Control The Debate

[bernoulli0912]

Seems the OP likes being way off and talking with his foot in his mouth

Bsides the US Military already had classified *Assault Rifles* as being a select-fire capable weapon.

Safe
Semi
Full Auto

Semi Auto rifles such as ARs AKs etc and their variants are not assault rifles because they are NOT select-fire capable.

#6 shot can still go through 2 layers of drywall as well as the basewad.

A shotgun shell of #6 load more accurate than a pistol or rifle? I dont know where the hell you got that BS from because it surely stinks. You havent heard of stray shots have you? Shooting target loads inside a house especially when ppl are in your cone of fire is pretty stupid. Target loads spread farther out the further the target is away. increasing the chances of an errant shot hitting someone or someone getting hit from a ricochet if it were steel shot off a hard surface.

I doubt that the strict, accurate definition of an assault rifle will carry any weight in the coming argument. Rifles that are non-select (auto) fire variants will be called assault rifles by the public at large.

As far as home defense goes, that article was about the average person defending his home and protecting his family. It was stated that #6 shot would not penetrate two layers of sheet rock with lethal force. I have not tried it. I accepted that because it makes sense. At night would you be more accurate with a shot gun or a pistol?

 

[bernoulli0912]

My thoughts to your comment in no order of importance. Sorry if this sound ranty, but I cannot hold it in.

#1: Please Do Not Ascribe Human Traits to Inanimate Objects: There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Firearms do not assault anyone, people do. Do you drive an assault car? Cars kill lots of people. Do you use an assault steak knife when you eat dinner? Sharp knives kill lots of people. What about an assault pocket knife?

#2: Tattoo Bar Codes Anyone?: So you propose that the government can "test" us in school and decide to throw kid A in the "your ok" bucket and throw kid B in the "your likely to go nuts" bucket. You really want the mischievous, malicious government to have that kind of control? Yes the same government that exposed citizens to radiation. The same government that interned people due to thier race? The same government that is constantly embroiled in fraud, back office deals, and lies (and in some cases sexual impropriety and then lies about that). The same government that spends more than it takes in. The same government that vilifies law abiding citizens for being successful or exercising their rights. The government that NEVER EVER makes a mistake? You want them to have the power to decide who is good and who is maybe not and should lose freedom before they do ANYTHING to justify disenfranchisement? Maybe we could tattoo a number on their arm so we know who they are! Let's do a bit better than the Nazi's. Let's go for bar codes! So much easier to scan. You may think it a good thing to prevent gun violence because you feel a need to react to the massacre in CT, but it would only result in the loss of your own personal freedom at some point. But it would be too late then now won't it? That kind of thing works great if you are in the "good" group. Just how do you know the "new test" won't put you in the 2nd class citizen category?

#3: Please Double Check All Facts in a Fluid Situation: Please be sure to get your facts correct before you start throwing information out. This story is so fresh that initial information usually turns out to be incorrect. Current information is suggesting that the shooter did take an AR-15 into the school with the hand guns.

#4: All Guns Kill Something (Paper or Otherwise): I do not agree with the argument that AR guns kill people and other guns do not. ALL guns are designed to kill something. Under your argument, no handguns would be legal as handguns are only for killing people. And all long guns would be banned to boot since they can kill. I think the argument has nothing to do with how dangerous a gun is, it has to do with freedom. And that is just what is lost with gun control. If you think the government will be satisfied with just your AR, look at Australia, UK and Canada. You will not have a gun at some point, but trust me the bad guys still will.

#5: Tactical Guns Do Have a Purpose: You suggest that the AR-15 is a poor defense gun and that the government has done a good job protecting us from our enemies and we cannot perform that function. An AR-15 may not be the best home defense gun, but they serve other purposes. Beyond the sporting and fun, they provide two key functions. The first is as a third line defense. As citizens of the US, we provide a third line of defense against external enemies. An unarmed citizenry would be easy prey for an invading force if the military and national guard are unavailable or defeated. If you think that cannot happen, go do some research on China's military. AR-15 rifles also provide another defense against a malicious government. The founding fathers understood that all government is malicious, over reaching and prone to despotism. They provided many controls over the overextension of power. One of them was to ensure the government had some fear of its citizens. Ensuring citizens can bear arms provides some healthy fear for a despot. Remember, the founding fathers just rebelled against a despotic government and they knew firearms helped them achieve victory. They valued that right. The first step in despotism and totalitarianism is to disarm your citizens to they are easy prey.

1. Oh please. There are assault weapons. Your opinion has no meaning in our society.
2. I don't have a problem with you ranting, but don't ascribe your rant to anything that I have printed. WHat did I say? Try to find people who need help so they can get it.
3. Well maybe. The "facts" have changed at least twice today - from "long rifle" to "automatic".
4. Most guns aren't designed to kill, as is the case with most other implements that are used to kill. Again. Read what I said, not what you think I'm against.
5. Who will invade us? When China tried to invade Vietnam after the Vietnam war, they couldn't even maintain a supply line with their neighbor by land. Is there any nation that has the wherewithal to invade the U.S. ? I did not argue to disarm America.

 

[RLW]

First off, it is already illegal to sell guns to someone who has a mental illness. The idea that we are going to set up a database with everyone who has a mental illness is total fantasy as well. Even if our government was capable of setting up a reliable database of any kind it would be like setting up a database for any medical condition which would be a breach of patient confidentiality if nothing else. On top of that, our system is so messed up that it would ultimately end up being a situation where there is lots of money changing hands behind the scenes to encourage psychologist to label more people with an illness in order for more medications to be sold so the drug companies can sell more drugs. If you don't think that is exactly what happens in medicine right now your delusional.

Also, You can not buy a firearm at a gun show from a dealer without doing a background check. Not sure why there is such confusion on this, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they are constantly spewing bad information on TV.

Also, if you could give us an explanation of what an assault weapon is and weather or not you have actually fired a fully automatic weapon before it would help us all out. because your last paragraph was a little confusing in that you indicated that you know enough about both of them that you could put them in the same category.

 

[Flyingswords]

First off, it is already illegal to sell guns to someone who has a mental illness. The idea that we are going to set up a database with everyone who has a mental illness is total fantasy as well. Even if our government was capable of setting up a reliable database of any kind it would be like setting up a database for any medical condition which would be a breach of patient confidentiality if nothing else. On top of that, our system is so messed up that it would ultimately end up being a situation where there is lots of money changing hands behind the scenes to encourage psychologist to label more people with an illness in order for more medications to be sold so the drug companies can sell more drugs. If you don't think that is exactly what happens in medicine right now your delusional.

Also, You can not buy a firearm at a gun show from a dealer without doing a background check. Not sure why there is such confusion on this, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they are constantly spewing bad information on TV.

Also, if you could give us an explanation of what an assault weapon is and weather or not you have actually fired a fully automatic weapon before it would help us all out. because your last paragraph was a little confusing in that you indicated that you know enough about both of them that you could put them in the same category.

He cant come up with anything because (1) It was already dictated by the US Military (2) He is just saying something that fits his own ideals, which amounts to nothing but utter garbage saying he knows enough about them.

 

[BillB1960]

I've been a Life Member of the NRA for about 50 years. Some time ago there was an article in the American Rifleman about home defense. Their conclusion was that a pump shotgun of any gauge loaded with #6 shot was more accurate, more deadly and far safer than any pistol or rifle round - it won't penetrate two layers of sheet rock and still have lethal force.

Many people may hunt effectively with those rounds. With assault weapons? C'mon. Is it really sportsmanlike hunting to use a weapon whose accuracy is not designed for the task.

I don't have a problem with the ownership of assault rifles. Just treat them like fully automatic weapons. Get the license and register it.

If you think an assault weapon is going to protect you from your own government, it's time you were counseled. The government is well aware of gun ownership statistics. It is also well aware of the second amendment.

You titled this Control the Debate. You should've titled it Capitulate to the Antis.

As far as "assault weapons" not being effective against the military I might be wrong here but it seems to me that a bunch of poorly armed "insurgents" did a pretty fair job of making monkeys out of the mighty US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guerrilla warfare is expensive and destructive. Any military activity against US citizens would be extremely problematic. Shooting citizens you're sworn to protect would be difficult orders to follow.

 

[Flyingswords]

You titled this Control the Debate. You should've titled it Capitulate to the Antis.

As far as "assault weapons" not being effective against the military I might be wrong here but it seems to me that a bunch of poorly armed "insurgents" did a pretty fair job of making monkeys out of the mighty US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guerrilla warfare is expensive and destructive. Any military activity against US citizens would be extremely problematic. Shooting citizens you're sworn to protect would be difficult orders to follow.

You forgot to mention that they first handed the Soviets their asses way before the 1st Gulf War even began. That itself was largely a guerrilla war as well.

I doubt that the strict, accurate definition of an assault rifle will carry any weight in the coming argument. Rifles that are non-select (auto) fire variants will be called assault rifles by the public at large.

As far as home defense goes, that article was about the average person defending his home and protecting his family. It was stated that #6 shot would not penetrate two layers of sheet rock with lethal force. I have not tried it. I accepted that because it makes sense. At night would you be more accurate with a shot gun or a pistol?

Either. since both my smith & wesson sigma and my maverick 88 have lights. I would also be accurate as well in low light situations (natural moonlight). I live in a friends home who is a retired MP and whos wife is an active 3 gun competitor. They teach me how to navigate around the house in case of an impending intrustion via cut power. I know the home where I live at and its layout should it come to the point if the power is cut and intruder(s) break in. The question is would you shoot in pitch black darkness? (which is highly unlikely due to the fact of natural moonlight prevent pitch black darkness from happening) The only way pitch black darkness can happen is when all possible sides of a room are closed off without the chances of any possible light entering.

 

[deadeye]

So are you in Portland or are you still in Australia?
Explains some of the logic.


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/new-member-introductions/94949-new-member.html#post638291

 

[Flyingswords]

So are you in Portland or are you still in Australia?
Explains some of the logic.


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/new-member-introductions/94949-new-member.html#post638291

Thanks for pointing that out. lol

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Our 2A rights have been infringed enough. It stops here or there will be no stopping what the OPs fellow citizens have allowed in their country.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or something like that.
They will never stop trying to infringe, we will never stop resisting.
Simple as that.

 

[Flyingswords]

Our 2A rights have been infringed enough. It stops here or there will be no stopping what the OPs fellow citizens have allowed in their country.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or something like that.
They will never stop trying to infringe, we will never stop resisting.
Simple as that.

Yep. Me, my family and friends safety ALWAYS come first before any half assed law(s). I will defend them with deadly force if need be.

 

[bernoulli0912]

So are you in Portland or are you still in Australia?
Explains some of the logic.


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/new-member-introductions/94949-new-member.html#post638291

I am currently in Australia. So what does that have to do with my argument? I was in and out of here frequently after the massacre in Tasmania. There was no discussion then that Martin Bryant was a well known nutcase who had threatened his neighbors with (illegal there) weapons. The local powers that be ignored him - much like when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 children and one adult in the Dunblane School massacre - his approval of a permit has been covered up by the official secrets act for 99 years - he had been denied the permit twice before it was approved.

Again. What does that have to do with what I have said? I am well familiar with the firearm rules here and I oppose them.

So. Is the status quo acceptable? Is it okay to ignore the mentally deranged? Is it okay to refuse to deal with an obvious problem that happens over and over again? It must be, if the best you can add are personal attacks and innuendos.

 

[Karma]

Absolutely not. We need to deal with these issues. We just don't need more laws to do so. The laws are only followed by law abiding citizens. Anyone who would commit such acts, obviously don't fall into that category. What good does it do to become more strict about how someone purchases a weapon, when both of the recent shootings were done by people who stole the weapons? We have background checks in place for purchases. That system worked a evidenced by the ct shooter being rejected for buying a rifle recently. As criminals do, he broke the law and got one anyhow. Our mental health issues need to be addressed as do our criminals.

 

[Flyingswords]

Absolutely not. We need to deal with these issues. We just don't need more laws to do so. The laws are only followed by law abiding citizens. Anyone who would commit such acts, obviously don't fall into that category. What good does it do to become more strict about how someone purchases a weapon, when both of the recent shootings were done by people who stole the weapons? We have background checks in place for purchases. That system worked a evidenced by the ct shooter being rejected for buying a rifle recently. As criminals do, he broke the law and got one anyhow. Our mental health issues need to be addressed as do our criminals.

Thats gonna be hard to do since a good chunk of the mental health facilities were shut down due to *budget cuts* and a some were drastically scaled down in terms of services provided.

 

[SDR]

Control The Debate

It is obvious that recent mass murders have two things in common. Mentally deranged people and guns. Like it or not, the gun control debate will heat up considerably and some type of gun control will likely follow.

IMO no gun control will not solve these shootings... Kinda like restricting vehicles so drunk drivers won't drive or restricting doughnuts so fat people won't die of being diabetics or high blood pressure , It's not going to work ...

Training and Arming the people will work, The hero teacher that hid the kids, Train her and arm her...
If more people received training and carried a lot of this crap would stop or not last as long...

The anti gun people are screaming gun control to stop this B.S., What is really going on is they want to remove the guns so WE can be controlled, We as the main population so we are not as much of a threat to the government ...

 

[BAMCIS]

My thoughts to your comment in no order of importance. Sorry if this sound ranty, but I cannot hold it in.

#1: Please Do Not Ascribe Human Traits to Inanimate Objects: There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Firearms do not assault anyone, people do. Do you drive an assault car? Cars kill lots of people. Do you use an assault steak knife when you eat dinner? Sharp knives kill lots of people. What about an assault pocket knife?

#2: Tattoo Bar Codes Anyone?: So you propose that the government can "test" us in school and decide to throw kid A in the "your ok" bucket and throw kid B in the "your likely to go nuts" bucket. You really want the mischievous, malicious government to have that kind of control? Yes the same government that exposed citizens to radiation. The same government that interned people due to thier race? The same government that is constantly embroiled in fraud, back office deals, and lies (and in some cases sexual impropriety and then lies about that). The same government that spends more than it takes in. The same government that vilifies law abiding citizens for being successful or exercising their rights. The government that NEVER EVER makes a mistake? You want them to have the power to decide who is good and who is maybe not and should lose freedom before they do ANYTHING to justify disenfranchisement? Maybe we could tattoo a number on their arm so we know who they are! Let's do a bit better than the Nazi's. Let's go for bar codes! So much easier to scan. You may think it a good thing to prevent gun violence because you feel a need to react to the massacre in CT, but it would only result in the loss of your own personal freedom at some point. But it would be too late then now won't it? That kind of thing works great if you are in the "good" group. Just how do you know the "new test" won't put you in the 2nd class citizen category?

#3: Please Double Check All Facts in a Fluid Situation: Please be sure to get your facts correct before you start throwing information out. This story is so fresh that initial information usually turns out to be incorrect. Current information is suggesting that the shooter did take an AR-15 into the school with the hand guns.

#4: All Guns Kill Something (Paper or Otherwise): I do not agree with the argument that AR guns kill people and other guns do not. ALL guns are designed to kill something. Under your argument, no handguns would be legal as handguns are only for killing people. And all long guns would be banned to boot since they can kill. I think the argument has nothing to do with how dangerous a gun is, it has to do with freedom. And that is just what is lost with gun control. If you think the government will be satisfied with just your AR, look at Australia, UK and Canada. You will not have a gun at some point, but trust me the bad guys still will.

#5: Tactical Guns Do Have a Purpose: You suggest that the AR-15 is a poor defense gun and that the government has done a good job protecting us from our enemies and we cannot perform that function. An AR-15 may not be the best home defense gun, but they serve other purposes. Beyond the sporting and fun, they provide two key functions. The first is as a third line defense. As citizens of the US, we provide a third line of defense against external enemies. An unarmed citizenry would be easy prey for an invading force if the military and national guard are unavailable or defeated. If you think that cannot happen, go do some research on China's military. AR-15 rifles also provide another defense against a malicious government. The founding fathers understood that all government is malicious, over reaching and prone to despotism. They provided many controls over the overextension of power. One of them was to ensure the government had some fear of its citizens. Ensuring citizens can bear arms provides some healthy fear for a despot. Remember, the founding fathers just rebelled against a despotic government and they knew firearms helped them achieve victory. They valued that right. The first step in despotism and totalitarianism is to disarm your citizens to they are easy prey.

This is the best post I've seen on this forum in a long time.

 

[BAMCIS]

I doubt that the strict, accurate definition of an assault rifle will carry any weight in the coming argument. Rifles that are non-select (auto) fire variants will be called assault rifles by the public at large.

As far as home defense goes, that article was about the average person defending his home and protecting his family. It was stated that #6 shot would not penetrate two layers of sheet rock with lethal force. I have not tried it. I accepted that because it makes sense. At night would you be more accurate with a shot gun or a pistol?

To call an AR-15, or any semi-automatic an "assault weapon" is tacitly agreeing with the false premise an AR-15 IS an assault weapon. And to do so then the debate has already been decided and folks it ain't good for our side. This is an old, but effective debating tactic.

Further, I submit "assault weapons" are already all but banned. I will direct your attention to the 1934 NFA.

 

[Flyingswords]

Control The Debate

It is obvious that recent mass murders have two things in common. Mentally deranged people and guns. Like it or not, the gun control debate will heat up considerably and some type of gun control will likely follow.

IMO no gun control will not solve these shootings... Kinda like restricting vehicles so drunk drivers won't drive or restricting doughnuts so fat people won't die of being diabetics or high blood pressure , It's not going to work ...

Training and Arming the people will work, The hero teacher that hid the kids, Train her and arm her...
If more people received training and carried a lot of this crap would stop or not last as long...

The anti gun people are screaming gun control to stop this B.S., What is really going on is they want to remove the guns so WE can be controlled, We as the main population so we are not as much of a threat to the government ...

I too love the idea of training. I go to the range every weekend and practice on 100 and 200 yd rifle ranges. I can keep 90-95% of my shots in the 10 ring with the rest in the 9 or flyers on the 200 yd range on iron sights only. I always practice shooting in the tactical pistol ranges & steel silhouette target and 6" gongs shooting while moving. There is never a time when one can be perfect enough to not need training. Im not perfect but Im always training myself at the range and reading various books on how to improve.

 

[DMax]

Thats gonna be hard to do since a good chunk of the mental health facilities were shut down due to *budget cuts* and a some were drastically scaled down in terms of services provided.

BUt BUtt BUtt obammycare is going to fix all of this.

 

[MikeE]

BUt BUtt BUtt obammycare is going to fix all of this.

This is the mindset that guarantees defeat. Read this and try to get smarter:

I Am Adam Lanza's Mother

 

[DMax]

This is the mindset that guarantees defeat. Read this and try to get smarter:

I Am Adam Lanza's Mother

why don't you smarten up, it was sarcasim and if you don't think libtards will counter the mental issue and get back on guns with thier god like obammycare control law then your not as smart as you like to tell us you are.