Bill V
Well-Known Member
Your "5200 percent" figure is irrelevant. The one that is relevant is that 11,500 more people died at someone else's hands from homicide than from heart disease.
CT tragedy
- Thread starter Brett Hartwig
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Your "5200 percent" figure is irrelevant. The one that is relevant is that 11,500 more people died at someone else's hands from homicide than from heart disease.
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Since Eddie has declared the thread getting too weird I feel it is time to confess to being a
psychos, doomsday survivalist, and Rambo-wana-be's as defined by Rich.
#The reason I have a "Assault Weapon"
I started getting $72 a month a couple of years ago from Social Security, what I did with the money must be acceptable to the US since they upped my check 2 dollars this year. I was trying to figure out what to do with this windfall. I figured I had two choices, spend the money on being social or providing security. Seemed logical at the time. I chose not to be Social as I already have a lots of friends. I spent the money on Security. Every month I would buy a piece of a gun, mostly inter-net purchases. Some months I had to go without and save the money for a larger piece. After 2 and a half years I had a functional M4. Why, I like building things from scratch, I like shooting at the range, I am a survivalist to the point where I can provide for myself for a couple of weeks given most natural disasters, it was a good investment, and it has a lots of fun attachments. An example.
[Broken External Image]:
Reasons for me having the weapon, sorry Assault Weapon.
Ability to open beer at any time while fending of zombies or others.
Ability to protect said beer.
Ability to have two bullets if my attacker/intruder has one, ect, ect.
Ability to protect said boat when offshore in some areas.
Ability to protect said property/crops/vehicles in a natural disaster.
Ability to assist police, military as requested. I am a Lic Captain and can be activated by Homeland Security.
If I move to a farm on the boarder in Texas I may need over 6 shots.
Ability to make an investment and make more in that investment than the interest in the Bank
Have something that I can pass on to my son who is in the Military and a member of a gun club.
It is presently within my Rights to Do So.
psychos, doomsday survivalist, and Rambo-wana-be's as defined by Rich.
#The reason I have a "Assault Weapon"
I started getting $72 a month a couple of years ago from Social Security, what I did with the money must be acceptable to the US since they upped my check 2 dollars this year. I was trying to figure out what to do with this windfall. I figured I had two choices, spend the money on being social or providing security. Seemed logical at the time. I chose not to be Social as I already have a lots of friends. I spent the money on Security. Every month I would buy a piece of a gun, mostly inter-net purchases. Some months I had to go without and save the money for a larger piece. After 2 and a half years I had a functional M4. Why, I like building things from scratch, I like shooting at the range, I am a survivalist to the point where I can provide for myself for a couple of weeks given most natural disasters, it was a good investment, and it has a lots of fun attachments. An example.
[Broken External Image]:
Reasons for me having the weapon, sorry Assault Weapon.
Ability to open beer at any time while fending of zombies or others.
Ability to protect said beer.
Ability to have two bullets if my attacker/intruder has one, ect, ect.
Ability to protect said boat when offshore in some areas.
Ability to protect said property/crops/vehicles in a natural disaster.
Ability to assist police, military as requested. I am a Lic Captain and can be activated by Homeland Security.
If I move to a farm on the boarder in Texas I may need over 6 shots.
Ability to make an investment and make more in that investment than the interest in the Bank
Have something that I can pass on to my son who is in the Military and a member of a gun club.
It is presently within my Rights to Do So.
Brett Hartwig
Well-Known Member
absolutely absurd Bill V. If I found out the principal, who is in charge of a building that cares for 600 students in my school district, has a handgun stashed away in her desk drawer for that once-in-a-million chance somebody comes in shooting, I would personally shake her hand and say thank you. At least somebody is watching out for my kids during the day. Legal or illegal, I don't care. If it were me in that position, I would have one tucked away in the back of a drawer, under some files. Superintenent wouldn't know about it, teachers wouldn't know about it, police wouldn't know about it. But I would, and when **** hits the fan, and I hear a pop pop pop from down the hallway, I am going to do my best to protect those children and end the threat as quick as possible. Go ahead and fire me! I'll be in every newspaper and on CNN letting people across the country know- I got fired because I was trying to protect YOUR children. How much support do you think I would get from the American public?
Bill V
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you agree that your statement was absolutely absurd.
Let's look at a far more likely scenario--
Because you want to be Mr. Principal Hero, you keep your gun/penissubstitute loaded. And handy. And to keep you from having to fumble for keys when you try to be hero, in an unlocked drawer. And someday, you have to go down the hall for a little while to attend a meeting or deal with a minor issue. And while you're out, one of your students is in the office for some reason--waiting to get picked up by a parent, or coming to see the school nurse, or whatever, the reason doesn't matter--and being a typical curious kid, who sees his principal's office open and unattended, goes in there and starts snooping around. And he pulls open the drawer and finds your gun/penissubstitute. He picks it up, starts fooling around out of fun, not knowning what he's dealing with, and suddenly, a shot goes off. Maybe it hits another student outside the door. Maybe it hits the kid who found the gun. Doesn't matter. You'll be in every newspaper and on CNN, allright--because your stupidity in bringing a loaded weapon into that situation caused the death of a student. How much support do you think you'll get from the American public?
If you want armed police on site in the schools, at all times, fine--I'm for that. But a principal's primary roles are a mix of teacher and administrator. That's not the right role to be packing heat among children.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hugh,
You are back to trying to mince words. You can claim there is no such thing as an Assault Rifle, but there really is a class of weapons called Assault Rifles and the people in Washington and the NRA knows exactly what those weapons are. The military M16 has a civilian counterpart called the AR15...the AR is the abbreviation for "Assault Rifle". The Russian AK-47 is an Assault Rifle..the A stands for Assault, and the K stands for the designer: Koleshnikoff (sp?)
You may prefer to call them: Sporting Rifles, but what sport are they used for that would be ruined if they were limited to 6 round magazines?
As a matter of fact, I have done all of them, including hunting wild boar(Javaline) in Texas and Okinawa... with a bow. I also carried a 357 Magnum pistol as backup, just in case.
I have been squirrel hunting in Louisiana with an old pump action, 10 shot 22 rifle, and I either hit the squirrel or missed him. If I hit him he fell to the ground. If I missed him he took off and hid on the other side of the tree where I could not get another shot. I never felt threatened that the squirrel would shoot back at me and never felt compelled to blaze away all ten rounds on a squirrel.
I also do a lot of Target practice to maintain my shooting proficiency for my Concealed Carry License here in Texas. While in the Army, I was on the 3rd Infantry Div's Championship M16 Rifle team where I had the highest individual score by tying the range record....So yes, I have and still do target shooting and I do know a little bit about what I am talking about.
The rest of your, post comparing cars to assault rifles is pointless and does not address the issue of nuts committing mass murders with Military weapons of war capable of extreme fire power. I have not heard of anyone deliberately killing 10, 20 or 30 people with an automobile so that comparison is totally irrational and makes me question your mental state?
And in the end, you still have not given me a single rational reason why any American citizen needs to own an Assault Weapons. They typically use high velocity ammo, high magazine capacity and quick magazine changes....that is the formula for war, and there is no legal purpose or logical reason that any civilian needs that kind of fire power.
To everyone responding to this thread:
I am not anti-gun. I own guns and strongly believe in our Constitutional right to bear arms, but I do not think that gives us, as civilians the right to own every kind of conceivable armament that we want. Does anyone feel that civilians should be allowed to buy and own nuclear weapons? or Military grade explosives?
You can be arrested and jailed for possessing bomb making materials, much of these materials you can legally purchase at your local hardware store. While the individual components are not illegal to own, it is the collecting of these items in larger quantities in relationship to the legal and reasonable need for these items that makes the difference.
Because there are people with evil intentions to do harm, the government has the right to protect the citizens by banning larger quantities of materials like Nitrate fertilizers, etc. if you are not a farmer or have no legal or reasonable need for that much material.
I feel that assault weapons fall into a similar category where the combination of caliber, muzzle velocity, large capacity magazines, with quick reloading features defines a weapon that has no legal or reasonable need to be in the possession of civilians.
While it is not everyday that we have a mass shooting, the frequency is increasing at an alarming rate as is the escalating body count in each new incident. In the vast majority of these incidents weapons with large magazine capacities were used, and the shooter had many extra magazines, loaded and ready when he spent all the rounds in the previous magazine.
All I am suggesting is that by lowering the firing rate of most weapons they become a more reasonable and practical weapon for civilian ownership. To slow the fireing rate, you have to reduce the number of rounds in the magazine, and perhaps require more manual steps to changing magazines to delay the reloading time...None of these ideas should interfere with the legal and peaceful use of firearms in Hunting, target shooting, or even home protection. The only issue is a little bit of inconvenience, delay and more frequent reloading,...and for hunting, or target shooting that is not a life or death situation. If you use your weapon for home protection, and you know how to shoot, six shots should be more than enough to stop an intruder or scare him off.
If you are anticipating that you will be in a raging gun battle, then 6 shots might not be enough, but then your odds of being in a raging gun battle is a pretty slim. That would be an unreasonable expectation that borders on paranoia...which is a mental condition that should not allow you to own any weapon. That's why I say that the fact that anyone who feels they have a need to own an Assault Weapon and cannot give a valid, rational reason whu, might already have mental issues.
That's why I continue to ask what legal reason or scenario do you feel justifies a civilian owning an Assault weapon or any weapon that can hold more than about 6 rounds?
With all the postings and comparison to autombiles and speed limits, Nobody has even attempted to even answer that basic question... I suspect that they all know it cannot be justified.
Redfish did reply and stated why he owns an assault weapon, but I think we will all agree that it more for humor than reality..:grin: But I must admit, I like Redfish's sense of humor..:haveabeer:
...Rich
You are back to trying to mince words. You can claim there is no such thing as an Assault Rifle, but there really is a class of weapons called Assault Rifles and the people in Washington and the NRA knows exactly what those weapons are. The military M16 has a civilian counterpart called the AR15...the AR is the abbreviation for "Assault Rifle". The Russian AK-47 is an Assault Rifle..the A stands for Assault, and the K stands for the designer: Koleshnikoff (sp?)
You may prefer to call them: Sporting Rifles, but what sport are they used for that would be ruined if they were limited to 6 round magazines?
As a matter of fact, I have done all of them, including hunting wild boar(Javaline) in Texas and Okinawa... with a bow. I also carried a 357 Magnum pistol as backup, just in case.
I have been squirrel hunting in Louisiana with an old pump action, 10 shot 22 rifle, and I either hit the squirrel or missed him. If I hit him he fell to the ground. If I missed him he took off and hid on the other side of the tree where I could not get another shot. I never felt threatened that the squirrel would shoot back at me and never felt compelled to blaze away all ten rounds on a squirrel.
I also do a lot of Target practice to maintain my shooting proficiency for my Concealed Carry License here in Texas. While in the Army, I was on the 3rd Infantry Div's Championship M16 Rifle team where I had the highest individual score by tying the range record....So yes, I have and still do target shooting and I do know a little bit about what I am talking about.
The rest of your, post comparing cars to assault rifles is pointless and does not address the issue of nuts committing mass murders with Military weapons of war capable of extreme fire power. I have not heard of anyone deliberately killing 10, 20 or 30 people with an automobile so that comparison is totally irrational and makes me question your mental state?
And in the end, you still have not given me a single rational reason why any American citizen needs to own an Assault Weapons. They typically use high velocity ammo, high magazine capacity and quick magazine changes....that is the formula for war, and there is no legal purpose or logical reason that any civilian needs that kind of fire power.
To everyone responding to this thread:
I am not anti-gun. I own guns and strongly believe in our Constitutional right to bear arms, but I do not think that gives us, as civilians the right to own every kind of conceivable armament that we want. Does anyone feel that civilians should be allowed to buy and own nuclear weapons? or Military grade explosives?
You can be arrested and jailed for possessing bomb making materials, much of these materials you can legally purchase at your local hardware store. While the individual components are not illegal to own, it is the collecting of these items in larger quantities in relationship to the legal and reasonable need for these items that makes the difference.
Because there are people with evil intentions to do harm, the government has the right to protect the citizens by banning larger quantities of materials like Nitrate fertilizers, etc. if you are not a farmer or have no legal or reasonable need for that much material.
I feel that assault weapons fall into a similar category where the combination of caliber, muzzle velocity, large capacity magazines, with quick reloading features defines a weapon that has no legal or reasonable need to be in the possession of civilians.
While it is not everyday that we have a mass shooting, the frequency is increasing at an alarming rate as is the escalating body count in each new incident. In the vast majority of these incidents weapons with large magazine capacities were used, and the shooter had many extra magazines, loaded and ready when he spent all the rounds in the previous magazine.
All I am suggesting is that by lowering the firing rate of most weapons they become a more reasonable and practical weapon for civilian ownership. To slow the fireing rate, you have to reduce the number of rounds in the magazine, and perhaps require more manual steps to changing magazines to delay the reloading time...None of these ideas should interfere with the legal and peaceful use of firearms in Hunting, target shooting, or even home protection. The only issue is a little bit of inconvenience, delay and more frequent reloading,...and for hunting, or target shooting that is not a life or death situation. If you use your weapon for home protection, and you know how to shoot, six shots should be more than enough to stop an intruder or scare him off.
If you are anticipating that you will be in a raging gun battle, then 6 shots might not be enough, but then your odds of being in a raging gun battle is a pretty slim. That would be an unreasonable expectation that borders on paranoia...which is a mental condition that should not allow you to own any weapon. That's why I say that the fact that anyone who feels they have a need to own an Assault Weapon and cannot give a valid, rational reason whu, might already have mental issues.
That's why I continue to ask what legal reason or scenario do you feel justifies a civilian owning an Assault weapon or any weapon that can hold more than about 6 rounds?
With all the postings and comparison to autombiles and speed limits, Nobody has even attempted to even answer that basic question... I suspect that they all know it cannot be justified.
Redfish did reply and stated why he owns an assault weapon, but I think we will all agree that it more for humor than reality..:grin: But I must admit, I like Redfish's sense of humor..:haveabeer:
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Brett Hartwig
Well-Known Member
Bill V-
It's not surprising to read your opinion. I see people like you everyday in my profession. Those that sit back and wait to be rescued, and don't attempt to protect themselves and get themselves out of harm. You get the criminals have guns right? You sound like your scared of your own shadow! PROTECT THOSE CHILDREN AT ANY COST!!!
It's not surprising to read your opinion. I see people like you everyday in my profession. Those that sit back and wait to be rescued, and don't attempt to protect themselves and get themselves out of harm. You get the criminals have guns right? You sound like your scared of your own shadow! PROTECT THOSE CHILDREN AT ANY COST!!!
freeport,
I tend t agree with Bill V, that arming the Principal or Teachers is not the answer to securing our schools, however if the Teacher volunteer and completes the state approved concealed carry course and has a license, they should be allowed to carry their concealed gun in the school. The would be required to keep the gun with them and concealed at all times and the students must never know the teach has a gun....much tougher than it sounds.
I think school security should be improved even if many feel that the schools should not look like a prison, but more security is essential.
Bars on all ground-floor windows. all exit doors open only from the inside and only for fire drills. Uniformed, armed security guards in every school. Surveillance cameras monitoring all the hallways and around the outside of the school. A secure Sally Port at the main/visitors entrance monitored by metal detectors, cameras and a security guard. And lockable metal doors on all classrooms.
Perfect??? Hell no, but it's a damned site better than the security they had at Sandy Hook Elementary School but had that level of security been in place, I doubt that this tragedy would have ever happened.
...Rich
I tend t agree with Bill V, that arming the Principal or Teachers is not the answer to securing our schools, however if the Teacher volunteer and completes the state approved concealed carry course and has a license, they should be allowed to carry their concealed gun in the school. The would be required to keep the gun with them and concealed at all times and the students must never know the teach has a gun....much tougher than it sounds.
I think school security should be improved even if many feel that the schools should not look like a prison, but more security is essential.
Bars on all ground-floor windows. all exit doors open only from the inside and only for fire drills. Uniformed, armed security guards in every school. Surveillance cameras monitoring all the hallways and around the outside of the school. A secure Sally Port at the main/visitors entrance monitored by metal detectors, cameras and a security guard. And lockable metal doors on all classrooms.
Perfect??? Hell no, but it's a damned site better than the security they had at Sandy Hook Elementary School but had that level of security been in place, I doubt that this tragedy would have ever happened.
...Rich
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Rich,
A little humor and a little truth. I do not have the beer bottle opener, nor am I worried about zombies.
I had fun building the thing, did buy it with my 72 dollar a month Security Check. At about 1200 dollars, and still counting, I think the money was well spent. I do believe in a fair fight. If given the same amount of bullets as an attacker I am good to go. We live in a different times than we enjoyed in years past.
In just listened to your President. You should get everything you suggested and a lots of things you might not like. None will effect me.
There is no real definition of a assault weapon generally it is a weapon that can fire both full auto or semi auto with 30 rounds or more.
A little humor and a little truth. I do not have the beer bottle opener, nor am I worried about zombies.
I had fun building the thing, did buy it with my 72 dollar a month Security Check. At about 1200 dollars, and still counting, I think the money was well spent. I do believe in a fair fight. If given the same amount of bullets as an attacker I am good to go. We live in a different times than we enjoyed in years past.
In just listened to your President. You should get everything you suggested and a lots of things you might not like. None will effect me.
There is no real definition of a assault weapon generally it is a weapon that can fire both full auto or semi auto with 30 rounds or more.
CobraXP
Active Member
Richard L said:
Richard,
You have your opinion and have some points I agree with, but you have some that I disagree with also. For this, I will just say that I agree to disagree.
But, just to correct for others, your abbreviations are wrong.
AR does not stand for Assault Rifle. AR is the designate assigned by the designer of the AR15/M16 - Eugene Stoner. Stoner assigned the AR designate because he originally was under contract from ArmaLite Arms Company when designing it. Hence - AR was a designate for ArmaLite Rifle.
AK does not stand for Assault Kalashnikov. AK means Avtomat Kalashnikova - or Automatic Gun of Kalishnikova. Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the weapon designated as the AK-47. Over history, there are many weapons with the AK designation - none of which were specifically designated as 'Assault'.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
freeport, I get that you're in shock from the event, and that firing off statements like you've made here is part of some people's way of coping with such events. And from that perspective, by all means, grieve.
But whenever it is that you get over it--reassess what you said, and if you still feel that same way, then grow up a bit.
But whenever it is that you get over it--reassess what you said, and if you still feel that same way, then grow up a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carey Frennier
Well-Known Member
Technology has come such a long way. We no longer need to carry the guns or aim them. We no longer need to load their magazines or pull the trigger.
Hell... they even acquire their own ammunition and they can even drive themselves to their destination.
You say that back in the day people had a right to arms because they were single shot muskets or whatever. Well....I'd defend my home with a musket if that's what people still used when trying to assault you.
People confuse an Assault Rifle with an Assault Style Rifle. The media reports a Assault styled weapin as an Assault rifle and that is not correct. The president said that the majority of the population is onboard with banning assault weapons. This is 100% true. It's true because the media has made the vast majority of the population assume that an Assault weapon is the same as an assault style weapon and that all assault style weapons are full automatic capable. That is 100% untrue.
The media also reports that gun free areas have less gun violence. This would be correct. What they don't tell you...but you can look up the statistics, is that the lack of gun violence doesn't reduce the net violence. They simply use another medium to commit their crimes.
There are many mag fed 10rd+ rifles out there that don't have a tactical look to them. They are 100% just as deadly.
Civilian Assault Style rifes are semi-automatic. They fire as fast as you pull the trigger. Guess what....all semi-automatic guns do the same.
In the case of an AR15, they are different internally than a full auto M16. They have different trigger components and they have a different bolt carrier. The full auto capable rifle is illegal to own.
These guns are designed to be rugged, tough and module. Just because a gun is either of those, doesn't mean it's more or less deadly than any other gun.
In NYS they limit you to a fixed stock, 10rd detatch mag and I believe they have to be aprox a 14" or longer barrel length.
Imposing more restrictions on legal, qualified gun owners is 100% pointless for obvious reasons that I know I don't need to get into.
I do not like that I'm limited to 10rds in NYS when it comes to home defense. I do not care that I'm limited to 10rd recreationally. That is why I use 30rd pre-ban mags for defense and 10rd mags for the range. In a defense situation, I'd rather not have to grab and try to store two or three mags on me in my boxers while grabbing my rifle out of the safe. You have absolutely no idea if 1rd, 5rd, 10, 20 or 30rd will be enough in a defense situation. I'd rather come with 30rd and not fire a single shot.
I really believe that mental illness needs more attention and I have said this long before this horrific shooting.
If you take away all guns. You end up with a free kill zone. This is why schools, malls and the like are targets for people with guns. This is not a coincidence.
As much as I hate to say it, we live in different times. We need armed gaurds in schools. Legislation is not a substitute for deadly force. I don't want my child to feel like he is in prison instead of a school but I want him to be safe more than anything.
Hell... they even acquire their own ammunition and they can even drive themselves to their destination.
You say that back in the day people had a right to arms because they were single shot muskets or whatever. Well....I'd defend my home with a musket if that's what people still used when trying to assault you.
People confuse an Assault Rifle with an Assault Style Rifle. The media reports a Assault styled weapin as an Assault rifle and that is not correct. The president said that the majority of the population is onboard with banning assault weapons. This is 100% true. It's true because the media has made the vast majority of the population assume that an Assault weapon is the same as an assault style weapon and that all assault style weapons are full automatic capable. That is 100% untrue.
The media also reports that gun free areas have less gun violence. This would be correct. What they don't tell you...but you can look up the statistics, is that the lack of gun violence doesn't reduce the net violence. They simply use another medium to commit their crimes.
There are many mag fed 10rd+ rifles out there that don't have a tactical look to them. They are 100% just as deadly.
Civilian Assault Style rifes are semi-automatic. They fire as fast as you pull the trigger. Guess what....all semi-automatic guns do the same.
In the case of an AR15, they are different internally than a full auto M16. They have different trigger components and they have a different bolt carrier. The full auto capable rifle is illegal to own.
These guns are designed to be rugged, tough and module. Just because a gun is either of those, doesn't mean it's more or less deadly than any other gun.
In NYS they limit you to a fixed stock, 10rd detatch mag and I believe they have to be aprox a 14" or longer barrel length.
Imposing more restrictions on legal, qualified gun owners is 100% pointless for obvious reasons that I know I don't need to get into.
I do not like that I'm limited to 10rds in NYS when it comes to home defense. I do not care that I'm limited to 10rd recreationally. That is why I use 30rd pre-ban mags for defense and 10rd mags for the range. In a defense situation, I'd rather not have to grab and try to store two or three mags on me in my boxers while grabbing my rifle out of the safe. You have absolutely no idea if 1rd, 5rd, 10, 20 or 30rd will be enough in a defense situation. I'd rather come with 30rd and not fire a single shot.
I really believe that mental illness needs more attention and I have said this long before this horrific shooting.
If you take away all guns. You end up with a free kill zone. This is why schools, malls and the like are targets for people with guns. This is not a coincidence.
As much as I hate to say it, we live in different times. We need armed gaurds in schools. Legislation is not a substitute for deadly force. I don't want my child to feel like he is in prison instead of a school but I want him to be safe more than anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brett Hartwig
Well-Known Member
Bill V,
first of all, I am a Ladder Company Lieutenant and paramedic on a full-time fire dept and have 16 years on the job so what you civilians call "shock", I call "my profession". Secondly, I thought about it and yep, you are still wrong. Protecting children is about the most "Grown up" thing a man can do. Apparently you are content to wait and let me do it for you. Consider it done! Call 9-1-1 and I'll be there
first of all, I am a Ladder Company Lieutenant and paramedic on a full-time fire dept and have 16 years on the job so what you civilians call "shock", I call "my profession". Secondly, I thought about it and yep, you are still wrong. Protecting children is about the most "Grown up" thing a man can do. Apparently you are content to wait and let me do it for you. Consider it done! Call 9-1-1 and I'll be there
psycareo,
Yes, I will agree that the term Assault Rifle may be confusing but they all have similar characteristics. The civilian rifles that are copied or modeled after military weapons and use the same caliber, ammo, and have the same 20- 30 high velocity rounds per magazine but not capable of firing on full-automatic mode is what most people are considering Assault weapons. Some might think that civilian versions of military Assault Rifles are capable of full-automatic fire...but I don't think anyone here is confused about that.
I have nothing against the Assault Rifle style per say, but if you slowed it rate of fire by reducing the legal magazine size and increased the manual manipulation required to change magazines.
I am in favor of banning all semi-automatic guns capable of firing more than say 6 rounds without reloading...and ban the sale of any magazine that can hold more than 6 rounds. If someone want to make and market a bolt action rifle that fires 20 rounds, that's fine as long as it is not a semi-automatice.
You have said that you don't like limits to the number of rounds you have for home defense or for recreational shooting, but you have not stated why you need more than 10 rounds that NYS allows, or even the 6 rounds I am suggesting.
Again, everyone wants to rant, but nobody can answer my simple question with a legal, reasonable need for more than 6 rounds in a rifle or pistol....
I actually know one legal and valid reason were you might need more than 6 rounds, but you people won't or can't stop ranting long enough to think!
Cobra XP,
I was in the Army when the M16 was first introduced in 1964. It was stated then that it was a military version of the AR-15 and that the AR was the designation for Assault Rifle...
While serving in Vietnam we were given the history of the AK-47 and again the A was designation as an Assault weapon. The fact that there are many AK models but they are all Assault weapons.
...Rich
Yes, I will agree that the term Assault Rifle may be confusing but they all have similar characteristics. The civilian rifles that are copied or modeled after military weapons and use the same caliber, ammo, and have the same 20- 30 high velocity rounds per magazine but not capable of firing on full-automatic mode is what most people are considering Assault weapons. Some might think that civilian versions of military Assault Rifles are capable of full-automatic fire...but I don't think anyone here is confused about that.
I have nothing against the Assault Rifle style per say, but if you slowed it rate of fire by reducing the legal magazine size and increased the manual manipulation required to change magazines.
I am in favor of banning all semi-automatic guns capable of firing more than say 6 rounds without reloading...and ban the sale of any magazine that can hold more than 6 rounds. If someone want to make and market a bolt action rifle that fires 20 rounds, that's fine as long as it is not a semi-automatice.
You have said that you don't like limits to the number of rounds you have for home defense or for recreational shooting, but you have not stated why you need more than 10 rounds that NYS allows, or even the 6 rounds I am suggesting.
Again, everyone wants to rant, but nobody can answer my simple question with a legal, reasonable need for more than 6 rounds in a rifle or pistol....
I actually know one legal and valid reason were you might need more than 6 rounds, but you people won't or can't stop ranting long enough to think!
Cobra XP,
I was in the Army when the M16 was first introduced in 1964. It was stated then that it was a military version of the AR-15 and that the AR was the designation for Assault Rifle...
While serving in Vietnam we were given the history of the AK-47 and again the A was designation as an Assault weapon. The fact that there are many AK models but they are all Assault weapons.
...Rich
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Fully autos are legal in 36 or 37 States. You need a Federal Permit.
When I went into the army it was a M-14 first then a M-16.
If I guess your legal/valid reason do I get off the psycho list?
I know, I know. It is a holiday, your birthday, or 20 years from now a republican has been elected. You are in the street doing the Irag gun dance. You know the one they show on TV with the Iraq's dancing and shooting in the air. That is the only dance I have ever been able to learn.
When I went into the army it was a M-14 first then a M-16.
If I guess your legal/valid reason do I get off the psycho list?
I know, I know. It is a holiday, your birthday, or 20 years from now a republican has been elected. You are in the street doing the Irag gun dance. You know the one they show on TV with the Iraq's dancing and shooting in the air. That is the only dance I have ever been able to learn.
Redfish,
I was going to mention that full auto weapons are legal in many states if you have the Federal Permit. Texas is one of those states and Ted Nugent's ranch is just 15 miles down the road from where I live. He is proud to show you his arsenal of full auto weapons....If act like a full blooded conservative Republican he might even let you shoot one of his weapons of full-Rock & Roll...:grin:
When I went into the Army in 1963 I went through Basic Training with an M1-Garand...and even had the M1-thumb to prove it...:cry: The M1 is a very sweet and accurate rifle, but very heavy to carry on long marches.
Right after I left Basic Training we got the M14's I really never liked the M14, and I guess the Army didn't like it in Vietnam because they issued us new M16's shortly after I got to Okinawa.
Yes, you can get off my psycho list if you can guess the same legal/valid reason...
Very good guess, and probably legal and valid in Iraq, but not here in the USA... So that was not the legal/valid reason I was thinking of....But thanks for your partcipation.
Hey....is this guy using an Assault Rifle??? >>>> :fire:
CobraXP,
I just wanted to add that with all the attention focused on Assault Rifles over the past 20 years, why wouldn't a manufacture want to now claim that the "AR" model designator is not an abbreviation for Assault Rifle, when that's what it was in 1964 when they were first sold to the military....hmmmm? Most manufacturer have invented a new class of weapon called "The Sporting Rifle", which is just a kinder, gentler euphemism for Assault Rifle.
....Rich
I was going to mention that full auto weapons are legal in many states if you have the Federal Permit. Texas is one of those states and Ted Nugent's ranch is just 15 miles down the road from where I live. He is proud to show you his arsenal of full auto weapons....If act like a full blooded conservative Republican he might even let you shoot one of his weapons of full-Rock & Roll...:grin:
When I went into the Army in 1963 I went through Basic Training with an M1-Garand...and even had the M1-thumb to prove it...:cry: The M1 is a very sweet and accurate rifle, but very heavy to carry on long marches.
Right after I left Basic Training we got the M14's I really never liked the M14, and I guess the Army didn't like it in Vietnam because they issued us new M16's shortly after I got to Okinawa.
Yes, you can get off my psycho list if you can guess the same legal/valid reason...
Very good guess, and probably legal and valid in Iraq, but not here in the USA... So that was not the legal/valid reason I was thinking of....But thanks for your partcipation.
Hey....is this guy using an Assault Rifle??? >>>> :fire:
CobraXP,
I just wanted to add that with all the attention focused on Assault Rifles over the past 20 years, why wouldn't a manufacture want to now claim that the "AR" model designator is not an abbreviation for Assault Rifle, when that's what it was in 1964 when they were first sold to the military....hmmmm? Most manufacturer have invented a new class of weapon called "The Sporting Rifle", which is just a kinder, gentler euphemism for Assault Rifle.
....Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
CobraXP
Active Member
Rich,
First, thank you for your military service. I truly mean that.
And with all due respect, my information/history on the AR came directly from Eugene Stoner. I had the privilege of meeting him in 1996 in Pensacola, FL, while he was testing an updated version of his SR-25. He spent over an hour with myself and the group I was with and explained the history and design aspect as the AR/M16 platform is what we were shooting that day. A person there said something about 'Assault Rifle' and Mr Stoner quickly explained that while the term has come to pass as the designate because it fits, the designate by him and the patent shows that the designate was for ArmaLite. He even noted that when Colt purchased the rights and patents from ArmaLite, they used 'Assault Rifle' in some of their ads to commercially help the rifle, even though that was not correct. The AR name and initials had taken on a persona to themselves by then.
The AK is the same pattern. People call it 'Assault' because it fits. When you pull the true history of the rifle, it does not specify 'Assault' and neither do any of the other 'AK's'. Because they fall under a description of 'assault weapons' does not change the true designations.
I know it sounds petty to discuss it - and most could care less what it means. But I have always felt it was correct to know the history and true story, especially after having the opportunity to speak with Mr Stoner. I have always felt it shows him the respect to call it as he specified.
As far as the conversation at hand - my personal take is that what weapon a person has or how many rounds it will shoot is minimal in the aspect of the problem. We are so far past that it is hard to find the starting point. For me, the problem is a social morals and values problem more than the weapons themselves. There have been shootings and violence since the world began and weapons introduced. Now you have over 100 years of semi-automatic weapons in this country. A ban, or even a nationwide registration process will do nothing to control the problem that if someone has the mental faculties to think of doing something like has happened, they will do it. They will find a way to get the weapon. If it is not a firearm it will be some other way to impose their destruction.
Right now, just like in all the politics in this country, there is this perception by everyone that there is a line drawn in the sand. This side says take them all away, and this side says no you won't. A lot don't seem to be wanting to listen and take the time to meet in the middle. Not all people think this way, but no one is taking the middle ground and trying to be the middle person. To add, the media is feeding this and not giving time to those that are willing to be that person. When you start the conversation with 'Ban' - you have already put the opposing side on the defensive, so they come back in that manner. Same goes for the other side.
For me, the answer has to come in a form of value and personal responsibility. Most gun owners I know are very responsible people that do everything they can to make sure that their firearms can never be in the hands of someone that should not have them. The unfortunate thing is that there are those that are like the mother of this guy. They leave their firearms in a position where access can be had by someone they know is not stable for the responsibility. Everything I read is showing the mother as just another victim. For me, she holds as much responsibility as the shooter. The family knew this person had problems, so it then becomes their responsibility to make sure he did not have access to the weapons.
This then leads to the judicial part. Our society has become a group that is not afraid of law enforcement nor any type of incarceration. A DUI holds no value for a lot of our society like it did even 20 years ago. This is the same with gun laws. When I was growing up, we didn't even want a speeding ticket on our record, much less any other ticket. Today, a DUI is just another ticket to some.
The last part for me is the mental faculties of the people that are doing these atrocious acts. I am not a psychologist nor a doctor - and I cannot seem to put myself in a place where my mind views things like these people are doing. It is not something I understand, so I have to defer what to do about mental illness to smarter people.
So where do you start? For me, it has to be the education and building the person responsibility of firearm ownership. The next part has to come from the judicial sector in that crimes have to hold a true harsh value. If you break the law, there are severe penalties. We have to have a way of making sure those that are of criminal intent cannot have access to the weapons, and if they do, they are dealt with in a harsher way than others. Creating laws about banning certain types of weapons is not going to change a thing because of the sheer number of weapons in society now. Gun owners do not like to admit it, but because the number of firearms on the streets and in possession today is really unfathomable, the only way to control the usage and flow is to increase awareness and person responsibility - along with stiffer penalties. Hold a gun owner responsible for what they own - regardless of what it is. Stop pushing the talk towards the honest firearms owners and put the attention to those that are in possession of items they should not have. The weapons themselves have no part of the conversation as the person's actions control the scenario.
I truly wish I had the perfect answer. Unfortunately, this argument has been going on for years and years. It always comes back to the weapons themselves, but no one ever addresses the social and moral value of the conversation. I am really curious to see who ends up on the 'Focus Group' Obama put together and is led by Mr Biden. His record and feelings on this matter have been documented for years, so I hope they have someone that will address the social part along with it and not just the mechanical part.
(Good Lord, I have not typed that much on the internet in a long time...)
nline:
First, thank you for your military service. I truly mean that.
And with all due respect, my information/history on the AR came directly from Eugene Stoner. I had the privilege of meeting him in 1996 in Pensacola, FL, while he was testing an updated version of his SR-25. He spent over an hour with myself and the group I was with and explained the history and design aspect as the AR/M16 platform is what we were shooting that day. A person there said something about 'Assault Rifle' and Mr Stoner quickly explained that while the term has come to pass as the designate because it fits, the designate by him and the patent shows that the designate was for ArmaLite. He even noted that when Colt purchased the rights and patents from ArmaLite, they used 'Assault Rifle' in some of their ads to commercially help the rifle, even though that was not correct. The AR name and initials had taken on a persona to themselves by then.
The AK is the same pattern. People call it 'Assault' because it fits. When you pull the true history of the rifle, it does not specify 'Assault' and neither do any of the other 'AK's'. Because they fall under a description of 'assault weapons' does not change the true designations.
I know it sounds petty to discuss it - and most could care less what it means. But I have always felt it was correct to know the history and true story, especially after having the opportunity to speak with Mr Stoner. I have always felt it shows him the respect to call it as he specified.
As far as the conversation at hand - my personal take is that what weapon a person has or how many rounds it will shoot is minimal in the aspect of the problem. We are so far past that it is hard to find the starting point. For me, the problem is a social morals and values problem more than the weapons themselves. There have been shootings and violence since the world began and weapons introduced. Now you have over 100 years of semi-automatic weapons in this country. A ban, or even a nationwide registration process will do nothing to control the problem that if someone has the mental faculties to think of doing something like has happened, they will do it. They will find a way to get the weapon. If it is not a firearm it will be some other way to impose their destruction.
Right now, just like in all the politics in this country, there is this perception by everyone that there is a line drawn in the sand. This side says take them all away, and this side says no you won't. A lot don't seem to be wanting to listen and take the time to meet in the middle. Not all people think this way, but no one is taking the middle ground and trying to be the middle person. To add, the media is feeding this and not giving time to those that are willing to be that person. When you start the conversation with 'Ban' - you have already put the opposing side on the defensive, so they come back in that manner. Same goes for the other side.
For me, the answer has to come in a form of value and personal responsibility. Most gun owners I know are very responsible people that do everything they can to make sure that their firearms can never be in the hands of someone that should not have them. The unfortunate thing is that there are those that are like the mother of this guy. They leave their firearms in a position where access can be had by someone they know is not stable for the responsibility. Everything I read is showing the mother as just another victim. For me, she holds as much responsibility as the shooter. The family knew this person had problems, so it then becomes their responsibility to make sure he did not have access to the weapons.
This then leads to the judicial part. Our society has become a group that is not afraid of law enforcement nor any type of incarceration. A DUI holds no value for a lot of our society like it did even 20 years ago. This is the same with gun laws. When I was growing up, we didn't even want a speeding ticket on our record, much less any other ticket. Today, a DUI is just another ticket to some.
The last part for me is the mental faculties of the people that are doing these atrocious acts. I am not a psychologist nor a doctor - and I cannot seem to put myself in a place where my mind views things like these people are doing. It is not something I understand, so I have to defer what to do about mental illness to smarter people.
So where do you start? For me, it has to be the education and building the person responsibility of firearm ownership. The next part has to come from the judicial sector in that crimes have to hold a true harsh value. If you break the law, there are severe penalties. We have to have a way of making sure those that are of criminal intent cannot have access to the weapons, and if they do, they are dealt with in a harsher way than others. Creating laws about banning certain types of weapons is not going to change a thing because of the sheer number of weapons in society now. Gun owners do not like to admit it, but because the number of firearms on the streets and in possession today is really unfathomable, the only way to control the usage and flow is to increase awareness and person responsibility - along with stiffer penalties. Hold a gun owner responsible for what they own - regardless of what it is. Stop pushing the talk towards the honest firearms owners and put the attention to those that are in possession of items they should not have. The weapons themselves have no part of the conversation as the person's actions control the scenario.
I truly wish I had the perfect answer. Unfortunately, this argument has been going on for years and years. It always comes back to the weapons themselves, but no one ever addresses the social and moral value of the conversation. I am really curious to see who ends up on the 'Focus Group' Obama put together and is led by Mr Biden. His record and feelings on this matter have been documented for years, so I hope they have someone that will address the social part along with it and not just the mechanical part.
(Good Lord, I have not typed that much on the internet in a long time...)
nline:Excellent post Cobra. Couldn't agree more.
Mentally stable people do not commit these atrocities. Heal the sick, the problem extremely diminishes. It's more difficult but it gets to the core of the problem. A lot of suffering people who would've never committed these crimes anyway also get the help they need.
The other firearm shootings are occurring in a lawless underworld and that's a whole other problem all it's own. No legislation is going to change that as it's already a society outside the law; the guns are already there and they are already illegally owned. Heck, some of them are coming from our own government.
I'm also a proponent of strictly enforcing current laws. I have no problem with registering guns I own. I have no problem with having to get a license to carry. I have no problem with proficiency tests or required training, either.
I do have a problem with being told I'm obviously insane if I wanted something you don't see a personal need or desire for.
For the record, I do not own anything that would be considered an "assault" weapon. I suppose the only gun I own that keeps Rich up at night would be my Ruger .22LR with a 10 rd. magazine. Also happens to be the most enjoyable gun to shoot. Why should I have to justify that to anyone? What about that makes me insane? What if I wanted a similar experience just with a few more rounds before reloading? On my own property...with no neighbors for miles? Why would that make you question my sanity?
Mentally stable people do not commit these atrocities. Heal the sick, the problem extremely diminishes. It's more difficult but it gets to the core of the problem. A lot of suffering people who would've never committed these crimes anyway also get the help they need.
The other firearm shootings are occurring in a lawless underworld and that's a whole other problem all it's own. No legislation is going to change that as it's already a society outside the law; the guns are already there and they are already illegally owned. Heck, some of them are coming from our own government.
I'm also a proponent of strictly enforcing current laws. I have no problem with registering guns I own. I have no problem with having to get a license to carry. I have no problem with proficiency tests or required training, either.
I do have a problem with being told I'm obviously insane if I wanted something you don't see a personal need or desire for.
For the record, I do not own anything that would be considered an "assault" weapon. I suppose the only gun I own that keeps Rich up at night would be my Ruger .22LR with a 10 rd. magazine. Also happens to be the most enjoyable gun to shoot. Why should I have to justify that to anyone? What about that makes me insane? What if I wanted a similar experience just with a few more rounds before reloading? On my own property...with no neighbors for miles? Why would that make you question my sanity?
Brett Hartwig
Well-Known Member
these last couple dozen posts are a bit off my original topic....but feel free to vent. How do we protect our kids? Wait for the Army to show up like Bill V wants to do?
Carey Frennier
Well-Known Member
Pass some more senseless laws on gun owners just because gun owners will be the ones that have the sense to budge on the issue even though they shouldn't have to.
Increase screening and treatment for mental illness.
Armed guards in free kill zones.
What else can be done?
Increase screening and treatment for mental illness.
Armed guards in free kill zones.
What else can be done?
Carey Frennier
Well-Known Member
So is my Smith & Wesson MP 15-22 .22cal AR style gun an assault rifle? It has the same lower reciever as an AR but the upper is completely different. It looks like an AR and it's designed to simulate all function of an AR.... It can fire as fast as a normal AR15. You can mount anything that you can mount on a regular AR15 on it. It's dimensions are exactly the same as a regular AR15.
So does this mean my plinker/economy target shooting gun is a assault weapon?
In my opinion, caliber doesn't matter.
So does this mean my plinker/economy target shooting gun is a assault weapon?
In my opinion, caliber doesn't matter.
