Blame the shooter, not the gun

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Actually I have friends that use AR-15 style rifles for hunting groundhogs, skunks, coyotes and other smaller animals that damage crops or carry off their livestock. The guns are lighter, easier to carry, and stand up well to the dusty and dirty life of a farm.

Average hunting rifle weight is between 6-8lbs
An AR-15 weight is 6-8lbs.

Why do you friends need an AR-15 to hunt stuff that can be easily killed with a 22?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Actually one point of large capacity magazines for civilian use is, to make practice easier and less time consuming.

Yeah, swapping out a cartridge is quite a difficult job.
I hear that professional body builders often do this instead of pumping iron, due to the superior workout that it gives. How do you think Schwarzenegger got so darn big?

I mean look how small that clip is....
Then the grenade launcher....
Only one shot at a time with that sucker...

Originally posted by roadgravel
The anti gun people need not worry since the military and police will always have more firepower then the citizen. They can wipe gun owners out anytime they choose and find the courage.

I'm not an anti-gun person.
I've enjoyed plinking away with a gun or two in my time as well.
However, there is no need for the public to have access to the type of hardware that was used in this instance. There is ZERO valid excuse to allow a civilian to have any version of an M-16, M-14, combat shotgun, AK-47, nor a drum full of ammo.

The number one reason I get from people when I ask why they need to own this stuff?
“In case they ever come for my guns”...
Seems a bit oxymoronic to me.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The anti gun people need not worry since the military and police will always have more firepower then the citizen. They can wipe gun owners out anytime they choose and find the courage.

Why would your own military and police forces attack the citizens they have sworn to protect? You do realise that they are citizens of the US as well right?

The roots of this whole situation stems from the ability of the people to deal with an out of control government.

In the old days a rifle was equal to the average arm a soldier used. Today the government has much more firepower.

How is that issue to be separated from gun crime. Hard to say.

Many owners don't feel the need for a 100 round magazine. But how is the line drawn. Doubt if the public will have much say anyway, lobbies will.

Originally posted by AlonzoTyper
Furthermore, as another poster commented;

More people die in car accidents every year than by gun violence. More people die from cancer than from gun violence. More people die from prescription medications than from gun violence.

So, by your logic:

Vehicles should be outlawed.

Ciggerettes and tobacco should be outlawed.

Prescription medications should be outlawed.

Ok...have fun living in a nanny state. Thats what California has and continues to become and it is inefficient, unreasonable, and goes against everything this god forsaken country once stood for.

1. There are quite alot of restrictions on who can operate a vehicle, Like what type of vehicle, capacity, size etc. And if you do something wrong with them, you are usually fined, or in the end told you can't operate one.

2. Same as above - there are restrictions on who is allowed to buy cigarettes and tobacco. Don't see any complaints about that.

3. You do realise how hard it can be to get prescription meds, right? Again, there are plenty of restrictions in place when it comes to getting them, plus sizable fines for the Doctor handing out the prescription, and the person getting the prescription. On top of that, if deemed bad enough, prison time can be handed down. Just look at some of the medications I was getting while going through Cancer treatment, like Morphine and Endone, which are controlled substances, because they are Opiate based medications. If anyone other than myself got the script filled, and recieved the Morphine and Endone, the Police actually had every right to arrest the person getting it if it wasn't me, because the script wasn't in their name.

Sorry to say, but your argument actually helps the Anti-Gun argument, not the Right to bear arms argument.

reply to post by roadgravel


Good point, but it was different time, people were different back then, and its not entirely accurate.

People bought guns because they were a survival tool, and there weren't many manufacturers of them. The government would have the money and pull to get the first crack at getting their hands on them. But they were still different and meant to serve different purposes.

Most American civilians used the Kentucky Long Rifle, while soldiers (on both sides) used the Brown Bess. The Kentucky rifle was made for hunting, it was too fragile for combat, slower to load, but was more accurate at long range. The Brown Bess, was more robust, faster to reload, made to hold a bayonet, and was designed for combat in ranks at close range.

Then there were other weapons that civilians would never get a hold of. For example, even if a civilian had the money to buy one, they still would not have been able to get a hold of a cannon that was comparable to one that a standing Army or Navy could acquire. Again, scarcity, limited production, government contracts on the ones produced, and cost would have prevented just anyone from buying one.

Governments will always outpace their populations in armament, its just as time goes on the gap is getting wider.

reply to post by defcon5


You do know that you can buy surplus fighter jets, tanks APCs and more, right? You are actually not forbidden to own those things. Somebody with a bit of spare coin and an old field manual could buy a surplus tank and really wreak havoc.

reply to post by defcon5


You do realize that a .223 is basically a .22hornet right. It is a .22 with a slightly larger case to hold a little more powder. It actually works against coyotes, foxes, and boars a heck of a lot better than your average CCI .22 round.

If you shoot a coyote with a .22 chances are he is going to run off wounded and die a slow painful death. If you shoot the coyote with a .223 chances are he will die a faster more humane death. It is actually about being a humane hunter when protecting your livestock and lively hood.

My friends Del Ton AR-15 actually weighs in at 5.8lbs fully loaded. The next readily available caliber that is nearly as effective is the .22-250. There are a small handful of rifles in that caliber around 6.75 pounds. The average rifle is over 7.5 pounds. A 2 pound difference becomes noticeable when you are lugging it through the field to check on sheep and cows for hours at a time.

Also many of the guns in that caliber are built more to competition specs than work horse specs. Another large group are what I call carry and sit guns. They are designed to be carried to a location and set up while you wait on the animal. So, what you end up with is a gun that doesn't stand up to the daily abuse of the ranch or farm. Plus, with a nearly 25% increase in energy you end up with a gun that is completely overpowered for shooting something smaller like a groundhog. The bullet will most likely go through with only a minimal drop in energy and velocity.

As for the larger magazines, it means less time changing out magazines and more time practicing. With time being a limited quantity good saving time on reloading means more time actually practicing. That means it is easier to get in quality practice time. Thanks for showing you were more interested in mocking than actually trying to understand the concept. It shows a lot about your willingness to openly discuss and debate the topic.

reply to post by MikeNice81
You cannot legally buy any active duty military equipment, for example an F-16, even a demilitarized version. You can only buy them after they are no longer in use by the military, and even then they still restrict certain ones that can be sold/bought for parts on other countries existing military equipment.

You might be able to buy broken parts, or chassis that have been damaged beyond repair, as long as you agree to not sell them to anyone in another country, and they're not classified. Mothballed military equipment is supposed to have all its weapons and, depending on what it is, its engines disabled, before it can be bought.

For example, you can buy the cockpit off an active duty fighter, only after its been thoroughly destroyed beyond the ability to be airworthy. All the instruments will be pulled out of it, as well as almost all the equipment.

You can buy broken parts that have been removed from an active duty device, such as aircraft instruments, as long as they are declassified, and broken. You cannot sell anything like this to any foreign country.

Items such as battleships or aircraft that are sold to museums, have been thoroughly decommissioned, their weapons destroyed, electronics removed, and usually their engines broken in a way they can never be repaired.

If your getting any parts that are active duty equipment, then they have most likely been stolen, and are being sold to you illegally. The stuff that you can buy is stuff that is so old its no longer being used pretty much anywhere in the world. Much of this stuff has to be rebuilt to even function in any significant way.

Some more examples:

Ogden men charged with illegally exporting F-14 parts to Iran
October 06, 2007 11:00 pm
SALT LAKE CITY -- Federal prosecutors have charged two Ogden men with illegally exporting surplus pieces of F-14 fighter jets, a plane that is only flown in Iran.

F-14's were mothballed in 2006, a year before this news article happened.
Here again in 2010:

Man who bought F-14 machine gun gets 3 years
June 15, 2010
NORFOLK

A former museum director was sentenced Monday to three years in prison after pleading guilty in U.S. District Court to buying a rotary machine gun used on F-14 fighter jets.

Wayne Miller, 49, of Maryland, admitted that he went to Oceana Naval Air Station in 2005 and bought the machine gun from a Navy chief petty officer in charge of decommissioning aircraft.

All the tanks, APC's, helicopters, jeeps, etc that you mention are REALLY old stuff, like WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. They have all had their weapons destroyed beyond repair, and usually have to be rebuilt to even run at all. Navy ships have their rotor shafts bent and welded so they can never be used again before being sold to collectors or museums. This is why they have to tow ships to where they will be placed as an exhibit. War relics are also supposed to have their barrels cemented, or otherwise be made non-usable before they are allowed back into the country.

reply to post by defcon5


Actually there was no limit on what a person could buy or own. The government didn't get first crack at all of the guns. Black smiths made smooth bore rifles on a local basis in some communities. Some people and towns even invested in building their own cannons. People and governments also already had access to the idea of a repeating rifle. The Puckle Gun was a breech loaded revolving mechanism rifle that fired 9 shots per minute instead of 3.

The founding fathers weren't idiots they knew that the technology of arms would keep advancing. They didn't believe that technology would hold still forever when it came to guns. They were helping mold the world with the technology of the printing press. Some, of the were amateur scientist and inventors. They were actively engaged in pushing forward knowledge and technology. To think they didn't foresee that the arms available to the government would become more destructive is to treat them as idiotic at best.

Again, scarcity, limited production, government contracts on the ones produced, and cost would have prevented just anyone from buying one.

Exactly the same thing that stops just anybody from buying a decommissioned tank, APC, or naval ship. All of those are things you can legally buy any day of the week. The difference is the cost limits the availability. You can buy the same body armor troops wear, but the cost is prohibitive. You can even buy Dragon Skin body armor which is a step above what the average soldier wears.

You can buy the stuff and spend a little time arming your self to take on the average SWAT team in much bigger and scarier ways than an AR-15. Nobody complains about that. Everybody attacks the evil "assault weapon." Which is a name that was intentionally misapplied by the anti-gun lobby to scare the general public. The thing is so called "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes outside of the very few crimes like this. That is the reason that congress didn't reinstate the AWB. Their own studies showed no significant decrease in "gun violence" could be attributed to the law. The continued attack on the "assault rifle" was admitted to be pointless and just another step to further regulation by the Washington Post when the original AWB passed.

By buying in to the "assault weapon" lies and hype you are actually helping the anti-gun crowd get what they want. By the logic you use to argue against the AR-15 you could argue against any 9mm semi-auto handgun and any .45acp semi-auto handgun. That is the grand plan in the long run. The people at the Brady Campaign and the other gun control lobbies have been preaching it since the 1970s.

reply to post by defcon5


An M4 is my primary duty weapon, so I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to own a personal AR-15 version. I believe that my own practice with my weapon will directly correlate to proficiency when it comes to my duty. Not to mention, I like the style of the gun. You can buy a ferrari because you like it. You can buy a blow up doll that looks like Kim Kardashian if that tickles your fancy. Either one has the potential to be dangerous.

Originally posted by kazanoom
Does the world need another apologist? They come out of the woodwork every time something like this happens. It's sickening. No one should be able to buy a hundred round drum magazine like he's downloading porn off the internet much less 6000 rounds. Do you think he was going rabbit hunting? Shame on you.

6,000 rounds weighs a couple of hundred pounds and he couldn't walk around carrying more than his body weight in ammo alone. The shooter got off less than a hundred so I honestly don't see where how much ammo he ordered matters other than the big numbers scare people who don't know much about firearms.

reply to post by MikeNice81

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Actually there was no limit on what a person could buy or own.

Yes there was...
There was also secrecy back then just like for the military today.
It was closely guarded what alloys were used in cannon foundries, and what types of bores the guns had. It was a guarded secret about how the navy ships were built, and what advances they had over enemy ships.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
The government didn't get first crack at all of the guns.

They often had exclusive rights to foundries, shipyards, and gunsmiths.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Some people and towns even invested in building their own cannons.

Making cannons was a highly specialized process, so I find this difficult to believe. The only people equipped to build cannons were bell foundries. There weren't many bell foundries in the US back at that time. A lot of our equipment came from the French.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Exactly the same thing that stops just anybody from buying a decommissioned tank, APC, or naval ship. All of those are things you can legally buy any day of the week.

No they are not as I have shown above.
You find me where its legal to buy an F-16 please?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You can buy the same body armor troops wear, but the cost is prohibitive.

No, you can buy the civilian version of the military armor, the same way you can buy the civilian version of the US helmet, Humvee, M-16 (AR-15), MH-6 (OH-6), Huey, etc...

reply to post by defcon5


Check out Armyjeeps.net, right now you can buy a complete running up armored Humvee for $145,000 it is built to complete military spec using civilian sourced parts. In essence you are buying the exact same thing our troops are using in the theater of war today.

You can buy a Ferret armored car which is still in use in India and other countries. It just has a minor ignition issue. You can buy an Alvis Sacren which is in use by American SWAT teams. All it needs is the starter switch and shift linkage rods. Those are things that many mechanics or machinist could fix with a small shop and a diagram.

You can even buy a T-55 Russian Main Battle Tank. A tank shown to be able to resist a 15kt nuclear detonation at 2,300 feet. It is completely running and drivable. You can also buy a fully running BRDM-2 Russian armored amphibious fighting vehicle. It is designed to resist all small arms fire under a .50cal machine gun.

The technology may be old, but it is still usable and still very effective against modern police and small arms. A person with $40,000 and a grudge could make life hell for a lot of people. It is cost prohibitive though. You can equip yourself with things much more dangerous than an AR-15 if you so wish.

There is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever to allow the public to have this level of hardware.

Sure there is, it's call the US government, which really no longer represents the average US citizen.

Originally posted by Themanwithnoname
reply to post by lambs to lions

 

Maybe it'll take some of your family being shot and
killed like this for you to think differently.

Conversely, I want my me and my family able to defend ourselves from criminals and thugs so twe don't get shot, stabbed, beaten, or raped.

Our law makers working along a line defined by the least resistance and maximum personal gain, that gain being either monetary or personal belief.

Banning guns is too big a risk to their system. If it was not, it would have been done by now. They have most people just going along with there plans by using emotion. 9-11 shuffled in the Patriot Act and ramped up security over everyone using a common enemy. Anti gun emotion is still too split.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Check out Armyjeeps.net, right now you can buy a complete running up armored Humvee for $145,000 it is built to complete military spec using civilian sourced parts.

”Using civilian sourced parts”...
Exactly, you CANNOT buy a US military Humvee. It may be built the exact same way, but its still not a true military Humvee. Its illegal to own active US military equipment. Believe me, I collect aircraft instruments.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You can buy a Ferret armored car which is still in use in India and other countries. It just has a minor ignition issue.

That's because its a 1940's British military vehicle. I don't know about the rules in the UK, but its not US military equipment.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You can buy an Alvis Sacren which is in use by American SWAT teams.

Again, this is British equipment.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You can even buy a T-55 Russian Main Battle Tank.

Russian...
You can also buy Russian fighter planes, they'll sell their stuff to anyone.
The thing with a lot of Russian gear that folks don't know about, is that a lot of what was being sold over here was radioactive. Especially aircraft instruments. Much of it was gear that was stationed near, or used during the Chernobyl meltdown.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You can also buy a fully running BRDM-2 Russian armored amphibious fighting vehicle.

Again, Russian, not American.

In fairness I didn't specify that I meant only US gear above, I just assumed such as that's what we were discussing. So let me clarify, the stuff I posted above is taking about American military gear, not foreign stuff. I have no idea what the laws in foreign countries are. War relics means enemy weapons that have been taken from the field by US forces, and brought back to the US.

reply to post by defcon5

Why, Because these are BS excuses as to why folks need this kind of equipment. Yeah, you're complaining about the weight of the gun, but then in the same sentence your telling me you want to carry around 5+lbs of unnecessary ammo.

I never said how much ammo I wanted to carry. My friend's Del Ton only weighs in at 5.8 pounds with a loaded 15 round polymer magazine installed. When practicing I will readily carry 100 rounds of ammo for the gun. Then I set it down and only hold what is in the gun. When hiking around a farm or ranch you usually carry one magazine. If conditions are extra muddy or dry you might carry a smaller second one in case the first one malfunctions. Still the total weight is less than most .22-250s.

There is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever to allow the public to have this level of hardware.

Actually the very reason is so that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force over the citizen. It is also for help in protecting the home land against invasion. Every able body man was expected to be part of the force that could help defend the country.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to federal law nearly every able body male between 45 and 17 is supposed to be ready to be called in to action as a member of the "unorganized" militia. That is the modern law and not the colonial law. To many Americans that means he should be physically fit enough to muster through basic training and familiar with weapons similar to what he may be asked to use.

(Going back to intent of the Fore Fathers)
During debate James Maddison said

The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789)

In other words the populace was meant to be well armed enough to keep the military and the government in check. The intention of the founding father's was to have citizens stand in the breach and be trusted to maintain their own freedoms even if it meant resulting to arms. That could only be done if the public has arms that may hope to contend with military hardware. That is reason enough.

Tench Coxe, wrote:

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.