Pockafrusta: cptjeff: And no, you don't need an assault rifle. Ever.

I don't need your dumbass opinion either, but I tolerate it.

/Californians deserve all the politics they get...
//Married one that was smart enough to leave that shiathole of a state.

Some of us stay here and fight the good fight.

It's too nice of a place to leave it to the idiots like Leland Yee that are actively trying to destroy it.

Loren: First, measure the problem. How many crimes are being committed with those AR-15's??

Reality and facts are of no relevance to advocates of firearm regulation. Their goal is not to reduce criminal activity; their goal is entirely to eliminate legal civilian firearm ownership.

lazyguineapig33: if i recall correctly, less than 5% of crimes with firearms, involve a semi auto version of a assault rifle.

It's closer to 2.5% with semi-auto rifles. The vast majority (~85% IIRC) are with handguns, the remainder is shotguns of various stripes.

Handguns are popular with criminals not because of "stopping power" but because they are portable and concealable. Most criminals suck at concealment BTW.

EatHam: You're right, I don't. So what?

You choose to live in a society that is smart enough to balance the freedoms of its citizens against the needs of its citizens. Therefore, anything you want to do that isn't necessary may be rightly restricted in some way or outright proscribed because it constitutes a pointless and unfair risk to other people or infringes on THEIR rights in some way.

You shouldn't be allowed to own an assault rifle without question for the same general reason you shouldn't be allowed to race a top fuel dragster on the street. Your freedoms can be curtailed to protect the rights of other people. Therefore, in a situation like this, smart people recognize that there is a valid and legitimate debate to be had about when, where and even if you should be allowed to own a weapon with no valid purpose beyond your own entertainment that can inflict massive damage on other people when used improperly or maliciously.

It's reality. If you don't like it, feel free to move to Somalia where such restrictions don't exist.

Angry Buddha: I don't understand the "fixed magazine" rule. Does that simply require that the magazine must be removed with a tool in order to reload?

Precisely.

With that bullet button thing, the next logical step is to have some sort of clip-on device that holds a pin over the bullet button hole and allows you to depress it to eject the magazine without having to fumble for anything.

Some have tried (tool attached to the rifle with a magnet) and the prevailing opinion is that it's legally dubious, i.e., "Bad Idea Jeans™."

Kyro: EatHam: cptjeff: And no, you don't need an assault rifle. Ever.

You're right, I don't. So what?

I think it's generally agreed upon that the Bill of Rights was put in place to ensure the freedom and relative safety of the American people from the government.

Fixed that for us.

/The government should fear the people.

Look, farkers and politicians pretending they're talking about "assault rifles" when they really mean "scary weapon I imagine looks like an assault rifle."

omnibus_necanda_sunt: To the micropenis-afflicted dipshiats out there...

Why the fark do you need an assault rifle?

I'll answer, although I've got a solid 8 - 9 inches, depending on how you measure :)

I bought mine when I was in the Reserves. In my 8 years, I got to practice at the unit firing range ONCE.

Shooting's a physical skill; you need to practice it regularly. Since I could've theoretically been dropped in a war zone with about 24 hours notice, I figured I should keep sharp despite the lack of official support.

lazyguineapig33: Loren: First, measure the problem. How many crimes are being committed with those AR-15's??

if i recall correctly, less than 5% of crimes with firearms, involve a semi auto version of a assault rifle.

Fewer than 4% of all homicides in the United States are committed with any rifle, of which "assault weapons" are a smaller subset. More individuals per year are murdered through use of a knife than are killed through use of an "assault weapon". Advocates of "assault weapons bans" are either poorly informed or are dishonest.

martissimo: Why the fark do you need an assault rifle?

Never taken a little semi-auto rifle to a range have you? It's pretty fun, and honestly not any more dangerous than a semi auto pistol, it's all the same, bullets fly as fast as you can pull a trigger

That doesn't answer the question. There are plenty of cases you can go and take an assault rife for a spin for the afternoon.

Why do you need to OWN one?

omnibus_necanda_sunt: "Why the fark do you need an assault rifle?"

You realize that people call them "assault rifles" for the same reason they call violent video games "murder simulators", right?
That is: they're asshats seeking attention, not sincere human beings trying to address potential problems in objective reality.

tgambitg: Kyro: EatHam: cptjeff: And no, you don't need an assault rifle. Ever.

You're right, I don't. So what?

I think it's generally agreed upon that the Bill of Rights was put in place to ensure the freedom and relative safety of the American people. Neither of those is dependent on you owning an assault rifle. You can hunt with a deer rifle. You can defend yourself and your home with a pistol or a shotgun. You're just shoehorning your desire to treat assault weapons as toys into a vague notion of freedom.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. The second amendment is there for the populace to be armed against all those who would take freedoms away, be it a foreign invader or a domestic threat. This includes the government if it begins to overstep it's bounds. It doesn't say "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed (except in cases where the arms are scary looking)." If you want that in there, start a constitutional convention to amend it, or talk to your legislators and get them moving to amend it. Until that happens, tough shiat.

I'll have to agree with the disagreement as well. The framers didn't have defending against criminal home invasion or hunting on their minds when drafting the amendment. They were ensuring the government couldn't steamroll the populace.

GAT_00: cptjeff: martissimo: omnibus_necanda_sunt: To the micropenis-afflicted dipshiats out there...

Why the fark do you need an assault rifle?

Never taken a little semi-auto rifle to a range have you? It's pretty fun, and honestly not any more dangerous than a semi auto pistol, it's all the same, bullets fly as fast as you can pull a trigger

Except for longer range, more accuracy, higher stopping power- there is absolutely a legitimate reason for limits. Or do you think you should be able just to buy a missile launcher?

I don't care if you have fun. Guns are serious weapons, not toys. Have fun at the range, again, I don't care. I do care when people think that their fun is more important than minimizing the number of serious weapons floating around in the criminal underworld.

Having fun at the range is not justification for wanting a weapon whose only purpose is to kill as many people as fast as possible.

Sure it is. mostly because no one has to justify anything to you.

cptjeff: The only use for an assault weapon is to play on a range, or to kill people.

This is exactly why I own one.

Thank God I will never reside in California. I own an AR-15 because I am legally allowed to own as many as I can afford. When and if the tree of liberty needs watering, I will want and need a rifle as good if not better than those I will be protecting myself from. In the socialist country of Switzerland, every household is to have an assault rifle. I think we need that law here.

The Smails Kid: The AR, because at least it can be made to be accurate at 1000 yards.

I was addressing the grabbers. I'd like to see an AR accurate at 1000 yards, the terminal ballistics of 5.56mm NATO don't support that short of a 950 yard barrel. Best you can normally get at 1000 yards is in that 6'x6' box.

My point with my prior post of course being that effectively (under current CA law) the Mini-14 and AR-15 are the same rifle (same round, same semi-automatic RoF, but different furniture).

Facetious_Speciest: Look, farkers and politicians pretending they're talking about "assault rifles" when they really mean "scary weapon I imagine looks like an assault rifle."

An AR-15 isn't an assault rifle now?

Facetious_Speciest: Look, farkers and politicians pretending they're talking about "assault rifles" when they really mean "scary weapon I imagine looks like an assault rifle."

Look! It's black and I saw it in a movie once!

Run away! Run away! Ban it! Paint it yellow!

omnibus_necanda_sunt: To the micropenis-afflicted dipshiats out there...

Why the fark do you need an assault rifle?

For when the police state knocks on my door to do "safety inspections for my own good"

/the day is coming

Link

Oh gun grabbers, you so crazy.

ringersol: You realize that people call them "assault rifles" for the same reason they call violent video games "murder simulators", right?
That is: they're asshats seeking attention, not sincere human beings trying to address potential problems in objective reality.

Yea, why can't they be more like you and your "asshat" post, right?

Lost Thought 00: It would really help if firearm advocates could argue their case without sounding like unstable lunatics who think the entire world is trying to conspire against them.

This. My gut instinct is not to ban guns... then the gun nuts start talking.

I was really hoping the article would be about banning a fashion faux pas.

A button that is a bullet sounds really tacky.

But for him, it's all about the thrill of owning an assault rifle. "It's an adrenaline rush. You just feel like you're on top of the world," he said.

I own guns, but this is a little micropenis-ey.

midwestatheist: For when the police state knocks on my door to do "safety inspections for my own good"

/the day is coming

See, this is why people shouldn't have assault rifles. The only people who seem to want them are certifiably insane.

You're the reason gun owners can't have nice things.

thurstonxhowell

An AR-15 isn't an assault rifle now?

A California-legal one? Of course it's not.

Guns don't kill people unless you throw them hard enough.

fark it, get a sword cane.

Jesus farkING Christ....the is so much mis-informed anti gun bullshiat in this discussion it makes my head hurt.

First off, they are not assault rifles....PERIOD. An assault rifle is a class of weapon that fires a medium sized round and is SELECT-FIRE....meaning it can be set to burst or auto. A civilian AR15 or other "assault pattern" weapon cannot do this and are classified as semi-auto rifles.

With that being said, there are perfectly good reasons to own one besides the obvious right to do so.

1) They can be used for hunting. They are not going to blow the deer to pieces because the bullets come from a scary looking gun. in fact, most of these weapons fire a medium power round that is mainly a varmint or medium game round. Most bolt action hunting rifles are far more powerful shot per shot. Also, in most places, if you want to hunt with one, you have to use a magazine that only holds a few shots, rather that the standard 30 round mags.

2) They are used for competitive shooting. These guns are featured heavily in the competitive shooting sports, including 3 Gun shooting matches.

3) Invasive species control. In places like Texas, where feral hogs that are decimating the environment, a semi-auto is an excellent tool for eradicating these pests. Its not pleasant and it's not the quickest or cleanest kill when trying to hit more than one at a time but the fact remain that these animals have to go.

4) Defense. The LA riots and Katrina are two excellent examples where civilians used these weapons to defend their lives and property. When you are outnumbered 20 to 1 by people that will kill you so much as look at you just so they can take your stuff, you're gonna want something that can put rounds on target fairly quickly if need be.

It's farking depressing to read threads like these. So many Farkers, who other wise seem intelligent, freaking out over firearms like they are some kind of boogey-man hiding under the bed.

Kyro: EatHam: cptjeff: And no, you don't need an assault rifle. Ever.

You're right, I don't. So what?

I think it's generally agreed upon that the Bill of Rights was put in place to ensure the freedom and relative safety of the American people. Neither of those is dependent on you owning an assault rifle. You can hunt with a deer rifle. You can defend yourself and your home with a pistol or a shotgun. You're just shoehorning your desire to treat assault weapons as toys into a vague notion of freedom.

Cigarettes, alcohol and automobiles kill more people in a day than assault rifles kill in a year in America. Quit crying about guns and go after the real killers: Kools, Vodka and Hondas. You don't even want to me to go into the plight of donuts.

scottydoesntknow: CygnusDarius: I thought shotguns were more of a zombie/hippie kind of weapon. Especially after the Battle of Yonkers.

Ammo is too bulky/heavy. Unless you have a drum mag, you're gonna hold at most 9 shells in your gun.

A .22 is your best bet.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

maudibjr: I was really hoping the article would be about banning a fashion faux pas.

A button that is a bullet sounds really tacky.

Like this?

Dry up you namby pambies. A serial killer with a scalpel is a much greater danger to society then any of you liberal dickwads armed with a bazooka would be. It's about being the sort of person who will inflict violence on your fellow man without cause. We already do have laws against murder, you know.

If I want to go down range and spray rounds at a ridiculously high rate, as long as I'm not hurting you, then fark off and mind your business.

thurstonxhowell

Lost Thought 00: It would really help if firearm advocates could argue their case without sounding like unstable lunatics who think the entire world is trying to conspire against them.

This. My gut instinct is not to ban guns... then the gun nuts start talking.


I think of it like a bell curve: there are loud nutbars on both ends (for/against guns) but the majority in the middle are more reasonable and don't say as much - or talk as loudly.

knightofargh: The Smails Kid: The AR, because at least it can be made to be accurate at 1000 yards.

I was addressing the grabbers. I'd like to see an AR accurate at 1000 yards, the terminal ballistics of 5.56mm NATO don't support that short of a 950 yard barrel. Best you can normally get at 1000 yards is in that 6'x6' box.

I know, I was being deliberately obtuse.

NRA High Power Long Range shooters use AR-platform guns for the Service Rifle category, and that's 800, 900, and 1,000 yards.

Loren: First, measure the problem. How many crimes are being committed with those AR-15's??

Lost Thought 00: I'd rather ban all handguns and allow semi-auto assault rifles. Should still ban fully-automatic weapons of any sort

Not in favor of any bans, but you're correct if you're implying that handguns are FAR more likely to be used in muggings and holdups and whatnot.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: To the micropenis-afflicted dipshiats out there...

Why the fark do you need an assault rifle?

/bearsrepeating.jpg

Dwight_Yeast: Why do you need to OWN one?

Since when are we only allowed to own things based on the need?

This jerk again?

My black rifle has never assaulted anyone. I am offended at the blatant racism and discrimination it receives, and i plan to sue Mr. Yee.

The 2nd amendment just lets us know who the psychotic paranoids among us are. It saves a LOT of time.

Facetious_Speciest: thurstonxhowell

An AR-15 isn't an assault rifle now?

A California-legal one? Of course it's not.

I'll admit some ignorance here, but isn't that the point here that the bullet button skirts the law and makes it an assault rifle? Once a California-legal AR-15 has a detachable magazine, what is the difference between it and an assault rifle?