Couple things about the AR-15 and the alt-right & NRA-pimper arguments

[CousinIT]

So, one of the NRA alt-right pimpers argument about the AR-15 is that it's not an assault weapon and that THOSE are already banned. The ban on automatic weapons does not include semi-automatics (like the AR-15). That's a problem because those should be banned too.

Both automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned -- anything that shoots multiple rounds quickly to massacre many people at one time (not for self-defense or hunting) should be banned. These weapons do not belong in civil society.

AR stands for Armalite Rifle (not automatic rifle). Armalite is the manufacturer who makes it - one of the ones NRA pimps for. It inexplicably does not meet US federal requirements to be considered an assault rifle.

That federal requirement must change or be amended to include semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. Just a few things to keep in mind when arguing with alt-right NRA-pimping terrorists who think more guns that shoot more bullets faster is a good idea.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968484750183759872.html

Just in case - if anyone gets into a "discussion" with one of these people over this. Be armed with proper info.

[Kingofalldems]

1. Look out below

[hack89]

2. There is nothing stopping an AWB

except wide and deep public support.

BTW - all existing and past AWBs specifically targeted semi-automatic weapons because automatic weapons are covered by the National Firearms Act (NFA) which was passed in 1934.

[CousinIT]

3. Yes. Thank you! n/t

[Adrahil]

17. AWBs addressed cosmetic features on semi-autos

(with the exception of magazine ban part, which WAS effective).

What we need is for all semi-automatic weapons to designated Class III weapons under the NFA, requiring a more rigorous background check/registrations process, and the tax stamp. Put any magazine over 10 rounds on there too.

[hack89]

19. Its worth a shot I guess

but I don't see much of anything happening anytime soon. That's the one problem with a Trump presidency - the total chaos it produces ensures that we will jump from one crisis to another without doing much of anything.

[Adrahil]

21. Neither do I. We can't even get these assholes to ban bump stocks.

But we have to be smart and get our shit together, because I really feel like the winds are changing in the long term.

[underpants]

30. Cosmetic features, especially the pistol grip, were aimed at sales

The pistol grip is a feature everyone sees in the movies so they want it. The same rifle with a standard rifle trigger look just don't sell as well.

[Adrahil]

32. A school shooter will not care....

We need to address functionality directly. The sooner the better.

[hack89]

40. There are practical reasons for a pistol grip on a rifle

Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

that is why every military adopted them once gun furnishing could be cheaply made out of plastics and metal. Pistol grips make aiming much easier by allowing the shooter to place his eyes in the optimal position.

[Straw Man]

107. The pistol grip is not cosmetic.

It was integral to the designs of Stoner and Kalashnikov, both of whom were designing for a military application. Colt put the AR on the civilian market (converted to semi-auto) when it looked like the military was balking at adopting it. Kalashnikov AK-pattern rifles didn't show up in a civilian version until the 1980s.

[derby378]

4. I do not use the term "assault weapon" any more than I have to

It's technically weasel words with no real definition. Automatic and semi-automatic are something I relate to. We already have heavy restrictions on automatic, and in at least 15 states it's flat-out illegal. I don't think semi-automatic warrants the same restrictions, but that's just me.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. What's Your Take On High Volume Magazines?

We fought WWII using the M1. What did that clip hold, 7 bullets?

[Adrahil]

23. Throw anything more than 10 rounds on the NFA class III list.

Problem solved.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Sounds Reasonable To Me

I know these things are pretty easy to reload with a fresh clip, but that's at least a few seconds for someone to bolt around a corner and get the heck out of there.

[Adrahil]

34. Well I'd put the guns on the list too.

But even if someone goes through the hassle of getting the gun on the stamp, they will not be too excited to spend $200+ per magazine, not to mention the wait.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. Have To Start Somewhere

That's why i like your idea. Doesn't make it impossible, but making it harder is at least a positive step.

Make it harder to get, make it more expensive, make it harder to do mass slaughter.

Get one foor in the door and we add to the list.

[Adrahil]

89. Thanks! NT

[LanternWaste]

8. "I do not use the term 'car' any more than I have to.

"I do not use the term 'car' any more than I have to. Coupe and sedan are something I relate to..."

But that's just me.

[Adrahil]

18. No need to be confused.

"Assault weapon" is term that means NOTHING. It means "scary looking."

We need to be specific. The functionality that is dangerous is a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine. If we want to define THAT as a assault weapon, then we are getting somewhere.

[Fred Sanders]

51. Canada and every other nation on the planet has no problem with definitions or lists.

The "liberals are just scared of the look of the military grade rifle" is an NRA trope no one is buying. Not now, not ever again.

[Adrahil]

56. Please read carefully...

My argument is we overcome THAT argument by doing what nations like Canada and Australia do... define the guns by their technical features.

And by the way... AR-15's are legal in Canada! Even the scary "short barreled" versions. However, Canada has a fairly rigorous licensing and permitting process, and magazine capacity is limited to 5 rounds for most center-fire rifles (with some exceptions) so they are rarely used in crimes.

I would support similar measures here.

[Fred Sanders]

57. Guns are not only defined by their technical features, which gunners then ramble on and on

about, they can be put on comprehensive lists as obtained from manufacturers and the list is by regulations so is easily and quickly updateable.

Easy peasy.

[Adrahil]

60. Good luck!!!

IMO, just put all center-fire semi-autos on the NFA Class III list. DONE. No ambiguity, no copycats, no "innovative and new" designs. It works for machine guns.

[Straw Man]

105. So you're OK with this?

It's not centerfire.

[appal_jack]

86. Canadians do not face quite the draconian bans proposed here.

You might want to check your wishful delusions about our northern neighbor, Fred. Just one Canadian vendor for example:

https://marstar.ca/dynamic/category.jsp?catid=75212

Check it out, and perhaps consider that universal healthcare, greater income equality, and a culture of civility may have more to do with the lower rate of mass shootings there.

-app

[Fred Sanders]

91. No. It is gun control, and not just lower mass shootings. ALL GUN Deaths. I see what u did there.

[TwistOneUp]

61. More important than that is...

Whether the bullet spalls (fragments after penetration) or not. Spalling ammo is definitely assault ammo, while non-spalling ammo may or may not be classified as assault ammo.

If the shot fragments, that causes compound damage and is more threatening to life.

[Adrahil]

62. Good point....

fragmentation is what makes an Ar-15 so deadly... otherwise it's just a very hot .22.

But the 7.62/.308 does not typically fragment, and it, of course, is a very deadly round.

And unlike the military, who are prohibited from using expanding "ballistic point" ammo, civilians can get it easily (very popular and effective for hunting).

[TwistOneUp]

72. Huh

I had no idea the military is not allowed to use mushrooming ammo a la JHP's... Does that apply to spalling ammo as well?

If so, that implies mil ammo is all FMJ. Yes? Or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for the info!

[Adrahil]

73. The Hague conventions....

which were established first in 1899 and revisited in 1907 were intended to reduce "inhumane" weapons (as if any are humane?). At the time, there was the idea that lead slug ammo would deform and expand aggravating wounds. SO they instituted the rule for signatories that all small arms ammo had to have a full metal jacket. But because they were implemented over a hundred years ago, they had no idea about fragmenting ammo. So expanding ammo, ala JHP's are illegal, and so is explosive small arms ammo, but fragmenting ammo is considered legit.

The rules are weird. 'Cause it's NOT okay to use expanding ammo, but there's nothing in the rules against using a bigger bullet... or causing really horrific wounds with grenades!

It's Doctor Strangelove-esque.

[sl8]

81. Some recent developments

If you search for "Open Tip Match Hague", sans quotes, you' ll get some interesting stuff.
Here's one, from http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1262

OPEN TIP MATCH: WHEN A “HOLLOW POINT” IS NOT A HOLLOW POINT
23 August, 2012 · Ammunition, History, V4N2
...

The 168-grain MatchKing was used by the winner in its debut at the 1959 Pan American Games and soon dominated centerfire rifle competition. Its broad acceptance and proven performance in competition and by civilian law enforcement agencies attests to its success. As described in this article, military interest in the MatchKing and other open tip match (OTM) bullets, including sniper use in combat, developed slowly due to misunderstandings that persist to this day.

The confusion began in 1899 at the First Hague Peace Conference, which adopted a Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets in which governments agreed to abstain from military use of “…bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which do not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions [skiving].” The declaration was more political than humanitarian, targeting the British .303 caliber Mk. III cartridge with its AL 9402 hollow point bullet in part due to the British War against the Boers in South Africa, notwithstanding the fact that the Mk III was never employed in that conflict. Abstention in use of such bullets applied only between nations party to the declaration. If a nation party to the Hague Declaration fought the military forces of a nation that was not a party or “savages,” as non-government forces were referred to in colonial times, no prohibition existed against their use. Only thirty-four nations became parties to this treaty. During its negotiation Captain William Henry Crozier, Ordnance Corps, U.S. Army (subsequently Chief of Ordnance, 1901-1918), and U.S. delegation member, argued against the declaration’s condemnation-by-appearance vis-à-vis a bullet’s terminal ballistics relative to other contemporary military bullets. As will be seen, the error Captain Crozier criticized was repeated with respect to military adoption of the MatchKing and similar OTM bullets over the half century following its introduction. The United States is not a party to the Hague Declaration, but has acted consistent with it. Potential functioning reliability issues, particularly in machine guns, discouraged interest in projectile design other than FMJ standard ball. Lack of military interest evolved into an assumption by many that military use of “hollow point” projectiles is prohibited in all circumstances, regardless of design intent and terminal ballistics.
...

More at link.

Also, regarding hollow points in the service pistol, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/10/why-the-new-army-pistol-will-use-deadlier-hollow-point-ammunition/?utm_term=.0e18eecbc269

Why the new Army pistol will use deadlier hollow-point ammunition

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff July 10, 2015
...

Hollow-points are often more lethal because of the design of the bullet. It gives the bullet more surface area upon impact with the target, creating a larger wound cavity.

Jackson said the controversy around hollow points involves the Hague convention of 1899, which prohibited “bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.” Jackson said he’s currently in the process of “myth busting” the notion that hollow points are somehow illegal to use in combat.

“Very few states have signed [the Hague Convention] and the United States is not one of them,” he said. “Law enforcement agencies use hollow points all over the world, so if it doesn’t violate the human rights standards that applies these days, why are we applying those standards on the battlefield?”

The United States does adhere to Article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907, which says that it is forbidden “to employ arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.” But Jackson said hollow points are actually more humane than conventional ball ammunition

...

More at link.

[Adrahil]

88. Thanks for the update. NT

[Fred Sanders]

92. Assault ammo? Lol, Boris.

[meow2u3]

9. I prefer to call them "combat weapons"

"Combat weapons" is a truthful, straight-to-the-point, unambiguous term that describes the intended use for AR-15s and other military style weapons. Combat weapons are designed for the battlefield, not the streets.

It's time we reframe the argument by calling things by their proper names.

[Adrahil]

20. OKay.... then give it a technical definition.

I'm fine with calling them that, but we have to define it in terms that can be put into law.

The AR-15 as a semi-auto weapon is not used by any military in the world. So we have to be specific.

It's a semi-automatic, center-fire rifle with a removable magazine. If you want to define those as "combat weapons" for shorthand, that's fine with me. But if we're gonna talk laws, we cannot be afraid of specifying what we are talking about here.

[sl8]

6. A couple of things about that tweet ...

So, one of the NRA alt-right pimpers argument about the AR-15 is that it's not an assault weapon and that THOSE are already banned. The ban on automatic weapons does not include semi-automatics (like the AR-15). That's a problem because those should be banned too.

I suspect the author is conflating "assault weapon" with "assault rifle". I'm sure someone, somewhere has said that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon, but the argument I most often see is that it is not an assault rifle. The argument is that "assault rifles" are select-fire (i.e., capable of automatic fire) and the AR-15 is not. The definitions of "assault weapon" are a bit more vague, but I've never see one that wouldn't include an AR-15.

Both automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned -- anything that shoots multiple rounds quickly to massacre many people at one time (not for self-defense or hunting) should be banned. These weapons do not belong in civil society.

Valid opinion. He's probably right.

AR stands for Armalite Rifle (not automatic rifle). Armalite is the manufacturer who makes it - one of the ones NRA pimps for. It inexplicably does not meet US federal requirements to be considered an assault rifle.

I don't think this is correct. Armalite used the "AR" prefix for all (?) their products, not just rifles. If it stands for anything, it's "Armalite". Armalite designed the AR-15 and sold the manufacturing rights to Colt. There is now a company named Armalite that manfacturers AR-15 type rifles, but it's a different company that purchased the "Armalite" trademark.

[CousinIT]

47. Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.

The more we know...the better we are equipped to argue with the pimps for the gun manufacturers who think semi-automatic weapons belong in civil society.

[Eko]

78. This part is where I find the whole argument funny.

"The argument is that "assault rifles" are select-fire (i.e., capable of automatic fire) and the AR-15 is not."
The AR15 was made with select fire for the military and switched to semi auto later, ok, if we take a SAW, or a m249 and switch it to semi auto is it now not a assault rifle?
This is an M249, it is currently used by the united states military.

It uses the exact same ammo as a AR15. But hey, make it semi auto and now its not a assault rifle.

[sl8]

90. Funny, but not ha,ha funny.

Side effect of drawing a legal bright line between autos and semi-autos, I suppose.

[Eko]

106. Ya, not ha ha funny at all.

[procon]

7. Everyone is quibbling over the exact labels for these types of guns, but

no one is satisfied. Instead of labels, isn't there a way to base gun restrictions on simple, broad descriptions of the actions or capabilities of such quasi military style weapons that should not be in the hands of the public? I don't know. Or conversely, what about a description of legally permissible firearms the public can own, like single-shot guns, period?

[zipplewrath]

10. Magazine size

This is why I don't wanna argue about which guns should be legal based upon a description of the GUN. I want to limit the capacity of the clip/magazine/whatever. No more than 3 rounds in a long gun without reloading. Yes, I know that people can reload quickly. But most people actually can't.

For hand guns, we can talk. Six rounds? Nine? I'd like to keep it to single digits. Yes, I know people can reload quickly. Most can't. And maybe once we get to this, then we can start talking about how to make it difficult to circumvent the clip size. But again, most people won't do that.

[NewDem17]

12. We don't need labels or semantics.

We need a full ban on any and all firearms and accessories. Doesn't matter the make or brand, or name. Ban them all.

Give a 1yr turn in window, after that anyone in possesion of a weapon would be a felony. If found the police will go and confiscate the weapon, by force if necessary.

Slowly but surely we can remove every last firearm in this nation.

[procon]

24. How do you propose doing any of that when the 2nd amendment makes your

entire premise illegal? Think it through.

[NewDem17]

26. Easy.

Allow the ownership of black powder muskets and any other form of black powder rifle.

[Adrahil]

36. And only hand operated printed presses?

C'mon... we are not gonna win by saying ridiculous stuff.

Also, whether you like it or not, hunting is a necessary evil... we've killed off the natural predators for the most part.

[NewDem17]

39. You can hunt

with a bow and crossbow.

And I'm sure you could hunt with a musket, never tried but I'm sure they used to back in the day when muskets were the best thing around.

As to the hand operate printing press, let me know when free speech kills 50+ and wounds 500+ at a concert.

[Adrahil]

49. That's an emotional appeal. Let me know how that goes at SCOTUS. NT

[Sailor65x1]

55. It already has

The First Amendment has always been more dangerous than the Second. The Second can result in shootings, but the First gives whole regimes.

[Canoe52]

48. Thats easily the worst argument Ive heard...and I dont think he was ridiculous at all.

[Adrahil]

50. Well, good luck with that argument then. Let know when it wins. (Spoilers: It Won't) NT

[Canoe52]

63. Such an optimist!

[Adrahil]

64. Optimism doesn't make policy.

Elected officials do.

[procon]

53. You're shifting positions points out the fallacies in your argument.

Above, you stated, "We need a full ban on any and all firearms and accessories. Doesn't matter the make or brand, or name. Ban them all."

Now, you've switched to allowing "black powder muskets", clearly just making things up as you go without thought or rationale.

[ieoeja2]

85. While I disagree with a total ban, you are 100% incorrect.

A few years ago for the first time in over 200 years the US Supreme Court ruled what you said. But for over 200 years the 2nd Amendment did NOT refer to an "individual" right.

"Persons" refers to an individual right in 7 of the 8 Bills of Rights (the last two being disclaimers).
"People" refers to a collective right in all other instances.
The 2nd Amendment is unique, according to an interpretation that is less than 10 years old, in that "people" alone among all the Bills of Rights means "individual" rather than State or Local right.

Never mind that the Bills of Rights were written by the same people at the same time. When they wrote the 2nd Amendment, they used a word to mean something different from what they intended it to mean in every other amendment?

-------------------------------

7 of the 8 Bills of Rights (the last two being disclaimers) addressed some thing that the British Army did or attempted to do to the colonists. The 2nd Amendment is unique again in being the sole Bill of Right that addresses something the British Army never attempted.

The British Army disarmed the colonial militia allowing Pontiac's Rebellion with disastrous results. The British Army also attempted to confiscate the militia armory at Lexington leading to the start of hostilities. In neither instance did the British Army attempt to confiscate weapons owned by individuals.

Never mind that the Bills of Rights were written by the same people at the same time. When they wrote the 2nd Amendment, they addressed a theoretical issue that the British Army never did to the colonists unlike every single other Bill of Rights which addressed an issue the British Army actually did do.

[maxsolomon]

42. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

welcome to DU. nice try, comrade.

[Baconator]

11. A semi-automatic ban is completely unworkable...

... as it would include nearly every handgun on the market and the 100s of millions in circulation.

[NewDem17]

13. It is workable!

Ban them, it's that simple.

Let people turn them in and if they don't they become a felon. It's that simple.

[Baconator]

14. Do you want to stay out of power for the next 50 years?

Threatening to criminalize an entire class of people and confiscating the private property of millions will keep your party out of power for 50 years...

[Liberal In Texas]

15. YOUR party?

Really?

Not to mention you are completely wrong. It's worked elsewhere, it can work here.

[Baconator]

22. Keep it together there V...

It's amazing how folks are so freaked out about Trump's authoritarianism but can't wait for the opportunity to send the jackboots to kick down their neighbor's door.

[jberryhill]

31. Yes, just like the lawn dart squad did

Please explain to me the process by which lawn darts disappeared, in your recollection.

Hint: didn't involve jackboots or kicking down doors.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Perhaps the Greatest Irony

Jarts became illegal to sell (not own) because of public safety, but we have to keep guns available because of public safety. How did that happen?

[NewDem17]

16. It's been done in other countries

It can be done here.

They only become criminals if they refuse to follow the law, just like any other law.

[maxsolomon]

45. Uh-huh

Low post count, calling for divisive, binary solutions...

[johnpowdy]

27. How about doing what is right? Ban them all

Most people will turn them in. It worked in Australia.

[hack89]

28. Australia did not "ban them all". There are plenty of legal guns in Australia. nt

[maxsolomon]

44. Nice try.

"welcome to DU"

[jberryhill]

29. Who said anything about confiscating them?

What can be banned are transfers of them.

If you like your gun, you can keep your gun. But you are going to be the last owner of it.

I really don't recall the mass confiscation of lawn darts when they were banned from sale.

Do you?

I remember plenty of folks who owned lawn darts.

They all seem to have disappeared.

How, in your limited imagination, did that happen?

[maxsolomon]

54. well, a few new posters said to ban and confiscate ALL guns

which is precisely what RKBA activists will copy and paste to show how unreasonable we are.

odd, that.

[Decoy of Fenris]

58. That isn't limited to new posters by any means.

Fact is, no matter how much lip service gets paid to "We won't ban guns" or "we won't repeal the 2nd amendment", there are some here that advocate exactly that and they've been doing so for years. Lunacy isn't limited to the right wing.

[maxsolomon]

59. Repeal of the 2nd is more realistic than "Ban them All!"

but still, it's a remote possibility, on par with winning the Powerball.

even then, I doubt we'd have a firearm prohibition.

[Baconator]

66. "Let people turn them in and if they don't they become a felon."

If you make me bring it to you or just pick it up as evidence while arresting me due to my newly minted felon status...

The result is the same...

[jberryhill]

68. Who was arrested over lawn darts?

If the sale or transfer of certain guns is outlawed, you do not become a felon.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that.

You would only become a felon if you attempt to sell or transfer it to another person.

This is how it worked with lawn darts.

If you like your gun, you can keep your gun. You will, however, be the last owner of it, and attrition will do its magic.

[Baconator]

69. You say that... for now...

There are multiple others who want them right the fuck now...

[jberryhill]

70. There are people who want a lot of tings

So what?

You have yet to make any reasoned objection to outlawing the sale or transfer of them, and you will continue to hold on to the most extreme position as a reason for not being willing to discuss alternatives.

[Baconator]

74. I'm against the concept of a ban in principle...

De facto... Door kicking... Phased over a week or 30 years...

Americans should have access to firearms. The difficult question is how much and in what way.

[jberryhill]

80. Americans should have access to cribs, door glazing, and a lot of other things

But if the crib slats are too far apart, the door glazing not safety glass, etc., then those items are banned from being sold. Happens all the time with unsafe products.

How do you deal with the heavy restrictions on ownership of full auto weapons, grenade launchers, and various other arms which are not readily available?

Early in the last century, you could buy yourself a Tommy gun if you wanted one. How is it, in your imagination, that these have disappeared from general circulation without door kicking, jackboots, etc.? What magic was formerly used to accomplish this result?

[Baconator]

84. We got better stuff...

[fescuerescue]

77. just gonna leave this here

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Jarts-Missle-Game-Lawn-Darts-Suitcase-Style-Box-With-Handle/352285164651?hash=item5205d5046b:g:UDUAAOSwXfVaijbO

[jberryhill]

79. People list a lot of things on eBay

Shall we run the experiment and report that link?

You know as well as I do that these things were once very common and have disappeared. If your point is about listing policies and the efficiency thereof on eBay, that's not really germane to the point.

Would there still be a black market in illegal firearms. Of course there would be, but that is very different from any deranged individual being able to walk out of a shop with a mass killing device, and you know that.

[fescuerescue]

82. Actually there are tons of Lawn Darts available on Ebay

Have been for awhile. I think it's only new lawn darts that are banned and are banned from being sold at retail.

I've posted plenty of points on guns, but I'm kinda argued out honestly. We all just say the same things over and over and no one ever changes their mind.

All the discussion on lawn darts got me curious so I thought I would share that bit of trivia.

[Politicub]

33. Oh, good

I would like to see those 100s of millions in circulation swept up in a buy-back program.

[hunter]

35. "Self defense" is bullshit.

Technical arguments about guns just excite the gun fetishists.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

When gun fetishes are rejected by parents and children, spouses and lovers, friends and community, the law will follow.

Legislators can hammer out the details.

[Baconator]

67. Says someone who has, I suspect, never had to exercise it...

[hunter]

76. You would be mistaken.

Gun fetishists collect all their Hollywood hero stories and embellish their own, ignoring all the sordid and miserable details of real life gun violence. Fuck that.

I look at adult gun fetishist same as a would a little 14 year old gang banger with a gun.

I also don't let anyone I'd care to shoot live in my head.

[Baconator]

83. Just seems hypocritical for you to get the benefit of self defense...

... while denying it to others.

Your perception of those folks is less important...

[hunter]

87. When did I ever get that "benefit" of self defense?

It's been my experience that once the guns come out everything is FUBAR.

This U.S.A. will be a better place when most of the guns are shredded and thrown into the steel furnaces.

It's going to happen too, and not by force. Gun fetishes will be as socially unacceptable as drunk driving or smoking in the workplace is today.

[Baconator]

93. I'm just going off of what you said...

You: "Self defense" is bullshit.

Me: Says someone who has, I suspect, never had to exercise it...

You: You would be mistaken.

....

Your post titles aren't really synchronized with your comments perhaps...

[hunter]

94. I'm sure you have many glorious stories of people using guns for self defense.

I don't.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[Baconator]

96. Ok... So you haven't had to defend yourself...

... yes?

[hunter]

97. Oh for fucks sake.

Should I tell you about my first time too?

I do tell a few gun stories here, but never the kind that would make some retired cop say, "Oh, yeah, I remember that guy..." (Most especially the stories my mom hasn't heard...)

Nor do I tell the stories that make my psychiatrist suspect there's a PTSD component to my troubles. I'm not sure about that, or maybe I'm in some kind of denial.

Maybe you want to be the "reasonable" gun owner in this discussion. Go ahead. It's my personal opinion, born of experience, that guns are pretty useless for self defense. I don't even judge most cops competent to carry guns for self defense... or any other reason.

Honestly I don't see much difference between the 14 year old gangster carrying a gun for "self defense" and the forty year old gun fetishist doing the same. They're both letting some "bad guy" live in their head.

Oh hell yes, I am dancing around the issues, just as gun fetishists use the euphemistic language of Hollywood Cowboys in their sordid tales of "self-defense."

[Baconator]

98. That's a lot of talk with not very much content...

People have a right to self-defense...

It's just that simple

[hunter]

99. And I say it's bullshit.

It's my intention to empower others to call out gun fetishists.

I don't respect the "right" of fools to own guns.

I consider gun fetishists fools.

[Baconator]

100. Any other rights you think should be dependant on whether or not...

... someone is liked?

[hunter]

101. Yeah, I think it's fucked I can't own slaves anymore. ---sarcasm---

And wtf, women can vote?

And it's a crime to drive drunk?

What hell is this?

*sigh*

That's a pathetic argument in support of gun fetishes.

I don't even think we have to change the second amendment.

When gun fetishes are socially unacceptable, as they are now in some communities, the law will follow.

[Baconator]

102. Just working with what you're putting out there...

GIGO...

[samir.g]

41. Once the guns are gone then there will be nothing for these people to "defend" themselves from

[EX500rider]

75. Right, because criminals who aren't allowed to have firearms already will turn em in?

lol, good one.

[Straw Man]

104. Right.

Because a 91-year-old grandmother can take on a 19-year-old mugger in a fair fight.

[demmiblue]

43. This belongs in the Gungeon. n/t

[maxsolomon]

46. A few of these posters belong in St. Petersburg

stirring the shit...

[Fred Sanders]

52. YES...here to "sow discord" as Mueller said, not just to meddle in elections.

[missingm]

71. Guns that have features to "cool" the barrel should be illegal

It takes a good number of shots in a short period of time to overheat a gun. If you need a feature like that then it is an assault weapon.

[Straw Man]

103. What is a feature that cools a barrel?

You mean like the water jackets on old machine guns? Aside from that, the best way to cool a barrel is to expose it to air.

Are you thinking of features that protect the shooter's hands from coming in contact with the hot barrel? Like barrel shrouds? Those are arguably safety features. Surely you don't want to eliminate safety features.

[Marengo]

95. Thats quite a pantload, actually. The ability to shoot multiple rounds quickly in a self defense...

Situation is not desirable? A double action revolver can shoot multiple rounds quickly enough. Does that make it a assault weapon?