So liberalism has been hijacked by radical liberalism... Kinda like Islam has been hijacked by radical Islam
Yes, I know. The Wiki-time you spent still misses the point. I'm sure that's all very correct how the AR-15 evolved. It's just not the point. The AR-15 and any other so-called "assault rifle" or "military style" weapon is only as dangerous as its accessories. If the AR-15 only had a two-round capacity (for whatever strange reason), would it be more dangerous than a 12-gauge shotgun? I doubt it. The issue is its high capacity magazine. Which isn't fixed and which can certainly be regulated to make a scary looking gun a lot less killy. Google up the latest "gun control" stories and you'll hear all sorts of wild tales about what the AR-15, which wasn't shooting up gay guys this week, can supposedly do. Hundreds of rounds a minute, we hear. "Automatic weapons," which this ain't, should be outlawed, we're told. How can there be an honest discussion about firearms generally when the folks trying to regulate them don't even bother doing the 15-minutes of research that you admirably did. All gun owners might not agree, but as I said above, I wouldn't have any gripe regulating the magazine size to ten rounds. I doubt that would be enough for anti-gun folks, because they don't understand anything more than the fact that it looks really scary and military-y. In Massachusetts, I can't buy or own a high capacity magazine for my handgun. Ten rounds - max. I have no doubt that if I walked into a gay club with just about any .45 semi-automatic handgun and a full ten-round magazine, I could kill more people in less time. I could probably reload quicker also. It's just not as sexy-evil and doesn't have such a mysterious name like an AR-15. Pretty good for a really effective assault, though. Not to mention, it's rather stylish in military circles. The thing about the NRA and what I suspect they would or wouldn't support is, of course, only a guess. But the blanket concern is about how folks who know dick about firearms like to demonize certain models irrationally, and how that can expand in irrational ways. If you could convince them there was an end, I'll be so bold to suggest there would be room to talk. Imagine if the next closeted homosexual were to shoot up the next nightclub exactly as I said - with a couple of handguns and a few extra magazines. The NRA would rightly expect the next demon-gun of choice would be in the handgun class. My god, we must outlaw that Beretta. For the children.
Talk! They may want to tell you what to say or think, but conservatives want to tell you what to do. That's very different.
So you think you can talk down to me because I disagree with you or you're wearing your big green moderator badge proudly? You don't know anything about me and have done nothing to earn the right to assume. Do your own damned Googling, I got most of my knowledge at basic training a long time ago and shouldn't have to justify my knowledge or opinions to someone like you. It sure looks like I know more about how much ground the NRA is willing to give than you and you're the one bragging of your firearms prowess. You started out here as an intelligent person making some legitimate points but you blew it.
The only comparison is that in both cases is it the smallest of minorities in the radical activities.
On a related note, I just made strawberry milk and it only took like 3 or 4 drops to turn the whole glass red
Whoah whoah. Talking down to you? Not my intention. So, I'm sorry for that if that's how you took it. My fault, not yours. I'm not going to change my post but consider this a qualifier. I've said much worse in far worse ways. Again, my fault, not yours. Decent discussion and I probably got a little too playfully aggressive. The points I made still stand, though. And, firearms expert? Not close. You'll see that admission somewhere above. But point out where I'm off. I'll defend it or concede it. Or, here's a question instead: the leftward call of the day is to "ban all semi-automatic weapons." How is that the solution, and isn't that doing exactly what I said in my offensive post above?
Great write up. However, it will still be very easy to obtain a high capacity mag online. It may be against the law, but criminals don't follow the law. I own 3 handguns, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, and an AR-15. What I don't own is a fucked up mind. I'm all for better background checks and classes to make it harder for these nutjobs to obtain guns.
I've had the news on both the radio and television for the better part of two days now and read a half dozen newspapers plus online articles and haven't seen that ban called for but don't doubt there are those somewhere who will. Who are you speaking about? More commonly, I've heard the call made as you did, for smaller capacity magazines and more stringent licensing or background requirements. I can assure you the NRA will continue to fight those tooth and nail. Do you think that's really what the majority of the gun owning and NRA joining community wants?
Does that indicate you would be willing to become a criminal to obtain a high capacity magazine? In addition to the classes and background checks would you be for strict limitations on certain types of the most lethal ammunition for your AR-15, for example?
Yeah, I don't doubt that. I go to the range maybe three or four times a year, and maybe I'll get to shoot from someone else's collection for excitement, but I'm otherwise not really bothered by the pretty tough restrictions we have here. And, frankly, what I had to do to get my LTC wasn't all that unreasonable. A full day of classes, which doesn't necessarily need to include range training, but mine did. I had to write a letter to my local police chief explaining why I needed a license. Personal safety, my job, my need to express myself artistically through violence.... blah, blah, blah. I needed two letters of reference from people willing to say what an upstanding and responsible person I am in my community - probably the toughest part. I needed to prove my residence with a current utility bill and another form of ID, even though I'm friendly with the chief and proving my identity ought not to be an issue. I think I also provided a passport photo. I then needed a personal interview with the police Sargent who recommends applications to the chief. There was a wait to that. He only does them one afternoon a week and only takes a few people each day. Took about three weeks before I could get a sit-down. It all then goes on to the state police for background check and review. If I remember right, the whole process took me almost three months. Didn't bother me.
Not just any ol' someone anywhere. Just today, from the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee: Conyers, others call for gun control hearings in Congress And from St. Thomas Friedman a few months back:
No, but a criminal would? Is that not who these restrictions are ultimately intended for? The two common types of ammunition for that platform are essentially the same in every way. Each is just as lethal as the other. But sure, limit either. Hopefully the .223 because it costs me more for a day at the range compared to the NATO round.
The NRA would vehemently oppose any suggestion of outlawing high capacity mags, and would consider you anti-republican for even suggesting it (as they have deftly managed to attach their agenda into the Republican party, making Republicans wary of challenging them). They are completely uncompromising, and have way too much influence, making it difficult to get anything done at all. But NRA aside, what is the point of keeping assault rifles legal, with or without high capacity magazine availability? What purpose do they serve? hunting? home protection? taking arms against the US gov't? all bullshit. They were banned between 94-04, and we weren't any worse off for it. If it weren't for the NRA lobby, they would still be banned.
While I note that Conyers has mainly called for hearings on the subject of background checks and availability because none have occurred in years while the massacres continue there is an indication that a ban has been called for. I'd be interested to see the exact descriptions. Long guns? Pistols? How would it be implemented, by whom, for whom? The Friedman piece appears to be a tongue in cheek proposal of what an extremist candidate would do, not something put out by any politician at all.
Actually, the restrictions would be for all, unfortunately many who consider themselves law abiding gun owners have no problem making up their own rules when it comes to keeping their guns in the hands of those legally entitled to have them. One would think that if all the owners of AR-15 type weapons are mainly interested in benign target shooting an inexpensive round designed to simply put holes in an inanimate target would be a win-win for all involved.
