Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Simple Gun Control Law [View all]yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)108. Limitless NRA talking points! (Happy Fourth of July!)
Just one, teeny-tiny galling example:
Special Forces Association Takes On Giffords' New Gun-Control Group
NRA - America's First Freedom (skip the 1st Amendment, I guess - have to prioritize, right?)
Retired General Stanley McChrystal is one of the people who joined Giffords' Advisory Committee. McChrystal, in fact, said on MSNBC: I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 mm at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. Its designed for that. Thats what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally dont think theres any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.
In truth, the .223 Remington has long been used for hunting and sport shooting. It is actually a much lighter cartridge than most of those used by big-game hunters. McChrystal surely understands the needs of the U.S. military, but it is clear he needs to get out in America more. Is he even aware that the AR-15 was made available by Colt to American citizens in the same year (1963) that the military adopted the full-auto version (the M16)? Or that rifles are used in less than 3 percent of homicides annually in the U.S.?
The anti-gun narrative that the AR-15 shoots a particularly deadly cartridge and bullet combination is also nonsense. From its inception, many resisted and still criticize the .223 for being a comparably light varmint round.
In truth, the .223 Remington has long been used for hunting and sport shooting. It is actually a much lighter cartridge than most of those used by big-game hunters. McChrystal surely understands the needs of the U.S. military, but it is clear he needs to get out in America more. Is he even aware that the AR-15 was made available by Colt to American citizens in the same year (1963) that the military adopted the full-auto version (the M16)? Or that rifles are used in less than 3 percent of homicides annually in the U.S.?
The anti-gun narrative that the AR-15 shoots a particularly deadly cartridge and bullet combination is also nonsense. From its inception, many resisted and still criticize the .223 for being a comparably light varmint round.
NRA talking points: Discredit General McChrystal's competency, describe "AR-15" as a hunting/sports rifle, point out how few are "killed" with a rifle (mass shootings of children and gays just happen to fall in that category), these guns are not "assault weapons" - they are for shooting "varmints."
Yes - endless rightwing NRA talking points.
As opposed to progressive Democratic talking points to save innocent lives!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It means that your weapon is the same type and caliber of those issued to the active military.
oneshooter
Jul 2016
#17
The only debate is among those who ignore what the founders said regarding the militia
Press Virginia
Jul 2016
#44
And any damage done while using the weapon in violation of the law will be called an "accident" (nt)
LongtimeAZDem
Jul 2016
#45
Several years ago my car was seized by the police because the registration was expired
ansible
Jul 2016
#16
What "weapon of war" has been used in the US in a terrorist attack or mass shooting?
TeddyR
Jul 2016
#66
In my experience when someone says they want guns "off the street" they mean "not in civilian hands"
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#62
Where it says "keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets" do you think it's
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#70
Saying "off the streets" is weasel-wording. If you want to ban or confiscate them, just say so.
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#72
They use the phrase "weapon of war" as if that, in and of itself, means something should be
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#84
I've noticed that. Correcting an obvious mistake or even asking for a clarification is dismissed
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#87
Awesome idea -- then I can have as many unregistered machine guns as I want on my property
aikoaiko
Jul 2016
#39
I understand a person can own a fully automatic weopon or tank ect. if you get a special permit. Why
doc03
Jul 2016
#42
At least 50% of firearms (probably more) have detachable magazines. The wisdom (or not) of banning
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#59
Not talking about confiscation, future sales and maybe buy-backs like I heard they
doc03
Jul 2016
#74
The Australian "buy back" was confiscation. Gun owners were told to turn over their guns
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#80
The millions of them that will be done by the simple expedience of ignoring the law.
Just reading posts
Jul 2016
#94