Assault Weapons: Can You Spot the Bullsh*t?

[TigerTank77]

So I came across an article this evening, that is literally so ridiculous, I think it'd be a nice training exercise for everyone to spot the amount of half-truths, lies, and all around bullshit that the media loves to throw around sometimes.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...california.php

Can you spot them all?

Also, why the hell not, lets have a discussion about the actual legal case and the term "assault weapon"

[Anthropomorphic]

I'm going to disregard the absolute legality wrapping around all of this for a moment and just say this....

I don't like guns. In fact, I hate them. That said, I can understand the arguments made for a person owning a hunting rifle (obviously used for hunting) or a pistol (self defense). However, I see no reason why civilians need to go walking around with an AK-47 or an M-16. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me. There is no practical, legal and logical use for these weapons outside of warfare.

I'm curious to know what these Second Amendment fringe elements have to say about the "need" for civilians to posses/utilize these weapons. It's one thing for someone to use the Second Amendment to defend their right to own a pistol; it's quite another to try justifying walking down the street with an assault rifle.

[TigerTank77]

I'm guessing you didn't read the article, or if you did, you know pretty much nothing about firearms or the culture surrounding them. The ridiculousness of that article is just... astounding. Besides using a picture of firearms from the video game Halo as an "accurate chart of assault weapons"

Originally Posted by Devil

I don't like guns. In fact, I hate them. That said, I can understand the arguments made for a person owning a hunting rifle (obviously used for hunting) or a pistol (self defense). However, I see no reason why civilians need to go walking around with an AK-47 or an M-16. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me. There is no practical, legal and logical use for these weapons outside of warfare.

Thankfully, laws aren't based on needs.

Look, I'm not saying someone should be allowed to drive down the street in a fully working main battle tank, but making an argument from the standpoint of speculation and fear doesn't get you anywhere. If I told you that you don't need to own a computer, and that only hackers use computers and we should ban them, you'd be screaming about the first amendment being violated.

Originally Posted by Devil

I'm curious to know what these Second Amendment fringe elements have to say about the "need" for civilians to posses/utilize these weapons. It's one thing for someone to use the Second Amendment to defend their right to own a pistol; it's quite another to try justifying walking down the street with an assault rifle.

You seem to believe that most people would be walking down the street shooting random people, when in fact if they're just like the rest of the legal and law abiding gun owners in America, they'd simply be walking. I've walked down the street with a shotgun on my shoulder once, and I didn't harm a damn soul.

Guns don't work the way they do in movies, they are not inherently dangerous by themselves, not everyone who owns a gun is a violent baby raping criminal, and taking away legally owned guns does not make it any safer. The term "assault weapon" is a tool used to stir emotion and incite fear, and the whole fear people have of firearms nowadays I frankly find insulting, ignorant, and offensive.

If you don't like guns, fine, don't buy one. But don't tell me that because you're afraid of something you don't understand that it needs to be illegal.

[Ibanez]

Wait, you mean anti-gun advocates are completely ignorant of firearms? Who would have guessed.

Originally Posted by Devil

I don't like guns. In fact, I hate them. That said, I can understand the arguments made for a person owning a hunting rifle (obviously used for hunting) or a pistol (self defense). However, I see no reason why civilians need to go walking around with an AK-47 or an M-16. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me. There is no practical, legal and logical use for these weapons outside of warfare.

Target shooting mainly. Many people use their AR's for hunting and home defense as well. A semi-auto rifle for those situations seems pretty practical, legal, and logical to me.

[dr2005]

To be honest, I find the manipulation of the Second Amendment in order to justify widespread gun ownership without much restriction to be bullshit in itself, so it doesn't surprise me that it's cropping up on the other side as well...

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

To be honest, I find the manipulation of the Second Amendment in order to justify widespread gun ownership without much restriction to be bullshit in itself, so it doesn't surprise me that it's cropping up on the other side as well...

Explain? I'm not sure what you mean.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Explain? I'm not sure what you mean.

If I start going over the entire jurisprudence of the Second Amendment and the various problems therein, we could be here until the Apocalypse. As a starter for ten, however, I would say that the prefacing remark of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" indicates quite clearly what the purpose of the Amendment actually was, and why District of Columbia v Heller (among others) is a flawed judgment. However, that is a matter for another thread.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

If I start going over the entire jurisprudence of the Second Amendment and the various problems therein, we could be here until the Apocalypse. As a starter for ten, however, I would say that the prefacing remark of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" indicates quite clearly what the purpose of the Amendment actually was, and why District of Columbia v Heller (among others) is a flawed judgment. However, that is a matter for another thread.

Okay now I understand, and yes, that could go on forever.. But if you look at what a militia was during their time, it was ordinary citizens, armed with the most advanced rifles they had at the time, which they also used for hunting, who would when necessary come together as a unit and defend themselves or their country.

Which is actually what the United States Militia is. Separate from a standing army or the national guard, it's comprised of every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45. (anyone eligible for the draft)

There's a bunch of controversy over it's original intention, but I think Joseph Story's commentary in Commentaries on the Constitution puts it best.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment

[Ghost On The Highway]

I own an AR-15, the semiautomatic version of the military M16A2. It's an incredibly versatile rifle with many uses beyond the front lines. First and foremost, a simple swap of the upper receiver allows you to shoot 5.56x45mm, 6.8SPC, 30 Rem AR, 450 Bushmaster, etc. This basically enables one to take game from squirrels to bears (at close range). My AR is fantastically accurate -- .5 inch groups at 100yds are not uncommon.


In my opinion, AR, AK, and SKS ownership is stigmatized primarily because of the appearance of these rifles. All three, in their "native" chambering, fire rounds that are more likely to wound a human being than kill him. The .223/5.56mm cartridge was developed to save cost and weight compared to the .308/7.62x51mm used in battle rifles such as the M14. It is considered an inadequate round for deer, and is most dangerous in burst fire (a mode civilian AR's lack). My AR-15 is a post-ban model (referring to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired a few years back), which means it lacks a bayonet mount and one or two other things. What a pointless piece of legislation. It's still an "evil black rifle," like it or not.


The AR-15 excels in a home-defense role. Carbine length models allow the shooter to remain mobile, and the accessory rails are useful for mounting lights, lasers, etc. The .223 round, especially with "super explosive" 40 grain bullets, is as safe as buckshot when it comes to not overpenetrating walls and harming innocent parties. Unlike a shotgun, it is also useful at long ranges (up to 600 yards), so you can return fire against the ATF when they decide to beseige your residence at Ruby Ridge . Also unlike a shotgun or a deer rifle, the AR-15 has effectively no recoil.

In my opinion, objection to the AR-15 and AK-47 as assault rifles is overblown. They're really only ideal for a Whitman-esque sniper standoff, which is highly unlikely these days. I can't wait to get my AR pistol and really freak the Obamaphiles out.

[Ghost On The Highway]

Devil, pistols are far more dangerous than the rifles most people call "assault weapons." They are easily concealed, easier to reload, can be fired rapidly, and can be shot one-handed. They are also far less versatile than an AR-style rifle in terms of legal usage. Semiautos (with the exception of the 1911 and a few others) are primarily intended to kill people. That's their main purpose, and they do a damn good job at it.

[Dream]

I couldn't get past the first two lines.

[Ghost On The Highway]

Originally Posted by Caliber

Wait, you mean anti-gun advocates are completely ignorant of firearms? Who would have guessed.



Target shooting mainly. Many people use their AR's for hunting and home defense as well. A semi-auto rifle for those situations seems pretty practical, legal, and logical to me.

Haha that was rediculous. First of all, why would anyone want to ban "barrel shrouds," so gun owners burn their hands? I always called it a handguard anyway, but w/e. Second, they're not "high capacity clips," but magazines. Cho didn't use a rifle anyhow, and neither did any notable school shooters since Charles Whitman, so what's the point?

And r.e. the second statement, agreed 100%.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Okay now I understand, and yes, that could go on forever.. But if you look at what a militia was during their time, it was ordinary citizens, armed with the most advanced rifles they had at the time, which they also used for hunting, who would when necessary come together as a unit and defend themselves or their country.

Which is actually what the United States Militia is. Separate from a standing army or the national guard, it's comprised of every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45. (anyone eligible for the draft)

There's a bunch of controversy over it's original intention, but I think Joseph Story's commentary in Commentaries on the Constitution puts it best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment

Fair points all (although I query a fair proportion of Story's argument); nonetheless, they do not on their own require the right to bear arms to exist in its current form. However, as I do not want to hijack this thread I will leave it there as you clearly understand what I'm getting at, and I am happy to respect your differing point of view.