General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRevenge of the Gun Nerds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/?utm_term=.8c1e0357994e"Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss (others') views if they use imprecise firearms terminology."
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)you need to raise your game beyond cherry picked pictures and broad brush smears if you expect us to respect your views. But we know this is a game to you - your tongue has been firmly planted in your cheek for years which is why we really don't take offense at you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)access to guns -- and all the crud that goes with them -- for those who can't live without the damn things.
Gunners seem willing to ignore those, and the weapons, that threaten our society.
hack89
(39,171 posts)trolling is fun - time will tell if it is effective.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Remember: if you have bought guns or ammo, those profits go to gun companies, who fund the NRA to support killing.
People who buy guns or ammo are complicit in deaths -- unless you balance it out with a LOT of anti-NRA, gun control activisms.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Am I complicit in every fatal DWI?
My hobby is competitive target shooting. In 35 of gun ownership I have never harmed a living thing. There is no blood on my hands.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Those kids that got killed in Florida got killed in large part because the NRA funds political warfare, designed to divide America to get votes for GOP billionaires. (GOP billionaires tax cuts are hated by a majority of americans, so the GOP needs wedge issues to get votes for their pro-wealthy policies. Guns are such a prominent wedge issue).
And gun and ammo profits go to fund the NRA. Gun CEOs give money to the NRA. It's a marketing expense for them. And the NRA does whatever it can to sell more guns. Arm teachers! Arm everyone! More guns! More profits!
And if you buy guns and ammo, your dollars are funding gun corps, gun marketing, the NRA, and ultimately, child deaths. I know it's hard to hear. But if you buy guns and ammo, you are complicit.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)
now leave me alone until you are ready for a serious discussion. One that is rational and not based on bullying, threats and broad brush smears.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)I don't buy Georgia-Pacific paper towels because their profits fund the Koch brothers' attacks on America.
Many gay people don't go to Chick-Fil-A, or Hobby Lobby, because they are run by hateful anti-gay leaders, and their profits fund anti-gay discrimination.
And gun profits fund the NRA and fund pro-gun advocacy. There's a straight line from that to child killings.
Do you have kids or grandkids in school? Do they have active shooter drills? Do you have to explain to them why crazy people have guns to kill them?
hack89
(39,171 posts)sl8
(13,584 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)
An 11% tax is charged, per the Wildlife Restoration Act ( https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_Act.htm ).
How much goes to the NRA? I don't doubt that some does. I'm assuming that the amount varies according to the manufacturer/vendor/retailer, but we all know about assumptions. Do you have any specifics?
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.
The NRA also made $20.9 million about 10 percent of its revenue from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.
Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.
The NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.
sl8
(13,584 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)
If I buy a box of .22s at my local gun store or Walmart, how much will go to the NRA? I'm particularly interested in New Hampshire retailers, but I'd be interested in other states, as well.
The 11% tax is federal; it applies thoughout the U.S..
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Thats all you need to know.
If you buy guns or ammo, the deaths are on your soul.
sl8
(13,584 posts)With all due respect , that doesn't help me at all.
I would like to buy a box of .22s, whilst contributing little or nothing to the NRA.
According to you, my soul is in jeopardy regardless of where I buy them?
I doubt that's what you really meant. Is it?
On edit: With regards to "that's all you need to know", many of us commoners don't respond well to such language. Luckily for you, I'm fairly tolerant of such disrespect.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)With all due respect, in my first answer I listed some details in response, showing that hundreds of millions of gun profits goes to the NRA from gun corps in various ways:
- Yearly donations to the NRA
- For some companies, direct shares of gun/ammo/sight profits
- donations to the NRA foundation.
Your response to my first answer:
"that's not exactly what I was asking for". Which made it seem like you weren't asking in good faith. (You might want to quibble again with secondary points, but the main point of the argument was answered.)
I hate to be rude, but it seems like you're not arguing in good faith. So to answer your question for the third time:
If you buy a box of .22 shells (as I have in the past, but no more) then yes, you are generating profit for the gun companies. Which they send part of to the NRA. Which is basically a terrorist organization.
So if you buy a box of ammo for a .22, you are helping fund American kids' deaths. I know it hurts to hear, but it is the sad truth. That's why I don't buy ammo or any gun stuff any more.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)First I wanted to make sure not to change the subject. First question was about how much the NRA receives from gun corps and CEOs. Answer: hundreds of millions. The NRA goal is to sell more guns, and they dont care about Americans dying.
Second, my kids at school are terrorized by the idea of a gun nut coming in and shooting them. A domestic terrorist coming in and shooting them. The NRA actively enables that. They are a domestic terrorist organization.
Do you have kids or grandkids in schools? Do they cry with fear in active shooter drills?
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)If we would harden schools as recommended, and add armed security (either teachers or guards) it would mean the near end of school shootings. We have heavy security and armed guards at the capital; why not in every school in America? Who is more important, a Senator or Congressman, or our kids?
My grandkids go to a private school with all locked access and an armed guard inside. Why can't we do this for public schools as well? The cost is negligible when protecting our greatest asset, our children.
The NRA is responsible for training of armed guards in schools, as well as multitudes of law enforcement and private citizens. Over 1 million a year. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own set of facts.
https://firearmtraining.nra.org/
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)The NRA is a terrorist organization.
They want to increase gun sales to enrich gun CEOs.
Its safer to get rid of guns than to turn our schools into armed camps. Way way safer. (Armed school camps is a GOP/NRA talking point).
But the NRA makes less money if we ban guns. So they advocate for more guns, which gets kids killed.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The deaths of children.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)I am now very concerned about my complicity in all these deaths.
Canoe52
(2,944 posts)?h=450&w=600
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and a threat to society.
Self defense with a gun is OK, regardless of color.
...nails it
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)George Zimmerman, racist militia groups, Cruz, 3%ers and Oathkeepers, white wing racists, etc., are armed up for self-defense. I dont.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are a serious problem in this country, and represent the majority of gun-fanatics who put guns over society.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You might have a point if whites were the only ones killing people. Gun violence in America transcends racial boundaries and you know it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)so afraid of.
Sorry, you are having trouble understanding the point.
These gunners are a threat to society:
hack89
(39,171 posts)ok I guess. Impossible to argue with that "logic".
AzureCrest
(65 posts)The danger is from the white guy punching holes in paper.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)There would be less mass shootings, intimidation, spousal abuse, etc., too.
When are gunners going to do their part?
hack89
(39,171 posts)but then I didn't expect it would.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)there are only two proposed laws I opposed - we agree much more than we disagree.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Or not? Yes or no only please. Anything else and well need to have a discussion as to why you are dodging.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'll just say, some opinions are more informed than others.
I'm not interested in Joe Shit the rag man's opinion on climate change when he doesn't even know what Beer's Law is. He is uninformed, and expressing an opinion based on emotion, not technical understanding.
I'm also not interested in people like Kirsten Gillibrand making gun control laws that include technical details when she think a barrel shroud is the "shoulder thing that goes up."
If self-righteous folks would actually listen to people with some technical expertise, they might be able to identify things that will actually help, instead of banning bayonet lugs or pistol grips. We've burned way too much political capital on laws that don't actually help.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Link to tweet
If you can come up with a better way to ban military, human-killing weapons that doesn't interfere with legitimate, single-shot hunting rifles, great.
If you CAN'T come up with a good ban, then I guess we'll just have to ban all semi-autos.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BSdetect
(8,989 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,697 posts)Alea
(706 posts)We say... back at ya.
Stinky The Clown
(67,697 posts)Poor, tender snowflakes.
Alea
(706 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...to make fun of what you don't understand.
If it's needed:
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)There is nitpicking just to nitpick, and theres is calling out outright lies and ignorance.
If people nitpick if you call a magazine a clip, when we know what you mean and the distinction doesnt alter the debate, thats pointless.
But if you get corrected for either statents that make no sense or are outright false, then thats a different story. If people are saying things that are outright false than they need to be corrected, and correcting factual errors in not gunsplaining to use their made up term, its bringing accurately to the debate.
If you cant stand to have your misconceptions or false standbys corrected, then you are not entering the debate in good faith or with honest intent.
So if someone jumps on you for saying clip for magazine, sure they are just nitpicking and not into it for honest debateZ
But at the same time if you say things like AR-15s are designed to be sprayed from the hip, The AR-15 is super high powered, Full-Semi-Auto, you dont have to aim an AR-15, You just file down a firing pin to make a semi auto full auto well all those are not different opinions or just a mistake or terminology. All those statements (all chosen because Ive seen them all posted here or linked to here) are outright falsehoods. Proveable to not be true. So if you are in a debate and saying things that are simply not true you should expect to be called out on that. And if you are interested in honest debate and forming your opinions from positions of knowledge instead of ignorance you shouldnt be mad or offended when people point out where you are saying things not grounded in fact.
mac56
(17,561 posts)and am always as respectful to the other parties as they are to me.
What I object to is "gunsplaining." Being mocked, derided, and marginalized because I don't know the difference between the various bullet calibers and bullet sizes.
It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's flat-out weak-ass cowardly.
"Its point is not to foster deeper understanding of these weapons, but to further a group identity of firearms owners as beset upon by a dumb or dishonest adversary, to flatter their insecurities and tell them they dont need to take gun controllers seriously because you cant reason with ignorance."
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The anti-gun has their equivalent of that form of dishonest debate.
Just look for the all gun owners have blood on their hands or all gun owners are a danger or the term ammosexual that is tacitly homophobic in how its used, or the you dont care about dead kids line. Or my favorite the white racist gun owner making up for a small penis Ive been called here- when Im neither white nor male. I could go on and on about the same kind of stuff.
Or the people who keep cherry picked pictures of racists with guns close at hand to post them every chance they get to try and paint anyone with a gun as a racist.
All those are equally as intellectually dishonest and cowardly as a form of debate.
And how many posts did it take for a perfect example of that to show up on this thread?
Paladin
(28,204 posts)Right here at DU. And you damn well know it.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It is used.
But often what isnt gunsplaining but actual correction of falsehoods being posted in the debate that is dismissed as gunsplaining and not listened to.
And see my reply just above about equally as dishonest tactics used by the anti-gun side to end or head off any meaningful dialogue. Both sides of this debate have people engaging in dishonest tactics.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The AR-15 was designed to spray fire from the hip without aiming, and various other claims about how they dont have to be aimed.
You just have to file down the firing pin to make a semi auto full auto.
State background check laws dont help with guns because its legal to just go to another state and buy without a background check- its actually a serious violation of Federal law.
Criminals get their guns mostly at gun shows.
You cant go against a person with a long gun with a handgun indoors.
The AR-15 fires an unusually high powered or damaging round.
Calling semi-auto full auto.
Calling semi-auto machine guns.
Before any state changes laws around concealed carry you see the same claims about how there will Be Wild West shutouts, blood in the streets, etc. As an example before any state changes its laws about licensed concord carry holders being allowed to carry in places that serve alcohol (but not while they are drinking) you see the same folks predicting shootouts in bars, the Wild West, etc. And that is despite the fact that they made the same claims ten last time a state did that and none of that came true, they keep making the same claims they know experience shows are false. You can go back here and look before NC and GA both made the same changes at the hysterics, but none of those people have said anything when none of their predictions came to pass.
I could keep going on and on, but those are just some examples.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)guns for hunting and self-defense -- very few people hunt nowadays and there is not a criminal behind every tree as you'd think listening to paranoid gunners.
Fact is, an AR15 does make it easy to kill a lot of people quickly, especially when equipped with hi-capacity magazines. Most folks know the difference between auto and semi-auto. Most also accept a semi-auto can kill too many people quickly. "Machine guns" doesn't bother me, because the rifle, or even handgun in some cases -- especially equipped as most gunners like -- can fire a lot of lead in a short-time.
Never seen anyone say criminals get most of their guns at gun shows. Some do, some buy it in the parking lot, and some steal them or buy it from so-called "law-abiding" gunners who refuse to go to an FFL for a background check, as they would if truly "responsible."
It is relatively simple to convert a semi-auto to fully auto, but it does takes more than filing the firing pin. Of course, if one is inclined, you can go to just about any gun story and buy a bump-stock and get darn close to an automatic. Personally, I don't think full auto operation has much to offer over semi-autos when killing people in a non-war zone.
To me, auto or semi-auto isn't what is important. It's how rapidly these guns can kill, how they embolden sick people, how they are marketed as weapons that will make any loser a winner, etc., that are important.
I think you are just sensitive because you know you can't justify your affinity for weapons that are used nowadays to intimidate and kill people. I guess that's a good sign.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Posted right here, in this very thread.
Teflon protects the barrel, but adds no penetrative ability.
A simple change in lingo to push a dishonest narrative.
I don't care who uses clip or mag in conversation or discussion, but I do think basic knowledge of the facts, and working principals of the tool in question is important.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)police killer ammo and guns. I get "teflon bullets" are not be "police killers," but I do know there are white wing terrorists out there who specifically acquire weapons and ammo more likely to be effective against police, national guard, FBI, etc.
In fact, the weapons gunners can, and do, acquire is the main reason police have to arm up.
To deny the existence of these weapons and loads, is being disingenuous.
Any rifle will do it.
Some obscure Soviet era pistols fire a very fast bullet that will.
There were some really expensive speciality rounds made in the 80s for government users that supposedly could do it. Congress reacted by passing a sweeping ban on lots of styles of construction of handgun rounds that banned those and in the process banned a lot of ones that were not ever armor piercing as well because as is typical badly written legislation about guns.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)using rifles.
But, there definitely loads that do a better job of piercing armor, and loads that screw you up inside more than the standard military round. And, you can look on any gunner forum and they are extolling the benefits of each round when it comes to shooting some teenager or the boogeyman they fear.
The point to all this is that someone who thinks a teflon covered bullet is armor piercing -- although mistaken about that -- can still have a very valid opinion about guns in America nowadays.
And some gunner who has shot every kind of ammo, can still be so enthralled by endorphins when fondling a gun that he will never understand why two thirds of Americans don't own a gun, 93+% would never carry a gun, most gun owners only have a couple, etc. Yet, gun fanatics just can't understand that their hobby or irrational needs are a detriment to our society.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But that is an opinion not based on fact or experience. And when someone is talking about cop killer feeling bullets or other things that are not true at all and exist only in Hollywood, their opinion is considerably less informed and fact based than someone that knows otherwise.
It is like a case we had here in NC where they passed a bunch of laws setting new medical safety standards for abortion providers. Those laws of course were all written by a bunch of old white men who had not only no experience with getting an abortion but zero medical training at all. So their opinions on on what were adequate safety standards for a facility providing abortion different considerably from those of actual doctors and nurses who have worked in those facilities and done those procedures.
Now, under your standard those people who really didnt have a clue have an equally valid opinion on how abortion facilities are run and how abortions are provided in America.
But is it really?
And the laws that come out of advocacy based on ignorance, that ignores the voice of the people with more knowledge and experience, is exactly as bad as you would expect it to be. On both reproductive rights and guns.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)should be allowed in society. Keeping one or two at home is fine with me, but anything more is just not good for society.
I don't expect someone who has lots of guns or seldom walks down the street without a gun or two strapped to their body to make rational gun decisions. I don't care how much you know about gun nomenclature.
We need to quit stumbling over gunner impediments, and irrational needs, and get this problem solved.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Actually the only 2 people "taken out" that day would be the perpetrators, Larry Eugene Phillips Jr. and
Decebal Ștefan Emilian Mătăsăreanu. Both killed and nobody else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)EX500rider
(10,532 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)typical policeman wears a vest that protects up to 9mm handgun rounds.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)AzureCrest
(65 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)you are the master - I bow to your skill.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)You're making a different point than you think.
The reality is that handguns kill cops. And Americans. And American kids. Most of those handgun deaths are in cities, which is why almost all city-dwellers and city mayors are pro-gun-control. Many Americans who live outside cities see only hunting and not the kids killed by handguns in cities.
It's hard to define which bullets are cop-killers, because almost all are. That's why we need a real gun ban. Australia, Canada, the UK, and Japan all have either outright handgun bans or such strong restrictions that handguns are effectively banned. That's what we need.
....Unless you can come up with a better defn and better bans that still protect American lives while allowing single-shot hunting rifles to been used by people that enjoy them. If not -- ban handguns, ban semiautos!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Keep making the argument. You're speaking the truth.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)...from owning firearms will rush to turn theirs in, right?....good one!
You mean the gun owning 30 percent of the Democratic Party? Which means DU is comprised of possibly 30 percent gun owning Democrats which are constantly told to basically f##k off.
Why don't "your side", the other 70 percent, come right out and tell us, the 30 percent of the gun owning Democrats to f##k off and take our 30 percent of the vote with us?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I would hope not.
In fact, I don't believe a true Democrat would vote for GOPers even if guns were completely banned (which isn't going to happen).
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's very often about a fundamental misunderstanding, or outright ignorance of how a firearm works, and what makes them deadly weapons.
The use of "imprecise terms" is often a clue that someone is out of their technical depth.
The thing that bothers me about this is I thought that "liberals" and "progressives" actually valued expertise. I thought it was just the right that rejected technical expertise when they found it distasteful. I've been disappointed to find that the left is not immune to such thinking, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Just look at any GMO debate.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)Your use of quotation marks around those terms in a Democratic site speaks volumes about your political outlook. Smooth move with the GMO ricochet attempt, as well. Get back to me when you want to have a meaningful discussion about gun regulations, but be forewarned: If you were born after, say, 1957, you don't have as much firearms-handling experience as I do; there won't be any "imprecise terms" from an old-timer like me.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)First of all, if you know WTF you are talking about, then that wasn't written to, or about you.
Second, I'm not interested in comparing round count. It's not about that.
Third, you seem to assume I don't support substantial gun control. I do.
Fourth, the use of the scare quotes had a particular purpose. Most notably, that I believe liberals and progressives should make evidence and fact based decisions, and not fall is outcome-based thought that plagues the right.
I have no doubt some "gun nerds" are trying to short circuit the debate. By FAR the best way to disarm that argument is to not be ignorant. Knowledge, as always, is power.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)I am a life long Democrat, and a supporter of the 2nd amendment. You want to have a debate using "precise" terms. Let's have it.
mac56
(17,561 posts)to be opposed to widespread slaughter?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Look no further than the federal AWB of 1994 to see what technical ignorance can and will produce.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)it's probably worthwhile to understand them. I mean, that's freakin' basic in my book. If you don't care to know, then leave that aspect to people who do.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Leave the laws to the lawmakers. It's the job of the Congress and the orgs that study this - Violence Prevention Council, Everytown, Brady, Moms Demand Action - to draft bills.
For you and me and every other American, it's our job to say what we want. What we WANT is for killings to stop and the flood of guns in this country to stop. Even if every American can't quote chapter and verse on clip-mag-sight-silencer-bullet-grain-jacket-lever-action-assault-sawed-off-stock-fully-auto, we can all advocate for that -- stop killings by reducing guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)
those law makers and gun organizations that you think so highly of crafted a law that did the exact opposite of what they intended and gave the NRA and the gun manufacturers an enormous political and economic gift that keeps on giving.
If you are not personally informed, you will have no idea whether or not any proposed law does what you want it to do.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)We can't run and hide just because we're afraid we might not win. This is a critical, important issue that is vital for American civil society. This is the kind of issue you fight for. The kind of issue you march for.
So that's my answer: avoid getting rolled by the NRA by resisting, organizing, marching, and voting. That's the only answer there is. Good luck. I hope we can win this together.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ok.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Our job is to march and advocate for what we need:
An end to child killings by guns.
Ending the flood of guns in this country (due to GOP billionaire-funded identity politics).
No, not every advocate needs to know everything. Just like every marcher in the 1980s about AIDS didn't need to know everything about retroviruses.
Advocate for what America needs: an end to killings. Period.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ignorance in support of a good cause is still ignorance. The NRA is many things but ignorant about politics and gun laws is not one of them.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)There are folks called "experts" that politicians can use to sort out the terminology and folks called "lawyers" who can write the legislation.
Just like they do in every other country...easy peasy.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)except about guns. :-/
billh58
(6,635 posts)From the OP article:
"Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, its less about adding to the discourse than smothering it with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact. (If gunsplaining had a motto, it might be Samuel Joe the Plumber Wurzelbachers macabre old saw: Your dead kids dont trump my constitutional rights.)"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...quite so enamored with criticizing correctness.
TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts).
I used to be in the NRA, back when I was younger, and almost became a lifer--because they offered a steep discount. I left when they tried to justify assault-type weapons as legitimate hunting firearms, and tried to justify teflon-coated "cop killer" bullets. This was back in the 80s.
I wonder how many "active" NRA members are these lifers who bailed on the organization, but remain on the roles?
He tried to trip me up with lingo, because he couldn't refute anything else I was saying.
When I said, "Yea, duh! When I said teflon, I meant teflon coated." he got all bent and angry. I was in a politics class, and throughout the rest of the semester, he harbored a grudge and was trying to trash talk me to others.
.
mac56
(17,561 posts)That's it in a nutshell.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)On Facebook I merely mentioned the AR-15 and I had a gun-enthusiast reflexively jump up and say, "You know AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle, right?"
And I had to say, "Yes, I already knew that. What's your point?"
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)Assault Rifle.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)So it's understandable why people would think that's what it stands for.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)
B) regardless of its marketing (which you somehow felt the need to display) it's use goes far beyond what is intended or necessary for hunting or self-defense purposes.
Last I checked, hunting is described as being a "sport". While I don't know if I truly agree with that characterization or not (I'm not a hunter myself), if it is indeed a sport, one would assume there are times one wins and other times where one loses. Inasmuch as you "win" at hunting, that naturally would be where you bag your game. "Losing" would mean your targeted game gets away.
But to keep it fair and competitive, I would think you would give your "opponent" at least a sporting chance to "win." There's no sense for a weapon that holds 30 bullet magazines and allows for quick firing without having to take the time to manually reload and re-aim being used on something that poses no inherent danger to you. It's not like the deer are going to be shooting back. If you miss the first shot, you should be forced to manually re-chamber and re-aim your weapon before getting off the second shot. It's the least you can do to keep your hunting "competitive."
As for self-defense, if you're--say--trying to defend against a home invasion, I don't understand how using a rifle in such close quarters is more practical than a small handgun. And you're probably not going to need more than a few shots before either your intruder is hit or high-tails it out of there, so again, what good is the 30 capacity magazine?
And those are the only two legitimate uses for guns in this country: hunting and self-defense (other than target shooting, which is basically just practice for the real thing).
What a weapon like the AR-15 is designed for is not for hunting or self-defense, but the quick offensive neutralization of a target. In other words, an assault. And that might work in military or police settings, but no civilians need to ever mount an assault.
So yes, AR-15s are indeed an "assault rifle."
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)And to be accurate, there is no "fairness" in hunting. It is an activity designed to kill prey. With the noted exception of "trophy" hunting, which I am not in favor of, hunting is designed to put game on the table. Deer, wild turkey and hogs - just to name a few.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)We're not living on the 19th Century frontier these days. Essentially everyone in this country has access to a local grocery store.
I'm not a hunter. I don't think I'll ever be a hunter. Personally, when I fish, I'm catch and release. That's just who I am, personally.
I do understand that in parts of rural America there's a cultural aspect to hunting and as a meat eater and someone who thinks most humans will biologically be disposed to eating meat, I'm fine with the traditional notion of hunting by those who want to engage in it as a "sport."
But I'll be completely honest when saying there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be using semi-automatic assault rifles against deer and turkey. That's literally overkill.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)Then, in all honesty, you'll never understand.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Eh?
But go ahead. Keep on defending the AR-15 here.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)I'm saying, correctly, that it was never marketed as an assault rifle. Do you know that there was an AR-7 marketed as a "hunting" or "sporting" rifle prior to the AR-15? Google it for a look back in history.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Stuff gets marketed all the time for reasons that go beyond their regular purpose.
And yes, you are defending the AR-15.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We want every ignorant white wing gunner -- the vast majority of gun-fanciers in our country -- to think he's get an official/certified "assault rifle."
Actually, only Colt can actually use the AR-15 name because they have it trademarked.
Every other company that makes AR-15 style rifles uses another name. XM-15, M&P-15, LAR-15, etc.
The marketing people actually all did the exact opposite in all those cases and stated away from using AR, when they could have by changing the numbers, and elected to keep the numbers.
As is usual when it comes to guns your wrong again, and your rambling is only supported by the things you make up and then try to pass off as fact.
No wonder you get so worked up about people who actually have knowledge on a subject telling you that the things you make up are false.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)https://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/bushmaster/m4-ar-15/rifles/
They also know what potential "assault rifle" buyers want, as bushmaster put it so well --
Lee-Lee, I get worked up about gun-lovers protecting their guns like children, and making a big deal about things that don't matter in the discussion.
Read the last line at the bottom of the Bushmaster ad. Here, I will help you out, it says "AR platform." Sounds like you are mistaken. Again, not that it makes one bit of difference in the argument of whether people should be allowed to keep arming up with these weapons.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)Neither Federal Law nor judicial precedent are on your side. Historically, manufacturers of legal products that comply with the laws regarding the sale of those products are not responsible for criminal misuse of those products by uninvolved third parties.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Those gun stores at link and Bushmaster seem to disagree.
You are quicker than george zimmerman making an excuse for shooting an innocent kid, but you are off target.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)The term AR platform is a generic term, not copywrited.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)It also came in AR-7 and AR-10 versions. Both as "sporting" rifles.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2018, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)
For hunting wildlife.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hunted in the past 12 months, and most of those were just one timers going out with the boys to drink, curse, and probably act politically incorrect and racist.
The hunting argument is BS. No self-respecting hunter needs an AR15.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)Nice pic.
Family Reunion?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You go with that, tiger.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)AzureCrest
(65 posts)I'm discussing Hoyt's assertion that his picture album is somehow representative of firearm owners in America.
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)maxsolomon
(32,992 posts)I have learned to be very circumspect in expressing my despair over our endless, pointless massacres. I can name the posters who've gunsplained to me over the last 10 years - half of them are on my blocked list. Some I still engage because they're clinical about it.
I no longer use "Assault Rifle"; I use "MSSA". Military-Style Semi-Automatic, which is how New Zealand defines it.
I no longer argue that the 2nd doesn't say what it says. It says the people are able to keep and bear arms so that a Militia can be raised to defend the security of the state. There are no limits specified to the type of arms the people can keep. The people don't have to be in a Militia. "Well-regulated" means having properly functioning arms, not regulated by laws and rules.
The 2nd is a sociopathic anachronism. It should be repealed, but I won't live to see that day. None of us will; the kids in HS now might, when they're in their dotage.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 08:00 AM - Edit history (1)
(Edited to add- I know some anti-gun type will try and game the alert system saying I am bashing a Democratic figure here. Im not bashing, I
Am using her mistake that isnt in dispute of happening as a teaching tool for why people engaged in a debate in a subject need a basic understanding of what they are debating)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1007910832680117&id=911026625701872
Karen Mallard is a teacher running for Congress. She decided that she needed to make a video cutting an AR-15 apart for publicity.
So she did.
But in all her campaigning about the need for more gun laws and stronger gun laws she never bothered to learn the actual laws.
So what she did in making a video was to make a video of herself violating the Nationals Firearms Act and committing a felony punishable by up to 19 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. Actully two violations if you want to be technical.
I am going to gunsplain what she did. The National Firearms Act is one of the nations oldest Federal Level gun control laws. Passed after the end of prohibition it bans civilian ownership of machines guns, rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches and shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches and/or an overall length under 26 inches unless the proper paperwork is done and a $200 tax stamp is obtained.
That AR-15 she cut up was a rifle, so it is not legal to have a barrel on it under 16 inches unless it is registered as an NFA weapon. The first thing she does is cut the barrel in half leaving a 3-4 inch remaining part attached to the rifle. At the moment she does this she broke the law. Yes, the gun at that point would not work as a semi-auto since the gas to was cut, but that does not matter. The NFA applies to all guns and since it would still work to fire a single shot there were two felonies committed there. The first was illegally manufacturing an NFA firearm but cutting the barrel. The second was illegally possessing an NFA firearm that wasnt on the Federal Register of NFA Firearms.
And there isnt a defense to these violations. She says later she destroyed it to regulations but there isnt an exception to allow you to make an illegal NFA weapon as long as you destroy it later.
She committed two felonies violating gun laws, on video, while trying to make a point we need more gun laws because she didnt know what the hell she was doing or talking about.
Now, had she taken time to learn anything about gun laws or the AR-15 she was trying to make a point about she could have easily done her video and be legal. Had she taken 3 seconds and pushed two pins out and taken the upper half of the gun with the barrel attached off the lower part that had the serial number and is therefore legally the gun then cutting the barrel not attached to the part of the gun with the serial number would have been perfectly legal.
But in her complete lack of knowledge instead she commmitted two serious NFA felony violations of firearms law while demanding tougher gun laws. Not exactly a good look and doesnt make her point very well, since now she and her backers have to argue why the gun laws on the books shouldnt be enforced in her case...
sl8
(13,584 posts)Popular Mechanics' article regarding similar video.
From https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18569641/well-meaning-gun-owner-accidentally-creates-illegal-firearm-in-viral-video/
Cutting the barrel didn't disable the AR-15, and actually made it illegal to own.
By Kyle Mizokami
Feb 21, 2018
A well-meaning but uninformed gun owner accidentally committed a felony on social media in the process of destroying his AR-15. The weapon, which was previously a legal firearm, was made into an illegal one when its owner cut the gun barrel below the size allowed by federal law.
Scott-Dani Pappalardo, in response to the recent school shooting in Florida, uploaded a video to Facebook in which he explains his decision to destroy his AR-15 rifle. Pappalardo then takes the weapon to a miter saw, cutting the barrel of the weapon in half and declares there is now one less AR-15 that could harm others.
...
It seems unlikely the obviously well-meaning Pappalardo will face federal charges for his actions, but the incident is a reminder however that the regulations regarding firearms can be quite specific, and for good reason. An improperly destroyed firearm may run a greater risk of falling into the wrong hands when disposed of in a repairable state. That having been said, as The Firearm Blog shows, the ATF is willing to provide guidance on the destruction of firearmsif asked.
More at link.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)And they don't usually help come up with a solution -- it's more duck and cover behind terminology.
pwb
(11,205 posts)And leave law abiding citizens alone. Get the word out. m