Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The history of the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook. Since the media doing this, I'm impressed we're not looking at a picture of the AK-47. I mean, they're both assault rifles and both have "A" in their name   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 644
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13577 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



644 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 12:29:06 PM  

hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)


You're talking about a Taurus Judge! Nice choice.
 
2012-12-21 12:29:42 PM  

lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.


Not a human right...a constitutional right.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:02 PM  

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.


Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.


You're using emotions to advocate a non-solution and remove rights from a swath of society that did nothing wrong. In essence, you won't affect any positive change and instead invite a whole swath of unintended consequences.
 
2012-12-21 12:31:03 PM  
It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.
 
2012-12-21 12:31:19 PM  

hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)


Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:22 PM  

The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.


Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.

So for you, the "real" issue is the short term, emotionally charged issue of children being killed by a whacko with a gun, and for me the "real" issue is the long term, reasonable approach to secure children's, and all Americans', safety and liberties.

Got it.


No the issue is your completely derpy arsenal of slogany bullshiat at the expense of real logic and solutions.  Which you proved right, again.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:28 PM  
Didn't read the whole thing, but the NRA speech today was perfectly, perfectly right on.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
 
2012-12-21 12:32:53 PM  

ronaprhys: Magorn: I pointed this same thing out yesterday in a thread, but let me ask you this:
When someone is trying to look "badass" on a FB picture, or otherwise wants to indulge their rambo fantasies which version of the gun do they choose?

The nice normal looking one with a blued barrel and a walnut stock, or the "tactical" one witht he folding stock and the plastic and sheet metal bits all over it?

Depends on the situation. Many times they simply use what they've got - that could be a pistol, a rifle covered with mainly useless stuff, or even some sort of Klingon weapon.

Why?


because it looks more dangerous, it looks more like a military weapon (and what do soldiers shoot? Other people, of course) so it's more attractive to those that want to do harm to their fellow man, true?

Wait - now you've gone off the deep end. You've made some huge ass-leap from wanting to look cool to wanting to hurt people. That's a leap completely unsupported by anything you've said nor anything in, well, reality.

One of the reasons the Aurora shooting wasn't dealier than it was is because the shooter bought himself one of those ridiculous, highly phallic 100-round double drum magazines, without realizing they are utterly unreliable pieces of crap. I have no doubt what attracted him t it, rather than the more reliable 30-round mags was how "cool" and "deadly " it looked.

Glad you can ascertain motive from someone who was mentally unbalanced.

Now, being rational, can you give me a good reason we should allow 100 round magazines to be purchased by civilians?

Shall not be infringed. Can you show me how many 100 round magazines have been purchased and how many have been actually used in a crime? If you want to infringe, you need to prove overwhelming need based on actual facts and statistics. Those facts and statistics cannot be outliers or isolated events.


"shall Not be Infringed"  Sits side by side with "Subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner when necessary to achieve a compelling government "  which is what the Supreme court has said all the freedoms in the bill of rights are subject to.

Keeping people from being murdered is clearly a compelling government interest  so the question is, what restrictions are both "reasonable" and "least restrictive"?  I don't pretend to know myself, but i can see some valid arguments for some retrictions on the things that offer the greatest capacity for harm (much Like I'm okay with the fact that I'd never be allowed to have a street-legal car that can go 500 mph) and those that seem to be "attractive nuisances"  Ie stuff that people wanting to hurt other people seem to be drawn to.

As tasers and other non-lethal weapons come of age, I could also see a decent argument for restricting lethal forms of self defense in favor of the non-lethal variety (not yet though, because honestly tasers aren't as effective as cops like to thing), but that would be trickier because, in my best legal analysis, the 2nd  Amendment actually is a right to carry weapons to resist government over-reaching (its proximity to the 3rd reinforces the notion it is meant as a check on the potential tyrannies that can come with keeping a standing army)
 
2012-12-21 12:33:20 PM  

born_yesterday: DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.

No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.


How about a 12 gauge pump? Not even semi-auto but still capable of firing 3 to 5 rounds of 9 pellets of 00 buckshot in nothing flat. If we're seeking to create indiscriminate bloody carnage in a small space, that would seem to be the ticket.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:09 PM  

Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.



Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:09 PM  

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:11 PM  

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


Largely unregulated? What planet are you living on?

Keep counting your chickens before they hatch though, let me know how that works out for you.

You're going to need some buy-in from gun owners this time around. People like you aren't helping. You'd almost think we aren't starting from a position where this is a fully legal right that exists today.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:03 PM  

mizchief: Limiting the number of guns is the most pointless of the control ideas. You can only shoot one at a time! Don't bother exposing your igonrance and by saying something about duel wielding, RL isn't like COD.


You can only SHOOT one at a time.

You can CARRY more than one at a time. I think we've had shooters with as many as, what, four? And Lanza had his pick of whatever was the most destructive of his mom's supply, and while nobody's been clear on how many guns exactly she had on hand, we can be pretty safe in assuming it's a hell of a lot more than five.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:07 PM  
i45.tinypic.com

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:09 PM  

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


Well, to start, places in this country with strict gun laws see more people shot, so there is that. If the left had any evidence whatsoever, that gun control worked, and that they can even reduce gun violence, sure. They do not. They refuse to tackle the real problem, which is the complete erosion of values, and lack of respect and discipline within society. Once again, none of this was a problem when I was growing up, and we had guns all over the place. Why is that?

It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:37 PM  

CptnSpldng: born_yesterday: DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.

No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.

How about a 12 gauge pump? Not even semi-auto but still capable of firing 3 to 5 rounds of 9 pellets of 00 buckshot in nothing flat. If we're seeking to create indiscriminate bloody carnage in a small space, that would seem to be the ticket.


This latest nut would have been killing 4-5 kids with each shot if he had a 12 gauge with 3 1/2" mags and buckshot.
 
2012-12-21 12:36:08 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.



You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:02 PM  

Bull Moose 76: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

You're talking about a Taurus Judge! Nice choice.


NOW it's on in this thread!
 
2012-12-21 12:37:05 PM  

please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.


Please don't discuss terminal ballistics and penetration unless you know what you are talking about, which you don't. Study after study has demonstrated that the 5.56/.223 round penetrates building material less than most common handgun calibers, making it better for home defense than a pistol when concerned with wall penetration. That's one of the key reasons why police have switch from pistol caliber subguns to AR platforms almost everywhere.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:00 PM  

lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.


The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:59 PM  

Southern100: When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.


Al Capone would like a word with you.
 
2012-12-21 12:39:00 PM  
It's interesting to see people taking issue with law abiding citizens owning guns whose primary design purpose may not be specifically for hunting and then using this line of thinking as a justification for banning civilian ownership of those weapons. The Civilian Marksmanship Program has been the law of the land for over 100 years, and it's explicit purpose is to provide military surplus weapons and training programs to civilians, particularly youth.

True, it doesn't currently sell AR-15/M4's, but that's because those are primary service weapons right now. However, the M1 Garand is a popular semi-automatic weapon sold via this program, and gun manufacturers have been making M1 clones for civilian use for a long time. It' is true that just because something has always been a certain way is not necessarily a reason for it to stay that way, but the law and history are not on the side of the "That's not a good hunting rifle thus there's no reason for you to own it" argument. This argument is often factually incorrect as well.
 
2012-12-21 12:39:10 PM  

Gosling: Remus, you want a Gandhi quote?

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."



It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
--Mahatma Gandhi
 
2012-12-21 12:39:29 PM  
I bought my kid Assault Bows and Arrows for Christmas.

Now I need to get a couple bales of straw for target backdrops.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:02 PM  

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.


All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:14 PM  

Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Well, to start, places in this country with strict gun laws see more people shot, so there is that. If the left had any evidence whatsoever, that gun control worked, and that they can even reduce gun violence, sure. They do not. They refuse to tackle the real problem, which is the complete erosion of values, and lack of respect and discipline within society. Once again, none of this was a problem when I was growing up, and we had guns all over the place. Why is that?

It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem.


One of the reasons places with strict gun laws put them in place is because the problem with shooting already exists.  It's not a function of the laws.  So why even mention this?  On one hand you have people saying there was always violence, and on the other you have them saying things were different before values were lost.  Which is it?

And if we're going to be "realistic" about the issue, and say that guns will never go away, then why not be "realistic" about our ability to control every single thought and impulse of every person out there?  Which is more in our control?

All of these canned retorts from the gun lobby are just sabotage the discussion of improving the laws, so fearful people who don't want to give up their guns don't have to do anything and can blame something other than weapons proliferation for what happens as a result of weapons proliferation.  Period.  That's the only reason.
 
2012-12-21 12:41:33 PM  
It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.

The next time one of you decide to deride a teabagger for stupid extremist political views, make sure you smile in the mirror to see what an extremist moron looks like.
 
2012-12-21 12:41:54 PM  

lordjupiter: You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.


Sure I do. Says so right there in the Constitution. Shall not be infringed and all.

And yes, I know the Consitution doesn't grant me any rights - it simply enumerates specific rights and then points out that I've got many, many more.

LasersHurt: Take it down a notch, henrietta, and suggest some improvements. You probably know what the INTENT is, so help more accurately fulfill that intent.

I've never met a group less willing to use their knowledge to improve things than firearm owners.


Partially, that's because assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly defined terms that get changed to do nothing more than provide emotional responses. If you want a suggestion, that's easy and clearly implied - use the terms properly. An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon or assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic. Call it a semi-automatic. Very simple. Be accurate and precise in the terminology. Don't make vague emotional appeals - use actual facts and statistics to prove a point.

Bull Moose 76: Not a human right...a constitutional right.


I'd argue that the Constitution enumerated specific human rights that we all posses.

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


If you can't see the difference between an individual taking appropriate precautions to safeguard their lives and possessions and using an emotional appeal to drive highly restrictive laws that violate specifically-enumerated rights, then you're either a fool or a troll.

I'm guessing a mix of both.
 
2012-12-21 12:42:19 PM  

Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.



Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...
 
2012-12-21 12:42:38 PM  

Click Click D'oh: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

Please don't discuss terminal ballistics and penetration unless you know what you are talking about, which you don't. Study after study has demonstrated that the 5.56/.223 round penetrates building material less than most common handgun calibers, making it better for home defense than a pistol when concerned with wall penetration. That's one of the key reasons why police have switch from pistol caliber subguns to AR platforms almost everywhere.


Love the cliche first line of your reply. Go internet!
Anyway, depends on ammo. XM855 will ABSOLUTELY go through ANYTHING, and then keep going, and the market was swimming in it for mega-cheap up until just lately. Most other rounds will shatter on impact. Also, most police are using a SBR versions when they use the AR platform. Most home owners have 16" or 20" bbl models, much higher velocity.
 
2012-12-21 12:43:23 PM  

Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy:

I'm a liberal.

I'm a libertarian.


This fall on FOX:  Dandy & Moose.

They're room mates!
 
2012-12-21 12:43:53 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.



Strawman.  Next.
 
2012-12-21 12:46:14 PM  

ronaprhys: lordjupiter: You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Sure I do. Says so right there in the Constitution. Shall not be infringed and all.

And yes, I know the Consitution doesn't grant me any rights - it simply enumerates specific rights and then points out that I've got many, many more.

LasersHurt: Take it down a notch, henrietta, and suggest some improvements. You probably know what the INTENT is, so help more accurately fulfill that intent.

I've never met a group less willing to use their knowledge to improve things than firearm owners.

Partially, that's because assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly defined terms that get changed to do nothing more than provide emotional responses. If you want a suggestion, that's easy and clearly implied - use the terms properly. An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon or assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic. Call it a semi-automatic. Very simple. Be accurate and precise in the terminology. Don't make vague emotional appeals - use actual facts and statistics to prove a point.

Bull Moose 76: Not a human right...a constitutional right.

I'd argue that the Constitution enumerated specific human rights that we all posses.

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

If you can't see the difference between an individual taking appropriate preca ...



Not a fool or a troll.  Just someone who's pointing out realities you don't like and/or can't comprehend.  I know it's painful for you and these others to look at that girl's picture with your bullshiat slogans plastered on top of her smiling face, but that's the reality of what you and they are doing, sitting at your keyboards regurgitating the NRA talking points you've been fed for years, and that have become "fact" in your minds no matter how twisted or distorted they are.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:10 PM  

mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.



Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....
 
2012-12-21 12:47:15 PM  

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.


What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?
 
2012-12-21 12:48:11 PM  

Carousel Beast: It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.


Except this time we have in hand the stat sheet, and can use it to point to examples of countries where gun prohibition DOES work. Japan. South Korea. Romania.

You will note how the United States, on that graph, comes in on the 'gun homicides per 100,000 population' list, as slightly worse than Palestine.
 
2012-12-21 12:48:24 PM  
I'm against automobile deaths

Therefore I am sending a bill to the state legislature to ban all red cars.

You can argue all you want but there statistics that red cars get more speeding tickets than any other color and if this law prevents just 1, - JUST 1 - death then it's worth it.

right?

/ask me about my plan to ban Gin to prevent alcholism.
 
2012-12-21 12:49:17 PM  

please: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.


Actually, no. My grandfather had single shot .410 that had (from memory) about a 10" barrel. I'm not sure the chamber would stand up to modern loads (aside from the fact that it's a smoothbore and clearly illegal).

I always thought that a 4 chamber revolver version would be great for close quarters.
 
2012-12-21 12:50:01 PM  

lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....


Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.
 
2012-12-21 12:50:03 PM  

please: There was a time when I could buy a B.A.R. from the Sears catalog - literally one of the most powerful single-man weapons of WW2. Fully automatic, but they called it The Monitor since it was for civilians (no bipod). Why weren't schools getting shot up then?


And a Thompson from the local hardware store.

Fun fact
Just after WWI (may have been right before but in that time frame) it was easier to get a Thompson than a Colt 45 Automatic pistol since the pistol was used by the military

Thompson had a hilarious ad showing a cowboy with the SMG fighting off rustlers at the ranch.

Link
 
2012-12-21 12:51:00 PM  

Magorn: "shall Not be Infringed" Sits side by side with "Subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner when necessary to achieve a compelling government " which is what the Supreme court has said all the freedoms in the bill of rights are subject to.


True - which means that any restriction you put in place on those rights needs to actually be either a) clearly shown to provide significant benefit such that it outweighs the restriction or b) it has a clearly identified metric to hit and if it doesn't hit that, the restriction is removed.

Keeping people from being murdered is clearly a compelling government interest so the question is, what restrictions are both "reasonable" and "least restrictive"? I don't pretend to know myself, but i can see some valid arguments for some retrictions on the things that offer the greatest capacity for harm (much Like I'm okay with the fact that I'd never be allowed to have a street-legal car that can go 500 mph) and those that seem to be "attractive nuisances" Ie stuff that people wanting to hurt other people seem to be drawn to.

Actually, if you could have a street legal car that could go 500mph, no one would stop you. We already have street legal cars that will top 200mph. There is not mph restriction. What you've just used is an engineering limitation, not a legal limitation. While I don't disagree that, conceptually, limiting the most capacity for harm could be a good thing I think it's upon those asking for the limitations to provide clear proof that they'd actually do "something". I define that as a measurable reduction in the homicide rate, when discussing firearms and restrictions on them. Anything short of that is nothing more than meaningless restrictions (kind of like the AWB - it failed so miserably it'd be humorous if it wasn't a direct attack on the 2A).

As tasers and other non-lethal weapons come of age, I could also see a decent argument for restricting lethal forms of self defense in favor of the non-lethal variety (not yet though, because honestly tasers aren't as effective as cops like to thing), but that would be trickier because, in my best legal analysis, the 2nd Amendment actually is a right to carry weapons to resist government over-reaching (its proximity to the 3rd reinforces the notion it is meant as a check on the potential tyrannies that can come with keeping a standing army)

I can't see that happening, mostly due to the second part of the paragraph.

I'm not against discussing solutions. But those solutions must have a meaningful impact on the homicide rate or they must either not be implemented or they need to be removed.
 
2012-12-21 12:51:04 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?


Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?
 
2012-12-21 12:51:58 PM  

hobnail: please: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.

Actually, no. My grandfather had single shot .410 that had (from memory) about a 10" barrel. I'm not sure the chamber would stand up to modern loads (aside from the fact that it's a smoothbore and clearly illegal).

I always thought that a 4 chamber revolver version would be great for close quarters.


Ah. Actually you can get a similar pistol to that now, just no stock, the Thompson Contender. Those are sweet, and you can shoot .45LC out of them too.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:22 PM  

Southern100: [i45.tinypic.com image 629x403]

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.


By 2015 according to the CDC gun fatalities will outnumber car deaths.  Cars are used every day, guns are not.  Cars serve necessary purposes instead of  recreation or killing something
 
2012-12-21 12:52:48 PM  

please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.


So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:48 PM  

GanjSmokr: LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."

Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!


Ding! Ding! Ding!

Here, to me, is the real root of so much of the problems. We aren't suffering so much from a Culture of Violence as we are a Culture of Fear.
We're afraid that the government is going to take from us and give to "them." We're afraid of swarthy peoples who speak in strange tongues and breed and get to vote just like white folks. We're afraid of organized groups that believe in different things than we do and they're armed! They won't stop believing differently than we do even when we repeatedly tell them not to! We even tried to see to it that their votes wouldn't count as much as our votes and the danged government wouldn't let us do it!!
 
2012-12-21 12:53:02 PM  

lordjupiter: Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...


At last read the damn thing then, dumbass.

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.

That is the second amendment. It states the government cannot take away your right to bear arms. I am right, you are wrong, troll.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:08 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?


Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:55 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!


If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:27 PM  
Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.
 
Displayed 50 of 644 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report