The NRA is utterly shameless (Recent tweet).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Their tweet during today's hearings by Senator Feinstein regarding restrictions on weapons such as the AR-15 (which featured gut wrenching testimony from Sandy Hook father Neil Heslin):

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/306795147876765696

In the hour that @SenFeinstein has been holding her hearing aimed at banning AR-15s, Americans have bought 150 more #StopFeinstein

___________________________________________________________

What sort of fucked up fuckers are these guys?

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. The NRA exists to sell firearms

Basically, that is their sole purpose.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Hence why they are against universal background checks.

Sure, they'll claim that the problem is really mental illness, but if anyone tries to discern said mental illness and deny someone a gun on those grounds, they'll gladly forget what they've said.

Anything for a profit. Shameless.

[Drale]

2. So wait the NRA is tracking guns sales

but they don't want the Government to?

[spin]

3. Only 4.5 million of the 80 million firearm owners are members of the NRA. ...

That's probably because if you become an NRA member you get endless solicitations for donations.

I feel the AR-15 is very popular because it's very easy to modify and accessorize. It's also a very light rifle and the recoil is insignificant which makes it a pleasure to shoot.

Despite what you read from the main stream media, AR style rifles are used by hunters and competitive target shooters. Most states limit the capacity of the magazine you can use while hunting game such as deer to five rounds.

I personally do not feel that an AR-15 is a good choice for self defense in a urban area but may fit the bill for a more rural area.

The reason that this weapon is possibly the best selling rifle in the U.S. today is the last Assault Weapons Ban. Prior to the ban few shooters that I knew had any interest in owning a "plastic rifle" as they were considered to be unreliable and inaccurate. Since the AWB only banned certain cosmetic features, the basic semi-auto platform was always readily available. The ban caused interest and sales of these firearms to increase and an aftermarket sprung up to accessorize this weapon. It became possible to customize your AR-15 without the need of a gunsmith. That's one of the main reasons these weapons are very popular.

The current push for a new AWB has caused many gun owners to decide to purchase one now before they are impossible to obtain. Realistically the AWB has little chance of passing but the unintended consequence is that millions of these weapons are now owned by people who have little real use for them.

I own a number of firearms but none are assault style rifles or semi-automatic handguns with a magazine capacity of over ten rounds. Such weapons do not fit my shooting hobby needs or would serve for my self defense at this time.

Gun owners simply do not accept responsibility for the actions of criminals and people with severe mental problems. Perhaps this is sad and misguided but it is just reality. Most do support efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those with serious mental issues.

I feel we can make far more headway on reducing gun violence in our nation if we simply stop believing that the solution is to ban certain firearms

Perhaps we should ban the use of the word "ban."

Still I might be wrong and the new AWB will become law. Time will tell.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. They would have bought more if they were available

ARs are very scarce right now. Used ones are selling for several multiples of what new ones went for previously.

It has been the most popular sporting rifle for a decade or more

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Well, isn't that lovely for their manufacturers...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Not so much

The firearms industry taper down after mid November. That includes all of their suppliers all the way down to screws and raw steel. The recent rush has emptied the pipeline. It will be another month or so before we see substantive quantities of firearms or magazines.

Furthermore gun stores are hurting as well. There is nothing to sell. While WalMart may be the largest seller in the US, there are a lot of small business dealer that are being hurt by the total lack of new sport rifles.

[Paladin]

13. Well, Let's All Shed A Tear For The Gun Merchants, Shall We?

And the popularity of the AR-15 speaks volumes about the deterioration of shooting sports in this country. Thirty-round magazines and semi-automatic fire rates aren't required for conventional pursuits like hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. Such features do come in handy if you're a sick individual who wants to shoot as many school kids and employees as possible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Union jobs (manufacturing) and small businesses are worthless to you?

There are any number of sport shooting events where semi autos are required. Your solipsism does not define the real world.

[Paladin]

17. A Lecture From You On The "Real World," Professor? Your "Real World"?

Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever. And don't confuse solipsism with self-respect. Self-respect derives from opposing policies which enable the easy availability of firearms to individuals who shouldn't have anything more lethal than a Q-tip in their possession. It doesn't sound like that's part of your "Real World"; I thank God it's part of mine.....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. I am not the solipsist here

And for the record, I support additional gun regulation, address just the point you brought up.

Things I support, none are NRA talking points

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction, inheritance, and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes. It adds costs to gun ownership, but this has to be done.

Mandatory reporting of theft or loss. This is a no brainer. A number of pro gun people say they will report theirs missing to avoid registration etc. That should be felony country.

Enforce the existing Federal laws about false paperwork by purchasers. Bloomie and I even agree on this one

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. Also we cannot and should not demonize the mentally ill and the people who serve them as some have done. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems yet is trying to blame the "crazies". Go figure

[Paladin]

19. Credit Where Credit's Due: That's A Good Set Of Standards.

I could quibble about some of the details, but I don't feel like doing so at this point.

[Peter cotton]

25. Why ban pistol magazines that protrude beneath the grip?

As I understand it, your proposal would ban a 7 shot magazine for a Baby Browning (which would protrude slightly) but not a 30 shot magazine for a Kel Tec PMR (which fits entirely in the grip).

What's the point?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. To eliminate snail magazines and other extended magazines for handguns

The grip is a fairly easy to understand benchmark. Some designs, not just the Baby Browning are a bit past that, including many of the 380 pocket pistols, should be fine. Extended mags would not be.

Keltec in interesting since it is a rimfire. I am almost of the position that there should be no limits on .22 weapons, possibly all rimfire.

[Peter cotton]

47. Hm...what about the FN Five Seven?

5.7x28 centerfire, 20 shot magazine doesn't protrude.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. No problem there. It fits in the handle and is the standard magazine for the pistol.

[Peter cotton]

87. While your proposal is easily understood, I don't see the point.

If your goal is to reduce the firepower available to civilians as delivered in the form of pistols, why forbid an extended magazine for a pocket pistol that holds 7 shots while at the same time allowing a magazine for a service pistol that holds 20 shots?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Mostly its a concession to those who think magazine size matters

The snail drums and super long stick magazines are basically bling. They rarely work reliably. I am willing to give those up if it will stop this "high capacity magazine" nonsense.

I think a way can be found to keep the small single stacks handguns legal with the "what fits in the handgrip" approach.

[Peter cotton]

93. It's an interesting approach, but I've never seen anything like it being proposed

at the state or national level, so I presume it will remain an intellectual exercise rather than an actual piece of legislation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. I have better taste than to be a lawyer or legislator

I have suggested it in writing to my state and federal representatives.

DiFi is like Honey Badger...

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Required?

What a joke.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Yes required.

IIRC one of them is an Olympic event

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. I see.

So it's cast in stone and cannot be changed. That's good to know.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Its legitimate sport shooting...something you ignorantly dismissed and disparaged

[TheCowsCameHome]

53. Legitimate or not, it doesn't mean it can't be changed.

Nothing is forever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Just like AWBs

[loli phabay]

29. very scarce is correct, I've had a back ordered semi auto rifle since before christmas

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

and still no idea when I will get it, magazines are also selling for above market value and hard to come by. I am in the market for some fifteen round mags for my glock and having a time finding some. seems the panic buying has affected all sectors.

[badtoworse]

5. What's wrong with the AR-15?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Well, besides being the chosen weapon of choice for James Holmes and Adam Lanza....nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. It has been the most popular sport rifle for over a decade and is very prevalent

You lack correlation and causality.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. Adam Lanza had numerous weapons of his mothers from which to choose.

And he chose the one with the maximum killing capacity.

That means more to me than it being the "most popular sport rifle for over a decade."

[hack89]

15. And Cho choose two pistols at Va Tech

shall we ban them too?

[mwrguy]

27. Yes

Of course we should.

[hack89]

32. So what guns would you allow the public to own? nt

[mwrguy]

34. The kind that you can't use to kill a bunch of kindergardeners

Let me know when you find one.

[hack89]

35. So no guns for the public?

good luck with that.

[badtoworse]

36. It's responses like yours that make the NRA credible

[apocalypsehow]

61. When it comes to indulging their deadly little hobby - gun fondling - the pro-NRA crowd simply

has no shame. That's why they're swarming this OP with pro-NRA memes and talking points, right on cue.

[mwrguy]

66. absolutely

I love your signature line, btw.

[apocalypsehow]

70. Thanks!

[bluedigger]

30. You keep repeating that like it means something.

Minivans were the most popular cars for a decade, too. Now they aren't. Using the popularity of a fad to justify it is a little circular, don't you think?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Just making clear that ownership of an AR type if very common among active shooters

Its not unusual nor an aberration. Its common, almost the norm.

ARs are not fashion statements that go in and out of style. Their popularity is still rising and shows no sign of lessening.

[apocalypsehow]

62. That's usually what our Gungeoneer "professor's"* lesson plan usually consists of: circular logic,

personal attacks, pro-NRA swill and regurgitated gun lobby talking points.


*( )

[badtoworse]

23. They could have chosen any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine

An AK-47 would have been just as deadly as would any number of semiautomatic pistols.

[jmg257]

24. Likely why the AK is included in AW bans? As are limits on mag capacity? nt

[jmg257]

26. The near-unrestricted access to it. Too easy for too many to get at one (or more). nt

[badtoworse]

33. The technology has been around for decades

All of a sudden it's a problem and needs to be banned? I would say the problem does not lie with semi autos and detachable magazines. I think the problem lies in our culture which values human life less and less. Efforts to deal with gun violence need to be focused there.

[jmg257]

37. "All of a sudden"? Were you born after 1994?

Efforts have been ongoing to limit assault weapons since the gun industry started
pimping them in the '80s. First with limiting imports, then outright bans.

Nothing new here, except the 1st federal ban expired, and the use of such weapons in mass murders has increased.

[badtoworse]

38. I remember the AWB well

Did nothing but cost us the House in 1994.

[jmg257]

39. Yeah - so right wing NFA dupes keep telling "us".

Also about how ineffective it was. Seems the new laws are a bit more inclusive, and a bit more restrictive. Not enough of course, but a start that will see some things change.

[badtoworse]

40. The new laws are always more restrictive

That's what keeps the NRA in business. What we typically hear from the gun control advocates boils down to "give us one more increment of your civil rights and the problem will be solved". Usually, this is packaged as "reasonable gun control". Of course the problem never is solved because their solutions don't deal with the real problems. In any case, you can count on them to be back for more in a few years. That's how incrementalism works and unchecked, it will ultimately eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. Oh, I almost forgot; they always swear up and down that is not their goal.

Firearms owners aren't idiots - they know about incrementalism and see it happening. The NRA has about 4.5 million members. Do you think the NRA could be as successful as it is if many millions of non member gun owners didn't agree with them?

Maybe we'll have more restrictive gun laws and maybe not. Personally, I don't believe that either party is anxious to deal with the issue given what happened in 1994. Harry Reid sure isn't and neither is Boner.

I do have a suggestion for the gun control advocates: How about putting some things on the table that gun owners might like in return for some concessions that you want?

[jmg257]

56. Since what advocates want is to drastically reduce the number of guns

Available to the public, it seems that by only targeting a specific class of arms, hi cap mags, background checks &c, they are giving plenty of concessions. Even the strict new laws in NY were a concession in order to get them passed.

Of course this is most likely out of necessity, to get at least get SOMETHING in recognition of the NRA, gun owners, the SCOTUS, etc. Advocates realize things have changed since '94, even though the bodies continue to pile up.

[badtoworse]

58. I only want to take away some of your civil rights is a concession?

How generous of you.

[jmg257]

65. Limit for the better of the community. The common good...just why govts are formed.

Some portion of liberty given up to better secure the rest.

Generous of us all to consent as part of a civilized society.

I.e. We diminish our selfishly derived perceived needs of having assault rifles and 30 rnd mags to better ensure they aren't used to kill innocent kids.

[badtoworse]

67. Franklin had something to say about your point and he was a wise man

So what consent did you actually give? The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to citizens; it's a statement of things that the government does not have the power to do. Included in that is infinging on the right to keep and bear arms.

Don't they teach civics anymore?

[jmg257]

68. So did Robert Yates. Of course the bill of rights are securities

Against govt.

And yet the SCOTUS says limitations are allowed. Wonder why?

Madison was a pretty smart guy too.

[badtoworse]

71. The SCOTUS has always held that some limitations on civil rights are needed

On balance, Heller and McDonald were victories for gun rights. It remains to be seen what limitations survive court scrutiny, but the onus is on the those seeking the limitations to prove they are needed.

I still don't see those concessions you were talking about

[jmg257]

75. Yep. Glad you said "needed". I agree. Concessions would be

In only going after AW and hi-caps and background checks. Plenty more could be done to really make a difference, including things being discussed at numerous state levels. Limited Grandfathering, registration, strictor bans, ammo control and the like. Lots of the things that would be more effective in reducing guns/gun violence, things that get past the NRA complaint of limitations on 'cosmetic features' they state do nothing anyway.

So instance, you give up new purchases of ARs, and you get to keep the ones you already own. You get to buy a new SA pistol, but only if it comes with 10 round mags. Concessions. *In NY, you can keep your AW, you just have to license it. You cankeep your 10 rnd mags, but you can only load 7 rounds. You can carry pistols concealed, but you your permit must b renewed every 5 years. Concessions.

*of course we'll see if these new laws stand up to scrutiny soon enough.

[badtoworse]

78. You seem to be pocketing an awful lot if you think those things represent concessions

I think we need to limit access to firearms by felons and people with mental problems. Things that mainly impact lawful gun owners should not and IMO, likely will not survive court scrutiny. Chicago has spent a lot of money losing in court.

[jmg257]

79. Adam Lanza had mental problems. Yet he was able to access a legally owned AR.

How would you limit his access? His mom was a lawful gun owner right until she was killed by them.

This type of situation is not unique and we see it plenty. Because we have unfettered access, so does just about everyone else.

ETA: re: concessions - yep it could be worse. And will be if the gunners continue to resist getting their house in order. Tragic murders will happen again and again as nothing changes, till the people asking for control have thier way...eventually and more drastically.

[badtoworse]

80. We can improve the background checks but no system will be perfect.

I'm not buying the argument that because a perfect sytem doesn't exist, it justifies taking away the rights of law abiding owners (and they would be the only one impacted.)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

86. And I'm not buying the argument that just because semi auto rifles....

....don't amount for majority of shooting deaths in the country, they shouldn't be restricted.

And I certainly don't buy the argument that just because a gun isn't the only object that can be used to kill someone that it shouldn't be subject to higher restrictions and scrutiny.

By the way, these people were all "law abiding owners", too:








Frankly, I wouldn't have minded if their gun owning rights had been impacted....

[jmg257]

96. There is a lot more to valid controls then just background checks.

It is knowing that improving background checks alone won't be enough that justifies infringments on the people. The people will still be able to enjoy their rights for self-defense, collecting, shooting, hunting etc., but their choices will be a bit more limited, and they'll be a bit more inconvenienced.

Such things will impact everyone. For the common good.

[HappyMe]

7. Another reason I'm glad I

don't twit. Fuck them. They also could be making shit up.

[AngryOldDem]

14. You nailed it.

Fucked up fuckers is what they are.

God....Neil Heslin. A totally broken man. I cannot look at him, or that dear picture of him and his son without totally losing it. He breaks my heart, which makes me even more angry that we as a country cannot find some way to deal with this scourge of war weapons.

No parent, no family member, NO ONE should have to deal with what that man is dealing with. I wish him peace.

[The Blue Flower]

28. Thereby proving that they represent gun manufacturers and no one else

Color me surprised. Not.

[malaise]

31. Fucking enablers of slaughter

murder and mass killings. Fuck the NRA.

[valiberal26]

44. It's a shame...

Those 150 firearms were sold and not destroyed. I'd rather see them all taken up and incinerated and the owners themselves brought up on charges for possession.

Its time this nation saw a massive confiscation of weapons with no exceptions. I don't care if you're a collector, hunter, sport-shooter, or somebody with grand-daddy's old hunting rifle stuck back in a closet; I would not oppose the national guard mobilizing and going house to house confiscating weapons. I mean every weapon; not just firearms of a certain model or function. Everything needs to go and go now. Rifles, black powder antiques, pistols, cross bows, swords, anything and everything but kitchen knives and sticks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... The only 'good guy' with a gun is wearing a government uniform; everybody else is just a threat.

[badtoworse]

45. Seriously?

[valiberal26]

46. Quite.

The massacres in the past, the countless murders of just one or two people at a time, the crime's assisted by the perpetrator having a weapon... Those are black marks against the concept of armed civilians. The state is the only legitimate wielder of lethal force; it's part of the very concept of government in the first place.

[badtoworse]

48. You probably wonder why the NRA (and numerous other gun owners) won't give an inch on the issue

At least you're honest about your ultimate intentions.

[valiberal26]

50. Funny.

You haven't got a slightest clue about them.

[badtoworse]

52. You might be surprised; go on.

[valiberal26]

54. Why?

It's highly unlikely I'll ever see a utopia arise, so why share my private dreams with the world? I will admit curiosity about you though, what do you think my intentions are?

[badtoworse]

57. You've made your intentions pretty plain

Taking your post at face value, you want to eliminate ownership of firearms by anyone not in a government uniform. In your "utopia" no one would have the right to an effective self defense. That does not sound like utopia to me.

[valiberal26]

60. Not true.

I doubt very much that you could confiscate firsts, rocks, and sticks; those are enough for the common man to settle his own petty quarrels. So technically speaking the people would be armed even with the mass confiscation of weapons I'd like to see take place.

[badtoworse]

63. You're too naive about this to discuss it further. Have a good night.

[apocalypsehow]

69. Translation: "I lost this debate so now I'm just gonna call names and run off."

Funny stuff.

[badtoworse]

72. I'm still here

[apocalypsehow]

73. Of course you are.

More funny stuff.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. I will be glad to tell my GLBT friends that being bashed is just a petty quarrel

and that they should be able to settle it with fists, rocks, and sticks. Ditto for the battered women of the world. Clearly your have forgotten that effective self defense is a human right as well, even for the "common man".

The way you use the term common man it is about as elitist as it gets. Are you sure you are on the right board. Sounds like you the Platonian Underground with its Philosopher Kings.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

88. Oh, cut the crap.

Stop trying to claim that your opposition to restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines is somehow rooted in concern for the gay community or battered women.

Us gullible liberals will just eat that right up.

It's disingenuous and we see right through it.

Don't want restrictions on AR-15s or 30 round mags? Fine. That's your opinion. Just don't--in the words of the great philosopher Judge Judy--pee on our legs and tell us that it's raining.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. I suggest you do the same**2

I have always supported self defense as a valid reason for semi automatic gun ownership, focusing mostly on handguns, and that includes their original magazine sizes, regardless of capacity. Those who understand the technology know that magazine limits are up there with cosmetic features and are effectively meaningless.

I have lost family due to bashing and still have skin in the game. My concern is quite real and genuine while yours seems to be AWOL. Its why I taught firearms on the weekends on my own property mostly to GLBTs and women. Most all of them, best I could tell were genuine liberals, though some more more actively politically than others. All I see from you is your own biases, sneering, and no liberalism in the least.

This subthread was about total confiscation...do you support that as well?

[apocalypsehow]

64. Spot-on reply - wish we could recommend individual posts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Yet another person for total confiscation.

Logged and noted.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

82. "Logged and noted."

How... vaguely sinister. Creepy, anyway.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. There are those here who claim no one here is for total confiscation

When one of them reveals themselves, I note it and the post for next person who claims that no one is supporting confiscation.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

92. Well, I guess we all have to keep ourselves busy somehow.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. Bytes are cheap

[Auntie Bush]

49. They're fucked up fuckers!

Need more be said?

[apocalypsehow]

59. Yes, and so are their shills & sycophants; truly a morally repulsive organization. Also: see sig.

The line, not the firearms manufacturer.

Kick, Rec.

[ZombieHorde]

76. I don't understand the outrage on this. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

81. Really?

You don't see it--or the entire Sandy Hook reaction by gun enthusiasts in general--as a screwed up sense of priorities?

[ZombieHorde]

84. By "priorities" do you mean

you perceive their priorities as gun rights trump human life?

Do you mean the same for "gun enthusiasts in general."

I don't want to create a strawman argument, so I just want to make sure what you mean.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

85. For some, I think they do. At least subconsciously.

Am I saying that those gun enthusiasts actually thought that 27 people dead, including 20 children, at the hands of a shooter with an AR-15 was a good thing? Certainly not.

But I do think those same people are numb to certain realities. I think there are too many people who want AR-15s simply because they think they should have one, and that's just backwards thinking to me. A gun shouldn't be a vanity piece. If the reason one is purchasing a gun is for self-defense reasons, I believe it should be purchased with a heavy heart and with great reluctance. They should know the gravity of the situation they are getting themselves into. And if the reason one is purchasing a gun is for hunting, they should realize that hunting is a sport and not a war, and that they don't **need** maximum firepower to compete in a sport. (Hence why fishing with dynamite is frowned upon and illegal in many jurisdictions.) Sometimes the animal will win, and that's okay.

And if the reason one is purchasing a gun is to prepare for some imaginary revolution or insurrection, I don't know what to say to them. Those people are just plum crazy.

28 people dead, and one of the first things many gun enthusiasts thought was to go to the gun store and buy more AR-15s, because God forbid they might be restricted from doing so in the future. I would venture to guess that for many, those AR-15s were not their first gun. That they probably had a concealable handgun if they lived in a CCW jurisdiction or if they needed something to defend their house. That if they were hunters, they probably also had a gun more reasonably suited for hunting in the context of hunting merely being a sport. I have to wonder how many already had another AR-15 or similar semi automatic rifle. Buying an AR-15 simply for the sake of buying an AR-15--it really bothers me. Especially in the wake of two high profile mass shootings within the span of 6 months where that was the weapon of choice.

[ZombieHorde]

97. OK. I think I understand your position now.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Most strutting adolescents trying to look like "real men" are shameless.

The NRA fits the bill.