Why do YOU want a mass-murder-rifle? ... ... by Bob Nelson
There is only one reason for a rapid-fire firearm with a large-capacity magazine:
to kill lots of people quickly.
The military needs the capacity to kill lots of people quickly. The police occasionally needs that capacity. The only civilian who needs the capacity to kill lots of people quickly is a would-be mass-murderer. In civilian hands, a rapid-fire rifle with a large-capacity magazine is a mass-murder-rifle .
No hunter needs more than two rounds between reloads. No target shooter needs more than one round... (and lots of target firearms are single-shot).
So... why does any civilian want a mass-murder-rifle?
One NT member said such weapons are needed to be prepared to repel a foreign invader. That's so crazy that any person who says it should be prevented from touching any weapon! Another said that such weapons might be needed to fight the government. That person, too, should not be allowed to manipulate anything potentially lethal.
So... the only reasons I have heard are ludicrous. Ludicrous to the point that they are not credible. The people who want mass-murder-fifles don't plan on defending our beaches from landing craft full of invading Nicaraguan or Canadian troops. They don't seriously plan to fight the US Army. So... why??
What's your reason for wanting a mass-murder-rifle?
Note that the question is not about the right to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles. Unless Congress or the Supreme Court changes the situation, it is clear that anyone (or so close as makes no difference) may own a mass-murder-rifle. The right to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles is not the topic, here.
My question is why anyone who is not a would-be mass murderer would want a mass-murder-rifle.
The last few years have shown that these mass-murder-rifles end up in the hands of... mass-murderers. You can't hunt with a mass-murder-rifle. You can blast away at targets... and I admit that that is kinda fun for a few minutes... but is it worth a couple dozen deaths every few weeks? We've seen occasional use of mass-murder-rifles to intimidate people who don't carry mass-murder-rifles... but I really, really don't want to imagine that that is why YOU want a mass-murder-rifle.
So... ... What is YOUR reason for wanting a mass-murder-rifle?
Tags
Oh? Why do you need to have state sanctioned gay marriage? You should be satisfied with just discreetly shacking-up with your gay lover. The Founders made it clear in their writings that whatever their religion, the American people should be a moral people.
Sounds like you've confused the silly and irrelevant rituals of your cult with a secular legal contract. No wonder the Christofascists lost in court on the mixed-race and same-sex marriage issues, because they literally have no clue what the legal issues are and were unable to provide even ONE secular legitimate purpose to deny civil rights based on the relative race or relative gender of one's spouse.
Funny that your ilk still hasn't figured it out.
.
Maybe you shouldn't get to just declare a right that isn't even in the constitution. What is the secular basis for needinggay marriage instead of an alternative?
You mean like equal protection of the law? Maybe you need to read Loving v Virginia, Windsor v US and Obergefell v Hodges to learn why the government can't treat one group of persons differently from another without at least a rational basis to do so. Your cult's racist and anti-gay sharia laws can't be enforced by the state, nor are Jim Crow laws viable anymore. Separate ain't equal, nor are any "alternatives to marriage" recognized by other states, the feds, or other countries. That's why "civil unions" were consistently found unconstitutional.
.
Some people think that all of this sexual and moral ambiguity and chaos leads to a society that refuses to differentiate right from wrong and good from evil. Therefore, people are more likely to take out their stresses on an innocent populous with whatever weapon they can find - AR15, pressure cooker bomb, rental truck, whatever. I'd say there is a compelling state interest there.
Right......because not being able to deny the civil rights you enjoy to the people you hate is exactly like terrorism. LOL.....I guess the saying is very true that "To those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
I wrote "double-barrel shotgun". I don't think you can fire more than two rounds without reloading.
Have to correct you on a couple points.
Depending on the bullet configuration, a round from an AR is less likely to penetrate a wall than a 9mm handgun or a shotgun. At over 3000 feet per second a light-weight frangible .223 round will simply disintegrate once it touches anything.
The tuned AR platform is generally extremely accurate at long ranges out to 600 yards. With a nice scope and a drop-in trigger mine easily shoots 1 moa (a one inch group at 100 yards) and mine doesn't even have a match grade barrel (yet).
Homosexuality is a behavior but race is not. It is racist to compare being black to a behavior that is both a sexual perversion and a biblical abomination. But I won’t have that debate here. Homosexuals don’t think they have to explain why they need to get married (in accordance with a fabricated constitutional right) and nobody has to explain why they need a “mass murder” rifle (under an actual constitutional right). If you don’t like mass murder rifles, then don’t buy one.
Homosexuality is a behavior but race is not.
And the earth is the center of the universe, right?
I have 15 semi automatic rifles and a couple bump stocks in total I have over 200 weapons most are rifles.
Thanks for debunking the NRA claim that the majority of Americans are gun owners. In fact, the vast majority of weapons are owned by people like you. And the vast majority of stolen weapons are probably obtained from people like you.
These semi-autos are also not accurate enough to be a good hunting weapon.
Thanks for admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.
Homosexuality is a behavior but race is not.
And the earth is the center of the universe, right?
The universe has no known center. But feel free to take off and chart it out.
I don’t know whether to laugh or weep...
I know the feeling.
Why do you need to have state sanctioned gay marriage?
Because, a marriage license is granted by God or, the church but, rather from the state, so, every marriage is sanctioned by the government, not the church.
a society that refuses to differentiate right from wrong and good from evil. Therefore, people are more likely to take out their stresses on an innocent populous
That is illogical.
Good people do not see themselves as rulers of the world using force to oppress other people.
Good people do not use violence to harm or kill people because of a difference of opinion.
People with an obsessive need to control others are the people more likely to take their frustrations out on innocents. This is why we have laws to restrict access to weapons for the people who have felony convictions for committing violence against innocents. It is evident that we need stricter enforcement of the laws on the books and possibly more arrests and then counseling for the individuals who go through life threatening harm to anyone.
We definitely need more oversight and counseling in schools for the bullies who don't fit in from a young age.
It is evident that we need stricter enforcement of the laws on the books and possibly more arrests and then counseling for the individuals who go through life threatening harm to anyone.
The world will never be free of bullies. We need to teach boys how to be men so they can stand up for themselves.
Homosexuality is a behavior but race is not. It is racist to compare being black to a behavior that is both a sexual perversion and a biblical abomination
Actually sexual orientation is a neurological trait much like handedness. Race is merely a social construct. And I'm not sure why you think the nutty and bigoted superstitions of a Bronze-age cult have anything to do with either of those facts.
Actually sexual orientation is a neurological trait much like handedness. Race is merely a social construct. And I'm not sure why you think the twisted views of a nutty Bronze-age cult has anything to do with either of those facts.
Sexuality is a behavior. Race is not a behavior no matter how much you twist and turn. If a person gets robbed and the police ask for a description of the assailant, including race and gender, I bet even the dopiest of the looney left won’t say “gee, I don’t know . . . race is a social construct and gender is a choice so just check everybody.”
Because, a marriage license is granted by God or, the church
The above should read "Because, a marriage license ISN'T granted by God or, the church."
I think his point was that you don’t need a gay marriage any more than a person needs a mass murder weapon. If you can get one just because you want it and have a right to it, then the same goes for the other.
We need to teach boys how to be men so they can stand up for themselves.
That is the problem.
Settling differences with violence results in more violence and ripples outward with everyone claiming to be both victor and victim.
Where do "men" work that it is allowed to settle differences with violence?
That is the problem.
Whinning is the problem.
Settling differences with violence results in more violence and ripples outward with everyone claiming to be both victor and victim.
Nonsense. If you stand up for yourself like a man, the bully goes away.
Where do "men" work that it is allowed to settle differences with violence?
Earth.
Whinning is the problem.
I agree that I don't like whining so I avoid whiners.
Bullies come in assorted sizes and genders. I have found it best to avoid those who use fists instead of words. Bullies who use fists should be behind bars (and counseled) until they learn to respect others.
A beating just teaches them to pick on the people that they can get by with it - this usually winds up with them abusing women and children ... and sometimes killing people who they can't beat or control.
Men, who look for an excuse to be violent in order to prove they are a "real" man, are the problem.
Men, who look for an excuse to be violent in order to prove they are a "real" man, are the problem.
Total nonsense. There are times when physical conflict simply cannot be avoided. This is true among men and nations.
Boys need to be taught to defend themselves so they can stand up as men. My wife thought as you do and I was stupid enough to listen to this bullshit. One day, my son came home beaten up because he wouldn’t fight back. I immediately told him to disregard what my wife said and explained to him when and how to fight. I said if confronted in school, tell the bully to stop. If he doesn’t stop, then tell the teacher and give her a chance to stop it. If she doesn’t stop it and the bully hits you, then hit back hard and I showed him what to do. He had one fight after that and no one picked on him again. The only regret I have ever had on this subject is listening to my wife when I knew she was wrong.
Sexuality is a behavior.
Sex is a behavior but sexual orientation is not. You have a sexual orientation regardless of whether you ever engage in sex.
.
Race is not a behavior no matter how much you twist and turn.
No one claimed that "race" is a behavior exactly, but it is both a social construct and a choice. The former is proven by the "one-drop" laws in confederate states like Louisiana, while the latter is proven by the choice to engage in "passing".....which is how Homer Plessy variously identified as white, negro, octaroon, mulatto, quadroon, etc. Many folks who were legally black under the racist laws of the southern states made the choice to pass as white in order to have full civil rights.
Moreover there's no scientific reality behind our culture's concept of "race". It's just a social invention used to justify social stratification.
People with an obsessive need to control others are the people more likely to take their frustrations out on innocents.
Bingo. I think that's why there's such a high correlation with domestic violence. These mass shootings are committed by men who feel frustrated by their inability to impose their will on others (ie women).
I wonder if there's also a correlation to those who seek to impose their Christian sharia laws on others? At least on some issues like abortion there sure seems to be one.
Bingo. I think that's why there's such a high correlation with domestic violence. These mass shootings are committed by men who feel frustrated by their inability to impose their will on others (ie women)
I wonder if there’s a correlation between gender confused men and boys raised by women who think there’s something wrong with being a masculine male. They’ll probably be more gender confused males as the result of a liberal nitwit who took them to drag clown story time at the local library where the poor thing can be encouraged to raise his hand with the others in response to the question “who wants to grow up to be a drag queen?”
Do bad people think they are bad?
Depends on how objective they are and what their goal is.
I believe the people striking out to hurt others are beyond caring about good or bad. They want retribution for the pain caused by needs that haven't been met by their parents, friends, and society. Sometimes they have been victims of child abuse and sometimes they need a guidance counselor to help them understand how to cope with negative emotions in a constructive manner before the situation escalates to ruin their lives and the lives of their victims.
I think that's why there's such a high correlation with domestic violence.
Could be.
Most people will scoff at the "war on women", but there were double the women killed by their husbands/boyfriends than there were soldiers killed in war in 11 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. I suppose because the women are killed singularly across the nation, it is not newsworthy. It seems to only be newsworthy when the domestic violence escalates into mass murder.
Every nine seconds, a woman in America is assaulted or beaten, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence . A mind-boggling one in three women (and one in four men) has been a victim of physical brutality by an intimate partner, the group also reports. That makes intimate partner violence "the single greatest cause of injury to women," per the Domestic Violence Intervention Program .
Hard to imagine the scope we're talking about? Consider this: The number of women killed by a current or former male partner added up to nearly double the soldier lives lost in war in Afghanistan and Iraq during the same 11-year time frame, The Huffington Post calculated last year.
The uncomfortable truth? The majority of marriages will include some violence. The Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) reports that the FBI "estimates violence will occur during the course of two-thirds of all marriages."
Occupation, income level, urban or suburban environment — studies show that none of these factors is an indicator of more or less incidents of domestic abuse. When it comes to racial divide, there is no difference either. "White, Black and Hispanic women all incur about the same rates of violence committed by an intimate partner,"
Bob, that depends on the shot guns ammo.
5 rounds of double aught buckshot contain roughly 45 30 cal round balls, even a novice can fire 5 rounds in under 15 secs be it they use a semi or a pump action. See where I am going?
If I had to face either ild face the rifle in the hands of someone praying and spraying trying to get all 30 rounds out a single trigger pull at a time in 15 secs , vs some one sending 9 30 cal sized rounds with each pull of the trigger.
that depends on the shot guns ammo.
So why wasn't the Vegas shooter using shotguns? I guess the shotgun ammo doesn't matter as much as how far you are from your intended target...
I own an AR-15 with several 30 round magazines (they came with it). Out here on the great plains we have raccoon, possum, dog and coyote packs and herds of deer that can make it impossible to keep pets or grow an orchard (deer just love peach trees). Since I live many miles away from any sort of law enforcement and this is my only rifle, why not have one that is perfect for home defense and long range target shooting as well? An AR platform is just about the most perfect all around long gun I can think of and since murder/mass-murder has never been my thing I don't feel a need to apologize, just explain.
The biggest problem with hard core anti-gunners is that no matter what reasoning you give them, their minds are already made up that your answer is wrong and you are a gun toting RWNJ! If you have a weapon that is black and even remotely resembles a AR, anti gunners will immediately try to tear you apart verbally. I have had it happen to me on more than one occasion. Even when I explain that it is a .22 caliber semi-auto, they still tell me, "but it is black and looks like an AR-15!" I have had similar discussions before and always found it to be exercises in futility. I live six blocks from the AZ/Mexico border in a small rural area of SE Arizona. I have been the victim of a home invasion by armed illegals in the past. I currently own 3 firearms, being a .380 semi auto pistol, a 9 mm semi auto pistol, and a .22 caliber semi-auto Mossberg M 702 Tactical Plinkster. The Mossberg is black and shaped just like an AR 15 except it is .22 caliber and not .223 caliber. All my firearms are for self and home defense. In a home invasion scenario, a semi-auto comes in handy when you have to fire quickly. Full auto spraying bullets all over the place is counter productive. I spent 20 years in the military. I was rated an expert shot and I have a valid concealed carry permit. I have taken and passed numerous firearm safety training courses and all my weapons are stored in gun safes with trigger locks. Personally, I see no reason for people that are not military or LEO's to own fully automatic weapons. If you want to talk about what you consider to be a "mass murder" weapon, you need to make sure you know just what you are talking about. Based on your initial opening comment, it sounds like you do not!
OK.
You hunt deer with a 30-round magazine. You hunt possum, too.
Right.
I have been the victim of a home invasion by armed illegals in the past.
How many did you kill?
If you have o ask a question like that, you are more ignorant than I thought! The fact is, I killed no one. I did not even own firearms at the time. After my wife and myself being beat up and tied up by the scum that invaded my home that evening, that incident provided the incentive to arm myself to protect myself, family, and property. I have never regretted it.
So what do you do when a group of deer wander into your garden, haul out ol' Betsy and just spray 'em all?
The fact is, I killed no one.
That's the answer I expected. (Although I expected you to say that you threatened them with a gun.) I wanted to come to the conclusion that even a home intrusion doesn't require a mass-murder-rifle as response.
Thank you.
If my freezer is full I generally just shoot over their heads, wave my arms and yell at them really loud. Put in trip wires attached to 12ga blank devices this spring around the garden and orchard and they scare me at least as much as the deer when they go off.
The biggest problem with hard core anti-gunners is that no matter what reasoning you give them, their minds are already made up that your answer is wrong and you are a gun toting RWNJ!
I agree.
I have earned the ire of both sides of the debate because I believe we ignore the mentally ill until they make us take notice.
We need to understand the personality of the mass murderers and what they have in common. Is it a judgmental attitude and the need to control others? Or something else?
The vast majority of people on Earth do not want to harm anyone and that includes the vast majority of people who own guns.
So what do you do when a group of deer wander into your garden, haul out ol' Betsy and just spray 'em all?
Farmers sometimes feel like it.
Someone once told me the following joke - at least, I took it as a joke.
A Missouri farmer was disgusted with all of the damage that the deer were doing to one of his fields. He called the conservation agent and asked who owned the deer. The agent replied "We figure it is 50/50. The state owns half and the farmer owns half." The farmer said "Well, you need to come over and collect your half because I am fixing to shoot mine."
The only non-ludicrous reason I can think of is intimidation of anyone who disagrees, as we saw in Charlottesville.
? If one finds the presence of a weapon intimidating, then I can see your point - yet not a shot was fired, and I do not recall a report of a weapon being pointed at anyone...
The fight was beyond nasty .. and a jackass behind the wheel of a car killed and maimed those of a differing view - not an 'assault style rifle' with multiple shot capacity.
No target shooter needs more than one round... (and lots of target firearms are single-shot).
I find this statement to be inaccurate .. I shot competitive pistol, and a minimum of 6 shots is required at a time ... with quick reloads required to complete the course in some cases (depends on the type of event one is competing in - there are instances where a 6 shot capacity is not enough)
I have read your feeling on firearms on other threads, and I respect your need/desire not to have anything more than a duck gun. Not all 'assault style' weapons are owned by individuals that kill, and based on the number of 'these' rifles sold .. the percentage of gun owners using said weapons to kill is quite low.
Morning XD..
Thanks for the info ..
I have not had a chance to look any numbers up, but I was thinking more along the lines of the AR-15 'assault style rifle' .. numbers sold, compared to number of said weapons being used as weapons of mass destruction ... once I can sit down at my computer I will see what I can find regarding percentages.
Thanks again...
? If one finds the presence of a weapon intimidating, then I can see your point - yet not a shot was fired, and I do not recall a report of a weapon being pointed at anyone...
Actually, one guy did fire a handgun, and was arrested a few days later.
Do you really think these guys' purpose in anything other than intimidation? Seriously?
I don't understand how any person of good faith can deny that clowns like these are actively trying to intimidate people they don't agree with.
Not all 'assault style' weapons are owned by individuals that kill, and based on the number of 'these' rifles sold .. the percentage of gun owners using said weapons to kill is quite low.
Fine. But why does anyone need to own a mass-murder-rifle? Why does anyone want to own a mass-murder-rifle?
Vicarious sharing of emotions??
XDm9mm,
Did you read the article?
Note that the question is not about the right to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles. Unless Congress or the Supreme Court changes the situation, it is clear that anyone (or so close as makes no difference) may own a mass-murder-rifle. The right to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles is not the topic, here.
If you want to own a dozen mass-murder-rifles, (like the guy in Vegas) that is your right!
My question is why you want to own mass-murder-rifles...
... and you seem to be avoiding answering...
You're floundering!!!
Anybody who has ever thought more than one minute about firearms and mass murder knows very well what a mass-murder-rifle is! A rapid-fire, high-capacity firearm has no utility other than to kill lots of people in a short time. It is a mass-murder-rifle.
It's amusing that you avoid the term as though it is toxic. Nah! But the object certainly is!
Actually, one guy did fire a handgun, and was arrested a few days later.
Thank you, I had not heard about a weapons discharge. I will look it up..
Do you really think these guys' purpose in anything other than intimidation? Seriously?
I don't understand how any person of good faith can deny that clowns like these are actively trying to intimidate people they don't agree with.
The pictures are just a day at the gun range to me .. I come from a gun family .. in the pictures that you have provided, do you see anything tense and aggressive in the way the weapons are being held?
These evil men with guns look rather calm to me.
'We' perhaps have different experiences in life, I have a different comfort level around weapons - these pictures show nothing threatening or intimidating to me ... stick said weapon in my face, I will feel differently, yet the odds are 'he' would have a .40 pointed at his gut - and yes I would prob piss my pants a wee bit (okay, maybe more than a wee bit).
Weapons present in Charlottesville did not lead to the violence that ensued .. in my opinion
But why does anyone need to own a mass-murder-rifle? Why does anyone want to own a mass-murder-rifle?
Partly cuz individuals think the weapons are cool ... and because they can. An X military friend of mine likes to riddle tree stumps out in the woods full of holes - his release valve as he calls it.
NO one needs a reason to own a weapon .. so there is NO real reason that can explain why they do - wish I had an answer for you.
Thanks for the link .. I was unaware when I made that statement - Bob pointed it out, and I did look it up ... dude was a panty waste, and should not have a firearm! Even fired more or less from the hip ... Ugghhh!
Good morning Colour Me! Is it Deja Vu or are these the same kind of inane disputes we use to have with the anti-gunners on NV?
Good morning Ed, so good to read you this fine snowing day in Montana...
The discussions on guns rarely change .. yet it is very nice to have a civil discussion for a change - that was an endangered species on NV 
? If one finds the presence of a weapon intimidating, then I can see your point - yet not a shot was fired, and I do not recall a report of a weapon being pointed at anyone...
I think the point is no one can tell what's in the mind of someone like that. It's not crazy or irrational to wonder just what he's got in mind in the next few seconds or minutes. Apparently, Stephen Paddock was seen openly bringing in many weapons to his hotel room in the few days before he started using them. It would have been nice if someone had thought to wonder what was going on. And it wouldn't be very assuring that police stopped him and determined he had a "right" to open carry. That doesn't mean he's passed a mental fitness exam or guarantee that as soon as the cops are a safe distance away he won't open up on the crowd around a back claim (as happened not too long ago in FL).
Is it Deja Vu or are these the same kind of inane disputes we use to have with the anti-gunners on NV?
Well, finally one of you admitted the inanity of the gun fetishists.
That doesn't mean he's passed a mental fitness exam or guarantee that as soon as the cops are a safe distance away he won't open up on the crowd around a back claim (as happened not too long ago in FL).
I cannot argue with you Atheist, since there is NO mental fitness exam required prior to purchasing a weapon, it is an unknown factor. To my knowledge there is NO standardized test that can be given in order to determine mental fitness.
I do not even to pretend to have an answer to the debacle that is mental health in America today (other than to say, quit drugging the young people). Recently I seeded an article regarding gun violence/mass shootings .. that researcher said that mental health was not 'much' of a factor, but owning a gun was (not a direct quote) ... perhaps when mental health professionals agree on 'something' then 'something' will be done, but who is the one that should make the decisions and will it be determined based on ones history?
Prob require a whole new government agency - I wonder if the employees will be as effective as the TSA?
Couldn't agree more Bob. These idiots are just an accident waiting to happen.
Simple non descript answer IMHO, it's an individual choice decided by each individual for reasons of their own choosing.
Why do people buy red sports cars when they get pulled over more? Freedom of choice.
IMHO, it's an individual choice decided by each individual for reasons of their own choosing.
E.A Only an IDIOT would choose, ANY type of a Gun for a " mass killing event " so all I can say to that is " Thank God that they are Morons "!
Motor vehicles have been used to kill, but they have other uses as well. There is no other use for a mass-murder-rifle than to kill lots of people quickly.
Exactly....a car's function is for transportation, a guns function is to efficiently kill.
Tate and Lobianca could have used one to take of the Manson clan. We know the Helter Skelter type prefer unarmed victims.
What is YOUR reason for wanting a mass-murder-rifle, Dean?
"My question is why anyone who is not a would-be mass murderer would want a mass-murder-rifle."
When you go to an outdoor range to shoot, you don't have to reload as much. Reloading isn't the fun part of range shooting.
A good relevance to your question would be:
"Why does anyone need a super duper high performance car, when there are speed limits ?"
Because there are race tracks to go to to let yourself go.....go.....go.....GO !
It's fun !
And a hundred round drum looks just so macho who could resist!
And a hundred round drum looks just so macho who could resist!
Haven't seen an actual drum magazine used so far. I know those tommy gun collectors love the look of that design. They pay BIIIIIIG bucks for those.
Isn't one of the primary goals when range shooting the marksman's ability to accurately place shots in a very small area or if you suck at least hit a large target? When shooting lots of rounds quickly doesn't the accuracy of the weapon change due to heat build up? Doesn't the accuracy of the weapon also depend on how the round is chambered which is why precision shooters use bolt action. If these are true then the range shooting you would do is less about proficiency in a sport but rather showering lead in a given direction.
When shooting lots of rounds quickly doesn't the accuracy of the weapon change due to heat build up?
Depends on how good you are. Ever seen Jerry Miculek shoot ?
He can empty 12 rounds out of a DA revolver in just under 3 seconds, and hit the target ! And that's having to reload too.
There are actually quite a few people that are fast shooters. They haven't murdered anyone.
Besides, an AR15 isn't an automatic. It's one pull....ONE SHOT !
All semi autos are, 12 shots would not be considered a sizable quantity anywhere, but what I question are the high capacity mags and drums, no drums are not something dating back to tommy guns but are 100 round mounted canisters. If you need 30 or a hundred rounds to delete a raccoon something needs improvement. The purpose of that much continuous available firepower is for hunting humans and in that service I would want several at my disposal, but when someone says they need that for home invasion protection or some other excuse they become suspect. If I can't eliminate the threat from an attacker or even several in my home with my 9MM, 357, or the 38 sp the AR isn't going to make difference.
no drums are not something dating back to tommy guns but are 100 round mounted canisters.
When's the last time you actual saw a real life modern drum mag. ?
"If I can't eliminate the threat from an attacker or even several in my home with my 9MM, 357, or the 38 sp the AR isn't going to make difference. "
Ever read the news reports of a few police firing 100 or so rounds, and only hitting the perpetrator a couple times. And they are supposedly "Trained".
"STRESS" can make you "MISS" numerous, numerous ........ NUMEROUS times.
6, 10,20 rounds, WILL NOT be enough in a civilian v. civilian confrontation.
I did see a news report several months ago about a yahoo carrying his drum equipped "assault" hate the word rifle around a U.S. airport which is totally legal outside secured areas. His daughter was flying out and he wanted to feel "safe", he was allowed to wander to his hearts content. Never seen one in person, but then again there are many things I personally have not laid eyes on to know they exist.
What will you do against three or more and possibly armed home invaders? Are you that sufficiently trained to need only one shot to drop an attacker? If you are, please email me and I'll put you in touch with several government agencies that would love to bring you and your skill set on board. Of course, that's assuming you could get through the background investigation and get a TS/SCI clearance.
Oh, the gun freak mythology. Vastly more guns are stolen from gun-owning homes than are used to protect them or their occupants:
ABOUT 1.4 MILLION GUNS STOLEN DURING HOUSEHOLD BURGLARIES
AND OTHER PROPERTY CRIMES FROM 2005 THROUGH 2010
Know where the vast majority of those guns end up? In the hands of gang members (who'd never be able to buy a legal gun) in cities like LA, Chicago and Baltimore so that gun freaks can crow about how awful the murder rates are there.
If I can't eliminate the threat from an attacker or even several in my home with my 9MM, 357, or the 38 sp the AR isn't going to make difference.
Chances are your attackers are going to be armed with 9MM, 357 or .38sp. Handguns are preferred by criminals by a very wide margin.
Perhaps you are interested in making it a fair fight. Not me, I don't mind out-gunning criminals.
Not me, I don't mind out-gunning criminals.
Oh, how many have you "out-gunned?"
Background check no problem, but if we are going to play a what if game and I would start with the simple contention that I have never been exposed to any invasion more serious than the Jehovah Witnesses. Yes I would probably be bested by a small swarm of intruders the exact number of which I would not estimate, but I expect that I would hit flesh with every bullet in the magazine especially if I could get them to line up quietly! I did qualify as expert in small arms with stationary targets! Yes Ali Baba and the forty thieves would render my feeble attempt mute but the realistic one, two or perhaps even three would see something akin to a bad day. How many armed intruders have you fought off at a given event? Gun, knife, hands, slingshot?
I did see a news report
That was a "Report". I was wondering when YOU actually "Saw/Seen" a drum magazine.
The repressive government won't allow me grenades or for that matter fully auto so I must make do. don't forget if I know they are breaking in but they don't know I am there I have the element of surprise, I have no reason to expect an armed invasion from M13, the crips or bloods, there is a greater possibility it would be from law enforcement that got a bad google direction for a no knock!
I am guessing hundreds all on game cube!
The ammosexual was carrying it in open display as was required and the video was clear and concise. The police intercepted him and it was determined he was within his rights to openly attempt to intimidate the public. Although it was several months ago I could probably draw a nice picture of it, but it would be easier for you to just google
I have never seen a wild komodo dragon, but...........
And, you STILL didn't actually see it hands on. Based on YOUR comment, the single ever seen "Drum" guy was "LEGAL".
And the issue "IZ" now ?
I have never seen a wild komodo dragon, but...........
aaaahhhhh. the apples apples.....with a banana thrown in....argument.
1 guy on a video in decades, makes MANY !
Got it.
Months actually! What is the largest capacity magazine in practical use, the fact that there is something out in munitia land of which you are not familiar does not render it non existent it only means you are not all knowing. does it matter if the container is round as in the case of the drum which by the way was smaller in diameter but thicker than the old tommy guns, the point is the shear number of rounds contained and available. how many police engage in raids in close quarters with long guns, they can be awkward without rotational room.
What is the largest capacity magazine in practical use, the fact that there is something out in munitia land of which you are not familiar does not render it non existent
I am quite "Familiar" with a drum magazine gun. Most range from 10 to 35 grand out of pocket.
Seeing the video you claim is out there would be nice ! 
One. No shots fired.
police found him on a neighboring farm with a 9MM and stolen badge. Just a stupid kid playing a very dangerous game. He got out of jail a couple years ago. I see him in town every now and then..........last time he asked me for a job.
aaaahhhhh. the apples apples.....with a banana thrown in....argument.
1 guy on a video in decades, makes MANY !
Got it.
Successive mass-murders using mass-murder-rifles are thus dismissed...
Successive mass-murders using mass-murder-rifles are thus dismissed...
Okay ?
What will you do against three or more and possibly armed home invaders?
Personally, I plan to install computer-controled heavy machine-guns covering each approach to my home.
My fantasm is bigger than yours... and much more manly!
there is a greater possibility it would be from law enforcement that got a bad google direction for a no knock!
That's gonna end well.......
so I must make do
Full auto is stupid for home defense. An AR however, is easy to shoot, easy to handle and easy to customize.
My wife's favorite firearm is her single shot 20 ga. She can hit 8-9 out of 10 clays with it. But, Single shot is not ideal for home defense. Her second favorite is the AR.........she shoots better than I do with it, and almost as well as our oldest son who was a Marine Corps range coach.
Our nearest neighbor is about 2 miles away, and I'm on call 7 nights a week. Guess who makes the choice of home defense weapon in our house?
When you go to an outdoor range to shoot, you don't have to reload as much. Reloading isn't the fun part of range shooting.
So the ONLY reason you have your rifle is to go outdoor range shooting?! Huh, that's a new one on me, I got mine for hunting but I also know I don't need a 750 round cyclic rate, and a 30 round clip in order to hunt.
The firing rate for an AR 15 is not 750 rounds per minute. Not even close.
Care to show me in my comment where I said or even made the assumption that it was? My AR only has 2 setting safe and fire, So I'm fully aware of what an AR 15 can do. It is a semi automatic weapon that fires one round per trigger squeeze, which is good enough for me, what I don't need is a FULLY automatic weapon doing 750 rounds per minute.
what I don't need is a FULLY automatic weapon
So how did "Automatic" come into ANY argument about gun.......Control ?
I keep hearing this "Assault Rifle" stuff.
Which Mass Nut Job Murderer has used an actual "Assault Rifle" ?
I'm sure YOU know what a real "assault" rifle is....... surely YOU do ?
After all, pretty plastic pieces don't make an "Automatic". Put the same civilian AR15 mechanisms on a wood platform, and no one would blink a fucking eye.
So how did "Automatic" come into ANY argument about gun.......Control ?
Because modifications to semi-automatic rifles have been legal again since the AWB expired in 2004. This is how Steven Paddock was able to fire thousands of rounds into the crowd in LV in such a short period of time. These are modifications that gun freaks have lied again and again about not being able to functionally convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic one despite the fact that you can find multiple videos of people showing how they do exactly that and are promoted and sold for that very purpose.
Isn't being able to make your own choices a Great thing !
Occasionally, the owner of a mass-murder-rifle uses it for its obvious purpose. It's so great to be able to choose!
Occasionally, the owner of a mass-murder-rifle uses it for its obvious purpose.
More like "miniscule". I see you take the MSM hype as if it's many, many, many......
Many
Many
Many
Many
Many
MAAAAAAANY people doing this type of trash !
The firing rate for an AR 15 is not 750 rounds per minute. Not even close. Someone real good might get 20rounds per minute average Joe, about 12.
One shot every three-five seconds? That's the best you could do when firing into a crowd? Pathetic!
So how did "Automatic" come into ANY argument about gun.......Control ?
It didn't.....and neither did AR but somehow here we are, someone trying to make a strawman arguement
I keep hearing this "Assault Rifle" stuff.
Have you heard it from me?!
Which Mass Nut Job Murderer has used an actual "Assault Rifle" ?
Did I claim anyone of them did? The conversation started with hypotheticals and was deflected to something else
I'm sure YOU know what a real "assault" rifle is....... surely YOU do ? After all, pretty plastic pieces don't make an "Automatic".
My semi-automatic is ceramic!
Do you own a Remington Semi Auto? A Hunting Gun Right?
Did you then know many models of Semi Auto Remmingtons like the newer 750 have a faster cyclic rate than an AR?
It didn't.....and neither did AR but somehow here we are, someone trying to make a strawman arguement
Did I claim anyone of them did? The conversation started with hypotheticals and was deflected to something else
Did I claim anyone of them did? The conversation started with hypotheticals and was deflected to something else
It DID ! That's what an assault rifle is.....right ? Capable of Automatic Fire ? Seems to be all the rage in an argument against guns.
These were questions put to YOU ! I never posted anywhere that YOU actually said it.
Reloading isn't the fun part of range shooting.
Isn't that a part of knowing how to safely handle a firearm? No wonder there are so many "accidental" shootings of "I-thought-it-wasn't-loaded" woundings and killings in this country by "experienced" (and you all claim to be experienced if not expert at gun handling). And, just like a guy who buys a fast car and speeds -- just because you want to get your rocks off firing hundreds of rounds of ammo in ten minutes doesn't mean that you have a right to do so. No matter what you've invented to claim what the second amendment protects, there is absolutely no right to unlimited firing rates and high capacity magazines as well as the modifications needed to semi-automatic rifles fire like military-style automatic ones. That's one of the reasons that the NRA does not try to challenge state laws which ban those things.
No wonder there are so many "accidental" shootings of "I-thought-it-wasn't-loaded" woundings and killings in this country by "experienced"
"Experienced" is a relative term when Liberal types speak. If someone shoots themselves....that's their friggin problem.
How does that effect YOU again ?
It only "Effects" me when the "Gun Grabbers" (I got that term from another member) try going after "ME" for some "Ultra Maroons" actions.
Riddle me this......"How the Fuck can you clean a loaded gun" ?
How does that effect [sic] YOU again ?
You're the one who admitted that you don't like to reload your gun at the firing range because it's too cumbersome and interfere's with the charge you get from firing hundreds (or more?) of rounds per minute into a target.
Riddle me this......"How the Fuck can you clean a loaded gun" ?
That has got to be THE most absurd question I've ever seen from one of you. Please spare yourself the embarrassment (if you're capable of it) of explaining it to you.
Good question, but why are so many self inflicted gunshots occurrences during a cleaning, like the new thing of the selfie looking into the barrel, oops wrong button, bang!
but why are so many self inflicted gunshots occurrences during a cleaning, like the new thing of the selfie looking into the barrel, oops wrong button, bang!
Hahahahahaha ! 
Stupid is as Stupid Does ?
Maybe inbreeding is the thing these days. Who the Hell knows !
ooooooohhhhh....
Maybe.....just MAYBE....... it's natures way of population control. 
OMG.....I hope I didn't upset somebody with that comment. I wouldn't want to do that. 
That has got to be THE most absurd question I've ever seen from one of you.
YOU have NO CLUE what the entire conversation was about.....DO YOU ! 
ooooo.....Ya got me !!!!!!!!!!!! 
If someone shoots themselves....that's their friggin problem.
And if a white guy with an assault rifle shoots dozens of people in a Church, that's also apparently their friggin problem, because conservatives think it's too early to have even a civil discussion on basic gun safety laws. It's always too early for the gun nuts to talk about universal background checks, bans on bump stocks or limits on magazine capacity because that's a conversation they never want to have. They fear they'll lose the debate which is why they don't ever want to have one.
And if a white guy with an assault rifle shoots dozens of people in a Church, that's also apparently their friggin problem,
Sure.....that's what the conversation was about.
Holy Shit !
Burning.....Burning......BURNING ! 
Do Liberal types pay attention one iota ....... EVER ? 
oh....sorry....maybe I shouldn't have used the word....PAY !
Of course, the victim isn't necessarily the cleaner. But hey!
Of course, the victim isn't necessarily the cleaner.
is that a crack against minorities ? 
So... You own a mass-murder-rifle for target practice? Seriously?
Look... I've done the "blast away adrenaline rush" thing. It was fun! Grease gun with one incendiary for two ordinary! Yeeha!
Then I came home from the war and grew up.
So... You own a mass-murder-rifle for target practice? Seriously?
oooo.....Ya scared me.
Sure....if YOU need to call one that. Of course, mines from 1943, but what the heck. 
oooo.....Ya scared me.
Please don't be frightened... I don't like to think about "frightened" with a mass-murder-rifle...
I don't like to think about "frightened" with a mass-murder-rifle...
Never seen one on the streets. I suppose I live on the good side of the tracks.
Do your prepper friends from Baen's Bar know you are slandering Guns Bob?
Oh, my! Those guys! Do you know about John Ringo? Very cool. He actually wrote an episode about hillbillies loading a .50 into a pickup... and then blasting away at alien invaders.
Seriously. No joke. The ultimate Old Fart Easy Rider wannabee fantasm.
NT gun-nuts are small beer. Baen's Bar gun-nuts are the real thing!
I expect that the market for such a weapon would be huge if it were possible to acquire. The ghoul factor makes it exponentially more enticing.
Yeah, probably right.
I own several legal M4 platform rifles but none of them are "mass murder rifles" so no worries.
The 'bump fire' stocks aren't necessary for near full automatic fire rates. Any AR or AK platform can be 'bump' fired without one. It's just a matter of holding it differently. It's great fun to do once or twice but it's highly inaccurate and a serious waste of ammo.
Any AR or AK platform can be 'bump' fired without one. It's just a matter of holding it differently.
Really? I have an AR could you explain to me how holding it differently can get the cyclic rate to the minimum of 480 rounds per minute? The fastest I ever got it to was a comparison of the 3 round burst of the M-16
I guess some people prefer quantity over quality!
Unless you get really, really mad one day....
Why would anyone want to make their weapon less accurate?
Steven Paddock didn't care how accurate he needed to be. Firing 10+ rps into a large crowd from several feet away didn't even require aiming to be effective. Isn't that pretty much how the military does it in a fire fight? Sometimes they just stick a rifle up over a barrier and spray areas they can't even see.
Folks are in more danger of getting hit by a meteorite indoors or struck by lightning in a snowstorm.
it's highly inaccurate and a serious waste of ammo.
Which sounds like another good reason to ban bump stocks considering their only purpose would be mass casualties in a crowd from indiscriminate firing like we saw in Vegas. It's not something that would EVER be used for hunting.
Folks are in more danger of getting hit by a meteorite indoors or struck by lightning in a snowstorm.
That's interesting.
For you, a mass-murder-rifle in the hands of a mass-murderer is just as random as a meteorite.
I'm not sure that the victims in Vegas would agree.
Why would anyone want to make their weapon less accurate?
When firing into a crowd, accuracy is unimportant.
I guess i need to remind you again that yet another topic is not about me.
For some reason you always want to make it personal. Why is that "Bob?"
For some reason you always want to make it personal. Why is that "Bob?"
How is quoting you "making it personal"? If you don't want to be quoted, don't post.
That might work if you actually quoted me but since you didn't .... it doesn't work "Bob."
That said, since you apparently want to make this about me i can say that the mass murders my guns have committed is a null set.
So i leave you to contemplate the statistical realities of "zero" when compared to the very real number of folks who have gotten hit by lightning since i've own those guns.
Boggles the mind eh "Bob?"
Damn! We've been discovered!
You can't hunt with a mass-murder-rifle.
Who says you can't, please show me where this is true?
Oh and I would quibble with your terminology. I think you are referring to semi-automatic magazine fed rifles and not "mass murder rifles."
I could "hunt" with an RPG or grenades as well, why am I denied access. I saw a really cool cluster bomb that would get me out of that damn icy marsh quickly with a full quota and yet those damn feds said I can't use it even when I read the 2nd to them. Are there any limits you support or should Cliven Bundy be allowed to buy a current generation tank to promote his positions?
Mounted or not I should still have access. Right?
Difference between firearms and ordnance.
But I thought gun freaks believe the second amendment allows all of that: tanks, bazookas (showing my age here, aren't I) everything came under "arms"....don't you?
Sure lots of WWII but what about current technologies, and I knew one guy that had a Humvee and permits to have his mounted 50, why should he need a permit?
mounted guns; artillery.
There are shoulder fired rocket propelled grenade launchers that are currently banned for civilian ownership. They do not have to be "mounted" so your premise has huge holes in it.
Justice Scalia pointed out that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited and reasonable bans on weapons that could be considered "dangerous and unusual" are constitutional.
A Winchester 69 grain JSP or their ballistic silvertip both work great on deer out to a few hundred yards. Good combination of penetration and expansion. Lots of good deer rounds out there for the 5.56x45/.223.
As for home defense, You can't beat the Federal Lake City 62 grain steel core NATO 5.56x45 green tip penetrator (at least for out in the country). In an urban environment a bit more of a frangible round might be ethical.
A Winchester 69 grain JSP or their ballistic silvertip both work great on deer out to a few hundred yards.
Hunting the best "sport" aint it? When the prey doesn't have a even a chance of detecting the predator, why, a guy can just sit there with his beer "soft drink" and bag a nice buck without breaking a sweat. Cool.
In all fairness and as a former hunter the Prey has distinct environmental advantages of sight sound smell and familiarity, if you are to expect that a hunter would need to get up close and personal it wouldn't be a hunt it would be a humiliation.
In all fairness and as a former hunter the Prey has distinct environmental advantages of sight sound smell and familiarity, if you are to expect that a hunter would need to get up close and personal it wouldn't be a hunt it would be a humiliation.
And here I thought the skill of hunting was knowing how to use things like camouflage (natural and synthetic) and wind direction in order to stalk the prey. Turns out that all that's really needed is sniper's equipment and some practice, I suppose. I guess hunting today isn't what it used to be, eh?
As for home defense, You can't beat the Federal Lake City 62 grain steel core NATO 5.56x45 green tip penetrator (at least for out in the country). In an urban environment a bit more of a frangible round might be ethical.
How many home invaders have you encountered? How many have you killed?
Or is this all fantasm?
So you don't eat meat? I get overrun with deer at times because hunting is becoming a lost tradition. I've lost gardens and fruit trees to deer. I even bought tripwire and 12ga. blank firing devices to try to keep them away. If you can't beat em, eat em.
Two home invaders (three if you count the raccoon that killed my cat) Only the raccoon died. The junkies went to jail because I was armed.
The junkies went to jail because I was armed.
How many rounds did you fire?
Was a high-capacity magazine required?
No rounds fired with the two legged invaders. They were facing a semi auto 12ga. and decided not to risk it. The raccoon took 1 shot from a laser sighted .380 acp. No regrets either way. The only gunfight I was ever in where shots were fired I was wishing for more rounds before I'd even fired the first one of six. Luckily the sheriff arrived before I ran out with no damage done except to the truck he was hiding behind and the cinderblock wall I was hiding behind. Didn't even have to change my underwear afterword.
They were facing a semi auto 12ga. and decided not to risk it.
So... a classic hunting firearm, such as a double-barrel shotgun, was sufficient. No need for a high-capacity magazine.
The raccoon took 1 shot from a laser sighted .380 acp.
Again... no need for a high-capacity magazine.
--
The only gunfight I was ever in where shots were fired I was wishing for more rounds before I'd even fired the first one of six. Luckily the sheriff arrived...
That sounds... exciting... scary... What happened? How did you get into a firefight?
I've been in firefights... but I knew why. War.
So... a classic hunting firearm
Actually a Beretta 1201FP 7 shot riot gun complete with laser and flashlight.
Again... no need for a high-capacity magazine.
But I added a 5 shot extension mag for the .380. Fits my big hands better.
How did you get into a firefight?
I was the bouncer at a rough road house/strip joint. Kicked out a mean drunk who didn't want to be kicked out.
That was the only real problem I ever had in ten years as a bouncer. Retired soon after, went back to school and became a paramedic.
Where did you serve?
The Lake City 62 grain green tip is a LAP (light armor piercing) with a steel core. Definitely not designed for deer. Serious overpenetration with no expansion.
Just bought a box of Magtech 77 grain hollowpoints (5.56x45 ONLY) that I need to test. Any of the quality .223 69 grain soft tips are probably your best bet for deer. Definitely don't shoot hot 5.56x45 ammo in a barrel marked .223!
Where did you serve?
On a hilltop with a 5-6-man advisor team and a company of Vietnamese Territorial Forces, near a town called Tien Phouc, west of Tam Ky, near the northern border. I usually got tapped to accompany our guys in the boonies. I never fired a weapon, but I sure called in a lot of ordnance. And some Medevacs -- those pilots were... amazing...
And I heard a few bullets buzz by.
For Deer I wont go below 100 grains. Depending on what Im using. Prefer 150.
Just Me..........
You can't hunt with a mass-murder-rifle.Who says you can't, please show me where this is true?
So... you want thirty-round magazines for deer-hunting?
Wow...
So... you want thirty-round magazines for deer-hunting?
That deer -- several hundred yards away -- is a dangerous adversary, bob. You don't know anything about hunting, do you.
I bought a 10 round mag with a plug that only lets it hold 5 rounds for deer hunting. That's what's legal in my state.
I'm also getting way too old at 63 with my bad back to be humping 30 round magazines through the brush.
If you can't take a deer with a single round, you need a better gun, better ammo, more range time or all three.
Not legal in my or most states.
Five round limit by law for deer hunting and yes they do make five round magazines for the AR platform.
That said, no reason i'm aware of that you couldn't use 223. A well placed shot will kill your average deer just like 30 cal.
Gee... You're right! That deer might have a bazooka in its pocket.
Oh, wait... No pocket...
So... You have a mass-murder-rifle, intended for high-capacity magazines, but you limit it.
When I was young, I had a Remington with a three-round clip. It was a hunting rifle.
I like the versatility of the AR platform. Depending on your choice of the wide variety of ammo available for it, it's good for hunting anything from rats and prairie dog up to semi large game. The green tip NATO LAP rounds (only for 5.56x45 rated barrels) will kill a car block.
Now that's a hunting rifle!
Silly!
Everyone knows our gun powder propelled projectiles will not penetrate those alien shields.
You have to catch a cold and sneeze on them. Get with the program man!
Everyone knows our gun powder propelled projectiles will not penetrate those alien shields.
Maybe they never developed fired projectiles and had gone directly to laser weapons so have laser weapon shield that a fast flying chunk of lead could easily penetrate...? /s
No but weapons capable of creating massive casualties do exist .A guy with a semi auto handgun has certain limitations to the resulting carnage and 59 exceeds those inherent limits. Do you see a limit anywhere that is not an imposition? Do you support repealing the prohibition on full auto? Private ownership of military ordinance? Where do you draw the line and why should it be respected?
My answer. Am Vietnam Veteran-68-69.
In a truly free/secure nation a civilian population does not need military weapons.
I will add this. The 'Second Amendment before anything else crowd' has a goal of national insecurity.
A "mass murder" rifle does not exist.
The only purpose for a rapid-fire high-capacity firearm is mass-murder.
Because as we learned from the Detroit riots of 67 by the time the army gets there it’s too late.
I'm just glad you made it out alive, Dean. I'm picturing you saddling up Kid Rock's ornery pony and going on a high capacity magazine styled terror.
Don't laugh.
There were armored APC's driving down our residential streets in Detroit during the riots. Mounted Ma Deuce 50 cal and all.
That'll wake you up.
The article picture of those teabag rambos is hilarious.
Where was that picture taken, and who are those guys anyway. 
The article picture of those teabag rambos is hilarious.
The problem is that they take themselves seriously. And I suspect that many of our fellows here on NT dream of being in that photo...
I answer the question like this......One....Never heard of a "Mass Murder" Rifle.......Two ...We have a Second Amendment for Several Reason (Those who don't know what those reasons are.....need to do some homework and find out)......
Thinking that inanimate objects kill people is stupid.......I have had an AR-15 for over 10 years and it hasn't drawn one drop of human blood.....not to mention other guns that I have had for over 40 years...(No human blood spilled)
I guess I have the laziest "Mass Murder" weapons in the world....OR.....Maybe it isn't the weapons......Maybe....It's the Human that is pulling the trigger that is the problem......
The Two biggest mass killing in US history didn't involve any guns at all......but I don't hear anyone blaming Box Cutters, Diesel Fuel, Airplanes or Fertilizer.......maybe it has less to do with banning things that are used to kill.....and more to do with a Political Agenda to take away our Second Amendment Rights from Law Abiding Citizens......
Should there be restrictions on Automatic Weapons.......Sure......(There already are many Restrictions).....
I hear from the left all the time......That you can't legislate Morality.....and they are probably correct......but they won't apply that same thinking to guns......
Why do you see the need for limits at all, a fully auto weapon is nothing but a machine, no heart or malice simply a device. why is the limit you set the one to have. Why should I be prevented from protecting my family with biological weapons if I feel they are desired, where in the 2nd does it exclude that? Armor piercing belongs in every hunters ammo inventory for those wily deer that hide behind cars. Is there a common sense limit on what constitutes reasonable access. high capacity mags are mandatory in a war zone, but if you need one to protect your family I expect innocent people will suffer from your lack of ability made up for with shear firepower. You have serious weapons and I expect you are proficient with them yet nothing prevents someone far less so from having those as well. This past month alone there have been two instances in my rural neighborhood of bullets striking houses including one that blew out the back window of a car in the garage, from safe gun owners on their back yard ranges and I have heard ricochets tumbling over my head.
Don't get me wrong......If someone can come up with a law that keeps guns out of psycho's hands and doesn't infringe on responsible gun owners rights......I'm listening.....but so far I haven't heard much of anything that accomplishes that.....Until then....I will be armed to the teeth to protect my Family, Neighbors, Property, Way of Life, Country and My Constitutional Rights.
The left seems to want to make this about a "Hunting Right".......The Second Amendment has little to nothing to do with Hunting.
If someone can come up with a law that keeps guns out of psycho's hands and doesn't infringe on responsible gun owners rights......I'm listening..
So you support universal background checks? At the moment there are only 18 States that require background checks on secondary gun sale or gun show sales. Why don't all States have those laws? That would help keep guns out of psychos hands.
I am for Universal Background Checks.....every gun that I have purchased .....I had to pass a background check.....So yes I would support that....but banning clip size, AR-15's....AR-10's etc.....NO WAY.....Until you can gaurantee me that no Criminal could possibly get one.....AND that we will never have a tyranical government takeover...So.....I will keep my own insurance policy....and God Forbid a Military Take over happens or a Crazed Lunatic decides to come in to my Church and murder us all.....I will have a fighting chance to defend the innocent.
Read the article. Respond TO THE ARTICLE.
If you wish, write your own, elsewhere.
But your Comment had, roughly, NOTHING to do with my article.
I have no idea how you can say that with a straight face........I responded directly to your question In the Article...... "Why do you want a mass murder rifle"........
The right to keep and bear mass-murder-rifles is not the topic, here.
My question is why anyone who is not a would-be mass murderer would want a mass-murder-rifle.
The two are related. The sole purpose of any firearm is to kill something and it’s only dangerous if used for its intended purpose. The right to bear arms is in the constitution, in my opinion, for the specific purpose of preservimg the right to self defense (against people not animals) and to enable people to overturn a tyrannical government by force if it becomes necessary.
People live in different circumstances. In the city, the police might be able to come to your assistance in less than 15 minutes. I’ve been other places where the county sheriff couldn’t be on the scene in an hour, if then. You have to defend yourself. I’d probably have a shotgun AND a mass murder rifle. Why? Because i want to hear “OH SHIT” when I stick it out the front door.
Why would anyone need a 30-round magazine?
I don't for hunting game or target practice......but the Second Amendment isn't for or about Hunting (Unlike most on the left try to portray it).
So it's a matter of laziness and softness then. Fits the type.
why would anyone need a 16 gallon gas tank in their car
Actually... your thumb pushes thirty times, regardless of the number of magazines. But hey!
Oh.
I'm out of date. I haven't used a gun in a long time.
Do you buy loader-clips, or whatever they're called -- the things that let you push a whole shitload of rounds into the magazine at one time?
Actually, putting 30 rounds in a 30 round magazine is not really a good idea. I'm always surprised when a Vet doesn't remember that.
TBI?
TBI?
Truth to tell, I didn't carry a rifle in the field. I carried a .45, and it never left its holster.
If I remember correctly, the M16 didn't have thirty rounds. More like sixteen, I think... but that was a long time ago.
That's why I like the Lake City NATO ammo that comes in stripper clips.
Most mags were 20 rounds in the Nam era. But there were 30 rounders and 100 round dual drum mags as well.
Ok. I handled an M16 in Basic, but not after.
My era, late 70's early 80's was 30 round mags but I know it was 20 rounders earlier. Filling either up to 100% capacity back then was not recommended. Overly stressed the mag spring and could cause jamming problems in the weapon.
not sure about today's mags but old habits die hard so I still do it today
20 round mags were standard when the 16 came out , was soon upped to 30.
The only reason they antigun nuts want to ban these weapons is because they look scary. The assault weapons ban back in the 90's had little to no effect on the murder rate. The use of "assault" rifles in murders is extremely low. FBI stats show that there are around 400 murders committed with long guns of any type. That would include shotguns, single shot weapons, bolt action rifled and semi automatics like the AR15.
Very true, I would admit I thought the ban initially made sense until it was explained to me what constituted the qualification. Bipods and flash suppressors do not make the weapon more of a threat. I do however reject the need of high capacity magazines, bump stocks, armor piercing rounds, these are the providence of people that need to remove quantities of other people from conflict.
The only reason they antigun nuts want to ban these weapons is because they look scary.
Yeah, I'll bet those now two+ dozen dead people in TX only thought they "looked scary." I'd love to see you try that BS with the wounded survivors.
Why have a firearm at all? Begging for mercy is underrated. And you don’t really have to be faster than an assailant if you run you . . . you just have to be faster than your wife. Or if you live near anti-gun Hillary, then maybe one of her armed bodyguards can come to your assistance.
I thought it was "take your guns Obama" except he never even mentioned it. Now let some deranged nut job take a shot at your fear-full leader and I expect the gun grab would be in effect rather quickly.
I thought it was "take your guns Obama" except he never even mentioned it. Now let some deranged nut job take a shot at your fear-full leader and I expect the gun grab would be in effect rather quickly.
I didn’t mention Obama and Trump is not my leader any more than he’s yours.
Assassination is not the topic. Please desist, both of you.
I am a second amendment advocate, but I don't see any reason for the average person to own an assault weapon unless they plan on going to war!
My family has always owned rifles, shotguns for hunting purposes. Have two handguns for protection. Even own a Civil War sword.....now, that's a object to behold.
I am against assault weapons! I am, also, against open carry. It is frightening to say the least to see a person walk toward you with a rifle over the shoulder.
If they don't want me to have something, that is a good reason to have 3 or 4 of them
If they don't want me to have something, that is a good reason to have 3 or 4 of them
In child psychology (and maybe in the adult realm, too) that's called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.
I am gonna live with my ODD. Ain't gonna scream at no sky!
Defiance, is not a disorder it is a right
Here is the gun debate as I see it.
Most of us agree, we don't want civilians to have easy access to C-4 or other extremely dangerous explosives. We have laws that ban civilian ownership of most types of explosives. That doesn't mean a criminal can't make a home made bomb and kill and maim many people at a marathon, doe that mean we shouldn't have laws against it just because some criminals will find a way?
Most of us agree, we don't want civilians to have easy access to rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks, missile launchers and many other weapons directly developed and intended for waging war. That doesn't mean criminals could never get their hands on some of those items and cause untold damage to a civilian populace. That's why we have our military that has access to those weapons with strict controls so they can protect us if attacked by a foreign government deploying such weapons against us.
Most of us agree, we don't want civilians to have easy access to fully automatic weapons that are designed for killing as many people as possible. We have laws that ban civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons without strict licensing and requirements being met. That doesn't mean criminals aren't able to convert semi-automatic weapons or use other means to create a similar effect.
So first, the excuse that I hear often is that creating new laws to ban weapons and magazine size won't stop criminals from getting access to those weapons, and that's true. But what gets forgotten is that by that logic, why have any laws at all? The answer is that we have to have laws and punishments for breaking those laws or we will live in complete anarchy. Just because a burglar can get through any locks doesn't mean I want to get rid of laws banning breaking and entering. I want that burglar charged and punished if caught breaking the law. The same is true with gun laws, having them presents a deterrent AND sets up punishments for breaking those laws.
This was part of the problem with the attempts made by the ATF to crack down on straw gun buyers, they presented the evidence of these guys buying dozens of guns legally then selling them on the secondary market to people who didn't have to go through any background check, but the prosecutors declined to prosecute because technically what the straw dealers were doing wasn't specifically banned by any laws, the NRA saw to that.
So we can either choose to be responsible Americans who are willing to have a civil debate about what assault weapons should or shouldn't be allowed, whether bump stocks serve any real purpose other than mass murder, whether 100 round magazines are necessary for civilian use and whether or not smart gun technology should be allowed, or we can stick our head in the sand and claim that even having that debate is an affront to the 2nd amendment.
It needs to be stated loud and clear, "NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN ALL GUNS", and the concept of some "slippery slope" that will lead to the banning of the over 300 million guns in America is beyond ludicrous and not a valid argument. Also, the argument of needing military style weapons to fend off our own military is ludicrous unless you legalize EVERY military weapon we have which would simply be insane. No assault rifle armed militia would be able to stand up to our governments military might let alone a single drone.
So be reasonable, agree to have a civil debate about which guns, magazines and accessories are and aren't truly necessary for civilian use, and then vote on them. I think the reason the NRA keeps preventing any vote by a combination of bribery (aka lobbying) and coercion is that if they let us vote I believe we'd see large support for universal background checks and limits on magazine capacity and likely bans on bump stocks which is why the NRA has to keep lying to it's members telling them the government is trying to take all their guns away.
I'll answer the question....With another question.....What is the purpose of the Second Amendment?
I'll answer that with Justice Scalia's ruling on the 2nd amendment.
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
Sure....I agree....we have restrictions and requirements on what we can own.......but I would argue......that once you make a weapon Legal.......banning it is a big problem......Only Law abiding citizens will turn them in......We live in a Free society with many Liberties......it isn't reasonable to think that we are going to round up Millions of guns and the bad guys won't keep theirs......
I was thinking, I don't have a weapon of mass murder, (although all my guns together could put up a ruckus), and then it dawned on me that we do-- We have an AR-15. It doesn't have a giant clip, and neither one of us hunt, but my husband does compete in target shoots, and he feels that it is a much more accurate weapon at 3000' than just about anything else we can afford. He's a crack shot-- I believe I fired it once, but have a constitutional aversion to how it looks. It looks scary, to me.
I much prefer my Browning Sweet 16 shotgun, as it looks more "normal"- and it has a plug that only allows 3 shells in it. Of course, it kicks, badly. So, I have to brace myself. I have my Great-grandfather's 1885 Spencer Repeating shotgun, my great-grandmother's 22 rifle that she used to kill a squirrel to make broth for Grandpa when he had typhoid fever, and lots of other guns. Neither of these antiques can be fired right now. I also have my grandpa's 20 gauge shotgun, and I actually have ammo for it, so that's good.
My husband is the big gun aficionado, not me. But, before I went blind in one eye, I was a good shot. I haven't fired a gun since...
Second Amendment-Bearing Arms. Amendment Text | Annotations. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Soooo, what "well regulated Militia" do you belong to????
Soooo, i guess you mm
Issed where SCOTUS rules the the 2nd amendment gave individuals the right to bear arms regardless of formal membership in a militia.
regardless if membership in a militia.
you do not have to join the militia to be in the state's militia.
based on your age, chances are your already in it regardless what you think about it. read your state constitution.
and of course, you will find a conscientious objection clause as well.
as we own this country and are all members of the state militia's, it is our duty to protect our country or lose it.
The militia is defined as all able-bodied men of a certain age, plus women who have actually joined the National Guard
Are you a member of the National Guard?
unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Any ambiguity between "unorganized" vs. "well organized"?
The militia is defined as all able-bodied men of a certain age
Are you a member of the National Guard?
nope. I am an able-bodied veteran of a certain age
BAN!! All Nurses!! Mass Murdering Nurses, Ban ALL Nurses!!
Germany serial killer: Niels Hoegel 'killed at least 100'
The military needs the capacity to kill lots of people quickly. The police occasionally needs that capacity.
You falsely assume that putting down a lot of targets - in your mind innocent targets - in a short time is the only reason to have a high capacity magazine, but it's not even the most basic reason. You have a high capacity magazine so you don't run out of ammunition and have to reload. A person may be in a fire fight where it's difficult to actually hit the enemy. The enemy may be protected through cover or armor so that one or two rounds will not do the job. Bullies - because they are cowards - often travel in packs. In a home invasion situation, there is often more than one person breaking in. Any of these are perfectly valid reasons for a civilian to have a high capacity magazine and none of them involve "mass murder."
We have many tools that are capable of more than we are likely to need, but it's almost always better to have more than you need than to risk having less. Most of us live in a bigger house than we need. Most of us would like more income than we need. Most of us drive cars that can go faster than we need. Many of us drink more alcohol than we need. Ultimately, life is full of choices and we are responsible for how we use the tools we have.
A person may be in a fire fight...
There are something like five million mass-murder-rifles in this country. Obviously (and thankfully) only a tiny number are ever actually used to their purpose.
Even fewer (none?) are used in civilian firefights... obviously and thankfully.
I used to shoot an M-2, 800 rounds per minute.. it was fun, Can't say I ever mass murdered with it though. To this day I like to empty a magazine as fast as I can pull the trigger, while shooting up nothing in particular... I have an AR, and an SKS... and a garand... that are really fun for that kinda thing, and yes, even serious target practice, but my work still gives this old man an M-16 for the serious target practice, lol..
Amazing, still trying to prove you have a "big set"?
you have a "big set"?
I carry mine around in a wheelbarrow
I hope you have your arsenal securely stored...
yes, I have a gun safe, and all but my .357 is locked inside it.
What would be crazy is to give government the power to take your guns away.
That will simply never happen, Dean, no one wants to take their uncle's hunting rifle away from him. There is an extremely small fringe of anti gun people who actually want to outright ban guns, but there's simply no danger of it. Banning extended magazines and bump stocks is a no-brainer; the only thing they're good for is making a rampage more successful.
The police occasionally needs that capacity
When I read this claim in the article.....my first thought was.....Gee I thought the police were supposed to be good shots....
My next thought was .....If the police "occasionally need" High Capacity Clips......then why wouldn't a citizen......Are we better shots than the police?
Who is online
65 visitors
The only non-ludicrous reason I can think of is intimidation of anyone who disagrees, as we saw in Charlottesville.
I really, really don't want to think that that's the only reason.
I had one person tell me they needed an automatic weapon for home protection in case multiple intruders breaks into his house trying to kill him and his family. I told him that if multiple people were trying to break into his house with the sole purpose of killing him, then he either needs to change his lifestyle because he's obviously doing something he's not suppose to or get back on his meds because the hallucinations are starting again!
And you do know the description of two people having an anecdotal and hypothetical discussion about the limits of the 2nd Amendment right?
XDm9mm,
Do you want a mass-murder-rifle? If so, why do you want a mass-murder-rifle?
You don't get to decide what society's business is or isn't. That's because we live in a society of laws not just every person's id of the moment.
Not me personally, of course. But society sure does. You are not a sovereign nation/citizen no matter how much of that bilge you've ingested.
I sure hope you never get really, really angry...
AR-15s and the like are lousy for home defense weapons. The need accurate aim and a missed round will travel through walls and likely harm an innocent person. A pump shotgun is a much better home defense weapon.
These semi-autos are also not accurate enough to be a good hunting weapon. Most of them are used by people who like to make noise on the range or just be a show-off. AR-15s and other weapons like them should be reclassified by the ATF as class 3 weapons with machine guns that are much more controlled and harder to get.
Cant any rifle kill someone? Even a Shot Gun? Are these mass murder weapons?
How many people have been killed in Chitcago so far this year? 100? 200? 300? More? What was used there?
How in the hell did they get an automatic weapon?
Why do they need to be reclassified?
A shotgun can easily be a murder weapon, but not so easily a mass-murder weapon. If you say there's no difference in lethality between a double-barrel shotgun and a thirty-round AR15... then there's really no point on talking to each other. Either you're a fool or you're speaking in bad faith. In either case you don't interest me.
I thought liberals didn't believe in blaming the victim. Is it really your contention everyone who is the victim of a home invasion somehow brought that shit on themselves?
Tell that to the gay marriage advocates.
That's not really true. They have a lot going for them. As a carbine, they are relatively easy to maneuver around tight spaces. Certainly, in this regard, the shotgun has no particular advantage over them. They are also have a large market of accessories so that you can easily mount things lights, ghost ring sites, lasers, what have you. Compared to a shotgun, they have a friendly amount of recoil. If I were lightly built- e.g., female, elderly, or just small - I would much rather fire an AR-15 than a shotgun. Finally, in an emergency situation, it can be very hard to hit what you want to hit and it's nice to know you have 10 or 20 more rounds to fall back on instead of 4 or 5.
Shotguns need accurate aim, too. Some folks seem to think that a shotgun will hit anything that happens to be vaguely in front of you, but in the space of 10 or 15 feet - typical for a home encounter - the spread will only be a few inches, depending on ammo. They aren't magic.
Bummer that the Christian sharia advocates lost on both the same-sex and mixed-race marriage issues, eh? All you folks needed was just ONE legitimate secular basis to keep those bans, but you literally had none.
In contrast there are rather obvious legitimate state purposes to deny ownership of anything more sophisticated than a muzzle loader.
Sounds like you're compensating for a serious deficit.
And the only shotguns made are side by sides.
Yep shows what you know
OK... You know mass-murder-guns better than I. Congrats!
Are you preparing for a foreign invasion or a home-grown civil war? Or do you just collect weapons as others collect stamps or coins?
God wants us to have guns? Seriously?
I don’t know whether to laugh or weep...
Oh? Why do you need to have state sanctioned gay marriage? You should be satisfied with just discreetly shacking-up with your gay lover. The Founders made it clear in their writings that whatever their religion, the American people should be a moral people.
Some people think that all of this sexual and moral ambiguity and chaos leads to a society that refuses to differentiate right from wrong and good from evil. Therefore, people are more likely to take out their stresses on an innocent populous with whatever weapon they can find - AR15, pressure cooker bomb, rental truck, whatever. I'd say there is a compelling state interest there.
Maybe you shouldn't get to just declare a right that isn't even in the constitution. What is the secular basis for needing gay marriage instead of an alternative?
Or you could just be ignorant about shotguns.