|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/02/2012 02:42:00 PM · #501 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
It may not be the weapon of choice as a semi-automatic, but on no level was this rifle built as a civilian rifle.
It was designed and built to used to shoot people. |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Following your logic, a musket must then be classified a battlefield rifle. |
From dictionary.com:a heavy, large-caliber smoothbore gun for infantry soldiers, introduced in the 16th century: the predecessor of the modern rifle.
So what's your point? |
I was under the impression that you were advocating outlawing 'battlefield guns' (which we had loosely defined as an automatic rifle, right?) and that you were stating that since the AR-15 name was originally designed with the intent of military use it should be outlawed. A current AR-15 is not an automatic rifle, nor is it a current battlefield gun anymore than a musket is. Are you also saying that muskets should be outlawed? Muskets are on a similar level to bows and arrows by today's standards. So obviously, we should outlaw bows and arrows right? My point was that just because a weapon was once used by a military, it does not make it a battlefield gun. Any weapon was probably once used on a battlefield. Maybe we should just outlaw knives too? What next? Outlawing big muscles?
You see my point now, right? Where do you draw the line? Once you begin severely infringing upon the rights of an individual to protect themselves, you come to the inevitable issue of determining where that line exists. You don't believe me? There is push to outlaw knives in the UK: //www.theargus.co.uk/news/3224256.Hundreds_demand_action_against_knife_crime/
An AR-15 is merely a plasticy, stylized semi-automatic rifle. There are few mechanical differences between an AR-15 and a more conventional hunting rifle. ARs are commonly used for hunting, but serve dual roles because they are also suited well for home defense. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 02:47:21 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Following your logic, a musket must then be classified a battlefield rifle. |
From dictionary.com:a heavy, large-caliber smoothbore gun for infantry soldiers, introduced in the 16th century: the predecessor of the modern rifle. |
The NRA better hope that Justice Alito doesn't get his hands on any gun-rights cases ... from what I hear, as a strict Constitutional originalist, he thinks the Second Amendment applies only to arms available at the time it was written. As I remember, crack British troops could reload and fire a musket as many as three or four times/minute.
It's a lot harder to commit mass murder when reloading involves measuring loose gunpowder into the muzzle of your weapon, inserting a wad, a ball, another wad, tamping the whole thing down with a ramrod, measuring out more gunpowder for priming, adjusting and cocking the flint, and finally aiming and hoping the spark carries through to the charge in the barrel, and that you don't just have a "flash in the pan." Even with pre-loaded paper cartridges, I doubt anyone could get off more than a few rounds a minute, rather than every couple of seconds as is the case with modern guns. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:10:39 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by Flash:
to label a semi-automatic AR15 a "battlefield rifle" is simply not true. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963"
With a bump stock it can fire 900 rounds per minuet, all perfectly legal. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are we now in agreement that the M16 is the military "battlefield" rifle and the AR15 is the civilian semi-automatic version that functions like any other semi-automatic? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How can you read Brennan's post and arrive at this conclusion?
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
It may not be the weapon of choice as a semi-automatic, but on no level was this rifle built as a civilian rifle.
It was designed and built to used to shoot people. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Sometimes you truly are clueless. Please read the Wikipedia references to the AR15. It is today and has been since 1963 a civilian semi-automatic rifle. NOT a battlefield rifle. To claim that an AR15 is a battlefield rifle is to limit the scope and definition to that small percentage of original Armalites. That is not how I read Brennan's post about AR15's as being battlefield rifles nor his reply post. Thus, by him quoting the Wikipedia references to the military M16 (as I stated) and the semi-automatic version produced since 1963 being the AR15, the AR15 cannot be classified a "battlefield fully automatic assault" rifle. |
Of course, you neither bothered to read, nor understand, my post.
I did *NOT* say that the weapon was currently, or ever, as I understood Brennan's post, in use by the military.
What I did was to copy his post. Perhaps you might read it:The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
I never stated, nor implied, that it was a battlefield weapon. But to try and pass it off as a rifle for civilian use simply because whatever corporate ills ended up having it not be used is obfuscation.
Let me copy some historical facts for you from a site:
The Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA was established in 1954 for the sole purpose of developing military firearms using the latest in plastics and non-ferrous materials. It's team of Eugene M. Stoner - key designer, Robert Fremont - prototype manufacturing supervisor, and L. James Sullivan - who oversaw drafting work had been they key developers of the AR-15.
Prior to the AR-15, Armalite had developed:
AR-1 - 7.62 NATO parasniper rifle, extremely lightweight, using Mauser-type bolt action; only prototypes built in 1954
AR-3 - 7.62 NATO self-loader using aluminum receiver, fiberglass stock, and multiple lug locking system similar to the one later incorporated into the AR-10
AR-5 - .22 Hornet survival rifle developed for US Air Force and officially designated the MA-1
AR-7 - .22 long rifle self-loader, receiver and barrel store in plastic stock. (1959-1960)
AR-9 - 12 gauge self-loading shotgun with aluminum barrel and receiver (5lbs) 1955
AR-10 - 7.62 NATO auto-loader, aluminum receivers, led to AR-15 design
The AR-15, designed around slightly enlarged version of the .222 case firing a 55gr projectile at 3300fps, and weighing in at 6.7lbs, took some of the best features from earlier designs:
locking system similar to Johnson Automatic Rifle
gas system from Swedish Ljungman AG42B
in-line stock to help with manageability during auto fire
hinged upper/lower from FN-FAL
rear sight in carry handle like British EM2
ejector port cover from MP44
Project SALVO, a number of studies conducted by the Operations Research Office at Johns Hopkins University and supported by several contractors chose the AR-15 as the best small caliber weapon and it was adopted as the M16. The AR-15 had met all of the CONARC requirements, and AR-15 production could be highly automated, making it inexpensive to manufacture. It's 5.56mm cartridge fired a small 55gr bullet at nearly 3000fps, and it was accurate and effective to 350 yards. That small cartridge combined with the buffer system and inline stock made it far more controllable in automatic fire than the M14.
This would be the site I am quoting: AR15.com
Now.....I realize you say that I'm clueless, but I did kinda latch on to this line.....
The Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA was established in 1954 for the sole purpose of developing military firearms using the latest in plastics and non-ferrous materials.
Perhaps you could explain to me how on any level this statement could possibly mean "civilian hunting rifles".
Unless, of course, you're hunting civilians.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:16:56 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?) |
The issue is less HOPING, than EXPECTING. In the worse parts of Oakland, a very high percentage of the young male population goes around armed. Once you have a weapon, the expectation that the other party in any confrontation will also be armed goes up astronomically. If you assume the other person will be armed, you have to shoot first if you expect to walk away.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
An AR-15 is merely a plasticy, stylized semi-automatic rifle. There are few mechanical differences between an AR-15 and a more conventional hunting rifle. ARs are commonly used for hunting, but serve dual roles because they are also suited well for home defense. |
AR-15s are an inferior hunting rifle, their rate of fire may be fun to play with, but if you want one tap one kill, almost any bolt rifle is a better choice. If you need a sheet of lead to bring down a buck, perhaps you should work on your woodcraft, spend some time on the range, or find another hobby.
As far as "home defense", they might be good if you are expecting the road show from Mad Max to show up at your house, but they are crap for close quarters. A short pump action 12 gauge shotgun loaded heavy is vastly superior. Spraying bullets around your house in not conducive to a happy neighborhood, and puts at risk that which you wish to defend. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:21:46 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I was under the impression that you were advocating outlawing 'battlefield guns' (which we had loosely defined as an automatic rifle, right?) and that you were stating that since the AR-15 name was originally designed with the intent of military use it should be outlawed. |
No.....I haven't really been advocating much except some semblance of sensible moderation of what really does seem to be a problem.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
An AR-15 is merely a plasticy, stylized semi-automatic rifle. There are few mechanical differences between an AR-15 and a more conventional hunting rifle. ARs are commonly used for hunting, but serve dual roles because they are also suited well for home defense. |
Somehow, if I was going to pick a weapon for self-defense, an AR-15 would be pretty far down the list. A 5.56mm slug isn't very big.
I would prefer a large caliber handgun or a shotgun. But I choose not to arm myself.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:24:29 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Let me copy some historical facts for you from a site:
[b]The Armalite Division ... It's team of ... |
It's "Its team ..." not it's team ... how can you trust people who don't know that "'it is' is it's" ... isn't it? |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:24:46 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Perhaps you could explain to me how on any level this statement could possibly mean "civilian hunting rifles".
Unless, of course, you're hunting civilians. |
Ohh, let me guess! You see the military version has a switch that allows it to go full auto, and the civilian version doesn't have that. Which may be why conversion kits for the AR-15 are so popular at gun shows. You see, it is a civilian version of the gun, and a civilian conversion kit that returns the rate of fire to what it was back when it was designed as a military weapon. Very different to some people, unless you are being shot at, then the two might look just the same. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:38:37 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Perhaps you could explain to me how on any level this statement could possibly mean "civilian hunting rifles".
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Unless, of course, you're hunting civilians. |
Ohh, let me guess! You see the military version has a switch that allows it to go full auto, and the civilian version doesn't have that. Which may be why conversion kits for the AR-15 are so popular at gun shows. You see, it is a civilian version of the gun, and a civilian conversion kit that returns the rate of fire to what it was back when it was designed as a military weapon. Very different to some people, unless you are being shot at, then the two might look just the same. |
Yeah, that.....
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 03:42:53 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I was under the impression that you were advocating outlawing 'battlefield guns' |
I think I kicked over this particular ant hill when I said that, like the different types of licencing we have for different classes of motor vehicles, we ought to have different requirements for different types of guns. It isn't a question of having them made illegal, but of making what is essentially a weapon that was designed as a military rifle made more difficult to obtain than the Aurora shooter found it was. you can't just go down to the Freightliner dealer and drive off in one, you need a special licence, and insurance. This isn't to make life hard for truck drivers, but to recognize how much more dangerous an 18 wheeler is on the roads, so it bears a greater onus on the driver to prove competence than if you want to drive a minivan.
The standard recant to that argument is "we have the right to bear arms" which some people feel is absolute. It isn't. You can't make a nuclear warhead in your basement, you can't place shaped mine in your front yard for home defense, and you can't own a grenade launcher. There are lots of military toys that are illegal. I'm not so much interested in making assault rifles illegal as limiting their ownership to those who can prove that they are likely to use them safely. I love range firing big nasty weapons, but I would rather not see them in the hands of unstable whack jobs. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 04:36:27 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
An AR-15 is merely a plasticy, stylized semi-automatic rifle. There are few mechanical differences between an AR-15 and a more conventional hunting rifle. ARs are commonly used for hunting, but serve dual roles because they are also suited well for home defense. |
AR-15s are an inferior hunting rifle, their rate of fire may be fun to play with, but if you want one tap one kill, almost any bolt rifle is a better choice. If you need a sheet of lead to bring down a buck, perhaps you should work on your woodcraft, spend some time on the range, or find another hobby.
As far as "home defense", they might be good if you are expecting the road show from Mad Max to show up at your house, but they are crap for close quarters. A short pump action 12 gauge shotgun loaded heavy is vastly superior. Spraying bullets around your house in not conducive to a happy neighborhood, and puts at risk that which you wish to defend. |
The round required depends on what you are hunting. AT-15s are fine for smaller game, and a single round can easily take out a deer at medium range. There are also variants of the AR-15 with higher caliber hunting round options. An AR-10 is the higher caliber variant (7.62mm), which is excellent for long range large game hunting. The fact that it self reloads is merely a convenience in the case your first shot was off the mark. It gives you a potential second shot on the fleeing game. Never said I needed a sheet of lead, nor can an AR-15 lay down a sheet like an automatic can.
In an earlier post, I too stated that the safest home defense gun is a shot gun. Interesting to note, however, that the weapon of choice for many SWAT teams (clearing homes) is an M16 or AR15. Shotguns are seen as more of a breach/entry tool. The scary truth is that mobs are not an impossible nightmare, and if one wants to be prepared for the worst, they will prepare and train for such a scenario.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I was under the impression that you were advocating outlawing 'battlefield guns' |
I think I kicked over this particular ant hill when I said that, like the different types of licencing we have for different classes of motor vehicles, we ought to have different requirements for different types of guns. It isn't a question of having them made illegal, but of making what is essentially a weapon that was designed as a military rifle made more difficult to obtain than the Aurora shooter found it was. you can't just go down to the Freightliner dealer and drive off in one, you need a special licence, and insurance. This isn't to make life hard for truck drivers, but to recognize how much more dangerous an 18 wheeler is on the roads, so it bears a greater onus on the driver to prove competence than if you want to drive a minivan.
The standard recant to that argument is "we have the right to bear arms" which some people feel is absolute. It isn't. You can't make a nuclear warhead in your basement, you can't place shaped mine in your front yard for home defense, and you can't own a grenade launcher. There are lots of military toys that are illegal. I'm not so much interested in making assault rifles illegal as limiting their ownership to those who can prove that they are likely to use them safely. I love range firing big nasty weapons, but I would rather not see them in the hands of unstable whack jobs. |
Noone wants to see weapons in the hands of unstable whack jobs. We can all agree on that.
As was stated earlier, there are currently licensing requirements on true battlefield assault rifles (aka, automatic fire). They are stringent to the point of making it extremely difficult for a good law abiding citizen to obtain. This is where the worry lies. If we enact stricter laws, could semi-automatic weapons soon be handled in the same manner? I think many of us worry about government running away with the power to extreme levels - as happened in the UK. First they required all weapons to be accounted for and licensed... then eventually used that database to ban and collect the weapons from the citizens (at least, that is my understanding of it).
An AR-15 is not much different than a semi-automatic handgun. The biggest functional difference is that an AR-15 is more accurate at longer range due to the longer barrel and the higher powder content of the rounds. The AR-15 no more lethal than a handgun, and the rate of fire is not much greater (only due to less recovery time required between shots).
I think there is common ground on requiring all gun purchasers to pass a background check (which I believe is already required by most states). What would "licensing" do beyond that?
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 21:38:08. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 04:42:13 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I think there is common ground on requiring all gun purchasers to pass a background check (which I believe is already required by most states). What would "licensing" do beyond that? |
It would be nice to see some training/testing required......like what you have to do to get a driver's license.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 05:18:22 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Holmes doctor
Reads to me as though there was mounting evidence as to his psychological state and enough concern to predict the outcome or at least something similar.
So was it the gun or the person? |
That's the point. Why should someone like him be so easily allowed to HAVE guns in the first place? This isn't some either/or dichotomy. Mentally ill person+guns= what we've seen.
I had to take a piss test just to get a job directing cars to parking spots. I had to do an FBI background check to teach English in Korea. You don't think we could give a little more scrutiny to who owns a gun? Come on.
ETA: May have been said before. I can't be bothered to read through debates about this gun or that gun and what caliber this and that. I don't care. I won't own one.
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 17:19:27. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 05:45:56 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I think there is common ground on requiring all gun purchasers to pass a background check (which I believe is already required by most states). What would "licensing" do beyond that? |
It would be nice to see some training/testing required......like what you have to do to get a driver's license. |
Most states require a training course in order to obtain a concealed weapons permit. However, it is up to the individual states, as it is a state's right.
Kind of the same as a driver's license - anyone can drive a vehicle on their own property, but to take it in public you require a license.
Because a rifle (hunting or AR type) cannot be readily concealed, it generally does not require a license. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 06:02:16 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I suspect your father was raised with a respect for his firearm and practiced safe use/handling. Marksmanship (being able to hit what you are shooting at) takes proper training and practice. Both things the NRA advocates. |
Yes he was, and made sure that he passed this respect on to all his children, most of whom spent time in the military, except for me who spent 30 years in the police force.
Funny thing though, not one of us harboured any desire to own an M-16, AR-15 or any other weapon of that kind since we could not justify owning such a weapon.
I have owned a variety of weapons and truly cannot understand why anyone would have a need for an AR-15... We seem to be confusing NEEDS with WANTS.
I am certainly not advocating Gun Control, but better gun management would perhaps (given time) eliminate scenarios such as that recently experienced.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 06:10:58 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
I suspect your father was raised with a respect for his firearm and practiced safe use/handling. Marksmanship (being able to hit what you are shooting at) takes proper training and practice. Both things the NRA advocates. |
Yes he was, and made sure that he passed this respect on to all his children, most of whom spent time in the military, except for me who spent 30 years in the police force.
Funny thing though, not one of us harboured any desire to own an M-16, AR-15 or any other weapon of that kind since we could not justify owning such a weapon.
I have owned a variety of weapons and truly cannot understand why anyone would have a need for an AR-15... We seem to be confusing NEEDS with WANTS.
I am certainly not advocating Gun Control, but better gun management would perhaps (given time) eliminate scenarios such as that recently experienced.
Ray |
Ray, how is what you proposed different from gun control? Seems like semantic loops as to not be associated with a heated topic. Like people who say "I'm not a feminist but I agree with equality for women." or perhaps a less political example "I'm not a photographer I just earn all of my money by taking photographs every day." |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 06:37:41 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ray, how is what you proposed different from gun control? Seems like semantic loops as to not be associated with a heated topic. Like people who say "I'm not a feminist but I agree with equality for women." or perhaps a less political example "I'm not a photographer I just earn all of my money by taking photographs every day." |
Simple...I am not proposing controlling the weapon, merely suggesting that some not be available to the public and others require a demonstrated level of skill sets. What is being controlled in this instance is not so much the item, but rather the skill set required to be granted access to same... Some might view this as semantics, but I don't.
As for not wishing to be associated with heated topics, trust me when I tell you that I have never feared engaging in heated discussions.
I do believe I am one of those people who can honestly say "I am not a feminist, but do agree with equality for women"... :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 18:38:09. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 06:53:01 PM · #517 |
| sorry to break it to you Ray, but as I have long suspected, you are, in fact, a feminist. It's ok, it just means you think women and men are equal. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 07:30:27 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ray, how is what you proposed different from gun control? Seems like semantic loops as to not be associated with a heated topic. Like people who say "I'm not a feminist but I agree with equality for women." or perhaps a less political example "I'm not a photographer I just earn all of my money by taking photographs every day." |
Simple...I am not proposing controlling the weapon, merely suggesting that some not be available to the public and others require a demonstrated level of skill sets. What is being controlled in this instance is not so much the item, but rather the skill set required to be granted access to same... Some might view this as semantics, but I don't.
As for not wishing to be associated with heated topics, trust me when I tell you that I have never feared engaging in heated discussions.
I do believe I am one of those people who can honestly say "I am not a feminist, but do agree with equality for women"... :O)
Ray |
As frisca says, you are a feminist: "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." And also, you believe in gun control.
"Gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens. "
Have you told your friends and family yet? We're all here for you if you need support. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 19:33:48. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 08:08:02 AM · #519 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
we ought to have different requirements for different types of guns. It isn't a question of having them made illegal, but of making what is essentially a weapon that was designed as a military rifle made more difficult to obtain than the Aurora shooter found it was...
There are lots of military toys that are illegal. I'm not so much interested in making assault rifles illegal as limiting their ownership to those who can prove that they are likely to use them safely. |
There are different requirements. Short barrels, selective fire, calibers exceeding .50, etc.
Assault rifles are already illegal. Its not about making them illegal - they already are. The guns used by Holmes were not assault weapons - regardless of what you or the media calls them. An assault rifle by definition is a fully automatic weapon. NONE of Holmes weapons were fully automatic. They "looked" like a military version (the M16) but were not. They were the civilian version (AR15) semi-automatic that requires each cycle to be activated by a separate trigger pull. No different than a semi-automatic pistol, shotgun or other semi-automatic rifles by Remington, Browning, etc.
To claim that a semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle because it was used in an assault is like calling an ashtray used as bludgeon an assault ashtray or a knife used in a stabbing an assault knife. A battlefield (aka) an assault rifle is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon. And it is illegal to own without complying with Federal regulations already posted above. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 08:13:12 AM · #520 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Perhaps you could explain to me how on any level this statement could possibly mean "civilian hunting rifles".
Unless, of course, you're hunting civilians. |
Ohh, let me guess! You see the military version has a switch that allows it to go full auto, and the civilian version doesn't have that. Which may be why conversion kits for the AR-15 are so popular at gun shows. You see, it is a civilian version of the gun, and a civilian conversion kit that returns the rate of fire to what it was back when it was designed as a military weapon. Very different to some people, unless you are being shot at, then the two might look just the same. |
Totally untrue.
1. it is not "easy" to convert from semi to full auto.
2. receivers have been intentionally manufactured for years to prevent exchanging parts from a full auto into a semi-auto
3. even if you did do it, it is a felony.
...to continue calling an AR15 an "assault" rifle is either being inciteful or ignorant. Since we have removed the ignorant possibility due to the numerous postings regarding what an assault rifle is by definition, then I can only conclude you are being inciteful.
eta: Please see post #500
NFA
"Most current fully automatic trigger groups will not fit their semi-automatic firearm look-alike counterparts ΓΆ€“ the semi-automatic version is specifically constructed to reject the fully automatic trigger group by adding metal in critical places. This addition is required by the ATF to prevent easy conversion of Title I firearms into machine guns. Additionally, some fully automatic trigger groups are also permanently modified in such a way that they can no longer be made to function as fully automatic fire control devices. The ATF has listed required manufacturing procedures for modifying these fully automatic trigger groups to make them into legal semi-automatic trigger-groups for civilian sales."
Message edited by author 2012-08-03 08:31:46. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 08:16:17 AM · #521 |
"Gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens. "
i'm new to the fray, never took a side. guess i'd lean toward gun control. after reading through, is it something as simple as removing the word "restricting"? i mean, aren't even gun advocates in favor of limiting by law? |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 08:50:41 AM · #522 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?) |
The issue is less HOPING, than EXPECTING. In the worse parts of Oakland, a very high percentage of the young male population goes around armed. Once you have a weapon, the expectation that the other party in any confrontation will also be armed goes up astronomically. If you assume the other person will be armed, you have to shoot first if you expect to walk away. |
Again we do not agree. Is carrying a spare tire in your car "expecting" a flat? Is having a fire extinguisher in your home "expecting" a fire? Is having a first aid kit "expecting" an injury? Is having a home generator "expecting" a power failure - or is it simple forward planning for a series of what if's? Each person is responsible for assessing their own life risks, and making prudent preparations for whatever level of risk they are comfortable with. Those who ride a motorcyle have inherantly accepted a higher level of risk than those who decide not to. No one can be prepared for EVERY contingency, so it is up to each individual to decide which contingincies they will be prepared for. Some choose defense against a criminal assault as a worthwhile event to be prepared for. Some do not.
To state a "shoot first" mentality is to reveal a serious lack of understanding regaring "use of force" law and the training that many firearms owners have chosen to study. Use of Force law review is required in every civilian CCW class that I know of - except Vermont where one does not need a permit - it is considered an individual right by the State Constitution.
NRA classes include not only safety and responsibility training, but also a section on use of force - often taught by local Judges and Lawyers.
Message edited by author 2012-08-03 08:59:24. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 09:13:07 AM · #523 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Now.....I realize you say that I'm clueless, but I did kinda latch on to this line.....
The Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA was established in 1954 for the sole purpose of developing military firearms using the latest in plastics and non-ferrous materials.
Perhaps you could explain to me how on any level this statement could possibly mean "civilian hunting rifles".
Unless, of course, you're hunting civilians. |
It doesn't matter what Armalite's purpose was. It matters that no AR15 since 1963 has been fully automatic. It matters that AR15's manufactured by Colt and other manufactures since 1963 have all been semi-automatic and designed for civilian purchase. It matters that the AR15 used by Holmes was a civilian version semi-automatic - used in both competition sports and hunting (not a battlefield rifle, not an assault rifle - a civilian semi-automatic rifle that LOOKED a certain way). It doesn't matter one bit what Armalite's original purpose was.
Clueless is exactly how I see it. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 09:34:14 AM · #524 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Now.....I realize you say that I'm clueless, but I did kinda latch on to this line.....
The Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA was established in 1954 for the sole purpose of developing military firearms using the latest in plastics and non-ferrous materials.
Perhaps you could explain to me how on any level this statement could possibly mean "civilian hunting rifles".
Unless, of course, you're hunting civilians. |
Originally posted by Flash:
It doesn't matter what Armalite's purpose was. |
Well, yes.......it does. Because no matter how you try to obfuscate its original intent, the weapon was designed and built to shoot people.
Clouding the issue by stating that it is no longer a military weapon does not change its original design and intent.
If you cut the roof off your Chevy, fill it with dirt, and plant flowers in it, that doesn't mean it is no longer a car......it just means that you decided to use your car for a planter. The fact that you think you can tell me I'm clueless simply because this rifle, designed and built to shoot people, didn't make the cut through the quartermaster's and/or GSA offices, doesn't change the facts.
You're missing my point entirely, and I'm not even sure why you're arguing it. It's a fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon by a company whose sole function was to design and build military weapons.
Which part of that are you unclear about?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2012 09:54:27 AM · #525 |
I believe guns should be used for one thing and for one thing only, to stop this thread. In a squash court when you hit the ball it will inevitably come flying back, nobody's opinion will ever budge in this here thread, only crevices will deepen.
Me no more clickith here :)
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 09:50:25 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 09:50:25 PM EDT.
|
