Why ban hunting/sniper rifles?

[1a2b3c]

According to the FBI sniper shootings have been declining for years. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/specialreport/05-table14.html

5 in 2001 compared to 47 in 1988. Maybe its all this news coverage the media is putting out to put fear into the minds of non gun owners? Ive heard about more sniper shooting in 2001 than i heard in all of the 80's and 90's put together. THe only one i can remember was the shooting of Larry Flynt.

[ogminlo]

1. I don't consider an AR-15 a hunting/sniper rifle.

The DC snipers used the civi M-16, purchased leagally.

[1a2b3c]

4. stolen not purchased

If purchased it was never legal. Why do you not consider it a hunting/sniper rifle?

[ogminlo]

14. I thought I remembered it was legal...

But if you say it wasn't I won't argue.

The AR-15/M16 was designed as an infantry assault weapon with small-cal munitions that would "tumble" upon hitting soft targets like flesh. They are not ideal for very long range work (sniping) and were purpose built for human targets (military). Though it should be noted they have a very respectable effective range. Thus I don't put them in the same category as a hunting 30-06 or a sniping Remington 700. The AR-15 is really not supposed to be a one-shot-one-kill kind of gun, and that is how hunting and sniping is supposed to work.

I'm not a big gun guy, but I know an assault weapon when I see it. I'm perfectly okay with hunting, but I utterly reject the "home defense" argument. The DC snipers were firing from pretty close-in with their AR-15, so it kindof belies the funciton that gun was designed for; killing people.

I always catch flak for claiming that the AR-15 isn't a hunting gun or that sniping is an action, not a type of equipment. I say there are a lot of way to use a butterknife, but it was originally designed to butter bread, so that is what it's for.

What I'm getting at is that I see no reason for civilians to own assault weapons like the AR-15. Hunting rifles I'm cool with, if they are locked up and unloaded. Like I said, I feel the "home invasion" premise is a paranoid fantasy.

[demsrule4life]

16. So home invasions never happen?

[ogminlo]

20. They happen, but:

The only way for a gun to be safe in the home is for it to be unloaded and locked up. In that case, it is useless in the very unlikely scenario that someone is trying to break in while you are there. If you leave the gun out and loaded, it is far more likely to kill someone other than the boogieman breaking down your door.

So, the idea that anyone "needs" a gun to "protect their home and family" is ludicrous. No one is trying to get you. There isn't some big bad criminal out there trying to break into your house while you are eating dinner with your family with no purpose other than to rape and/or murder you.

Yes, if someone breaks into my house, it would be nice to have a gun to aim at them, but short of carrying one on my person (not really an option for an AR-15), it just ain't gonna happen!

Want a secure house? Buy some locks, curtains, and a dog,

[demsrule4life]

21. I'm confused on the curtain part

might be great for defeating peeping toms, but how do they keep invaders out?

[FeebMaster]

25. Maybe if you get some

really heavy duty ones made out of kevlar or chain mail they can be used for fortification.

[ogminlo]

26. What the curtains are for:

If a potential robber can't see your expensive goods from the outside, he is far less likely to target your home. Home invasions are usually for the purpose of theivery.

[FeebMaster]

22. What are the curtains for?

So your loved ones can mop up the blood after you've been beaten, stabbed, and shot?

[demsrule4life]

23. temporary body bag?

[ogminlo]

29. Do you people have mob hits out on you?

No one is trying to beat/stab/shoot you! Chill out!

[demsrule4life]

31. I would say on a conservative count

I have arrested at least 1000 people. I would bet there is one or two in there that would just love to get even.

[ogminlo]

34. I would say you are a cop

and carry a gun on your person as part of the job. And I bet it isn't an assault rifle.

[demsrule4life]

41. Police officers are getting away from the patrol shotgun

and increasingly going to the patrol rifle which more cases then not is the AR-15 or even in some cases the M-16. And yes I did carry an AR-15 as a patrol rifle.

[ogminlo]

44. And you kept it strapped to you back while at the dinner table after work?

We're talking about in the home here.

[demsrule4life]

47. For my home I keep a .45 1911 ready

and a Marlin stainless guide gun in 45-70 Govt with 300 grain hollow points. No I don't keep the Marlin strapped to my back. The pistol is to fight my way back to the rifle.

[ogminlo]

56. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry you live in such an environment where you need to be on constant alert like that. You as a LEO would have a much higher likelyhood of someone trying to "get you". You essentially piss off criminals for a living so I don't need to own a gun. Thanks. I amend my statements about the defense of the home being a fantasy.

[DonP]

119. You might want to check with Hale DeMar about that

"So, the idea that anyone "needs" a gun to "protect their home and family" is ludicrous."

Ludicrous huh?

Mr. DeMar, Wilmette, Illinois, used a gun to shoot a man that broke into his house twice in 36 hours.

We had an extensive thread just a few days ago. He had an alarm system, extensive outside lighting, the police had been there the day before and had been called twice, once by his alarm company and again by Mr. DeMar after nothing happened for 10 minutes, and he had a 90 pound German Shepherd.

None of this deterred the bruglar from coming back for a second helping while Mr. DeMar and his two young children were in the house.

He is now being charged by his hometown for owning an "illegal" hand gun. The crook survived and was caught when he went into St. Francis hospital for treatment of two "accidental" gunshot wounds.

If you want to trust the police entirely for your safety, go ahead. But the problem here is that other people should not make that decision for you in your own home.

So IIMHO there are times when

[beevul]

27. See the...

"Like I said, I feel the "home invasion" premise is a paranoid fantasy."

See the Defensive gun uses for January 2004 thread thats locked a ways down the page. Those people weren't involved in any "paranoid fantasy". The people on the defensive end of a gun, or in a home that was invaded, that is.

[ogminlo]

32. I see a lot of convenience store invasions...

Different situation than the home. But if you live alone, fortify all you want. I'm thinking of children here.

[Liberal Classic]

42. My friend, hunting rifles

*are* sniper fifles.

I'm not a big gun guy, but I know an assault weapon when I see it.

"I know it when I see it." statement by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart regarding the obscenity case Jacobellis v. Ohio

[ogminlo]

45. Please point out where I equate sniper rifles with assault rifles.

This thread opened with a post asking if hunting/sniper rifles should be banned. Instead of just saying "no", I ran with my opinion that the AR-15 is neither, since the opening post mentioned the media frnzy over sniping (the DC sniper sprang to my mind).

[Columbia]

46. For the last time

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting! (Boy, I really want to use all caps on this one)

Ok, it probably won't be the last time, but I wish it were... :eyes:

[ogminlo]

70. Indeed.

It is also not about unfettered arms ownership. The letter of the Amendment talks of a "well regulated militia". The Framers were thinking of how our nation was born, not with professional soldiers, but with an armed citizenry.

The big question now is: do we still need an armed citizenry with a professional army?

[FeebMaster]

75. I think a better question is:

Do we really need a professional army with an armed citizenry?

We have far more troops out and about in various countries doing various things than we have here at home.

[MrSandman]

79. Or is the question...

Do we need an armed citizenry more? The armed citizenry was to protect from the standing army.

Either way, how is the 2nd A to be repealed?

[ogminlo]

84. It doesn't need to be.

But an armed citizenry is toast against our professional army. That would be a real battle of attrition, the citizenry being on the bloodier end.

[MrSandman]

87. Truly hopes it never comes to it.

How many will break ranks to protect their families. Unconventional warfare in an army's own country?? Bloody for all with no winner. Government will chip at the extreme elements toward the mainstream if it comes to it.

[Columbia]

88. All the more reason for the citizenry to be well-armed

[Columbia]

81. The 2nd Amendment

is about protecting us from federal tyranny. The professional, standing army is controlled by the federal government and therefore is compelled to protect the interests of said governement.

[ClintonTyree]

2. What is the purpose of these weapons?

To even the playing field with those bloodthirsty ducks? They serve one purpose, to do maximum damage to a target(s) in a minimum of time. Could you provide one instance while hunting when this scenario would occur?
By the way, I'm a gun owner, but I see no purpose for any American to possess one of these weapons.

[TexasMexican]

3. So what?

Whats the purpose of all those other types of cars on the road, we could all get by fine with just a Honda Civic.

What about all those high speed computers. 1GHz processors are good enough for most things.

Most people dont need TVs bigger than 32 inches.

[1a2b3c]

5. Wait a second

You mean there really is a "gun owner" who doesnt think you should be allowed to own a deer rifle?

[RoeBear]

6. Do you honestly believe...

...that the D.C. snipers would not have committed their acts of terror if they couldn't have gotten their hands on a M-16?

[beevul]

8. The purpose...

of any gun, is to propel a projectile via gas expansion through combustion, toward a target.

Whether that target be paper, animal, legal or illegal, is soully up to the discression of the operator.

:eyes:What is the purpose of that sporty broadband internet connection? It serves only one purpose. To download maximum illegal content in a minimum of time.:eyes:

"They serve one purpose, to do maximum damage to a target(s) in a minimum of time."

Can I assume you object to the police haveing them then?

If not, why is it ok for the police to defend themselves and others with "these guns" but not joe average?

[demsrule4life]

10. Come on out to my house

Lot's of ducks in the area. I will make you a bet, if you can hit a flying duck with an Ar-15 I will pay you $100.00. I will supply the Ar-15 and one magazine with five rounds. (Legal limit)

[MrSandman]

7. Weren't the Vietnam-era Sniper Rifles

either scoped M-14's or militarized Model 700's?

[1a2b3c]

9. I thought

That one famous vietnam sniper used a 30-06 model 700. Cant remember his name off hand but i read a couple of his books. He shot someone at 1500 yards, or something crazy like that, with a 30-06.

[demsrule4life]

11. Carlos Hathcock

He used at 30-06 Winchester Model 70 30-06. In base camp he would take the scope off of his rifle and place it on a Browning M-2 .50 cal machine gun. That is what he made the 1500 yard hit with. He died I believe two years ago.

[MrSandman]

12. They still use the 700 (modified)

"...b. Special Features. The M4OA 1 sniper rifle is a bolt action, magazine fed, shoulder fired weapon. It is a precision weapon crafted to produce 1 minute of angle accuracy. Special features include:

1) A stainless steel barrel and Remington 700 action mounted in fiberglass for improved accuracy. The barrel is purchased from H&S Precision Company.
< >
2) Caliber - 7.62mm x 51 NATO."

http://www.marinescoutsniper.com/Default1.htm

[demsrule4life]

13. The M40A1 is the standard sniper rifle

The M-21 (M-14) is still used as a secondary sniper rifle.

[MrSandman]

17. I saw an article a few weeks ago

Had the "top" sniper in Iraq. He uses the M-14. That M-40 looks like a real shooter.

[beevul]

15. Those who not base thier...

arguments on banning assault weapons because they're so powerful, but say they don't want to touch hunters weapons have something to reconcile here, I think.

That 7.62 X 51 NATO is also known as .308 winchester, is it not?

The ak-47 and sks most often referred to by the folks who support a ban, are for the most part 7.62 X 39.

Correct me if I am wrong on those calibers.

[MrSandman]

18. Sounds right...

I am sure they are both .30 cal.

[demsrule4life]

19. The 7.62X31 is almost the ballistic twin

of the 30-30. And what round has probably taken more deer then any other?

[ogminlo]

24. It isn't the bullet, its the gun.

An AK-47 is an automatic weapon. A hunting rifle is not. If you hunt with an automatic or semiautomatic weapon, you must be a pretty crappy hunter. Assault weapons are equipped to fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Hunting rifles should be equipped to fire just one. If you can't take it down, don't take the shot. Don't be a sloppy hunter.

[demsrule4life]

28. What is the difference

between a Browning Automatic rifle, considered one of the best semi auto hunting rifles in 308 and a M-1A in 308 other then looks?

[ogminlo]

30. I told you.

The difference is repeating. Single actions are suitable for hunting. If you need more than one shot, you shouldn't be shooting. I defined what the difference was above.

[FeebMaster]

35. So how about

bolt actions with a magazine? Are they alright or should we be limited to single shot rifles? What about lever and pump action rifles? They generally hold a number of shots.

[ogminlo]

40. Personally

I think any hunter worth his salt doesn't need a mag. Single bolt should suffice. It is supposed to be hard isn't it?

[demsrule4life]

36. You havent told me anything

nobody here can buy a new automatic AK-47 because it has been illegal since 1989. And I know several people including my self that wouldn't have much trouble hitting you at 800 yards with the right semi auto. I know of one or two that can shoot sub 4 inch groups at 1000 yards with the right semi auto rifle. But I would have to guess they are crappy shooters since they use a semi auto.

[ogminlo]

43. That isn't the point.

The point is, what is an assaut rifle, and what is a hunting rifle? I know it is possible to be accurate with a lot of semi-autos. That doesn't change the fact that they are specifically designed to fire in rapid succession, at people. My whole point is, if you are shooting deer, a single bolt action will do. If you are shooting people, they might be shooting back, so it helps to have a semi-auto or auto.

Bottom line is, I say single action = sport, and semi-autos/autos = human targets.

[FeebMaster]

49. What are we all disagreeing about again?

If you are shooting people, they might be shooting back, so it helps to have a semi-auto or auto.

Can't really argue with that. So are we in agreement then that we should loosen the restrictions on fully automatic weapons?

[beevul]

59. Again, false.

"That doesn't change the fact that they are specifically designed to fire in rapid succession, at people."

They are designed to reload automatically, nothing more.

The thing being fired at is automatically the choice of the user, not based on the design of the gun.

[ogminlo]

66. Yes, that's true.

Praytell, when might an automatic weapon be useful if not for firing on people?

[beevul]

73. Ask the many people...

who apply for a class III permit from the ATF.

Since the NFA, only 1 or 2 times has LEGAL MG been used in a crime.

That being said, don't believe the hype that surrounds automatic weapons. A fully automatic weapon is not as useful as a semi auto or pump for rapid shooting. Accuracy suffers greatly because of recoil. Just ask the US army. They have M-16 rifles that shoot a 4 round burst, because full auto is too hard to be accurate with.

In general, rapid shooting is the enemy of the marksman who wants to hit his target.

On edit: or is it 3 round bursts?

[FeebMaster]

78. Three (nt)

...

[Columbia]

76. I'm going to break ranks here and say

Yes, the M16A2 service rifle is designed to be an efficient tool against human targets. Unfortunately, we sub-civilians can't own the select-fire M16A2. The civilian model, the AR-15, we can own (in most states). Is this weapon still an efficient tool against human targets? Yes it is. Is that why we should ban it? No, it is the type of weapon (ordinary military equipment) expressly protected by the 2nd Amendment as clarified by the USSC ruling US v. Miller. It is the type of weapon that is necessary to protect us from the deadliest of predators - other humans. These are the type of weapons that we must have if a government tyranny should ever need to be overthrown.

Now you'll say, that is very unlikely, which I would tend to agree with you. Is it impossible? Of course not. As history has shown, governments do get out of control on many occasions and the civilian populace has had to take it back through revolution.

Of course, you still may not believe the US would ever get like to that due to our Constitution. I'd agree if the Constitution were truly upheld. The 2nd Amendment is actually more of a preventive measure against tyranny than a reactive one. A government would never dare overreach its powers if they know there is a well-armed populace waiting and willing to overthrow it (see Federalist 46 for more).

Even if you still don't agree with that, there are many times that true assault weapons are used for good. Here's a for instance for you: during the LA riots of 1992, Korean store owners stood on the roofs of their businesses and defended them with AR-15s and AK-47s against looters. Their stores survived and reopened shortly after while thousands of others burned to the ground never to return.

But now you'll cry, but that is so unlikely too, what about all the times they are used for evil? Well, are they truly used in crime? Very, very rarely. How about accidents? Even more rarely. The type of weapon most often used by criminals like drug dealers and gang members are small caliber handguns. Even the oft cited school shootings which people erroneously believe were carried out with assault weapons were carried out with shotguns and handguns. However, even these school shootings are very rare and on the decline.

So, now you probably just want to ban them anyway despite all this. Why? Well, because they are just so scary looking! And you are right, the Assault Weapons Ban is just that, a ban on cosmetic features like a pistol grip, collapsible stock, and bayonet lug. Not too many drive-by bayonetings around are there?

But now you'll say who cares as long as it gets more weapons off the street then it's good! Unfortunately though, criminals don't care about gun control laws. The more the better they think, because... Surprise! Criminals by definition don't follow laws! Only law-abiding citizens follow laws and they are the ones who will suffer when only the government and criminals have these weapons.

Now, you'll probably be fine with that and happy to have the government protect you from criminals, but guess what? The government isn't required or liable for your safety! Well, shucks, I guess we'll just have to cross our fingers, close our eyes, and wish wish wish that nothing ever bad happens to us.

And that is just fine by me if you want to take route, because I'll be home sleeping peacefully knowing that I'll be able to protect myself and my family if the need should so arise. Just don't mess with my right to do so.

[MrSandman]

83. Break ranks?

Hell we'll put you in charge.

[ogminlo]

93. Well spoken, well said.

I can't argue with any of that. I will take my chances bankng on civil society and the rule of law, just be prudent about your guns.

[MrSandman]

96. I always follow the four rules.

While I bank on civil society, I also carry backup.

[ogminlo]

97. But you know?

If I die with a gun or if I die without, I'm still dead.

[MrSandman]

101. Same can be said of :

seat belts, fire extinguishers, motorcycle helmets...You can change the odds.

[ogminlo]

107. Kind of,

but that mixes active and passive prevention. Seatbelts don't also casue collisions, helmets don't casue head injury, and fire extinguishers don't start fires. Guns are on both ends of this exchange. But I get your point. Working on the assertion that there is a threat, a gun can lower it.

[MrSandman]

108. Noone knows I have it...

pretty passive.

[MrSandman]

33. Break out the Flintlocks...

Because that Ruger No. 1 is just too much gun.

[ogminlo]

37. Wow.

Don't address my argument or anything. Just jump straight to the hyperbole...

[MrSandman]

48. What are the hunting rifles...

equipped to fire "just one" which are acceptable?

Why should firearms ownership be limited by some arbitrarily-defined need?

Are there no other legitimate uses of a weapon than hunting?

If semi-autos are banned because they can fire too much too fast, what about my Model 99? It'll put five .30 cal 180 grain bullets downrange with accuracy almost as fast as the puny 7.62 x 39 or 7.62 x 51 in SKS or AR.

It is a slippery slope, so why bother with all of the mud on the way to the bottom?

"An AK-47 is an automatic weapon. A hunting rifle is not. If you hunt with an automatic or semiautomatic weapon, you must be a pretty crappy hunter."

I have never heard of hunting with an automatic weapon. I thought that WAS hyperbole.

[ogminlo]

61. So you would have a totally unregulated system?

Why, lets just bring back frontier justice and reinstate the legitimacy of deuling. It is just as slippery uphill as down.

[FeebMaster]

63. What's wrong with dueling? (nt)

...

[MrSandman]

69. How have we slipped up that slope?

I didn't say that people hunt with automatic weapons. They are regulated. They have been since 1934. What firearms laws have been repealed to get us moving up that slope to the pre-1934 status. The Firearms Owner's Protection Act? That effectively stopped the introduction of new automatic weapons into the civilian Market.

The 1994 AWB? That did little but contribute to loss of the House.

The invisible, can't be detected by magnetometer gun ban?

Where is the evidence of incremental movement upslope?

[ogminlo]

80. I'm just arguing the slope can go both ways.

The upslope would be to roll back gun control laws. I consider the top of the hill zero regulation, and the bottom outright prohibition. With the GOP holding all three branches of government, it is not unthinkable that some gun control laws could be rolled back.

Right now I suppose we are closer to the bottom than the top, the top being very dangerous IMHO.

[FeebMaster]

82. hahahah

With the GOP holding all three branches of government, it is not unthinkable that some gun control laws could be rolled back.

I wouldn't hold my breath. The Republicans have passed far more federal gun control in the past 25 years than the Democrats.

[ogminlo]

95. Boy, NRA even fooled me then!

[MrSandman]

99. How so.

They are usually only bemoaning the strict gun laws.

Oh, unless it is about CC.

[ogminlo]

104. Well...

It's no secret the NRA is basically seen as a GOP backer. I'm not a member, so correct me if I'm wrong there. It always seems that the NRA is behind th GOP and that the Dems are the opposition.

My uninformed assumption based on that was that the Republicans erased gun control laws and the Democrats clamped down on gun owners.

A) Is the NRA with the GOP?

B) If so, why? It seems the Dems are more gun-freedom-friendly, at least in terms of legislation.

[MrSandman]

106. Strictly speaking

The NRA claims to be with 2nd A rights. They give money based on a pols voting record, I believe.

GOP--What gun control law have they repealed? How about FOPA?

Dems--How about AWB ban?

Neither party is gun friendly. One talks it enough to get the RKBA vote, barely.

[FeebMaster]

100. The NRA is all talk.

If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the 2nd amendment guarantees and individual right and that all federal firearms legislation is unconstitutional the NRA would be screwed.

They do their song and dance routine about stopping new legislation and donating money to candidates that agree with them. But you won't see them fighting to get rid of the laws that are there. Those laws help to keep the money flowing into their coffers.

[MrSandman]

103. They talk about CCW,

but I didn't see them in NM or MO.

[Columbia]

105. Exactly

If the NRA ever truly succeeded in what their 4 million members pay them to do, their need to exist would cease. Their incompetence is driven by their need for self-preservation.

[demsrule4life]

50. You ever shoot a Ruger No.1 tropical

in 458 Win Mag? That is just about to much gun for me.

[MrSandman]

55. No, but...

I do like the .45-70. And a stainless guide gun to boot.

[demsrule4life]

62. I replaced the sights with AO ghost ring sights

it makes for fast handling hard hitting combo.

[MrSandman]

71. The ghost rings I'd like...

on my 870

[Columbia]

90. I have the Scattergun Tech GRS

On mine and they work really well. Really expensive though (over $100 plus installation). For most purposes I think, a bead is fine if you don't want to spend the extra $. I just have them because I'm used to rifle sights and I like having the same system on my longguns.

[MrSandman]

98. I have always preferred rifle sights

On the Shotgun. I started out with an o/u .22 mag/ 20ga. Precision when needed, point shoooting still worked with front sight only.

[beevul]

38. Yes, a true..

Ak-47 is an automatic weapon, but automatic weapons are already regulated under the NFA.

"Assault weapons are equipped to fire dozens of rounds without reloading."

That is a false statement. Assault weapons CAN be equiped to fire dozens of rounds without reloading. So can my grandaddys .22 pump. It can fire them as fast as any assault weapon too.

"Hunting rifles should be equipped to fire just one."

Well, I can't speak for hunters, since I am not one, but in general, thats your opinion and your entitled to it. I am unaware of any hunting weapon that fires more than one round at a time, unless someone loads slugs in thier double barrel 12 guage for buck.

In general, I would agree, if you can't hit your target, don't take the shot. That is common sense.

[ogminlo]

52. So here's my lefty basecoat:

All told, I see no need for anyone (private citizen) to own a gun. I think hunters should be able to hunt if they choose. I don't think guns should be banned outright. I think our gun laws are way too loosely enforced.

I've defined what I consider a hunting rifle should be. Not what one is.

[demsrule4life]

54. There would be no hunters since

private citizens could not own guns.

[ogminlo]

58. Read it again.

I never said I wanted to ban guns, I said there is no NEED for them. You don't NEED for them. I said quite plainly that I did NOT want to ban all guns.

[demsrule4life]

60. I don't need to read it again

52. So here's my lefty basecoat:


All told, I see no need for anyone (private citizen) to own a gun. I think hunters should be able to hunt if they choose. I don't think guns should be banned outright. I think our gun laws are way too loosely enforced.

I've defined what I consider a hunting rifle should be. Not what one is.



You see no reason for private citizens to own guns. What will hunters (that are private citizens) hunt with?

[ogminlo]

64. That was my opinion. Not a policy idea.

No one NEEDS to hunt. We have grocery stores and farms to feed us. Hunting is a leisure activity. It is don for fun. For sport. Not for need. Do you understand now?

[MrSandman]

57. Do I borrow a gun from the .gov?

[Liberal Classic]

39. Seriously, if we are going to ban one rifle why not all?

Any clue from those who support gun control when enough is enough?

From a ballistics point of view, if you're going to ban semi-auto civilian models of military rifles in .223 or .308 caliber why not ban hunting rifles in equal or greater calibers? The lethality of a weapon is not defined by its pistol grip or bayonet lug. No, the length and bore of the barrel and the kind of trigger assembly define a firearm -- har far it can shoot, how fast it can shoot. If the government is going through the effort to "control" the military look-alikes how long until a high-powered hunting rifle with telescopic sights becomes politically incorrect and worthy of the same treatment?

[beevul]

51. They're way ahead of you LC.

"If the government is going through the effort to "control" the military look-alikes how long until a high-powered hunting rifle with telescopic sights becomes politically incorrect and worthy of the same treatment?"-Liberal Classic


http://www.vpc.org/studies/sniper.htm

"Bring heavy and intermediate sniper rifles under the control of the National Firearms Act"

And they're trying.

[FeebMaster]

53. When they finally do it

they should give the law a funny name like the Protection of Hunter's Rights Act or something.

[MrSandman]

92. Did you read all the list?

"Improve reporting and record-keeping requirements.

Use the civil justice system to hold manufacturers accountable.

Ban the sale of armor-piercing ammunition."

The bit about the AP must be honey...aren't they already illegal?

[beevul]

65. Id like to put differences aside for a moment to...

say that hashing this issue with you has been refereshing, ogminlo.

You have my respect for debating specifics and messages rather than the "attack the messenger" tactics we pro-gunners are so used to.


I salute you.:toast:

[ogminlo]

67. Thanks.

I lead with my out-of-ass opinions on issues like this, and I appreciate your restraint as well.

[beevul]

85. The thing I like...

is that when the debate is conducted like this has been, theres no need for restraint. Theres been no provocation.

You are on one side of the issue, and I on the other.

We both know and accept that without malice toward each other.

Noone has attacked anyone personally.

Noone has retaliated.

We are discussing facts.

This is how its supposed to work.

[FeebMaster]

86. It's kind of disconcerting. (nt)

...

[MrSandman]

89. What ya missing?

No, don't tell me.

[beevul]

91. I find it refreshing.

No accusations of racism, nazism, redneckism, GOPbloodmoneyism, fetishism,pantloadism,peddleitism, playmateism, gunnutism, grabberism,etc.

Direct discussion of an issue.

Refreshing indeed.

[MrSandman]

94. That's why I don't want to know.

Direct and rapid discussion. I can't keep up.

[demsrule4life]

68. I second that

that is why these late night debates are nice.

[ogminlo]

72. Damn, and I have to work tomorrow!

Oh well! I'll live. This is too engaging.

[MrSandman]

74. Here also

[demsrule4life]

77. I'm a lucky one, I have never worked days

and by the way, couple of years ago the world rifle speed championship was won with a lever action rifle. :)

[beevul]

102. I love the night shift.

I worked nights for 9 years strait, and its my favorite shift.

Peaceful, quiet, and without red tape.

Do your job for 12 hours and go home.

[ogminlo]

111. I like nights by nature

but I'm a desk jockey for now. Some day maybe I can be my own business. I'm still starting out.

[MrSandman]

113. Luck to ya ogminlo

It has been a pleasure

[beevul]

117. Hope it happens for you.

That is indeed a worthy pursuit.

[MrSandman]

109. 1A: Someone will be proud of you in the morning

Thanks for the thread.

[beevul]

110. Lol, the day folks...

who are J/PS regulars are going to read this thread and wonder WTF!!!

They'll think everyone was sedated LOL.


On edit:

110 posts without a flamewar of any kind has got to be a J/PS record!!

[FeebMaster]

112. lol

It's getting pretty long. A mod will probably lock it when they wake up. Maybe they should sticky it so everyone can admire it for weeks to come.

[MrSandman]

114. And I thought it would lay here all night

and be locked for OT.

[Columbia]

115. Yes, it's truly been a pleasure tonight

I love how nice and pleasant it is. Makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.

I say we all have a group hug! You're welcome to join in ogminlo! (By the way, welcome to the gun dungeon!)

:grouphug:

[ogminlo]

116. Okay, it's been fun, but I need at least a little sleep tonight...

Consider me converted. You win this debate.

I leave you with this spark: the opening thread asks about the media and a decline in sniping. DC and Columbus are serial snipers with no pattern beyond regional geography. Is that not worthy of coverage and concern? Were the 80s and 90s littered with serial snipers we din't hear about?

Good night!

[beevul]

118. Definitely...

worthy of coverage and concern.

Just not to the point of going overboard. What constitutes overboard is the subject of its own debate though.

Good chatting with you ogminlo.

Take care, and welcome to the dungeon.

[davidinalameda]

120. locking

have a great day