What with 73% of Americans in the recent Gallup survey agreeing with his right to bear arms philosophy, I don't think he'll be remembered as some fringe kook in that regard.

I hate polls, I can ask a group of people a question and get one percentage and then go to another group of people and ask them the same question and get yet another percentage. People who think polls are accurate representations of a large populace make me /giggle.

Most of those polls are completely without merit. Any whatsoever. Most of them phrase a question like "Should be allowed to carry automatic rifles into churches?" or "Are you in favor of raiding people's houses to seize firearms?" to 1000 people and claim their case is made.

In general, the American public when polled responsibly has been in favor of the historical (right of individuals) interpretation of the Second Amendment. There is an obvious and expected bias shift when you go from more rural to more urban areas. So while some of the NRA is a bit kookish, on the whole, they enjoy fairly broad support at least on basic issues and the majority of what they do is not political, but centered on firearm training and hunter safety.

My coworker is a member of the southern Washington NRA and one of their lead instructors, they recently raised about $300 grand at their annual banquet, approximately $290k of which goes towards their educational programs.

I am a democrat and support the right to bear arms... Gun control is a mistake...

Make Guns against the law, and criminals will break the law and get them anyway. That only hurts those of us who want to protect ourselves and our families.
Don't touch our right to bear arms plzkthx

Gun control is a mistake...




I have always liked Chris Rock's alternative; let everyone have a gun, but charge $1000 per bullet. They won't be getting wasted on drive-bys anymore.

I have always liked Chris Rock's alternative; let everyone have a gun, but charge $1000 per bullet. They won't be getting wasted on drive-bys anymore.

That idea is brilliant!

That actually is a good idea :)

Do you think it's a good idea to have free speech, but charge $1000 for a piece of paper? Or $1000 to post to a blog or web forum? And if you really want to go crazy and have free speech, towns can charge $1,000,000,000 for a permit to assemble on a city street.

And this is the exact question. Not much room for ambiguity.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032708guns1.gif

Do you think it's a good idea to have free speech, but charge $1000 for a piece of paper? Or $1000 to post to a blog or web forum? And if you really want to go crazy and have free speech, towns can charge $1,000,000,000 for a permit to assemble on a city street.

And this is the exact question. Not much room for ambiguity.



there is nothing i can write on a peice of paper no matter how long i write, or what words i use that will kill you Akipt. There is nothing i can write on this forum that will accidently kill an innocent bystander. Your analogy doesnt hold the same weight as firearms do.

there is nothing i can write on a peice of paper no matter how long i write, or what words i use that will kill you Akipt. There is nothing i can write on this forum that will accidently kill an innocent bystander. Your analogy doesnt hold the same weight as firearms do.

Oh there are plenty of things you could write on a piece of paper that might result in someone's death. Don't believe me? well I have a note you can carry up to a bank teller and lets watch how that plays out.

Just ask Salman Rushdie if writing something on a piece of paper isn't dangerous.....

Considering that legally owned firearms are more likely to prevent violence than cause it, I'd say writing a gun ban on a piece of paper would kill people!

Just ask Salman Rushdie if writing something on a piece of paper isn't dangerous.....

Oh come on people... you know what he meant.

Considering that legally owned firearms are more likely to prevent violence than cause it, I'd say writing a gun ban on a piece of paper would kill people!

Ooohhh.... good counter. +rep!

I'm just anti-gun, i respect the right to own one, i just think it should be highly regulated and im in full support of the Assault Weapon Ban, no reason an average citizen needs an Uzi, or an AR15.

I love when people pick what part of the ammendment to use. Its just like the bible its open for different meanings and people tend to use it out of context and use only part of it. When i read it, it grants the right to bare arms for the use of a well regulated state militia. So you have the right to have a gun if you are part of the state militia.

The founding fathers are on record interpreting it as individual rights (I'll try to find the quotes again later). The amendment's intent is pretty clear. Some groups have just muddled that up to further their cause, and the perceived ambiguity has somehow caught on.

I completely agree about the assault weapons ban though. Especially silencers. There is absolutely no good that can come from silencers. I would suggest that they're even more dangerous than actual assault weapons.

I completely agree about the assault weapons ban though. Especially silencers. There is absolutely no good that can come from silencers. I would suggest that they're even more dangerous than actual assault weapons.

Silencers are one thing, but no one seems to be able to define what an assault weapon actually is. Most of the qualities attributed to them (the above mentioned AR15) are possessed by ANY rifle in the right configuration, about the only thing most people agree on is that fully automatic weapons are probably a bad idea. I'm personally not totally sold on that one, but maybe I just enjoyed IPSIC matches with a MP5 too much.

One thing I'm hoping gains some traction in the future is a move away from bans and restrictions and registrations on weapons and towards mandatory training and licensing of users, like cars. I think it would be great if your driver's license, in addition to a motorcycle or large truck endorsement, also carried the endorsement of a state agency certifying you had 100 hours of safety training with several classes of rifles, power tools, and cell phones.

Wow nanny state it. Which is the one of the primary reasons people get all bent when you start restricting gun rights... because, as you just stated, once you do that, you start doing other things like power tools and cell phones.

One of the oft forgotten purposes of having a government is public safety. Anybody can buy a copy of Black's Law and peruse legal briefs, but you have to be endorsed by an agency of public safety to practice law. Anybody can buy a scalpel and betadine, but good luck being a doctor without the endorsement of an agency of public safety that says you know what you're doing.

I don't particularly care if my neighbor Joe has a rifle, a cell phone, or a girlfriend. I would a little reassurance that if I see him walking out to his car to go do whatever with it, that he at least has some basic education about what it can do. Imagine the reduction in accidental shootings, car accidents, and unplanned pregnancies.

no reason an average citizen needs an Uzi, or an AR15.

They don't need them. There is no reason an average citizen needs a 36" plasma screen TV, either. They just want one for , well, whatever reason they want one. And, point in fact, the "average citizen" is just about as likely to kill someone with their TV as they are with an Uzi or AR-15.

Ok, sarcasm off.

In reality, any fairly modern rifle is as dangerous as any other of the same caliber, shot for shot. Assault rifles look scary and have larger magazines. That is it. Something shot with an "assault rifle" is just as dead as if it was shot with a bolt action rifle or shotgun.

And, in my opinion, shotguns are one of the best home protection weapons available, bar none. Most notably if you like your neighbors.

Here is some info on court rulings and interpetation of the 3nd amendment specifically with well regulated militia etc.

http://www.guncite.com/index.html

The left hand side has a few good links and discussion on the second amendment over the years.

I'm just anti-gun, i respect the right to own one, i just think it should be highly regulated and im in full support of the Assault Weapon Ban, no reason an average citizen needs an Uzi, or an AR15.

I love when people pick what part of the ammendment to use. Its just like the bible its open for different meanings and people tend to use it out of context and use only part of it. When i read it, it grants the right to bare arms for the use of a well regulated state militia. So you have the right to have a gun if you are part of the state militia.


Actually Grey the Supreme Court has upheld it as individual rights if I recall correctly.

What with 73% of Americans in the recent Gallup survey agreeing with his right to bear arms philosophy, I don't think he'll be remembered as some fringe kook in that regard.

Where was the sampling taken from, in terms of urban vs rural, Northern states vs Southern, etc? Locale has been shown to change the results of many polls, so this may well be a slanted survey result that is not truly representative of the nation as a whole.

Not that it really matters, since that Amendment is not getting changed. It is up to the Supreme Court to interpret it, and the current Court has a bit of a lean to the right, so no worries.

It's a shame that the partisan lean of the court even matters, when it comes to one of our most fundamental rights.

fine...then require a licence to own a gun. They have a license to drive, have to be certified to be a doctor or a lawyer...why not to own a gun. Take a safety class or two, pass a extensive background check.

Silencers are one thing, but no one seems to be able to define what an assault weapon actually is. Most of the qualities attributed to them (the above mentioned AR15) are possessed by ANY rifle in the right configuration, about the only thing most people agree on is that fully automatic weapons are probably a bad idea. I'm personally not totally sold on that one, but maybe I just enjoyed IPSIC matches with a MP5 too much.
You know, I might be able to see that side of the issue better if it weren't for recent events here in town. We've had an increase in gang violence spilling over into innocent bystanders, largely due to the nature of the assault weapons popular with that crowd these days.

fine...then require a licence to own a gun. They have a license to drive, have to be certified to be a doctor or a lawyer...why not to own a gun. Take a safety class or two, pass a extensive background check.
Wait, there are states where you can carry around guns without a license/permit?

The 2nd Amendment Absolutists are so strangely silent when it comes to protecting our 1st Amendment rights from things like electronic surveillance.

Castration anxiety is an idea put forth by Sigmund Freud in his writings on the Oedipus complex; it posits a deep-seated fear or anxiety in boys and men said to originate during the phallic stage of sexual development. It asserts that small boys, when seeing a girl's genitalia, will falsely assume that the girl had her penis chopped off, probably as punishment for some misbehavior. The boy then becomes anxious lest the same happen to him.

Castration anxiety literally means the fear that one's penis will be chopped off, but more profoundly it may symbolize the child's fear that he will, like Oedipus lose his power (and his love object as well - ie. his mother).

They aren't taking your penis.... calm down.

I like guns. Picked up an AR-15 a couple years ago while cruzzing around on another forum that had a section on guns..not controlling them but building/shooting..ect.

Fun gun to have and shoot cans off stumps while on vacation in the North Woods. It won't hurt you...trust me:p I certianly wouldn't want to spend $1500+ and then kill someone with it, they would take it away from me.

Total Specs for other gun enthusiasts:
LMT 16"
Larue 7.0
LMT rear BUIS
Aimpoint M3
Magpul CTR
Magpul MIAD

http://forums.clubrsx.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=288739&stc=1&d=1193377661

http://i.walmart.com/i/p/00/61/16/13/00/0061161300226_500X500.jpg

Other than the optical sight, anyone know the major differences between this rifle and the AR15?

How about this one?

http://www.eabco.com/images/97d22302.gif

http://i.walmart.com/i/p/00/61/16/13/00/0061161300226_500X500.jpg

Other than the optical sight, anyone know the major differences between this rifle and the AR15?

How about this one?

http://www.eabco.com/images/97d22302.gif

Well...without knowing what calibre the rifles are I would say this. If we are comparing Ibudins AR-15 with these it's a matter of long range accuracy (assuming all are .223) and rate of fire or these here are muzzl loaders.

I can honestly say I've never seen a pink rifle before.

I can honestly say I've never seen a pink rifle before.


They are very popular in San Francisco.

I might be interested in a pink rifle.

I honestly don't have a beef with gun ownership I have issue with assault rifles and violent crimes that result in people being stupid or breaking the law to allow said weapons to enter the hands of criminals who commit the crimes.

Realistically the time for gun bans are long since past we should instead try to find ways to help prevent guns from getting into the hands of those they shouldn't. Unfortunately I don't have any damn idea how to do that. But, I do not think that preventing or making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire weapons is the answer. I do think that pawn shops are evil!

The pink one is 22LR, they only had the 5.56 model in normal nut brown and that wasn't quite phallic enough. Pinky is a bolt-action breach loader that is probably more accurate at range than an AR15. The second one is the same caliber and has an internal magazine and is definitely more accurate and lethal at range. It can likely maintain the same average rate of fire over any time period longer than 10 seconds.

Neither of these are assault weapons. I'd rather have someone trying to shoot me with an AR15 than the second rifle above, because at the ranges the AR15 is more dangerous I'm going to have a shotgun.

The only reason people are scared of AR15s and not Pinky is that they watched Delta Force IV actors mowing down thousands of ay-rabs with M4s (which look like AR15s). It's an entirely irrational distinction. The primary reason civilians want AR15 clones or HK33 clones or other such weapons is the same reason the military went with them -- they're lighter and more durable. Neither of those translates into more dead bystanders. A trained shooter can kill just as many people with 4 5 round magazines as 1 20 round magazine from the same semi-automatic rifle.

We don't need additional legislation against fully automatic weapons like the M4. Those are already class 3 restricted firearms. Making them somehow more illegal isn't going to reduce their usage by people already using them illegally.

Great post Malse.

While I like my guns, and coincidentally grew up in a home were my mother wouldn't allow them in our house, I still do find it hard arguing about the right to keep them and any good associated with them. A lot of people are killed by them every year, i can just tell you I am not killing anyone nor will anyone get their hands on my guns...including the government.

And in between product photos we have the -

The 5.56 collection:

M4, M16A1, M16A4, AK101

http://www.diguardi.com/IMG_1149.jpg


The 7.62 Collection:

M40A1, M14

http://www.diguardi.com/IMG_1152.jpg

7.62 rifles rock I grew up shooting one just for target practice in the backyard. Was always amazed at how it would blow threw 1/2 inch steel and stacks of railroad ties compared to the other rifles we fired.

I think everyone who wants a gun should have one, unless they have proven to be ignorant or well idiot with a 3 strike rule. I grew up around them and never think anything of them unless I see an idiot on tv or read about one in the newspaper.

And in between product photos we have the -

The 5.56 collection:

M4, M16A1, M16A4, AK101

http://www.diguardi.com/IMG_1149.jpg


The 7.62 Collection:

M40A1, M14

http://www.diguardi.com/IMG_1152.jpg

We had some serious problems with the M-14 and it's 7.62 ammo in Nam. The Russian made weapons could use our ammo, but we could not use their's in our weapons. This was instrumental in speeding up the delivery of the M-16 (5.56), and also contributed to putting a lot of defective weapons into the soldier's hands before they were properly field tested. There were many horror stories about the M-16 and it's notorious jamming in firefights, in it's early days as standard issue in-country.

That 5.56 is one dangerous round though, the way it will deflect off bone and start tumbling. The 7.62 was more likely to simply shatter/penetrate bone and not have it's course changed as severely.

BTW, I am also against assault weapons being legal, mainly because I see no reason for the availability of weapons that can be converted to fully automatic if you know a good gunsmith, or with magazines that can hold sufficient ammo to wipe out a high school class. As for silencers, a professionally built, machinist-made silencer, should never be legal, as the only purpose is to avoid detection, which lends itself to illegal use of a firearm, and nothing else.

BTW, I am also against assault weapons being legal, mainly because I see no reason for the availability of weapons that can be converted to fully automatic if you know a good gunsmith

So what is an assault weapon? Any blow-back operated semi-automatic firearm can be converted to a automatic repeat-firing weapon by a competent gunsmith. All you have to do is disengage the latching mechanism that prevents the hammer or equivalent from hitting the firing pin again before the trigger is released. Most semi-automatics are not designed to handle that kind of stress and are quite likely to suffer major failures if you do it, but it's not particularly complicated.

That's all the select-fire receivers do. In semi-automatic mode there is a catch that won't let the hammer fall again. Flip it to automatic and voila, trigger still depressed on cycling? Here comes Mr Hammer again.

Out of curiosity, since both you and Rover were in combat units .. what did they consider average hit rates for an individual using automatic fire? The general doctrine bias towards massed automatic fire was focused on unplanned small-group engagements at close range and it hasn't been my observation that an automatic rifle is any more lethal than a semi-automatic since you can't reliably re-aim as fast as it can shoot on an individual versus individual target basis.

I know in Call of Duty those fully automatic weapons stink! Unless of course your in close quaters.

Out of curiosity, since both you and Rover were in combat units .. what did they consider average hit rates for an individual using automatic fire? The general doctrine bias towards massed automatic fire was focused on unplanned small-group engagements at close range and it hasn't been my observation that an automatic rifle is any more lethal than a semi-automatic since you can't reliably re-aim as fast as it can shoot on an individual versus individual target basis.

The biggest issue with an M-14 on full auto is the huge amount of "muzzle jump" that rifle hits amazingly hard and has amazing range but is most definately best when on semi, probably couldn't hit the ocean from a boat on full auto. The M-16 has much less recoil and almost no muzzle jump, but I would say that hit ratios on full auto are probably 1000 to 1. As Marines we were taught to aim each shot, full auto is mostly to establish a base of fire to get yourself out of a situation, its also a panic reaction in combat which is why I think the M-16A2 had a three round burst instead of full auto like on the A1.


Guess who is panicking:

http://www.vanreedtrading.com/photos/wall1.jpg


http://www.vanreedtrading.com/photos/wall2.jpg


Its the same guy, first he panicks...then he gets his shit together!

BTW, I am also against assault weapons being legal, mainly because I see no reason for the availability of weapons that can be converted to fully automatic if you know a good gunsmith

(Pssst.... Drive south about 600 miles or so, there's your reason)

Wait, there are states where you can carry around guns without a license/permit?

to OWN a gun...not carry...is waht i would support. I hate guns. Very bad experiences in my life, including be robbed and pistol-whipped.

Wait, there are states where you can carry around guns without a license/permit?

Yeah, about all 50 of them. There are limitations on how and when you can carry them in most states but it is legal and permissible to own and transport firearms without a permit in the general case. I believe Wyoming or Montana still allow open-carry of sidearms in public, although I doubt many take advantage of it.

Concealed Carry permits is exactly that Grey. A license to carry a concealed weapon generally a firearm but also extending to some knives and tasers.

Yeah, about all 50 of them. There are limitations on how and when you can carry them in most states but it is legal and permissible to own and transport firearms without a permit in the general case.
Loaded?

In Utah , and the other states that share a overall compact, you can carry after you take a certified use and safety course. Nothing in the chamber but you can have a loaded mag.

Once you acheive this license your name is attached to your auto's license plates so the authorities know the minute the pull you over you could be armed.

Depends on the situation. In general you can transport weapons unloaded, although with ammunition, but if you have them loaded then depending on the circumstances you may be in violation of laws in many states. It is generally not legal to openly carry a loaded weapon in urban areas without a permit, but that is often left to the discretion of any officer of the law you happen to encounter and if he decides you were carrying illegally, the court system.

Most city cops will reasonably presume that someone walking around with a loaded weapon in public is a public safety hazard, but on public land outside of cities it's often not a big deal. As an example, despite being on public land and not actively hunting, many outdoorsy folks in bear or other large predator country carry loaded firearms with them.

It's not absolutely illegal to be carrying a loaded weapon most of the time, you'll just need to weigh the relative time value of going to court over it versus why you're doing it. With the availability of concealed carry permits in many states it's now less likely you'll get off on the "felt you were in danger" defense since nowadays they can use a lack of readily available license as evidence to the contrary.

About the only places it is absolutely illegal to have a loaded weapon in most states is government buildings, schools, hospitals, and bars.

to OWN a gun...not carry...is waht i would support. I hate guns. Very bad experiences in my life, including be robbed and pistol-whipped.

Where the times you were robbed and pistol-whipped cases where the person was allowed to carry those weapons legally? If not, than changing the laws would have had no effect on those situations.

to OWN a gun...not carry...is waht i would support. I hate guns. Very bad experiences in my life, including be robbed and pistol-whipped.
If you pass laws to ensure that law abiding citizens don't have guns, you only embolden those who are going to break the law either way.

After all, an armed society is a polite society.

I'd bet dollars to donuts in both cases Grey that the assault was carried out by someone lacking a CCW license and more than likely obtained the weapon illegally right?

well after the guy pistol whipped me, i said sir, just for future reference did you happen to buy that gun legally?

Any tom dick or Taleran can go to a gun show and buy a gun without much resistance. My exroomate bought 3 old style looking revolvers and they didnt even ask him for ID. This was at the largest gun show in cental florida. So forgive me if i dislike the process.

My exroomate bought 3 old style looking revolvers and they didnt even ask him for ID.It's my understanding that's illegal, or your friend is full of shit. I've had to give my ID and register a firearm purchase at gun shows for at least 6 years now.

The point is Grey, that if those illegal practices are already occurring, making more laws against the same action won't change those illegal transactions.

I'm not arguing for or against gun control. My point is, your reasoning is faulty unless legally obtained guns were the ones used to formulate your opinion of the process.

Now, if there were figures that stated that legally obtained firearms were used in most crimes, than that information would be valid to point out when discussing whether there should be more stringent gun control. As most of us have probably heard, if you criminalize gun ownership, only criminals will have guns.

your friend is full of shit i was with him. I do see you guys point, i just cant come up witha good solution..

Quote:
My exroomate bought 3 old style looking revolvers and they didnt even ask him for ID.
It's my understanding that's illegal, or your friend is full of shit. I've had to give my ID and register a firearm purchase at gun shows for at least 6 years now.

If they were true antiques they might not have required any federal papers to own. The U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 921(a)(16) lists what exactly that entails, but the short version is any weapon made in or before 1898 that uses ammunition no longer readily available on the open market. These weapons are not subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and require no FFL to change hands.

If they were true antiques they might not have required any federal papers to own. The U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 921(a)(16) lists what exactly that entails, but the short version is any weapon made in or before 1898 that uses ammunition no longer readily available on the open market. These weapons are not subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and require no FFL to change hands.


Trick to this is most of my gun toting buddies build up their own ammo so it's no real deterent ;P

We even had, not sure if laws there still prevail, a city in Utah that had unique gun laws requiring all citizens to own a gun. Fun lil fact, no crime there to speak of in it's history. I know it got national attention years back for it's rather wild west gun law.

Our Secretary of State (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080420/wl_mcclatchy/2915454):"But clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands," she said. "The current circumstances come out of what I think is a very important and indeed appropriate action that the Iraqi government has taken."

Isn't that concerning the militias that are controlled by individual clerics (Sadr example)? Regarding police and armies, yeah, I think they should be controlled by the government - especially in Iraq at this time of internal strife.

I don't think Rice is condoning confiscations of all the AK-47's owned by the populace...

Yeah, I read that as her talking about rules regarding weapons belonging to the state, and specifically meaning to exclude private held weapons.