Ok folks, the body count keeps rising

[nadinbrzezinski]

:rant:

just in the last seventy two hours we had seventeen in upper State New York dead, and three officers in Pittsburgh

Last week five in Oakland

This is the kind of pattern that led to actual gun control

People got tired of it a couple times already

Now for the second amendment fans... repeat after me... gun control is not confiscation, no matter how many times the NRA tells you otherwise

Oh and the NRA (and the ones repeating that talking point that Obama is coming after your guns... free hint, heard of grand fathering? has blood in its hands.

:rant:

Oh and as usual I don't expect a rational discussion either. But what happened in Pittsburgh and the reason why... this finally may kick some folks over the head that we need it and an AR 15 is not a hunting weapon, unless your hunting people... then by all means

[seemslikeadream]

1. What color alert are we at?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It seems beyond red for some folks

:sarcasm:

But DHS has not moved it beyond Orange since oh 2003

[MrPerson]

6. Mauve.

[TWiley]

200. Perriwinkle

[seemslikeadream]

39 dead in mass shootings in less than a month

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-040309-mrn-massshootings.9df12d41.html

[panader0]

7. While I abhor these mass shootings

they pale in comparison to atrocities the US has wrought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace can not be won with the point of a sword.

[seemslikeadream]

56. Now is the time for a child to be born

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Py5I8Z-aM0

The sheep's in the meadow
The cow's in the corn
Now is the time for a child to be born
He'll laugh at the moon
And cry for the sun
And if it's a boy he'll carry a gun
Sang the crow on the cradle

And if it should be that this baby's a girl
Never you mind if her hair doesn't curl
With rings on her fingers
And bells on her toes
And a bomber above her wherever she goes
Sang the crow on the cradle

The crow on the cradle
The black and the white
Somebody's baby is born for a fight
The crow on the cradle
The white and the black
Somebody's baby is not coming back
Sang the crow on the cradle

Your mother and father will sweat and they'll save
To build you a coffin and dig you a grave
Hush-a-bye little one, never you weep
For we've got a toy that can put you to sleep
Sang the crow on the cradle

Bring me my gun, and I'll shoot that bird dead
That's what your mother and father once said
The crow on the cradle, what can we do
Ah, this is a thing that I'll leave up to you
Sang the crow on the cradle
Sang the crow on the cradle

[aquart]

173. "I can smoke where I want because air pollution is worse."

Oh, please. What a completely ridiculous argument.

[glinda]

3. Yea, the one killer was saying "he was afraid Obama was going to take away his guns"

Well in his case, he should have. Ass. Will anyone hold the NRA accountable for this crap?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I suspect that when gun control comes and it will

they will not have a place at the table. Neither will be the straight confiscation people... and for real practical reasons, as well as political and historical reality

[doc03]

42. Couldn't you also say the fear of someone

taking ones Constitutional Rights away is more the cause of this then the NRA was? Isn't it our civic duty as a citizen of the USA to protect and defend the Constitution of the USA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Well there is one solution

we all become part of a well regulated militia... and report for well regulated training once a month

That would follow the letter, now wouldn't it?

[doc03]

61. The Supreme Court settled that argument last summer

didn't they?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Not fully

and they will not touch it in decades, if ever again

You see if they actually went there, it could be explosive

[beevul]

115. Explosive in what way? N/T

[57_TomCat]

179. You need to check out Title 10 of the US code.

Many of us ARE part of the "unorganized militia" and that is NOT the National Guard.

[Taitertots]

4. AR-15 is a fantastic hunting rifle

We don't want to just be "allowed" to keep our guns. Why do you think AWB 1994 pissed so many people off?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Don't worry that pissed people are a minority

and it's muzzle velocity makes it a fantastic hunting weapon, you are right, if your pray happens to be on two feet, and better yet wearing armor

For deer, no, it is not.

[doc03]

27. Well actually you are right a .223 cal. AR-15 is a bit

underpowered for deer. The .223 cal AR-15 is great for other smaller game though.

[Taitertots]

30. I have seen several ARs used to take down deer

ARs are also fantastic weapons for small to medium game. Not to mention that AR type rifles are chambered in calibers up to .50 cal. Which puts everything up to almost moose on the table.

[MrPerson]

31. Kill me a pizza and I'm sold.

[doc03]

77. My point was the .223 was the original and probably is the

most popular version of the AR-15 and it wouldn't be considered a great deer rifle. Yes it can kill one, my father killed a couple deer with a .22 Hornet but the old 30-06 is much more deadly. Somehow these anti-gun people think because they are scary looking to them that AR-15's are some kind of super weapon that is far more deadly than say a Model 70 rifle of a much larger caliber. In other words many of them don't have clue what they are talking about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. But some of us do

here is a free clue

The 30-06 is the preferred one by many a SNIPER, since it is lighter than the Barrett 50 Cal and lord knows they have much crap to carry

But tell me... how easy would it be to convert that thing to a full auto weapon?

Some of us do have a clue.

By the way... is the weapon looks SCARY is the latest talking point of the NRA?

If that is the case... a duck bill is far scarier (albeit somewhat inaccurate) and works more like a shotgun

Props if you know what HISTORICAL gun I'm talking about.

Here is another free clue for ya

Some of us have actually been down range from some of these toys...

[57_TomCat]

181. Seem to be missing the facts here.

here is a free clue

The 30-06 is the preferred one by many a SNIPER, since it is lighter than the Barrett 50 Cal and lord knows they have much crap to carry

Actually the majority of police and military snipers follow the military model and the .308/7.62NATO is the preferred round due to military issue. The .338 Lapua is another often found option in the more modern tactical teams along with the .50BMG. Many individual officers, especially in smaller towns still use just about any deer rifle cartridge they have on hand. That is where the 30-06 still has a big following.

But tell me... how easy would it be to convert that thing to a full auto weapon?

Some of us do have a clue.

Do you have a clue? I think not since I do have a clue based on training at several armorers schools and having actually made some into rock'n'roll machines. It is NOT easy and requires special parts currently regulated by the ATFE as well as special machining of the lower receiver. Some years ago before the 1986 amendment it was quite easy to buy the various parts and a drop in auto sear and build a full auto AR. A common practice after you received your form 4 back from the ATF. Because some people did NOT do it the legal way the ATF declared the various parts to be machine guns in themselves and the possession of said parts without the required paperwork will get you some vacation time in the gray bar hotel. Todays manufacturers of the AR15 style have made several design changes in the lower receiver to prevent the conversion. A well stocked machine shop could do the work but that is already illegal and NOT easy. Acquiring the extra parts (about 6 of them)is illegal as well unless you already have a M16 style registered weapon or auto sear.

By the way... is the weapon looks SCARY is the latest talking point of the NRA?

No it is NOT the latest talking point. It was the way they defined the genre back in 1994. They did ban certain "names" but they also banned certain features that did NOTHING but change the looks of the gun. An AR15 style rifle was easily available without the banned parts and met all the legal aspects of the law. The law banned guns that supposedly "Looked" like military machine guns. Not the actual rifles.

If that is the case... a duck bill is far scarier (albeit somewhat inaccurate) and works more like a shotgun

Props if you know what HISTORICAL gun I'm talking about.

I have a good idea of what you might be talking about and they are still a viable weapon today. The metal storm weapon system is currently in development using the multiple barrel arrangement. I however do not think the old versions were that scary looking. Weird maybe but not scary.

Here is another free clue for ya

Some of us have actually been down range from some of these toys...

Yep I have been down range with these toys and I carried them when I was down range with them. I used them as part of my job. How bout you? were you the guy on my right as I punched the door or the medic on the end if I got shot going through the door? I must confess. As much as I appreciated the idea of having medics on the teams close they did NOT excel at the occasional firearms training we got them to do and most wanted NOTHING to do with the firearms. In fact I would seriously question most anything they said about weapons since they tended to be biased against them. The whole saving life vs taking life argument. I dealt with that one from both sides of the fence.

[Mojorabbit]

117. Polls here on DU have shown

half own guns. This happened in the eighties during the recession. People are snapping. the people who would be pissed off are not a minority. I don't advocate feel good measures that will guarantee we lose the next cycle of elections and will do nothing to prevent this needless violence. How about some safety nets for people who are at the end of their ropes and don't know what to do next? There will always be crazies and then crazies that will copy the last one in the news.

[57_TomCat]

180. Its muzzle velocity does NOT make it a great deer rifle...

but then when I hunt with mine I do not use it for deer. Mine is mostly a fox and coyote rifle when visiting the family farm.

[formercia]

195. I agree

3200 fps or so does too much damage to the meat. Cartridges in in the 30-30 velocity class are much better for the typical wooded hunting conditions found in most of the country. The only use for a high velocity round is shooting long distances in open country as in areas of the West.
I used to own an AR-15. It was good for varmints, but not much else.

I use a 30-06 but load my hunting loads down to the 2300 fps range.

[X_Digger]

211. Not just fps but also weight

A fast bullet of low weight may punch straight through without fragmenting or mushrooming.

[MrPerson]

17. If you can only kill one deer why do you need an assault weapon?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I'll answer before he does

the AR -15 is a single bullet\pull weapon

Fires the same ammo as its military counterpart

It takes longer (a second or two) to empty the mag

That is the argument made by people who love these guns.

[madmom]

158. .223 Reminton and 5.56mm Nato are NOT interchangeable. Your info is false and dangerous....

.223 Remington and 5.56mm Nato are not the same round and are not interchangeable. Shooting 5.56mm Nato in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington (like the AR15) is dangerous. They do not interchange.


In Rifles Chambered For:
223 Remington

Do Not Use These Cartridges:
5.56 military
222 Remington
30 Carbine

http://www.saami.org/Unsafe_Combinations.cfm

just over 1/2 way down under heading for: center fire rifles

[57_TomCat]

183. You do need to realize that...

I'll answer before he does
Posted by nadinbrzezinski
the AR -15 is a single bullet\pull weapon

Fires the same ammo as its military counterpart

It takes longer (a second or two) to empty the mag

That is the argument made by people who love these guns.




You do need to realize that hunting regulations, by LAW, limit the number of rounds allowed to be carried in the rifle. The standard for most of the country is 5 rounds. Having a rifle in the game woods with a magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds will get you in trouble with the game wardens. In some states it is two round limit in the magazine with #3 in the chamber.

Emptying a 5 round magazine from a current traditional semi-auto vs a military look alike semi-auto is exactly the same. One shot per pull, repeat till empty. If you take one of those 10, 20, 30, 40 or 100 round magazines into the game woods...well you are a law breaker and that certainly does not help you credibility now does it?

[doc03]

83. What makes it an assault weapon is it

scary looking? :scared:

[MercutioATC]

113. Can you spot the "assault weapon"?

This is a gas-operated .308 semiautomatic rifle:




This is a gas-operated .308 semiautomatic rifle:




Both are .308, both are gas-operated, both are semiautomatic, both have multi-round capacity.

Why is the top one called a "hunting rifle" and the bottom one called an "assault weapon"?

...because the bottom one looks scary to some people.

[MrPerson]

129. Because someone bribed someone?

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Is the scary part the latest talking point?

LAME

[MercutioATC]

152. Fine, YOU explain why the bottom gun is an "assault weapon" and the top gun is a "hunting rifle"

How is the Armalite AR-10 any more dangerous than the Remington 750 Woodsman?

[HPSteam]

223. Trick of the eye, i think.

Cosmetics.

[HPSteam]

224. Funny, looks do apply.

HERE it is, beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes clean Thur. I'd feel safe with either, the black gun has the edge, it just moves faster(to target)sights up quicker as-well. But the price spread is big, real big.Show some ammo pics, that'd be cool.

[gorfle]

216. Easy.

Just put a 5-round magazine in the rifle when you go hunting. Many states require this.

[villager]

53. And Lord knows, no modern, first world country wants to piss off its AR-15 owners!

I mean, God Forbid any other criteria were taken into consideration when making policy!

[Taitertots]

90. The kind that doesn't want any more time with Republicans in office

We all know that the 1998, 2000, and 2004 elections were of such a margin that gun owners couldn't have swung the results.:sarcasm:

[villager]

125. So of all the special interest groups to cave into, let's make sure it's the AR-15 owners

with their expansive world views, ability to weigh the relative immportance of key issues, of course, their utter utter lack of myopia!

[aquart]

172. Yes, always cave to the biggest tantrum.

That's really good governance.

[Mojorabbit]

120. It is my favorite to shoot at the range. nt

[HPSteam]

220. Why would the LORD's name come up

Here of all places and at this time. My (GOD) fears me not, man does. It's about mans fear of men isn't. I sleep soundly with a 38spl. under my bed. It would take sometime for me to lay hands on a real weapon, with the key/combo on my safe. And just trust me here, and a HBAR wouldn't be my first choice if i (GOD forbid) ever needed one. Banning Guns is a knee jerk response to fearing man, much like banning cars or alcohol due to men/women mis-use. BUT, if it saved just one child, life, car...etc. And thats the logic of man. It should be look at this way: IF it's broken fix it, IF it can't be fixed replace it, IF it can't be replaced live with it! I do just that.

[Zynx]

82. Good for hunting what? I would never use that deer hunting.

It doesn't have the power of a good hunting rifle.

[Taitertots]

86. You do realize

There are many other cartridge offerings for AR platform rifles other than .223. Even a .223 is sufficient to humanely kill a deer, albeit among the weakest suitable.

[Zynx]

106. I've only seen it in the .223.

Also, I still contend that most people aren't good enough shots for the .223 to be humane.

[Taitertots]

122. It is all about shot placement

Someone who can't make a humane shot with a .223 is probably making a less than clean kill with anything they are using.

[MrPerson]

5. Ma'am, guns don't kill people.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Trite NRA talking point I know

[TWiley]

201. People with GUNS kill people ........

[billyoc]

8. Gun control is an election loser for Democrats.

[OhioChick]

15. Bingo! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Only when people are not the ones demanding it

They will.

Read a little US History.

The 1934 bill came after the people demanded it

Gun control came to the west when the local demanded it

History is my guide here.

It is also a loser since the NRA (and gun fans) have confused the issue

Let me make it clear

It is not confiscation, at all

You have an armory, by all means... it is called grand fathering

[aikoaiko]

22. Look around, not very many people are clamoring for it even with these tragedies.

But that wont stop the gun control crowd from trying to use these tragedies to limit the freedoms of law abiding folks and do little to reduce gun violence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. And you know this how? My congress woman did once mention that her

calls for gun control from her constituents have gone up 400% in the last year.

By the way NOBODY IS TAKING YOUR PRECIOUS TOYS AWAY

Get this through your head. NOBODY WILL TAKE THEM AWAY.

[aikoaiko]

36. Hello, mcfly, banning guns from being bought in the future is taking away guns from many people.

Get this through your head -- NO FUCKING GUN BANS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. SO you want to be able to buy BAR?

McFly get it through your head. Politicians will go there, as soon as the parade gets loud enough

Got it McFly?

They have in the past. They will in the future.

GOT IT NOW?

[FudaFuda]

44. He can't buy a BAR now.

What's a BAR, wiz-kid? Politicians 'went there' in 1934. And we're all pretty much okay with it, too.

A BAR is a Browning Automatic Rifle. It's a heavy machine gun.

There might be a few, and I mean a few, in civilian hands, registered with ATF and worth $30,000 or more.

There are no BAR's for sale at your local gun store. Guaranteed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I know that, and I suspect the 1934 model will be used

:-)

Thank you for making my point

I love gun bunnies?

They walk into it every time and twice on Sunday

[gorfle]

217. The problem is...

The problem is, the 1934 model won't work.

It was an easy, simple metric: machine guns.

But now, there is no easy metric, as the last failed assault weapon ban demonstrated.

You can't base it on caliber - manufacturers just change caliber.
You can't base it on looks - manufacturers just change the looks.
You can't base it on function - manufacturers just change the function.

You might pass another high-capacity magazine ban, but since it will grandfather existing magazines like it did last time, this will not reduce availability but simply increase price.

[aikoaiko]

45. The people are going the other way and so is our party -- how it must burn you.

Only some of the old 80s and 90s legislators in a few populated states mention the issue and they are mostly smacked down but the rest of the party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Get this through your head... what happening right now, will bring it back

pick a history book... dust it off, and chiefly read it

A few would be better.

[aikoaiko]

54. You mean the history where individual rights are curtailed by exploitation of tragedy.

Yep, I've seen it before.

Cooler, more rational heads prevail in the end.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. That's why we have inserted the BAR into the civilian market

okay...

Cooler heads... ok

Again read history...

There is a valid reason for some of these toys NOT to be in civilian hands

You want to use them... join the armed forces

You'll be able to fire some really fun stuff as well

[aikoaiko]

66. The thing about history is -- its still being written.

I'll say it again, I'm all for working on ways to keep firearms out of the hands of prihibited folks, but not the civil right of law-abiding folks.

Some folks are talking about bringing back the AWB of 1994 which has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons regardless of the conflation efforts of pro-gun control types.

I'll work against anyone who seeks to undermine the Bill of Rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Then go join the army

serious

By the way the major problem with the AWB was that it mentioned guns by caliber and make, which was STUPID

After all these days you can buy a 51 cal in California..

Now if you believe that a regular citizen can have any weapon's grade equipment, then we truly part company

We did a long time ago

If you believe you should be able to have shotguns, HUNTING rifles and pistols, we agree.

Where we part company is that some of the weapons that people want for hunting (bushmaster and its cousins come to mind), are essentially military grade weapons with a few details changed to conform to the AWB.. and you know that.

I know that.

I would not call them perse, assault weapons, but tell me, why do you need a toy designed to hunt humans to go hunt deer? And by the way, emptying that mag takes a little longer, that's all.

And I will clarify this again... the conflation has come on both sides... but the NRA has really been busy by conflating gun control that is part of US history, with gun confiscation

Nobody in their right mind (except some radicals) would even suggest taking your guns away... NOBODY.

[aikoaiko]

80. I agree that the NRA "they are going to take away your guns" is hyperbole.

But as I said, if you try to enact laws that prevent me from acquiring new rifles, pistols and shotguns and certain accessories, then you are in effect taking those guns away from me and many others who are currently too young or too poor to buy them before your new bans.

And the good news is that I dont have to join the Army to own firearms for self-defense because I have the US constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. I am not talking about rifles, pistols or accessories

get that through your head

That is an NRA talking point

And why the NRA will NOT have a seat at the table when the times comes. on the bright side, neither will their counterparts on the other side

I am talking of toys that can be and have been converted into fully automatic weapons... you know the list, I know the lsit...

It is not that large, but boy it is nice

It also includes machine guns by the way... as much as UZI's are fun

Anybody who has a smidgen of a clue KNOWS that you cannot take guns away,

Oh and the other trite talking pint, a well armed citizenry is a defense against a tyrannical state... didn't work

You do know Iraq under Sadamn Hussein was far better armed, per citizen, than the US... with a higher percentage of fully automatic AK-47 in civilian hands

Did I miss the revolution?

[aikoaiko]

89. Well, if you want to reauthorize the AWB, then you're talking about rifle, pistols, and shotguns, ..

...and their accessories.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Did you read what I said about the AWB and its problems?

No you didn't

Part of the problem

Did you read that I'd much prefer the 1934 model?

Of course not

[aikoaiko]

97. I should just walk away, but I can't.

Do you want to ban any guns not already banned?

If you do, then your actually closer to AWB 1994 then NFA 1934.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Walk away

walk away...

For you any talk of this is a ban.

But the 1934 ban kept MACHINE GUNS out of the hands of civilians, not brands, MACHINE GUNS

That is the kind of ban I want to see

Not specific brands

That is the model I want to use... and the one I will suggest to my congress critter,

[aikoaiko]

101. Damnit, once again, 1934 did not keep machine guns out of the hands of law abiding civilians

It only added more rules and taxes for civilians owning machine guns.

Don't you know this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. In effect it did... making them so expensive they are not in broad circulation

and you know that

So Goddamn to you back

[aikoaiko]

104. Yes, the tax was a steep one in 1934, but NFA didn't ban machine guns from civilians as you say

The import bans in 1968 and 1989, and the domestic manufacturing ban in 1986 had a much bigger impact on the price of title II firearms.

Good night, and youre welcome.

[beevul]

105. Wrong again.

Its the hughes amendment, that makes automatic weapons so expensive.

Thats what closed the NFA registry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. And... end result?

We will get there.. people will demand it

[beevul]

112. Perhaps.

But make no mistake - The people that would oppose such a thing are well organized, well informed, networked, and stronger than they have ever been, as a group. And there are millions of them.

And they wont be demanding anything like what you describe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Actually they are becoming a very loud MINORITY

like the RIGHT WING religious zealots

[beevul]

127. Ok...

Do you suggest that the nationwide sales of guns and ammunition for the last 4 months, and the shortage nationwide of many models of rifle as well as ammunition , is caused by a loud minority?

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Yes, one whipped to a forth by the gun lobby

they are gonna come take your guns.. they are gonna come take your guns

HIDE... run for the hills!

Them scary lib'ruls are gonna take your guns

No matter how many statements have been made to the contrary

A scared, whipped crazy minority... and that is the origin as well of the shooting today...

They are gonna take my guns! YOU COPPERS are going down with me!

Self Fulfilling prophecies are always fun

[beevul]

142. The "gun lobby" made everyone buy guns?

The "gun lobby" made people buy guns and ammo? Thats the explanation for firearms and ammunition sales going through the roof, and shortages?

How did the gun lobby pull that off?

Oh, sure, I have seen evidence of people who believe the "coming to take my guns" deal, but what I havent seen, is evidence that the "gun lobby" is to blame for that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. They have been pushing this since November

they're going to take our guns away, they are going to take our guns away...

So yes, they have

And people who are easily frightened fell for it, never mind they have been told NO

They still fell for it

[gorfle]

219. No, they have not.

They have been pushing this since November they're going to take our guns away, they are going to take our guns away...

So yes, they have

And people who are easily frightened fell for it, never mind they have been told NO

The only people I have heard talking about firearm confiscation are the anti-gun folks who keep saying, "Don't worry, they aren't going to confiscate your guns!"

I've not heard anyone, including the NRA, of which I am a member, talking about confiscation.

What is being widely talked about, is BANS, which is just as bad as confiscation in many of our books.

[rl6214]

164. Maybe I am watching the wrong channels

Or reading the wrong magazines and newspapers but I haven't seen a single ad from the NRA saying to go out and spend every last dime you have on firearms and ammunition because the Democrats are going to take your guns away. Not everyone listens to Limbaugh or Hannity or Orielly or Beck. How is this message getting out to the masses, even those who have never owned a firearm before.

[rl6214]

162. Refresh my memory

Which of the mass killings recently or at any time in the past involved machine guns?

Which ones?

[gorfle]

218. But what will your metric BE?

But the 1934 ban kept MACHINE GUNS out of the hands of civilians, not brands, MACHINE GUNS

That is the kind of ban I want to see

Not specific brands

That is the model I want to use... and the one I will suggest to my congress critter,

This was tried with the last assault weapons ban, and failed.

In 1934, the metric was simple: ban entire class of firearms based on a specific function: fully-automatic fire.

What specific functionality would you like to see banned today?

Remember, this was tried with the last AWB. They could not ban semi-automatic rifles, because there are many hunting rifles that are semi-automatic. They could not ban by caliber, as many of these calibers are also chambered by standard hunting rifles. They could not ban detachable magazines, as many hunting rifles have those, too. So they tried to ban combinations of features. For example, (and I'm going by memory here): you could not have a rifle that had a detachable magazine AND a pistol grip, AND a bayonet lug. So vendors simply ground of the bayonet lugs. I own one of these "post ban" AK-47 variants, a Romanian SAR-1. The bayonet lug was ground off. Then there was an attempt to ban them by the origin of manufacture of the components in the rifle. This was addressed by replacing some of the rifle pieces with US-made replacements. Again, my SAR-1 has had this done to it to make it comply. To get around the pistol grip, a type of stock commonly called the "butthole stock" was put on these weapons that integrated the pistol grip into the butt stock, with a hole formed in it to allow your thumb to go through it so it could be griped like a pistol grip.

So again, if the 1934 ban is the model of ban you want to see, what specific functions would you ban?

[rl6214]

161. Let's see the list

"I am talking of toys that can be and have been converted into fully automatic weapons... you know the list, I know the lsit... "

You CANNOT convert ak47s or ar15s into fully automatic weapons. They are machined so that you cannot do it. Now if you had a fully equipped machine shop you could build your own parts to build one from scratch.

[X_Digger]

213. Show me a crime committed with a converted rifle?

Please, educate me.

"Now, in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms that we have taken into custody, and that's over fifty-thousand, I would say, and these inlcuded ones from the hardcore gangs, and from the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever, had one AK-47 converted, one Ruger Mini-14 converted, an H&K 91, 93 never converted, an AR-180 never converted. So this media blitz of many of these assault weapons, or supposedly military style weapons are being converted to full automatic is not true."
--LAPD Detective Jimmy Trahin, who analyzes firearms related evidence which comes into the custody of the department

http://www.saf.org/journal/3_Blackman.html

[pipoman]

169. So in your world we can own pistols which are used in 85% of gun homicides

but not rifles used in 3%...hmmm...explain the logic...if you can

[X_Digger]

212. All 'hunting weapons'.. are military design

Grandpap's .30-06? See springfield 03. .308? See M1 Garand

[krispos42]

227. What features are exclusive to hunting humans but not animals?

And as an aside, how would you feel about, oh, say, Congress banning the printing and selling of certain kinds of books (in the public interest, of course) but grandfathering in all the books that were printed before the ban went into effect?

Of course, you couldn't give, sell, loan, or bequeath any of those banned books. But, hey, the government's not confiscating books, right?


Right?

[FudaFuda]

38. If you ban future production and/or purchases, you ARE taking away.

There are guns I wish to purchase, which the Supreme Court has already said I have the right to own. If you ban future production of them, you have taken them away from me.

Keep you sophistry and sleight of hand. We know what gun control advocates want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. And what is that? You want an MI? And you also want a nuke?

Look this is not sophistry

This is history

It will come, as it has in the past

Whether you like or not

You want a place with absolutely no controls? Try Somalia... there you too can buy an RPG while you shop for beans

[FudaFuda]

50. Shit no. My wish list ....

consists of typical civilian firearms - target rifles, revolvers, 1911's. Paper punchers, for the most part. I do need a shotgun for 'home defense' too - my 9mm is really not the ideal choice for that in my opinion.

Among the firearms I'd still like to purchase is an AR15 set up for service rifle competition, i.e. a target rifle. Gun control advocates call this an assault weapon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I'd regulate that insofar as making sure it is a target rifle

and make sure it remains such... ATF comes to mind

But it is the cousin of an assault rifle, a military grade rifle

the M-16... regardless of military version

It fires the same ammo... and the bullet does not care when it leaves the muzzle, and you know that

Your grocery list would mostly not be affected.

Surprised? Shocked?

Of course... after all you think I want to take away all your toys.

By the way the 1911 kicks like a mule

[FudaFuda]

69. I do quite well with the 1911, thanks.

Don't own one currently, but I've put some rounds through a few. I have a Sig 220 now, but don't shoot it much cuz .45 is too expensive and hard to come by right now. The really good 1911's have been out of my price range so far.

And yes, I know that my 'grocery list' probably wouldn't be affected by the next big gun control law, if passed.

It'll be the one after that.

Plus all the little regulations in between that gun control advocates have up their sleeves, such as monstrous tax hikes on ammo, banning lead bullets to drive the price of ammo sky high and limit supply, regulating purchase and sale rights, expanding government record keeping on firearm owners (like by having a national health service that reports when a child tells their pediatrician there are guns in the home). It's a multi-front war, and the actual guns aren't the only targets anymore.

[Statistical]

72. Why would you ban/regulate weapons firing the rather weak 5.56...

but still allow high powered hunting rifles to be sold.

Just because weapons chambered in 5.56mm use same round as military weapon?
Because they look scary?

Virtually every hunting cartridge used today was used by the military at least one point in its history.

Why are you so fixated on the 5.56 = round in M-16?

Do you think it is magic. That somehow military found a magical way to make a super round?

Here a hint:
Military chose the 5.56mm because it is LIGHT and soldiers can CARRY MORE.
They also liked the fact it is more likely to WOUND and not KILL the enemy.
Wounded soldiers use far more resourced then dead ones.

There is no magic.
5.56mm has about 1100 ft lbs of muzzle energy
.30-30 Winchester (common hunting round) has about 2000 ft lbs of muzzle energy

Why would you want to eliminate the inferior round?

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Your 30-08 is also used by snipers, actually preferred by them

but you know and I know that the bushmaster can be converted, when properly motivated... that's one reason

Yes, highly illegal... and that has stopped people exactly how?

That is one reason

The scary part... is that the latest talking point?

Wow that's a lame one

[rl6214]

167. The bushmaster can be converted to what

Show me how you would convert a bushmaster. It's illegal to do but the knowledge to do it, if it was possible is not illegal. You would have to make a completely new lower reciever at a machine shop. You cannot just convert a bushmaster.

[pipoman]

170. It is a myth

get on the google machine. You will not find a single crime committed with a 'converted' AR-15, AK-47 variant, or any other modern rifle...none. If these rifles are so easily and commonly 'converted' you should have no problem linking to a story of a 'converted' weapon used in a crime in the last 20 years, huh? It is a blatant lie told you by the Bradys and their ilk, a lie.

[DrCory]

184. 30-08?

Hard to believe such an expert as yourself would make such a fundemental error.

[FudaFuda]

79. Thanks for reminding me! I also want a .30-30

Marlin 336! And I'll take one of those Marlin 1894C's in .357magnum, too.

[doc03]

91. They have no intentions of eliminating just the 5.56mm

they want (all) guns, they just picked that one out because it looks military and scary. I had a friend that doesn't know squat about guns tell me that 5.56 will shoot through bullet proof vests and armor plate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. The 5.56 will go through Vests issued to police

not all vests.. like those issued to the armed forces

You are familiar with protection levels for vests? They are rated by what they will stop and leave it at that.

I am... since I wore a vest for ten years... damn bulky and hot by the way... and I wore that as a MEDIC.

Armor plate, no... not at all

Well... depends... true story and hell of a shot... local police swat unit, they backed away from a sniper shooting at them with a lowly 22

He hit the same place six or seven times... on the truck

Yep, it took that many rounds to defeat the armored glass

Hell of a shot...

He didn't make it, by the by...

So I'd say your friend did have a clue... for the wrong reasons, but he did.

[aikoaiko]

108. Most hunting rifles that can take a deer can defeat vests typically worn by police

Do you plan on preventing civilians from owning them too?

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. No... my list is very specific

it has all to do with convertibly... and if translation is needed... oh well

But when I have idiots telling me that a 5.56 cannot defeat a police vest... I laugh

Hell, some police vests, (usually no longer issued) can be defeated by a 22 long, and even a 357... I'll leave it at that

There is much I don't want to post when it comes to that.

:-)

[doc03]

146. That's what you idiots always do change the subject.

You don't care if it's a 5.56 or a 7.62 you want to take all guns. Who gives a fuck what a 5.56 will shoot through yopu know fucking well most common deer rifles are much more powerful than the lowly 5.56. You just use that one because it comes out of a scary looking rifle. There have been many people killed with a .22 or a 12 ga. but no you are going for your scary assault rifle as the first step to take all firearms. The shooting in Pittsburgh was committed by a man that shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. You know what set him off? He was all fired up because of people like you that want to take or rights from us. In his mind he was just defending his Constitutional Rights. In reality the the f----g Big Mac has probably killed more people in this country than the AR-15. the guy in New York used a semi-auto 9mm and a .45 pistol, have to take them away. The guy that killed his kids he used some kind of a rifle so if it was the lowly .22 we have to take those too. like I have said many times I don't care about the old AWB I never lost one gun and I never had any desire to by any of the banned weapons. But that is is not the idea of the AWB anyway is it. You know I am going to go join the NRA again, since the election I have become very discourged about the attitude of Democrats since they got some power again. They want to take (all) our guns now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. In your feverish mind we are gonna come and take your guns away

and if you believe that... nothing I can do to change your fevered imagination

Fer the bloody record

The we have a right to have everything produced under the sun, now and in the future crowd, are just as wrong as the we need to take everything away crowd...

Ever heard of the word balance?

Look for a definition in the dictionary

[DrCory]

186. Surely, So Much Concern...

About "convertibly" (should I understand you correctly) should be generated by some statistics.

How about sharing them with us?

[pipoman]

197. Look, you seem very well meaning

and reasonable. Since you are taking this position of 'convertibility', please do just a little research into that. If you take the time you will find that modern semiautomatic rifles are not easily convertible at all, in fact it would require as much machine shop equipment and know-how to convert as it would to build an automatic weapon from scratch. The old semi autos were easier IIRC, but those guns are now classified by the BATFE as fully automatic or select fire and restricted in the same way. There are ways to simulate automatic fire including something called bump fire as well as a method using a shoestring. Neither of these methods allow for any amount of control of the gun and people have faced automatic weapons charges for having a shoestring.

The real test is to research crime committed with automatic weapons in the US. If these guns were easily convertible the parts to make them convertible are restricted exactly as automatic weapons are. IOW possession of these parts and transfer of them would be strictly between people who pass the Federal background check (which is much more in depth than for other guns), paid the $200 license fees on those parts, agreed to allow for BATFE inspection of those parts at any time, and has the blessing of local law enforcement. Anyone else possessing/selling these parts are in violation of Federal law and subject to 10 years in Federal prison for each part. The only people who may be willing to take a risk like that would possibly be criminals bent on commission of a crime(s) with those guns. Yet there hasn't been a single violent crime which I am aware of in at least 20 years with an illegally converted weapon. If these parts were readily available or the guns were easily convertible there would be something to demonstrate that they even exist outside of claims by gun control advocates.

So, with all this in mind, if you research this issue and find that 'easily convertible' is in fact a wives tale or myth, would you still support a new assault weapons ban?

I don't own a single rifle which would be considered by anyone to be an 'assault weapon' and never have. I do own a semiautomatic deer rifle purchased by my dad in the 1950's, I shot my first deer with it, and my son shot his first deer with it. It is a Remington Model 742, and it functions exactly the same way most of the so called assault weapons function. Further, my son, now 18 and in the marines would like to have his grandpas deer rifle. I will be giving it to him, then I will want a rifle to hunt deer with. I think I would like to have an AR15 with a .308 caliber upper. They are light weight and are easier to control than a traditional old style rifle. They shoot at the same rate of fire as the old Remington, the magazine capacity for hunting is the same, they are equally accurate, they function in the same way, and I can see no reason they should be any more restricted.

If you do nothing else, just take a couple of minutes (10 min) and watch this video. The people in the video are all police officers, police armorers, police commissioners, and the Director of the BATFE. These people are not shills for the NRA, nor do they have anything to gain and everything to loose by having people going around with automatic weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Here is a quote from the video: Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

[aikoaiko]

206. Convertibility? The BATFE doesn't consider modern AR-15s convertible.

this issue has already been dealth with.

[rl6214]

166. What's the difference between an

AR15, an M16 and a Remington 750 Woodsman?

[X_Digger]

214. Grandpap's semi-auto huntin rifle that also fires 223?

5 round magazine.. you want to ban^h^h^htax out of existence that one too?

[rl6214]

159. But if you had your way

Nobody would be able to obtain new weapons. Why is it ok to grandfather in already existing weapons but you cannot get new ones.

[57_TomCat]

185. Are you sure?

And you know this how? My congress woman did once mention that her
Posted by nadinbrzezinski
calls for gun control from her constituents have gone up 400% in the last year.

By the way NOBODY IS TAKING YOUR PRECIOUS TOYS AWAY

Get this through your head. NOBODY WILL TAKE THEM AWAY.

You can not promise that. Nothing stopping a congress critter from doing what they want if they believe they have the pull to get it done. It has happened before and might well happen again. As mentioned elsewhere...Australia...England...Confiscation with compensation.

[57_TomCat]

182. Some fact checking here...

is required.

They will.

Read a little US History.

The 1934 bill came after the people demanded it

Almost quite right but it was the politicos that wanted it not so much the people. If you read that history in depth you will find handguns were included in the 1934 NFA and were removed after a Political and public backlash that sent the congress critters back to the drawing board. Machineguns and Gangster guns were the easy pickings while the handguns were exempted. It might well happen again BUT it will be a political machine on OUR side that will jumpstart it and that will be bad for the party.

Gun control came to the west when the local demanded it

Mostly when the rich cattle barons wanted it and they used the local political sheriff sucking up to the barons to get it done. Go back and read up on some things such as the Lincoln County War. Lots more where that came from all over the west. Gun control back then was people control by proxy.

History is my guide here.

Read more history and hopefully with better comprehension.

It is also a loser since the NRA (and gun fans) have confused the issue

Let me make it clear

It is not confiscation, at all

Confiscation is ALWAYS a possibility if government is able to usurp powers reserved to the people. Confiscation has happened around the world. Read up on some more history. Australia and England come to mind.

You have an armory, by all means... it is called grand fathering

Repeat...history...research...Australia...England...repeat

[benEzra]

225. But machineguns were NOT commonly owned in 1934.

"Assault weapons," on the other hand, are the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, and more Americans own them than hunt.

[MrPerson]

20. Only when you kowtow.

If you get in their faces and ridicule them and their stupid toys you stand a better chance.

[aquart]

174. So YOU would vote Republican and rain Hell on us for this one issue?

[MichaelHarris]

10. more than

40 deaths by rifles alone in 4 weeks. That's the gun they say isn't used in crimes.

[beevul]

18. Cites please.

Somehow I doubt its 40 by rifle.

[ShareTheWoods]

19. Then let's start the ban on rifles now

Why wait for more killings? Then we can go after the even bigger killers...booze and cars.

[aikoaiko]

13. As long as you don't prohibit law-abiding folks from obtaining and lawfully using firearms,

I'm open to your suggestions.

And for the record, the AR15 is an excellent weapon for self-defense. Ask the police who use them if you don't believe me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Sergeants use them

SWAT teams use them

And you know one thing POLICE concern themselves with? PENETRATION and where that round goes...

And for hunting deer it sucks... something about round velocity and going through...

Now if your target is wearing body armor (why police now use it), by all means

In fact police are so concerned with cross country bullet traffic and penetration that the AR-15, and other weapons of similar calibers are used only when the escalation of force calls for it

They rather prefer their 40 cal service guns or shotguns

Why?

Penetration

Some departments still use the 9mm but they are concerned about penetration

And son... I know cops... personally..

And been in those tactical situations where you have to consider how wide an area you evac because of rounds potentially going through walls and hitting a child

[aikoaiko]

32. Well, more modern, educated police disagree with those myths.

It sounds like your friends are old-school. Overpenetration is an issue with almost any full metal jacket ammo (pistol or rifle).

Regular police are being issued AR-15s and using them in building clearing where they used to only use pistols and shotguns. A carbine with a 30rd mag is better is most situations.

You apparently don't know much about penetration. 9mm handgun bullets go through walls too. Most traditional hunting rifles shoot heavier bullets faster than AR15s.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Yeah right, it is a problem pal

and you've been in those tactical situations?

I have

And regular cops are NOT being issued AR-15s, even after the LA Robbery

Some cops CAN BUY THEM on their own money, if their department policies allow for it

And yes, 9 mm go thorugh walls why many police dept have gone back to either 45 or 40

Trying to lecture me huh?

I'll compare notes on actual tactical situations

[aikoaiko]

88. I'll lecture you because youre speading misinformation.

You're twenty years out of date.

Here's an article demonstrating that regular police are being issued AR-15s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603682.html?nav=rss_metro

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Yes they are, and they are allowed to use them

WITHIN THE THREAT MATRIX AND ESCALATION OF FORCE PROTOCOLS

Cops just don't whip out an AR-15 just because

By the way this twenty year old info is about a year out of date

Perhaps

[beevul]

156. You are a bit behind the times.

In the late 90's I was employed at a machine shop in the coon rapids/fridley area of Minnesota. One night, a car belonging to a co-worker was broken in to (we worked night shift, and the break-in was discovered just before we took lunchbreak)- the 3rd shift supervisor in fact - and the police were called. A squad with with 2 officers showed up.

We were grilling lunch in front of the building when they showed up, and the report was given, and somewhere along the way, one of us saw what was in the shotgun rack, and asked them it was what they thought it was.

The answer was "yes" it was a heckler and koch mp-5. A fully automatic heckler and koch mp-5 -a sub-machinegun - the selector switch was visible through the car window.


That was twelvish years ago.

[57_TomCat]

187. You seem to be full of you own self importance...

but lacking accurate information and not being aware of the situation across the country.

Yeah right, it is a problem pal
Posted by nadinbrzezinski
and you've been in those tactical situations?

I have

And regular cops are NOT being issued AR-15s, even after the LA Robbery

Some cops CAN BUY THEM on their own money, if their department policies allow for it

And yes, 9 mm go thorugh walls why many police dept have gone back to either 45 or 40

Trying to lecture me huh?

I'll compare notes on actual tactical situations

I have been in many tactical situations. Regular cops are being issued rifles of which the AR15 style is a big part. Local agencies around me issue semi-auto ARs to the street cops. One per takehome car. Some agencies issue US military surplus M16 rifles. I get to "rock'n'roll" with a M16A1 full auto monthly on the range. Every Deputy for that agency has either a Ruger Carbine or a AR rifle issued. They may carry a personal carbine if they want.

9mm, .40 and .45 ALL go through walls. More walls in general than the 5.56/223.

You seem to be on the border of the LE field as opposed to being in the field as a cop or team member. That or simply uninformed.

[Statistical]

58. 9mm will go through a wall. will go through about 8 sheets of drywall

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm
WARNING: If guns make you have panic attacks, puke, or weep on sight then just take my word for it.

so will any modern handgun round, rifle round, or shotgun slug.
Most will go through an entire house. Even multiple sheets of heavier plywood won't stop a handgun round.

Any more myths you want to spread.

A 5.56mm AR-15 isn't a good deer rifle but over penetration isn't the reason why. 5.56mm is a light round. A heavier round is needed for decent results.

Many hunters do use AR platform for hunting they just use an upper designed for larger/heavier round.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. My myths are based on actual experience

and the people behind testing your Kevlar vests and values for them

But gun bunies are always lovely

Any others myths you want to spread?

history will repeat itself...

You wait

[57_TomCat]

190. What kind of experience?

My myths are based on actual experience
Posted by nadinbrzezinski
and the people behind testing your Kevlar vests and values for them

But gun bunies are always lovely

Any others myths you want to spread?

history will repeat itself...

You wait


Looking in from the periphery or doing the deed?

I have been on the range shooting the pistol while testing vests. I have been on the street to respond to the shooting calls and sometimes clean up the mess. I have visited my partner in the hospital when he did something stupid and ended up taking a .357 in his gut causing much pain and embarassment.

What have you done?

By the way...check on you history to make sure you get it right.

[57_TomCat]

177. I am a cop now and been one for a long time.

Your post is plain wrong on many accounts and correct only regionally on others.

Lets look and see.

SWAT teams use them

Correct but not all SWAT teams do. For some it simply is not enough weapon. For others it is too much.

And you know one thing POLICE concern themselves with? PENETRATION and where that round goes...

That is why the AR15 is one of the most COMMON rifles in patrol cars today. The penetration is lacking compared to many other popular arms.

And for hunting deer it sucks... something about round velocity and going through...

Actually the problem with deer hunting and the 5.56/223 is the rounds velocity is too fast causing the lightweight bullet to expand or explode in the body not getting sufficient penetration to properly kill the animal quickly.

Now if your target is wearing body armor (why police now use it), by all means

Police use it for a variety of reasons including extended range, power, ease of use, accuracy, reliability, ammo capacity and such. It will penetrate the average police vest but that is a secondary consideration. Many trauma plates on police vests for patrol will stop a 223/5.56

In fact police are so concerned with cross country bullet traffic and penetration that the AR-15, and other weapons of similar calibers are used only when the escalation of force calls for it

That is the rule for ALL police weapons. Having it in every single patrol car as in several of the jurisdictions around me is simply good sense because it is available if the escalation of force calls for it.

They rather prefer their 40 cal service guns or shotguns

No we prefer to have the mostest first. I do not nor do my training protocols indicate the pistol or shotgun be deployed first. They both are at the "lethal force" level and on par with the patrol carbine. The pistol is simply a firearm first aid kit. It is more convenient to have a pistol on when doing things where we do NOT expect to be shooting. If I have ANY reason to think I might NEED to shoot then I haul out the carbine in the ready rack between the front seats. There are limited situations on a SWAT call out where a pistol might be a preferred choice but modern training still believes the SMG is superior to a handgun for those tasks. Most all tactical teams have variations. You should come by and see the SWAT competitions we have in FL for some interesting procedures.

Why?

Penetration

Some departments still use the 9mm but they are concerned about penetration

Well several tests have proven that the 5.56 round in normal police loadings is a better cartridge with "reduced" penetration than 9mm or .40 caliber pistols and carbines. Even so we worry about penetration for all weapons and the average AR carbine is the least of our worries.

And son... I know cops... personally..

Me too. Am one, married one, socialize with'em, attend range training with'em, argue with'em and by and large they do NOT agree with most of what you say.

I will admit for several years I was an EMT/firefighter and my cop friends were not as many but I still did a part time gig as a small town cop then too. Had a personal AR15 in my car on the road and behind my door at the house as well.

And been in those tactical situations where you have to consider how wide an area you evac because of rounds potentially going through walls and hitting a child

Been there, done that and got a t-shirt. Better to err on the side of caution than to go the other way but sometimes you simply have to cope with the situation as presented.

[rrneck]

14. It's getting ugly all right. I think

though that this rash of killings, if it continues, will prompt people to buy more guns rather than sponsor legislation to further restrict them.

If it looks like you chances of having some nut step in a door of a public building and start shooting lots of people will seed to increase their level of preparedness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Read the history behind the 1934 ban

or the wild west

US History is a guide

It will lead to legistlation

[aikoaiko]

59. IIRC, no guns were banned from civlian ownership in 1934 -- only more rules and taxes.

:shrug:

Which history books are you reading?

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. You can buy a BAR then?

The 1934 ban grandfathered those already in civilian hands, and prevented further sales

What books are you readying?

[aikoaiko]

71. Yes, you can buy a BAR legally but it will cost you a lot of money.

Here is one for sale: http://www.gunsamerica.com/977798425/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/Class-3-Any-Other-Weapon/BROWNING_BAR_Full_Auto_Class_3_C_R.htm

If you don't know what you're talking, you should stop talking about gun control with such hubris.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. and a hell of an ATF investigation, we know that

that happens with any grandfathered toy

It makes their sale a true PITA

And that is exactly bad how?

But I cannot go to the Wally mart and buy it

Or order a tommy through the mail, huh?

[aikoaiko]

87. Its getting late and I can't make much sense out of your posts so I'll call it a night.

But I'm ok with NFA 1934 because it merely set new rules for civilian gunownership and didn't ban guns.


I'm not ok, with the 1968 and 1989 import bans, and the 1986 domestic ban because it restricts the freedom of lawabiding folks.

[MercutioATC]

134. 1) you can't order ANY gun "through the mail"...it has to be shipped to somebody with a FFL.

2) A "Tommy Gun" is an automatic weapon. Those have been federally regulated for decades. They can be privately owned, but not without a Class III federal firearms license.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. The USPS will NOT ship a gun

or ammo for that matter

1934

It is a violation of federal law

Now using UPS or Fed Ex... don't know, but the United States Postal Service, NO

[MercutioATC]

144. Not true. FFL holders can ship firearms through USPS.

Those without a FFL cannot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. Not according to my local postal workers

I guess they lied.

[MercutioATC]

155. And, actually, that only applies to handguns.

Anybody can ship long guns through USPS.


You seem to have quite a few erroneous "facts".

[beevul]

163. It appears they did.

http://www.cgwgun.com/shipping/usps.aspx

[rl6214]

168. Not True

I recieve ammo shipped via UPS all the time, by the case.

[57_TomCat]

192. Wow...SO wrong.

The USPS will NOT ship a gun
Posted by nadinbrzezinski
or ammo for that matter

1934

It is a violation of federal law

Now using UPS or Fed Ex... don't know, but the United States Postal Service, NO

Shipping a handgun by USPS is allowed for FFL holders as well as Federal Law Enforcement officers. Shipping a rifle or long arm by the USPS interstate is allowed by FFL dealers as well. Shipping a long arm by USPS intrastate between two citizens authorized by law to possess same is also legal.

By the way it was the 1968 Gun Control act that limited USPS mail order interstate and with handguns. The 1934 NFA was NOT about the postal service.

Research man research. You seem to be spouting off heresay and misconceptions instead of fact checking.

[rrneck]

137. OK, I'm game. What sort of

legislation would you advocate?

[Pavulon]

21. Good thing your dope ban worked...

no more coke, weed or any illegal drug. We live in a drug free jeebus land with nothing available. I have no hope of ever smoking dope again. Oh, shit..any person who tries to get drugs to get them?? even with a ban, WTF how is that even possible.

39 murders in Switzerland, where machine guns are prevalent..

morons.

[FudaFuda]

24. Perspective.

Something I already posted once in the 'gungeon' but it works for this thread too.


This past month has been a particularly bad one for 'gone postal' spree killers for some reason. There's no easy explanation as to why, but it has happened. Next month, I'm certainly hoping for peace. But that kind of tragedy will happen, from time to time, in our country and in others, for as long as humans exist as a species. Any student of history can confirm this, and it doesn't take a gun to kill a bunch of people (and Japan is proof that in the absence of guns, the crazies find other ways to do it).

Anyway, let's put the problem into perspective a bit. We're a nation of what, about 300 million people? The killing spree events of the past month have resulted in the deaths of (I think) less than 50 people. I read 44 yesterday, and then we had the Pittsburgh thing today. And this is, no one can deny, about the worst month for this we've all ever seen.

In the same month, drunk driving has killed about 1400 people. And that's the average number of alcohol related highway deaths every month of every year - almost 17,000 a year. And besides prosecuting the few we catch, what do we do about it? Nada. We could easily make every damn car sold with a built-in breathalyzer. Why don't we? There's no constitutional right to driving drunk. And no matter what argument you make about the necessity of automobiles, again there's no necessity whatsoever for drunks behind the wheel. And yet we won't take those 1400 deaths or so every month seriously. But in one extremely bad month of spree shooters, less than 50 are killed and people are fuckin scared it's gonna happen in their town tomorrow.

The cable news networks don't get you to stop what you're doing and remained glued to your TV for hours when they talk about drunk driving statistics. But one guy with a gun will keep our attention peeled for a whole day. Never mind if the intense coverage and attention (fame) given the gunman inspires other nutcases to aspire to their own glory by killing more. It's ratings that matter. Meanwhile, your odds of you or your family being killed by a drunk are exponentially greater, every day.

[Democrats_win]

25. What productive thing should we tell people? Call a tip line about dangerous people?

That was one of the solutions to Columbine. They found that in some cases people knew someone was going to start shooting.

We could also pass out survival tips when mass killers start shooting. Some people hid in the basement. It is very important to be behind a locked door! Columbine showed that too. However, a wounded teacher died waiting for help.

I wonder if people should carry some sort of cauterizing kit so they can keep people from bleeding to death. Of course some would tell you to carry a gun. I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. After all, we all depend on the "kindness of strangers" no matter what.

Maybe we should just say: be kind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Maybe we should stop tolerating this

by the way, that kit exists, developed by DOD for troops in the field

You want to live in a country where you need to carry a self applying tourniquet and a blood clotting kit at all times?

Been in places where people fear going out after dark, and where a backfire leads to people hitting the deck faster than you can say it

If that is the place you want. by all means...

Reality is that people have to make sure to explain to these folks NOBODY IS COMING AFTER YOUR GUNS! That is what Grand Father laws are all about

That is a LIE.

that is the starting point

The next is that as a society we need to stop tolerating this, PERIOD

[57_TomCat]

193. There you go again.

Maybe we should stop tolerating this
Posted by nadinbrzezinski
by the way, that kit exists, developed by DOD for troops in the field

You want to live in a country where you need to carry a self applying tourniquet and a blood clotting kit at all times?

Been in places where people fear going out after dark, and where a backfire leads to people hitting the deck faster than you can say it

If that is the place you want. by all means...

Reality is that people have to make sure to explain to these folks NOBODY IS COMING AFTER YOUR GUNS! That is what Grand Father laws are all about

That is a LIE.

that is the starting point

The next is that as a society we need to stop tolerating this, PERIOD

I hope they do not come for my guns to confiscate them. There is NO guarantee that they will not try and history has proven us right. Remember to keep up on that research. Australia...England...

[-..__...]

33. Hate to burst your bubble, big guy...

but as long as myself (and millions of others like me), are around, gun control as you and other day dreamers envision it just isn't going to happen... at least not with one hellacious of a fight.

We might lose the occasional skirmish here and there, but we have no intention of surrendering.

There will be no compromise, negotiating, backing-off, backing-down, cutting a deal.

We will outspend you, out maneuver you, out smart you, out organize you... that much I will promise.

Give it a try in another 100 years or so.

Maybe by that time the sheeple will be brainwashed enough to buy into your delusional nirvana.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. And what is the gun control you think I envision?

Exactly what is that?

Because I know what you dream off, being able to buy an MI-A1 and dive it to work

So exactly what is that Nirvana in your feverish imagination you think I envision?

Because if you think it is gun confiscation, you are dead wrong

By the way big guy... how many permits and background checks do you need to buy a Tommy?

Won that battle already?

[-..__...]

68. Confiscation you say?

Exactly what is that?

Because I know what you dream off, being able to buy an MI-A1 and dive it to work

So exactly what is that Nirvana in your feverish imagination you think I envision?

Because if you think it is gun confiscation, you are dead wrong


Maybe not now, next year or the next 20 for all I know.

Confiscation becomes a bit of a moot point once over regulation makes it unfeasible, impossible, overly expensive to even own a firearm/ammunition (let alone purchase a new one).

In reality, confiscation can only occur if registration of firearms and licensing of owners were to occur; which many here (and elsewhere enthusiastically support).

By the way big guy... how many permits and background checks do you need to buy a Tommy?

Won that battle already?

Up until new and forthcoming legislation trounced, fighting old battles is a waste of time and effort... two steps forward... one step back.

Check the Brady scorecard vs the NRA... tell me who's at bat with the bases loaded.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. So you think I am all for confiscation

that is a nice fevered imagination

That is your true fear?

Ok, we part company

I cannot argue with mythological thinking...

[-..__...]

103. Uhhhh, no....

I gathered from from some of your other posts that you didn't advocate confiscation.

However... you seem to assume that it cannot/will never happen (assumption is the motherfucker of all screw ups).

As I posted earlier... confiscation only becomes doable with the registration/licensing of firearms owners (never mind that "Red Dawn", find all the form 4473's stuff).

Will "confiscation" happen? I'd say highly unlikely, but I'd be a fool (and so would you or anyone else), to simply dismiss it as no way/never happen).

Registration/licensing would be the foundation of confiscation.

Whether you support that or not, I have no idea, but there are many who do.

I think what you (and others), need to understand is that the battle lines are drawn, and there's not going to be any of this "no one needs an "assault weapon" for hunting, "reasonable"/"common sense", other "civilized" countries do it gun control bullshit to concede or negotiate on.

"Assault weapons" ban...

"Hi capacity" magazines ban..

"Gunshow loophole"...

Registration...

One gun per month...

Ballistic finger printing... ad nauseum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. And to clarify you want to have as many guns as you wish

regardless of caliber, and use?

You don't have a problem with the neighbor having an M-1?

The confiscation bug-a-boo and registration bug-a-boo has also been an NRA talking point for decades

Now here is another thing... that will probably happen

THe US will grow up, and abandon its gun fetish... when I don't know, but it will

Many other nations have abandoned the gun fetish

That said... I foresee in years to come, decades perhaps, a model more like the Canadians, who have more guns per capita than Americans do (strange most of their gun violence are visiting Americans)

Try to figure out why they have so little gun crime?

Could it be time for Americans to stop being afraid of their shadows?

But what is going on right, continues, you gonna see a hew and cry from a scared population, and in this case, rightly so

[rucky]

76. Other countries have no problems with this.

been doing it for years

[-..__...]

118. Lemme check Google maps for a minute...

<checks East> - <checks West> - <checks North> - <checks South>.



Okay... I'm done.



Guess what?


I live in the USA...


I REALLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK HOW OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING IT!! (sorry for shouting like that).


Got that!


Gawd... if some of you people are that enraptured/jealous of another country's customs, just move there or jerk-off to the next National Geographic article/photo spread praising the wonders of the people and their society.

Leave the rest of us the fuck alone with your "wouldn't it be nice" flights of fancy.

[beevul]

136. You sir...

You sir, owe me a new keyboard.


:rofl:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

160. The above

Is an example of someone not understanding the issue. The UK had two mass shootings (Hungerford and Dunblane) which led to serious gun control. I had hoped that after Columbine, Virginia Tech and now this, people here and elsewhere would reexamine their views of guns and gun control.

It sickens me to see that people like you don't want gun control, instead of hiding behind "the right to bear arms" (and ignoring the rest of the 2nd amendment).

[-..__...]

202. Do you REALLY want to follow Englands example?

"Look, my liege!"...

"Camelot"!









"On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place. "

[FunkyLeprechaun]

203. I feel safer in England

Where in Minnesota (a CCW state), I can't piss anyone off. You're so silly sometimes. Self-depreciating English humour would go WAAAYYYY over your head.

That aside, yet again, you don't understand the 2nd amendment at all.

[tekisui]

35. 6 more today in Washington

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5393397&mesg_id=5393397

[JeanGrey]

40. Gun control doesn't work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. It doesn't? Why is it then that I cannot order a Tommy Gun through the mail?

Or just go down to the store to buy a BAR?

It doesn't work... you are right

:sarcasm:

That ban came after a blood bath that laster a few years...

[JeanGrey]

47. A tommy gun? Do you really think that is the only

dangerous gun? LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. no, but that was the purpose of one ban

or did you miss that?

By the way, that help to end the violence... that and the end of prohibition

Pick up a history book, dust it off, and chiefly READ IT.

[Cali_Democrat]

92. Tell that to countries in Western Europe

They may have gun deaths, but nothing close to the carnage we see.

[anonymous171]

48. Gun control is a waste of political capital. nt

[CountAllVotes]

57. nadinbrzezinski

I agree with every word you have written. We need to ban these weapons at once!

:thumbsup:

:dem: :kick:

[WhiteTara]

67. shh...don't tell the supremes! n/t

[high density]

70. Gun control would've prevented this how?

AR 15, shotgun, hunting rifle, pistol, whatever... They can all be used to kill people. What we need is the reich wing to stop their media scare campaign aimed at the gun nuts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Part of it is speed

a shotgun takes a little time to load... more than an AR-15

But the campaign, read this thread

They are convinced that any talk of control means confiscation

It is like when you talk to a RW... and you say fascism... they are hearing something completely different than what you mean

[MercutioATC]

119. Most "hunting" shotguns hold 8+ shells.

What's so scary about that 9th shell that isn't scary about the first eight?

My point is that 8 shots from a 12-gauge can cause a sufficient level of damage. 20-30 rounds of .223 isn't going to be appreciably worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. What are you loading, buck or solid?

yes it makes a difference, for starters

Granted, if I saw somebody coming in with a lowly 22 I hit the deck and look for cover.

mark my words, training will take over...

[MercutioATC]

124. 00 Buck, for the carnage factor.

...and 8 rounds of 00 Buck fired from any semiautomatic "hunting" shotgun will do enough damage that 30 rounds of .223 won't look much different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. But the buck, you have a chance to find better cover

solid will ignore it, especially at medium range

And solid will also do quite a bit of damage to the cops coming in

(OUI),

Granted, at in your face, any trained shooter can do that much damage with any gun...

Yep, seen some impressive feats at the range, emptying guns...

And speed loading

[MercutioATC]

128. Exactly. I can drop a mag from my Glock 19 and reload in about 3 seconds.

...and I'm not even close to fast.

For all intents, ANY weapon (ok, I'll give you black powder rifles) is essentially "high capacity".

The "speed" argument doesn't hold much water.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. But the penetration factor does

And you know that and I know that

Why I said, buck.. hell we saw shotguns... find a nice cinder block and wait for the cops... have fun storming the castle guys!

Now it was something like an AK, or an AR... different story... hell one round killed my engine block

And don't get me started on the 50 Cal

Amm Colonel, should we evac all two miles around and care to tell the gringos that Brown Field is potentially in range as well as I-905?

[MercutioATC]

132. True...but a Remington 750 Woodsman is just as effective as an AR-10

(if not more so at longer range)

You're going to get better penetration from a rifle (heavier projectiles, higher muzzle velocity), but handguns and shotguns are perfectly capable of causing a shocking amount of damage..."assault weapon" or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Yeah but bolt actions (unless heavily modified)

are never going to reach the speed of a full auto weapon...

Granted, the AK was based on a german weapon (storm Weber) and a couple others, and a hell of a modification and engineering

So there is where your capacity comes in

Does not matter how fast you can load, you cannot reach those feats of speed... it is all in the engineering.. and target acquisition

Granted, a trained sniper will do better... and we both know the 30-08 is used by snipers... but his speed will not equal that

And to penetration. some specialized ammo can go further than regular ever could... most of it is military grade.

I think that's a good thing...

Don't need them to hunt deer, unless deer start wearing heavy duty body armor.

[MercutioATC]

140. Oh, untrue.

The .223 is a great hunting round...but some states don't allow it for deer hunting because it doesn't have enough penetration.

Your argument seems to be skipping all over the place...and a lot of it is not well-founded.


Shot placement is obviously going to be the most important factor. That comes with proficiency.

I'd argue that tissue disruption would be the second most important factor, followed by speed.

Only after those things would I rate penetration as an issue...

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. It is not skipping all over the place

but that's ok

As to cavitation, it is an issue, especially for surgeons

And since you brought it up... so is bullet tumbling (The AK is particularly bad, by design) about this.

But penetration is an issue with RIFLES

You know it. I know it

Now I know that for some folks we need to allow ALL weapons into the hands of civilians

For others, we need to take them all away

Both are wrong

We need a balance

And we will find it, as a society

For the record it is also an issue for police, and service guns...

[MercutioATC]

148. Actually, the AK is fine...it's the AR that tumbles.

The 7.63 round doesn't tumble, the 5.56 does...

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. hmm then them X-rays were wrong?

amusing...

http://books.google.com/books?id=-erLJS_tHcAC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=cavitation+and+ak+47+round&source=bl&ots=nJfur0UhBG&sig=gEnnRt0FGIR8BbKZCXpXmhuSiuc&hl=en&ei=Hk7YSdfBNaDoswP8-smkCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

By the way we are talking of the 5.56x 39... cute on your part

Damn I knew I remembered that right!

[MercutioATC]

154. Maybe you read or interpreted them incorrectly.

[DrCory]

189. 5.56 x 39? Don't you mean 45? N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

228. They make speed loaders for shotguns that are just as fast as changing a magazine in a rifle.

[Brother Buzz]

74. For What It's Worth - Buffalo Springfield

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

[young_at_heart]

93. How many will have to die?

That was so powerful back then---I wish it could be as powerful now!

[Djinn]

96. slightly one sided body count there

the other side demonstrates why some people don't believe only the authorities should be armed.

Personally I don't spend too much time in the US and the gun thing just isn't controversial where I usually live so I don't have much of an opinion on the desirability of gun control, but I fail to see how "some police have been shot" negates the side you're arguing against at all.

The American fondness for murder is far deeper than having access to gun - your murder rate for ALL methods of killing far outstrips comparable nations (even those with large numbers of guns in circulation) You need to work out WHY that is, it may have something to do with the biggest wealth gap seen in any comparable nation (and even many non comparable third world nations)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. I'm a fan of the Constitution I'm surprised you aren't.

[Initech]

110. Most violent country ever!!!!

[Bluebear]

114. As to a rational discussion: we are advancing our "bullshit agenda"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5392804#5392967

[spoony]

133. well, let's hear what you think should be done

I'm certainly not against sensible laws. Though we already have many, and they don't seem well policed, and many states don't share their committal records with the feds so background checks often miss such. And on that note, mental health care in this country, which involves a discussion about health care in general, is severely lacking. Those are three areas I think need improving. What do you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. Here are my steps and they need refining

1.- Background checks need to be enforced... everywhere

2.- Background at gun shows must come in... no damn exceptions

3.- We need a safety net, some of these folks are just going off on the economy and all that. And mental health needs improvement, health care needs improvement

4.- I'd look at the 1934 laws, more than the AWB, which had many problems, and find a nice balancing act

Personally I'd like to have strict controls on certain toys... but the problem was that the AWB was specific, and didn't work for many reasons.

I also know we need a change in the culture... one reason we have these issues in this country is social engineering. People are taught to be afraid of their shadows... So I'd ask why is it that Canada has such a low incidence of gun crimes? They have more guns than we do. So what's in the water? And partly what's in the water is the fear that people have of their shadows... their neighbors, their guv;ment, et al... so we go into mental health

And I will speak heresy, but it is time we really define what we want as a society,

[spoony]

147. I think that's an excellent list, thanks

The only point where I might quibble is on toys, depending on what exactly we're talking about. I also don't know much about the 1934 laws, is there something in particular in there worth changing/strengthening?

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. By taxation they effectively removed machine guns

they grandfathered those who had them and selling or buying them is a PITA...

So the end result was that things like BAR and Tommy guns (The targets of the day) are hard to get these days... hell even Hollywood producers complaint about that since they need them for movies at times

So I probably would tax weapons

[spoony]

157. That might be another point on which

we disagree, depending on the tax amount, where the tax goes (like, improving school counseling or something would be good), and what weapons are taxed. The problem is with classifying weapons. Since criminals use the same popular models and ammunitions everyone else does, taxing at some point becomes punitive against non-criminals moreso than in the '30s, as I can't imagine ordinary people using BARs. But today many models incorporate "assault weapon" calibres into their hunting models and in separating the wheat from the chaff it'll be hard not to get lost in the sort of cosmetic confusion that made the AWB flounder. I suppose it hasn't been solved yet for a reason. It's difficult.

Still I think we agree on more than we disagree, and I think enough people agree on enough to at least begin taking legislative steps regarding background checks and mental healthcare. I'm off to bed but thanks for the discussion.

(Lol, this got moved while I was trying to reply...had to type the whole bloody thing over again!)

[beevul]

165. Again, no, they did not.

The hughes amendment is why legal automatic weapons are hard to get and/or expensive.

Not because of a 200 dollar tax.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

229. We almost never agree but.

I sincerely agree with #1. I don't really understand #2 unless you want to regulate all private sales. I sincerely agree with #3. I have no problem looking at #4. Of course you probably have me on ignore so there was no point to this.

David

[BlueDogMizzou]

171. It amazes me that people only call for gun control when..

A bunch of people are gunned down by a madman. Where are the cries for the 400+ black Brothers killed with guns in the U.S. last year?

While 39 people were gunned down in mass murders in the last two months, over 80 brothers were murdered by guns, where is the outrage?!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. 400 is way low my friend. 6,223 in 2007.

Not all of those were with firearms probably about 80% + were.

David

[depakid]

176. 7 officers killed in the last 2 weeks by AK-47's

How many more before enough is enough?

[Pavulon]

198. What is your proposal?

should we ban every semi automatic rifle? That is the only way you are going to cover this knowing you ban logic.

You cant ban by name. You would have to ban every magazine fed semi automatic rifle in America.

[bossy22]

204. would it be better

if it was seven officers killed by .38 spl revolvers

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

230. I think they should highly regulate Ak-47's and ban their manufacture and import.

Oh wait they already did that.

David

[57_TomCat]

178. Coming late to this one BUT...

This type of activity will probably kick some ignorant people into stupid legislation but that is what history has shown time and time again.

As for confiscation... well it has happened and might well happen again. The two most recent big events was the semi-auto/pump gun confiscation in Australia where the government said that all those guns were not needed by society and those registered weapons must be turned in for compensation. The films of hundreds of thousands of guns being moved about by metal lifters to be crushed certainly allows for a few fears of confiscation. Same for England after the DunBlane incident. The crown said "no more handguns in private hands, turn them in." They were confiscated (with compensation)by the government.

Do I believe it will happen here in my lifetime. No. But I could be wrong and my wife says I am wrong often enough I might better listen. If they install some emotional boilerplate regulations I do not doubt the potential for confiscation is there. The current slate of appointees in Washington lead me to believe the chances are higher now than ever before.

[Joe Steel]

188. The American Way

Do I believe it will happen here in my lifetime. No. But I could be wrong and my wife says I am wrong often enough I might better listen. If they install some emotional boilerplate regulations I do not doubt the potential for confiscation is there. The current slate of appointees in Washington lead me to believe the chances are higher now than ever before.

Confiscation would be the realization of a dream but it's too much to hope. Throughout the US, the state legislators are filled with spineless worms and NRA puppets. Congress is almost as bad. Sane Americans can expect nothing from them. We'll have to live in a shooting gallery and plan for death by gunfire. It's the American way.

[DrCory]

191. What, Exactly...

Do you dream of confiscating?

"Confiscation would be the realization of a dream but it's too much to hope."

[Joe Steel]

194. I have a dream...

What, Exactly...

Do you dream of confiscating?

As I implied above, I have a dream...

Gun Recovery And Ban

1. Recovery: Within 30 days of this procedure's implementation, all handguns, or other specified guns, in private possession shall be delivered to a law enforcement agency.

2. Prosecution: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after the expiration of the 30 day recovery period will be guilty of a class A felony and shall be prosecuted.

3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.

4. Perfection: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after reeducation shall be made harmless.

[DrCory]

196. Reeducation Camps? Your Username is Appropriate N/T

[bossy22]

205. LMAO

i love it, lets pass it and watch you guys spend millions trying to defend it in court just to find out you are wrong and you can't do this

your dream is about as attainable as my dream to grow wings and fly

[Joe Steel]

208. What's the problem?

i love it, lets pass it and watch you guys spend millions trying to defend it in court just to find out you are wrong and you can't do this

What's the problem?

If Fat Tony Scalia and the current Court can conjure up an individual right to guns, the next Court can find them in error and reverse.

[bossy22]

209. they could

they probably won't....courts dont like to touch landmark precedents (thats why roe v wade is safe). It sets the "precedent" that you can just over rule past decisions at whim.....

also its quite likely the next court may support the individual rights view. Many lower court judges do see merit in the individual right interpretation but have been reluctant to comment on it because of the previous "collective rights" view that was held by the majority of lower courts

[aikoaiko]

207. I'm marking your post so that I will always be able to show what an antigun extremist looks like.

thank you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

210. Glad you quit Stalin Joe, and told us how you *really* feel! n/t

[populistdriven]

199. sad that all of those people had to die - if only they had a gun to protect themselves

[gorfle]

215. gun control vs. confiscation.

Now for the second amendment fans... repeat after me... gun control is not confiscation, no matter how many times the NRA tells you otherwise

Tell that to the folks in California for whom gun control was in fact confiscation. Same for England, same for Australia.

We all know that confiscation is the wet dream of the anti-firearm crowd. They will press for anything short of and including that that they can get. I am not comforted by the fact that gun control might not include confiscation.

Oh and as usual I don't expect a rational discussion either. But what happened in Pittsburgh and the reason why... this finally may kick some folks over the head that we need it and an AR 15 is not a hunting weapon, unless your hunting people... then by all means

The AR15 and similar civilian assault weapons are very suitable for hunting people, especially tyrants, which is precisely what the second amendment is all about. The second amendment puts military grade small arms in the hands of the civilian population, precisely as the founders intended. It was not for hunting, home defense, or target shooting.

[HPSteam]

222. So what are trying to say

That i'm a front line speed bump to tyrants and evil-doers? But i've lost so much and TAXED that much more, hell i'm unemployed living on my savings. BUT why am i hated so by the ever expanding government that has us all by the short n cur-lies? Sure their making shit up but it's for the greater good and think of the children helped- kinda.OK, maybe your right, guess i'm a speed bump then.

[slackmaster]

221. Please be specific about what kinds of controls you think would help

Without infringing on peoples' rights.

...an AR 15 is not a hunting weapon...

It can be configured as a hunting weapon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=207888&mesg_id=207888

[benEzra]

226. The .223 models are primarily used as target guns, defensive carbines, or for small-game hunting.

Oh and as usual I don't expect a rational discussion either. But what happened in Pittsburgh and the reason why... this finally may kick some folks over the head that we need it and an AR 15 is not a hunting weapon, unless your hunting people... then by all means

The .223 models are primary used as target guns, defensive carbines, or for small-game hunting. .223 is ideal for hunting something the size of prairie dogs or coyotes, but is severely underpowered for deer. It can be configured for deer hunting (6.8mm Remington is ideal for deer), and Remington makes hunting-focused models, but they're not common yet.

Thing is, AR-15's are primarily used as target guns (everything from IPSC to F-class benchrest), defensive carbines, or for small-game hunting, and the AR-15 platform is in fact the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States.

Care to quantify the number of AR-15 murders each year? It would dispel the fearmongering a bit. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show all rifle murders COMBINED as constituting only 3% of U.S. homicides, and .223 is far from being the leading rifle caliber in homicides (I believe 7.62x39mm and .22LR are ahead of .223).