dianne feinstein too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Another post that shows just how much an antigun knows.





Campu I know you stance on guns. However the other poster is correct. A .223 IS a 22 caliber round.

Hence the whole .22 in the .223


The difference is a .22 LR is rimfire while a .223 is a 22 Caliber Centerfire cartridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for the more measured response.

I'm aware that the ".22" in ".223" literally makes it "a .22 caliber" I just would never call a rifle chambered in .223 "a .22 caliber" because growing up "a .22" meant a ".22 LR" and given the popularity of the .22 LR, I think that would be a fair assumption for people to make.

The rounds are so different that saying "they're both .22" in an effort to downplay the power of the .223 is as bad as people arbitrarily calling the same round "high-power" when it's really not relative to most of the other popular hunting rounds out there.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with what you are saying. I grew up with a gunsmith. I've been told over and over again about ...well this .223 is so much larger how possibly could it be the same caliber as a 22LR? Just like when he introduced me into reloading and I was confused about why the powder was measured in grains...just like the projectile is measured in grains as well. I know where you're coming from. Also with the right projectile and load I can vastly transform the properties of a standard .223 FMJ by using say a Hornady 55 grain Vmax, or soft tip. Compare two water jugs using an FMJ and a Vmax varmint round and you will still see water tricking out of the fmj jug while the vmax round completly dessimated the other jug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason my original post was sarcastic was because the very title of the thread is complaining about the fact that people in favor of an assault weapon ban often don't know, and probably don't care, about the details and the implications of what they are trying to get rid of (or stop the manufacture of.) And then the OP proceeds to focus on a detail that people in favor of a ban completely don't care about, and he does so in an arguably misleading way.

It's not helping. It's the opposite of helping.

If people read one post in this thread they should read DrewEckhardt's post #17 back on the first page. It was the most useful in communicating the problem with any "assault weapon" ban we can expect to see and, as one would expect, nobody had anything to say in reply to it.

Some people will never care. Some would be happy to stand over a tied up firearm owner shoving wadded up copies of a passed assault weapon bill down the person's throat shouting, "suck our shit! suck our shitty laws! you like that, huh? You lost to the majority and it doesn't matter that that laws are idiotic because we won!"

...but if we pretend that everyone we're talking to thinks that way then we will end up with another misguided ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately a majority of the people trying to pass these laws about these various features that fit various weapons into their nomenclature about what an assault rifle is are flawed. I have a very good idea dianne feinstein doesnt know her ass from a hole in the ground in regards to the weapons behind her that whe was mentioning that need to be banned. However there is bound to be someone with more knowledge that works for her team that could call 'bullshit' on some of the arguments pro gun advocates use on a common basis...it works most of the time because the people they usually use those lines on dont know what the fuck is up from down in regards to a muzzle break or a bayonette lug. But there is bound to be someone that does know the difference and I agree. If the NRA wants to win this fight they will have to dot every I and cross every T and leave no stone untrurned. Otherwise that asshat feinstein might get her way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

ETA: I think I got it now! i had to sip my beer a bit more but the senator who wants to ban the guns is named Diane right?



Right. Why bother debating social policy on its merits, when it's so much more fun to focus on making someone you disagree with a poster child of Hitler's goat-fuckers? Just repeat it over and over again, until the noise drowns out everything else. Works for toddlers, so why not everyone?



This post is so funny on so many different levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

ETA: I think I got it now! i had to sip my beer a bit more but the senator who wants to ban the guns is named Diane right?



Right. Why bother debating social policy on its merits, when it's so much more fun to focus on making someone you disagree with a poster child of Hitler's goat-fuckers? Just repeat it over and over again, until the noise drowns out everything else. Works for toddlers, so why not everyone?



Yes!! To your point!

Ah

Or maybe not


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/

Quote

For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI.

Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It's truly amazing how all you Rambo wannabes are so frightened of a rather small, 79 year old lady from California.



She has stated, she knows it is in unconstitutional and will violate rights, but thinks it is OK, and since she was kind of successful before, and this time has another POTUS she has on her side, seems reasonable to be fearful of her misguided actions.

Rambo? He couldn't shine my boots.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It's truly amazing how all you Rambo wannabes are so frightened of a rather small, 79 year old lady from California.



Political power is totally disconnected from physical power.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0