NRA -are they Serious?!?

[moosetracker]

a citizen is someone who is not actively on duty for military or Police.

 

Basic use: As someone once stated, if you need more the a 10 round clip to mow down a deer, it is time for you to find a new hobby..

[Eagledad]

So if a gun looks like a military style firearm, it is an assault weapon? A private owner could have two semi auto rifles that shoot the same bullet, but the one that looks military should be banned.

 

Does anyone else have a better definition because I dont see how a gun can be banned simply by its looks?

 

Do semi auto hand guns come under assault?

 

Barry

 

[perdidochas]

All guns in use today were once (or are now) suitable for military use or are adapted from military firearms. That bolt action deer rifle is a direct descendent of the Mauser rifle used by the German Army from the turn of the 20th century to 1944. More and more people are using AR style guns for hunting. AR style guns in the configuration used by most of the crazed gunmen, from what I've read, are just about ideal for hunting coyotes. In a slightly more powerful caliber, they are suitable for deer hunting. Korean shopkeepers in LA during the post Rodney King riots used AR15s to defend themselves and their families against mobs that were seeking to burn down their stores (houses). The appearance of the AR15s stopped the mobs from attacking, without much need to actually shoot anybody by the shopkeepers. The 30 rd magazines allowed those shopkeepers to fire warning shots into the air (which they wouldn't have done with 5 or 10 rd magazines). Guns aren't the problem. Evil (and sick) people are.

[OldGreyEagle]

So, I might not need 10 shots to mow down a deer, but that does not define "basic defense"

 

good job on the citizen use thought

[Eagledad]

>>Basic use: As someone once stated, if you need more the a 10 round clip to mow down a deer, it is time for you to find a new hobby..

[RememberSchiff]

My Browning semi-automatic (made in Belgium) has a 5 shot magazine

In this discussion, that magazine tube would be not be considered a magazine even if it held 8+ rounds like a tactical semi-auto shotgun. A magazine here is detachable, large capacity ( some say more than 5 rounds, some say more than 10 rounds), and quick detach/attach. But are tactical semi-auto shotguns considered assault weapons? Maybe if they have a pistol grip or a folding or telescoping stock...

 

Make sense? Not to me either.

 

I use a tactical pump shotgun for home defense, not much different, if different at all, from what the Army uses. Well I alternate my rounds (buckshot, slug). My shotgun is securely stored for quick authorized access.

 

My $0.01

[Eagledad]

Well I guess I must be asking the tough questions.

 

Which kind of implies to me this is more about touchy feely political correctness jargon from politicians to gain more power.

 

It reminds me of the fixed knife bans in the BSA. Not really safer, but it looks better.

 

Barry

[moosetracker]

Your shaving hairs to pick up and pull apart the word "looks" like it was the most important word of the statement. Certain guns have really no use except for kill LOTS and LOTS of killing in a very short span of time like seconds. That is not what is needed in hunting, because even if you come to a flock of geese or herd of hundreds of deer, most of the animals will flee on the first shot, with you might get 2 or 3 if real quick & accurate with a assault rifle, but most will be long gone before you aim and shoot off 10 rounds, secondly you may have a limit on how many you can kill in a season..

 

For protection, unless you are a spy or real bad guy in the movies, how many armed bad guys do you typically get breaking down your door shooting at yout. If a 10 round clip isn't good enough, then you should change professions. If you plan on comming into my school or movie theater with your 30 round semi-auto for your personal protection, you have a mental health problem and should have your guns taken away from you.

 

A limit of 10 rounds in a clip does not mean they are less deadlier, it means if you want to go on a shooting spree, your massacre is somewhat limited then if you had a 30 round clip or a 100 round drum. It is not stopping your killing spree, it is trying to limit it. But if you like, we can just mandate back to guns used in American Revolution, where you have to stop and load for each shot and get rid of the 10 clip and six shooter and all other weapons that allow more then one shot to be fired before reloading.

[OldGreyEagle]

and this is the rub, no, I might not "need" a gun with a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds any more than I need a house of more than 10,000 square feet to live in with my wife

 

But who gets to tell me "no"? Based on what criteria?

 

[Eagledad]

I dont think so, I have two hunting buddies who use completely different semi auto rifles that shoot the same bullet. The non-military style hunting rifle only has a 5 round clip, but other than that, both rifles perform identically. Why does the other buddy use a military style rifle, he says he likes it. So it comes down to looks. Isn't the difference between the military style Hummer SUV and the Vovle?

 

As for the clips sizes, I guess your explanation makes sense, but its hard for me to understand that the time between loading clips makes a difference in massacres. But as I said, Im not an expert in these things.

 

I guess Im just skeptical that the main source of gun restrictions data for most folks here is MSNBC.

 

[CalicoPenn]

"But who gets to tell me "no"? Based on what criteria?"

 

How about our elected representatives, based on the criteria they devise? We certainly accept their "wisdom" in other apects of our lives, why are guns so sacrosanct?

 

I might "need" a nitrous oxide delivery system for my car but lawmakers tell me I can't have it.

 

We already have some form of arms control in this country. I might "need" to carry a sword but I'm told no in most jurisdictions (and how is that not a violation of the 2nd Amendment? After all, its not the "right to bear guns", it's the "right to bear arms" and isn't a sword one of the "arms" alluded to?).

 

I might need a bazooka, but I'm told I can't have one.

 

We certainly don't seem to mind restictions placed on other products. I've needed Sudafed far more often than I've needed a gun for home defense but I have to show ID and sign a registry every time I buy some, and I'm limited to the amount I can buy at any one time, but I can go into a sporting goods store and buy thousands of rounds of ammunition without so much as a by your leave.

 

 

[perdidochas]

Moose,

 

The right to keep and bear arms would exist even if hunting were made illegal. Fundamentally, it is the right of self defense.

 

Korean shopkeepers during the LA riots felt that the AR15s they had were needed. It kept them from being killed and having their lives destroyed by mobs.

 

The problem is that anything that is effective to use in self defense is also usable in attacks. That is why it is futile to try to ban guns. Banning guns also bans methods to use for self defense. I'm a 250 lb overweight (underheight?) man in the suburbs. I can't take on a typical 18 yr old man in a hand to hand fight. Thankfully, I am allowed to own guns, which does give me a chance. Yes, I could use my guns to commit crime. That is the other side of them. The vast majority of gun owners don't use them for crime or for shooting up schools. Why punish us for the acts of a madman? Why not focus this on what is the most humane thing to focus on? The treatment of the mentally ill needs to be increased. Maybe if we can help those like the Sandy Hook Killer or the Columbine boys get the correct treatment, then we can stop these things. It will also help those mentally ill that are currently wandering the streets. While the mental institutions of old may not have been the ideal place for them, it was certainly better than what they are living in now.

 

Finally, on the issue of technology vs. rights, if you think guns should be limited to 18th century technology, I guess you also think it would be ok to limit religion to those religions that existed at that time, and that freedom of press should only apply to hand-operated printed presses, and that the freedom of speech should similarly only apply to actual speech (no microphones or broadcasts of any kind, much less internet forums). It is silly. The muskets were state of the art personal weapons. We should be able to own the same.

[Venividi]

perdidochas,

 

I think that many people believe that the right to bear arms is for self defense, but self defense has nothing to do with it. The right as provided in the second amendment is to defend the state, not the individual.

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

[moosetracker]

perdidochas - I never gave indication it was only for hunting, but as I stated it is the question of what is reasonable for defense and what is over-the-top for defense unless you are a criminal and expect an army of drug cartel to ambush you. The only use for it is in offense in a massacre, or in just trying to look macho with all your cool weaponry until your nephew or neighbor steals it from you kills you and takes out half of his schoolmates with it.

 

Calico - great arguments about limitation on everything else. We are regulated in everything simply because a few can not regulate themselves for their own good, or have figured out how to make a take advantage of others through taking advantage of a small crack and abusing it. When you see serious abuse happening we try to fill the cracks which are difficult due to lobbyist and corrupt politicians that take bribes to keep the abuse regardless of the destruction it causes to the people and the nation.

 

[perdidochas]

Moose,

 

I stated a use for semi-auto assault type rifles that comes from history. I don't know how old you are, but I vividly remember the LA riots of 1992. Korean shopkeepers used AR15s (the pre-ban version, that was banned from sale by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994) to protect their lives and livelihoods. Yes, they had 30 rd clips. No, they didn't have to shoot a lot of people, but the appearance and knowledge of the guns held the mobs off.

 

Also, if massacres are the only reason for these guns, why did most of the police responders to Sandy Hook have them? It's a two-edged sword. Any gun that can be used for self defense (and most hunting guns) can also be used for massacres. The characteristics that make them useful for defense also make them useful for offense.

 

On regulation, the problem with them is that there are so many of them that they are becoming useless and almost to the point of paralyzing us. Part of the reason that small businesses can't make it, is that they can't adapt to the regulations like bigger businesses. Wal-Mart has mastered regulations as has Applebees. Mom and Pop's hardware and Joe's Diner not so much.