Stephen King's comment on semi-automatics..

[Playinghardball]

[Straw Man]

1. Several questions.

1) Why do police carry semi-automatics? Is it the "yeehaw" factor, or the intention to kill people?
2) In which category should we place competitors in Olympic standard or rapid-fire pistol?
3) Why should anyone care what Stephen King thinks? My mailman's opinion on global warming carries about the same weight.

[Neon Gods]

7. Point #3 is spot on

Famous people's opinions about things they're not experts on should carry no extra weight.

But it always feels good when a famous person agrees with me.

[Straw Man]

8. Feeling good.

But it always feels good when a famous person agrees with me.

How does this make you feel?

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house. The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.”

“Can’t we go after handguns, period?” he asks. “I know the Rifle Association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it. People should not have handguns.”

Guess who?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Pretty sure I know

[MicaelS]

16. It was Nixon, so what? Nixon hated guns.

Said he would to ban them all if he could get away with it, but the hunters would not let him. Whether because he was a Quaker, or he was an Authoritarian, I don't give shit. Just more proof Nixon was an evil prick.

The Authoritarian mindset is not limited to the Right, it is quite prevalent among the Left. Plenty of evidence right here on DU. Whether guns, soft drinks, food, smoking, porn, pit bulls or whatever, there are plenty of people on the Left who want to ban things "for the greater good" or because "it is for people's own good".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. "The Authoritarian mindset is not limited to the Right, it is quite prevalent among the Left."

And that's why I said, "Screw it!" and became an anarchist.

[jimmy the one]

44. who's who in gun talk?

micaelS: Nixon hated guns. Said he would to ban them all if he could get away with it, but the hunters would not let him.. Just more proof Nixon was an evil prick.

I never heard that Nixon wanted to ban all guns? do you have a link? or did you misspeak & mean only handguns?

Nixon expressed opposition to measures that would go beyond banning handguns. He asked rhetorically: What do they want to do, just disarm the populace? Disarm the good folks and leave the arms in the hands of criminals?
.. shooting of Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss) Jan 30, 1973... On the day of the shooting, Nixon.. At least I hope that Saturday night special legislation, at least we're supporting that, you know. We're not for gun control generally, but we are for that. God damn it that ought to be passed. Or was it passed?
... Nixon: Let me say, personally, I have never hunted in my life. I have no interest in guns and so forth. I am not interested in the {NRA}or anything from a personal standpoint. But I do know that, in terms of the Congress, what we need is a precise definition which will keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals and not one that will impinge on the rights of others to have them for their own purposes in a legitimate way. http://millercenter.org/ridingthetiger/nixon-supported-gun-control

1969, ..Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied.. he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

Then how about Ronald Reagan, a flip flopper?: wiki: The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms to protest the bill. The bill was signed by Repub Calif Gov Ronald Reagan and became California penal code.
Reagan .. "I support the Brady Bill," March 28, 1991, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

micael: The Authoritarian mindset is not limited to the Right .. there are plenty of people on the Left who want to ban things "for the greater good" or because "it is for people's own good".

So what was Reagan then, a leftie for awhile?

Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. OK, so Nixon and Reagan we pro-gun control. What does that prove beyond the fact

Nixon and Reagan were pro-gun control?

micael: The Authoritarian mindset is not limited to the Right .. there are plenty of people on the Left who want to ban things "for the greater good" or because "it is for people's own good".

So what was Reagan then, a leftie for awhile?

If Micael says, "The Authoritarian mindset is not limited to the Right" that pretty much explicitly states that there is an assumption the RW is authoritarian -- it's just sad to see those among the supposedly more LIBERAL-minded assuming the authoritarian mantle.

Nixon

Reagan

Don't be like those guys

[jimmy the one]

47. reagan was pro gun

What does that prove beyond the fact Nixon and Reagan were pro-gun control?

Reagan was considered pro gun as republican president. He certainly wasn't for gun control in the sense we use it.

[Straw Man]

48. He was?

Above, you cited two cases of Reagan supporting gun control and no cases of him opposing it, either as Governor of California or as President.

Then how about Ronald Reagan, a flip flopper?: wiki: The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms to protest the bill. The bill was signed by Repub Calif Gov Ronald Reagan and became California penal code.
Reagan .. "I support the Brady Bill," March 28, 1991, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

The Mulford Act and the Brady Bill are both gun-control measures. On what do you base your conclusion that he was "considered pro gun"?

[jimmy the one]

56. child's play

straw man: He was? {pres Reagan was 'pro gun'} .... Above, you cited two cases of Reagan supporting gun control and no cases of him opposing it... The Mulford Act and the Brady Bill are both gun-control measures. On what do you base your conclusion that he {Reagan} was "considered pro gun"?

Jeez, I must be getting old. And this was child's play. You Lose.
what I wrote: Reagan was considered pro gun as republican president. He certainly wasn't for gun control in the sense we use it.

WASHINGTON, March 29 {1991} .. .. that former President Reagan had endorsed a national 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases, ... Around the country, opponents of gun control say they feel betrayed by Mr. Reagan, the prince they had campaigned for, idolized and trusted.
"I felt somebody had stabbed me in the back," said Tanya K. Metaksa, a former official with the {NRA} who headed Sportsmen for Reagan/Bush, a committee of hunters and gun owners that campaigned for Mr. Reagan in 1980 and 1984. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/30/us/old-ally-wounds-gun-control-foes.html
In the past, Mr. Reagan, a lifetime member of {NRA}, spoke favorably of waiting periods and background checks. But he always said it should be a matter for the states to decide.

President Reagan will forever be remembered fondly by Second Amendment supporters, many of who are among the American conservatives who consider Reagan a poster child of modern conservatism. But words and actions of Reagan, the 40th President.., left behind a mixed record on gun rights.
His presidential administration did not bring about any new gun control laws of significance. However, in his post-presidency, Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s

what more do you need than FOPA???: The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed by Reagan May, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional.

A more lasting impact of Reagan’s policy on guns was the nomination of several Supreme Court justices. Of the four justices nominated by Reagan — Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy — the latter two were still on the bench for a pair of important Supreme Court rulings on gun rights in the 2000s: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Ronald-Reagan.htm

[Straw Man]

59. For wayward children ...

So Reagan liked background checks and waiting periods, promoted two very significant gun control initiatives, and was deemed to have "stabbed" the NRA "in the back." The only pro-gun-rights legislation he signed was FOPA, which merely rescinded the parts of GCA '68 that had been deemed unconstitutional. Yet he was "pro-gun." The illogic is stunning to contemplate.

If anything, Reagan taught gun-rights supporters that they shouldn't reflexively trust Republicans. In that sense, Reagan was the first RINO.

[jimmy the one]

63. a straw man's straw man

straw man: So Reagan liked background checks and waiting periods, promoted two very significant gun control initiatives, and was deemed to have "stabbed" the NRA "in the back."

Those were done after he was president. I wrote he was considered pro gun while president, can't you read?: Reagan was considered pro gun as republican president. He certainly wasn't for gun control in the sense we use it.
link: Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban.

1993 & 1994 are 5 years after Reagan was president, bozo, & likely while he was with alzheimers at that. And while Reagan supported bg checks & wait periods, he also contended IT WAS UP TO STATES TO DECIDE. He didn't want to federalize guncontrol, excepting as ex-president & ex-assassination attempt he supported the brady bill & awb.

You are a fool if you try to contend Reagan as not being 'pro gun' as president, & you are a fool if you contend Reagan as being for guncontrol as we call it, simply for supporting bg checks & waits after he himself was shot, while being progun elsewise. In other words, I smell a fool.

straw man: The only pro-gun-rights legislation he signed was FOPA, which merely rescinded the parts of GCA '68 that had been deemed unconstitutional. Yet he was "pro-gun." The illogic is stunning to contemplate.

You are really out of the loop on this. I think you're nuts. Firstly I said pro gun president, can't you read? you create another straw man argument, don't you? since you think it's 'easier' to defeat my argument if you remove 'as president', eh? strawman, you are a straw man's straw man.

Reagan entered 1980 presidential campaign as a known supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.
2 Reagan left little doubt about his stance on {2ndA}: “In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea.”
3 Saying {2ndA} “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” .. “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”

regarding your ignorance re FOPA1986: His presidential administration did not bring about any new gun control laws of significance.
But the progun FOPA was passed under Reagan, sponsored by gunnut orrin hatch: Among other things, {Firearm Owners Protection Act1986, FOPA}: .. made it easier to transport long rifles across the US, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as properly stored.
2 In order to comply with the prohibition on a Federal registry of non-NFA items, background check records are legally required to be destroyed after 24 hours.
3 The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment....{this was rightwing BS}.
4 {FOPA} mandated that ATF compliance inspections can be done only once per year.. a follow-up inspection would be if guns could not be accounted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

In a 1991 op-ed, Reagan voiced his support for the Brady Bill, saying the 1981 assassination attempt might have never happened if the Brady Bill had been law.

[Straw Man]

66. Reagan actively supported gun control ...

... both before and after his Presidency, and did little or nothing in either direction during his Presidency. Yet you conclude he was "pro gun." Hmm...

Just an aside: Calling people "bozo," "a fool," and "nuts" doesn't advance your argument. It's a poor rhetorical strategy that indicates your inability to carry on a civil discussion. It reflects badly on you and is a discredit to your cause.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. (Updated) Fails when thoughtfully examined but sounds good as a slogan.

Last edited Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I see now, you're filling the void left by our departed news dump posters.
Thanks

[Shamash]

3. I like Stephen King's writing

and put money in his pocket, but that is despite his politics, which is much the same as I feel about Orson Scott Card and his anti-Semitism. But Stephen King more than most people, should be able to separate fact from fiction. Even if he has the bad luck that his local gun owners are like that, it would clearly strain the suspension of disbelief to extend that to a national level without some really compelling fiction to support it.

Interestingly enough, I do not recall this inaccurate stereotype being the standard for those who own guns in his fiction. Maybe like in the Dark Tower and Pat Robertson's fevered imagination, there are demons, but they only infest semi-autos and turn their owners into yahoos, leaving the more righteous revolvers and their morally upstanding owners alone.

Anyways, one can hardly imagine any of the gun control crowd at DU caring what he says. He is by admission, someone who owns several guns and has for decades, so despite his protestations about the NRA he is clearly a "gun nut" trying to confuse the issue. Much like Gabrielle Giffords and her ownership of weapons that would get her a mandatory jail sentence if she stepped into Connecticut with them and Michael "rights for me but not for thee" Bloomberg and his coterie of semi-auto equipped bodyguards.

[jimmy the one]

45. what a SHAM

shamash: .. one can hardly imagine any of the gun control crowd at DU caring what he says. He is by admission, someone who owns several guns and has for decades, so despite his protestations about the NRA he is clearly a "gun nut" trying to confuse the issue.

You have some weird ideas which are really misconceptions at best, cheap shots more likely imo.

Stephen King ..discourses at length about why guns are evil, despite owning 3 of them.

Shamash you need disabuse yourself from your misconception that owning a gun or 3 or even a few more, is some hypocritical disqualification to being for gun control. Steven King is evidently a sterling example, & shouldn't be held up to ridicule for supporting gun control. Rather he should be slammed back into your progun faces to show that responsible gun owners do not cower in fear of nra propaganda.

shamash: Much like Gabrielle Giffords and her ownership of weapons that would get her a mandatory jail sentence if she stepped into Connecticut with them and Michael "rights for me but not for thee" Bloomberg and his coterie of semi-auto equipped bodyguards

What spin; implying that giffords is hypocritical, when it's your hypocritical spin which does the injustice. It's illegal in some states for gays to get married. If YOU were to have a low blood alcohol content in one state you'd get a dui where not in another, doesn't necessarily make you a drunk driver.
And where do you get off repeating far right propaganda about Bloomberg, claiming his bodyguards have semi autos & new York city residents cannot?

The process for obtaining a handgun license in New York City is long (between 3 – 6 months), and compared to many other jurisdictions, rather expensive. It’s not particularly difficult, but it is tedious and incredibly time consuming. It tests your patience, and there is a lot of bureaucracy to deal with... Every 90 days you can buy ONE handgun, pistol or revolver in the City of New York. http://newyorkcityguns.com/getting-a-nyc-handgun-permit/

Duh, that's because it's the largest city in America with 7 million, & you must expect delays to have proper checks. NYC also has a high standard of living, ie expensive to live there, if you don't like this don't move to NYC.
And I don't know of any NYC restrictions on buying conventional semi-auto rifles or longguns, other than registration & license.
The NYC proscriptions on carrying concealed handguns is in part because it has a population density of something like 25,000 people per square mile - ergo hundreds of thousands of residents carrying a pistol would increase theft & accidents & CRIME far more than in butte montana, and bottle up police resources better spent elsewhere.

[Straw Man]

49. C'mon, Jimmy. You can do better than this.

It's illegal in some states for gays to get married.

And it shouldn't be. Are you citing this in defense of variable and inconsistent firearms regulation? It actually supports the opposite conclusion, that there should be a single nationwide standard.

Duh, that's because it's the largest city in America with 7 million, & you must expect delays to have proper checks.

Duh -- how many people apply for handgun permits in NYC? Very few, because they know how time-consuming and expensive it is. The city could easily accommodate them much better if it had the will to do so. It won't because it doesn't. The bureaucratic impediments are deliberate.

And I don't know of any NYC restrictions on buying conventional semi-auto rifles or longguns, other than registration & license.

So I gather that you are unaware of the five-round limit for long guns in New York City. That's for ALL long guns, not just semi-autos. AFAIK, this limit is the strictest in the country. No Marlin 60 (one of the most popular .22 rifles of all time) for you, New Yorkers.



No Henry cowboy rifles, either.



If by conventional you mean "not assault weapons," be advised that New York State's definition of "assault weapon" is much broader than that of most states, and includes rifles such as this:



Tell us what is so "unconventional" about this rifle.

[jimmy the one]

57. nyc guns

what I wrote: And I don't know of any NYC restrictions on buying conventional semi-auto rifles or longguns, other than registration & license.

straw man: So I gather that you are unaware of the five-round limit for long guns in New York City. That's for ALL long guns, not just semi-autos. AFAIK, this limit is the strictest in the country.

You walked out on the bridge too far. There are no restrictions on BUYING rifles & longguns as long as they are legal, duh; your noted proscriptions are what's inherent in the gun itself (& I presume you are not referring to clips or mags).
But I know of no NYC restrictions on buying conventional rifles & longguns, if they are legal, other than registration & license.

.. how many people apply for handgun permits in NYC? Very few, because they know how time-consuming and expensive it is.

You thereby concede that buying a semi-auto handgun in NYC is possible.

[Straw Man]

58. Now you're being ridiculous.

There are no restrictions on BUYING rifles & longguns as long as they are legal, duh; your noted proscriptions are what's inherent in the gun itself (& I presume you are not referring to clips or mags).

So a restriction on what type of gun can be bought is not a restriction on buying? So in your little world, would a ban on everything except muzzle-loaders would still not be a "restriction on buying"?

The restriction is on "clips and magazines" as well as on rifles with a fixed magazine, in other words, one that is "inherent in the gun itself."

So let's see: a license is required, registration is required, there is a very strict ammunition capacity limit, but there are no restrictions. Does that about sum up your rather absurd position?

.. how many people apply for handgun permits in NYC? Very few, because they know how time-consuming and expensive it is.

You thereby concede that buying a semi-auto handgun in NYC is possible.

Or course. I never disputed that. You've got the wrong straw man, there, Jimmy.

[jimmy the one]

64. longguns more freely allowed in NYC

straw man: So let's see: a license is required, registration is required, there is a very strict ammunition capacity limit, but there are no restrictions. Does that about sum up your rather absurd position?

I need remind you what I originally responded to by shamash: Much like .. Michael "rights for me but not for thee" Bloomberg and his coterie of semi-auto equipped bodyguards.

In context, semi auto rifles & longguns are more freely allowed in NYC (than handguns), to counter shamash's implication that Bloomberg disallowed semi-autos in NYC. You have turned this into a red herring about 'purchasing restrictions' vs 'firearm restrictions'.
I also think ordinary citizens can hire bodyguards.

straw man: So a restriction on what type of gun can be bought is not a restriction on buying?

Go away; as long as the semi-auto rifle is legal it can be bought in NYC upon producing license & registration. Stop trying to twist what I wrote into your gunnutted contradiction.

straw man: The restriction is on "clips and magazines" as well as on rifles with a fixed magazine, in other words, one that is "inherent in the gun itself."

.. to differentiate between detachable clip limitations, duh.

[Straw Man]

65. Really?

longguns more freely allowed in NYC

Depends on what you mean by "freely." Easier to get a permit for, yes, but long guns in NYC are subject to a five-round limit, as opposed to ten for handguns.

I need remind you what I originally responded to by shamash: Much like .. Michael "rights for me but not for thee" Bloomberg and his coterie of semi-auto equipped bodyguards.

In context, semi auto rifles & longguns are more freely allowed in NYC (than handguns), to counter shamash's implication that Bloomberg disallowed semi-autos in NYC. You have turned this into a red herring about 'purchasing restrictions' vs 'firearm restrictions'.

There is no such implication. Big straw man there, Jimmy. He merely observed what Bloomberg's guards carry. And you can bet they don't observe a ten-round limit, nor are they subject to the licensing requirements the ordinary citizens must adhere to.

In context, semi auto rifles & longguns are more freely allowed in NYC (than handguns), to counter shamash's implication that Bloomberg disallowed semi-autos in NYC. You have turned this into a red herring about 'purchasing restrictions' vs 'firearm restrictions'.

You're the one who introduced long guns into the discussion. Whose red herring is that?

straw man: So a restriction on what type of gun can be bought is not a restriction on buying?

Go away; as long as the semi-auto rifle is legal it can be bought in NYC upon producing license & registration. Stop trying to twist what I wrote into your gunnutted contradiction.

Go away? No. What a rude and childish thing to say.

"As long as it isn't against the law, it is legal." That's the essence of what you're saying, and it's meaningless. Restrictions on what firearms can be bought are restrictions on firearms. It's that simple.

straw man: The restriction is on "clips and magazines" as well as on rifles with a fixed magazine, in other words, one that is "inherent in the gun itself."

.. to differentiate between detachable clip limitations, duh

New York City (and State) have a blanket ban that covers both. You saw a distinction where one does not exist. I corrected you. You're welcome.

[ileus]

4. gong on big dummy....the other is to protect lives.

another ID10T.

And of course a pistol like the G20 can be used to hunt with.

Also lets not forget the our LEO's carry semi-autos everyday.




Wonder what the believes Revolvers are for???

[Hangingon]

5. Never heard anyone yell Yeehaw at the range.

Never heard Yippi Ki Yah either.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. You need to watch more Bruce Willis

[ManiacJoe]

6. He writes great stories.

However, that fact does not help his lack of knowledge about firearms.


Getting your politics from celebrities is quite foolish.

[Lurks Often]

11. King's comments mean he shouldn't be taken seriously by adults

interested in facts and logic instead of emotion.

[BrotherIvan]

12. Gunners on this thread have a collective sad

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. I'm not seeing anyone here who is sad.

What's a gunner?

Why would the comments a of fiction writer make anyone sad?

[Electric Monk]

14. Of course they do, because Stephen King is a staunch Democrat and confirmed liberal

http://hollowverse.com/stephen-king/

King has simultaneously endorsed Obama and blasted the conservatives that hate him. Truly, the amount of contempt and bile sent Obama’s way during the 2012 election is staggering and King worried that someone may try to assassinate him.

King hates conservatives like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the Tea Party. Beck, according to King is “Satan’s younger brother,” while O’Reilly is “Satan’s older, mentally challenged brother.”

Concerned about corporate greed, money in politics, and budgetary issues in the United States, King sided with ultra-liberal members of the Occupy movement in asking for higher taxes on the rich, saying:

As a rich person, I pay 28% taxes. What I want to ask you is, why don’t I pay 50%? Why is everybody in my bracket not paying 50%? The Republicans will say, from John Boehner to Mitch McConnell to Rick Scott, that we can’t do that because, if we tax guys like me, there won’t be any jobs. It’s bull! It’s total bull!

[gejohnston]

15. and Nixon is quoted in post 8

what does that have to do with anything?

[Duckhunter935]

21. must be slow in your group

[Electric Monk]

23. All of DU is my group. I happen to be host of one DU safe haven for now because it was needing one

to keep the pro-gun-trolls from posting there, per the Group SOP that wasn't being enforced recently due to lack of active hosts.

But you knew that.

[Duckhunter935]

24. I know it drove you nuts

that other opinions actually were able to be posted. So now anybody that does not agree lock step with you is a pro-gun-troll.

[Electric Monk]

25. Anybody who posts pro-gun stuff in the GCRA Group is a pro-gun-troll, pretty much by definition. nt

[Duckhunter935]

26. too bad that is not what they were blocked for nt

You do seem to like it over here with all of the pro-gun-trolls. It is so nice we do not require a "safe haven" to protect us from differing opinions and you are allowed here. You should thank our host for that openness.

[pablo_marmol]

62. Yet you don't care what staunch liberal criminologists like James Wright, Peter Rossi

and Gary Kleck have to say about the folly of trying to reduce gun violence via gun restriction?

Hypocrisy -- it's what's for dinner.

[GGJohn]

17. Really?!?

Point out one person here who has a sad, if anything, we have collective contempt for King on his stance concerning guns.

[Duckhunter935]

22. he ran away

after being asked for proof, quite common I have found.

[GGJohn]

27. Seems to be a recurring theme with certain anti's here. eom.

[BrotherIvan]

32. Nah, I'm just letting you babble at yourselves

It's pretty plain for all to see.

[GGJohn]

36. Nah, it's pretty plain to see that you don't know what you're talking about. eom.

[Duckhunter935]

20. So who is having a sad?

I have not seen anyone here, can you kindly link to one for us?

I expect like most on the controller side you will put something out with no proof at all and when called on it you will run away as fast as you can.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. " put something out with no proof at all and when called on it you will run away as fast as you can.

It tends to make them sad.

[Duckhunter935]

29. and run away

I find it funny

[BrotherIvan]

33. All the posts on this thread are proving what I wrote

I guess you don't realize how ridiculous it all is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Proving what? Mr. King stated his opinion but it's nothing more than an opinion.

Noting that fact plus the additional fact that the opinions of someone who makes his living writing fiction gives him no unique insight is not having "a sad." It's stating the obvious truth.

Can you offer any reason why King somehow gains more credence than someone who actually knows about the subject at hand through professional experience?

[GGJohn]

37. Proving what pray tell? eom

[Duckhunter935]

40. so who is having a sad?

you still have not said.

I guess we can not have an opinion on the OP unless you agree with it.

[BrotherIvan]

41. Two days later and you're still on about it?

poke poke

[Straw Man]

42. As are you.

Just sayin' ...

[Duckhunter935]

43. and still has not answered a very simple

question, go figure.

[VScott]

31. O'rly?

We're not the ones crying in our cornflakes over the failure to pass universal background checks,
failure to pass an AWB, failure to pass magazine restrictions, failure to get any momentum, etc

Quite the opposite. I'm very pleased with the way things have been progressing on the 2nd amendment front.

It hasn't looked this bright and cheery in decades, and near as I can tell, things are going to get even better.

Stephan King? Pfffttt... It's going to take more than the bitterness, frustration and anger of some Hollywood Squares
horror writer to sadden my day.

[hack89]

34. True, what with all the gun control laws being passed .... oh wait

hey I'm happy now that I have given it some thought.

[DonP]

18. Another celebrity that believes his own press releases

I blame the press agents.

They suck up so much that eventually these people start to actually believe how wonderful, brilliant and all knowing they are.

King, Gumbel, Neeson et. al. must all be geniuses. After all their family, entourage and press flacks told them so, right?

[Duckhunter935]

19. I never yell yeehaww at the range

am I supposed to do that?

I have never killed anyone either.


I guess that just proves he is wrong in his statement, sounds good though I guess.

[benEzra]

38. Apparently he doesn't know what a semiautomatic *is*.

Probably 75% of guns sold annually are semiautomatics. Most .22 squirrel rifles are semiautomatic. The pistol your local peace officer carries on her hip is a semiautomatic.







I think he is confusing semautomatic (non-automatic) civilian guns with automatic weapons, and as a writer he should damn sure know better than that.

[Logical]

50. What did he say that makes you think that? nt

[benEzra]

52. This phrase:

"Semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in a while, yell yeehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use---their only other use---is to kill people."

That could be a very jaded representation of full auto. If it were intended to be a description of civilian guns that fire once and only once when you pull the trigger, on the other hand, then it is either ignorant, intentionally deceptive, or wacky. Semiautomatics (aka self-loaders) account for about 75% of the civilian gun market and for the majority of sport shooting, after all.

Perhaps Mr. King should stroll down to Van Raymond's in his own home town and see what his neighbors actually buy, before implying they are a bunch of sexually deviant rednecks.

[Logical]

53. Semis are rapid fire nt

[benEzra]

54. Semiautomatic is the default civilian mode of fire, and doesn't come anywhere near cyclic rate.

Most slowfire target shooting is done with semiautos, and about 75% of the civilian market is semiauto. It doesn't matter how hard you squeeze the trigger, it is only going to fire one shot until you release the trigger and pull a second time.

Even a slow-cycling automatic weapon shoots much faster than anyone can pull a trigger, and since you have to wait for the trigger reset it is physically impossible to shoot as fast as an automatic weapon even if you install a mechanism not limited by the constraints of the human hand. Good shooters with a civilian gun and practice can get splits down into the low teens for a few shots, but that's not including the aim time required to actually hit, and most people's splits run 0.15 or above even without aiming, slowing as more shots are fired. By comparison, an automatic weapon can lay down ten to twenty shots per second for as long as ammunition holds out, or can fire bursts or sweeps with a single pull of the trigger.

A semiauto may be "rapid fire" if your basis of comparison is a bolt-action optimized for lethality at extreme range, but not if your basis of comparison is a typical civilian rifle, pistol, revolver, or repeating shotgun. Pretending otherwise hurts your cause, IMO.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. "about 75% of the civilian market is semiauto"

And THAT is why they make such a big deal about it. It's a way to squeeze out as large a chunk of the civilian market as possible in a single feature. If they thought they could get away with outlawing chrome and matte finish without looking ridiculous they would go for it in a heartbeat.

It's not about safety, it's about control.

[beevul]

60. "If they thought they could get away with outlawing chrome and matte finish..."

"If they thought they could get away with outlawing chrome and matte finish without looking ridiculous..."

Its not as if they haven't started down that road on both counts. The antis had a hissy fit a while back about so called "fingerprint resistant" finishes":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x44792#44793

And of course there was their outrage at colored firearms:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x163658


Paint and coatings aren't too far removed from chrome and matte.

[sarisataka]

39. And to think...

I thought those guys were doing it wrong

[shenmue]

51. He has a short essay called "Guns" at Audible.com

[pablo_marmol]

61. Proving only that Stephen King is an idiot. Next. NT