Gun Control or Gun Rights?

[CaptHayfever]

There's a reason duckhunters don't use automatic shotguns, you know?

I thought that was because you'd only have feathers to show for a kill.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Nick]

Uh, then why have assault weapons? There is no legal use for them and no place for them in civilian hands.

The state militia thing usually turns into a group of crackpots writing manefestos in some bunker in Montana, where the ATF and FBI have to surround them for days and take them out.

[Erdawn Il Deus]

Originally posted by Dusty:
This way, when the Canadians pour across the border, we've got the Michigan militia sitting with uzis ready to fight it on the home front.

Nothing could save you. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And yes, the usage of automatic weaponry for hunting is probably the pussiest way to hunt I have ever heard of - I mean Jesus, if you take a reloading scope-powered nuclear-energy time-space-continuum omnscient rifle to take out a deer, don't ****ing tell you you're there for the hunt, you're there to see guts splatter the foilage and to hell with you, pig. As a side-note -- Dusty, try bowhunting. That is some hardcore ****. There is no knockdown (or very, very, very rarely) so you have to track the wounded animal through the woods via bloodspots, tracks, etc, and up here you have to retrieve the kill because not doing so is illegal (and our outdoor-law enforcement is hardcore, man, they have like, more jurisdiction than the CIA(jk). Still, it's guilty until proven innocent when it comes to that kind of situation). But yeah, bows are hard, man. Booyah.

[DELICIOUS POISON]

There are definitely those weapons that are legitemately for the use of a hunt(especially in times of crisis which may be approaching) - But in general; claiming rights to a weapon designed for the function of killing large amounts of humans because you can't think of any decent reason not to... just doesn't cut it. Self defense, perhaps. But when you own a weapon, and I have absolutely no reason to trust you with it, what good reason can you give me right now that you need one? Either I find myself a paranoid, or you find yourself a gun-nut in the presence of a cautious pacifist. How can you prove to me that once you own this weapon you will never, ever, use it?

[Sampson1986]

Here's a suggestion for everybody here: If you don't know what the hell you're saying, don't say it. Please and thank you.

I don't know how many times I've explained that a semi-automatic "assault rifle" is just a regular semi-automatic rifle; it's not a machine gun. If you don't believe me, go get a "normal" semi-auto and an "assault rifle" semi-auto, take them shooting, and see the difference for yourself.

ETA: Lurch, I'm glad to see you here. Do you remember me?

[ September 23, 2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Sampson1986 ]

[Dusty]

^^^Yeah man, my uncle bowhunts, thinks guns are for *******s (he's a cop). I haven't hunted since I was 14 though, and since then I've picked up so many hippie non-sensibilities I couldn't bring myself to do it again.

^Well, it's not just about whether a gun is automatic or not. Those semiautos you're talking about, they probably have a large magazine, fire at a caliber most hunters would reserve for a Goddamn elephant or a polar bear, that sort of thing. I'm ignorant as to your particular gun, but I would definitely wager it's the sort of weapon less suited to deer and more suited to a Memorial Day shopping crowd.

Originally posted by Blaine the shogun is #1:
What a fine idea whop need the ANG there useless hell let's just disband it tell those who are currently serving that they wasted there time and apoligize to them then set up some state malitas.

Well, you know, militias serve the alternate purpose of protecting people from the government, i.e. the ANG, if it's ever mobilized tyrannically. I understand this to be the purpose described in the Second Amendment anyway, though if I'm wrong you can punch me in the head. I really only used the Canadian example for my Canuck buddy Andy's (Cobalt Blues--not that he knows anything about blues ) sake. He caught it anyway.

Also, many divisions of the ANG are deployed overseas as of now, so the Canadian example still has a certain merit. Whether or not the ANG should be deployed is being discussed in another topic I believe.

[Sampson1986]

Originally posted by Dusty:

^Well, it's not just about whether a gun is automatic or not. Those semiautos you're talking about, they probably have a large magazine, fire at a caliber most hunters would reserve for a Goddamn elephant or a polar bear, that sort of thing. I'm ignorant as to your particular gun, but I would definitely wager it's the sort of weapon less suited to deer and more suited to a Memorial Day shopping crowd.

AK-47: 7.62x39mm cartridge(muzzle velocity-2,355 fps; muzzle energy- 1,515 ft-lbs; 123 grain bullet)
AR-15: .223 Remington(muzzle velocity- 3,240 fps; muzzle energy- 1,282 ft-lbs; 55 grain bullet)

A .270 Winchester(one of the most popular hunting calibers) has a muzzle velocity of 3,060 fps and 2,702 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.

Which would be a lighter load: 210 rounds of .223 Remington or 210 rounds of .270 Winchester?

[Dusty]

^My guess would be the Winchester, but I can't say I'm not ignorant. But I think that Winchester is a bolt action and that AR can have a 40-shell magazine. I'm no expert you know, so if there's some computation I'm missing let me know, but based on flicking my index finger I bet I could fire 60 times a minute with a reasonable trigger resistance, accounting for reload.

I also think there's a certain style of fire that a bolt-action implies. Not only can't you fire as quickly, you have to take a little time to aim. Semiauto with 40 bullets in the magazine, shooter is a lot more inclined (and a lot more able) to just fire in a general direction, in my mind increasing the danger of the situation, though I would entertain arguments to the contrary.

[Sampson1986]

Originally posted by Dusty:
^My guess would be the Winchester, but I can't say I'm not ignorant. But I think that Winchester is a bolt action and that AR can have a 40-shell magazine. I'm no expert you know, so if there's some computation I'm missing let me know, but based on flicking my index finger I bet I could fire 60 times a minute with a reasonable trigger resistance, accounting for reload.

The .270 Winchester cartridge is going to weigh more than the .223 Remington cartridge.

You're right about the magazine capacity of the AR; the military magazines are 30 rounds. Some of the commercial magazines are 40+, but the 40+ magazines are usually unreliable.

Although the .270 Winchester is usually found in bolt action rifles, one company makes a semi-auto .270 Winchester.

I also think there's a certain style of fire that a bolt-action implies. Not only can't you fire as quickly, you have to take a little time to aim. Semiauto with 40 bullets in the magazine, shooter is a lot more inclined (and a lot more able) to just fire in a general direction, in my mind increasing the danger of the situation, though I would entertain arguments to the contrary.

You're right and wrong about the semi-auto "spray" fire. Yes, I can empty a 30 round magazine in no time with my AR15, however, the accuracy of firing this way is horrible(I'll explain why in a later post if you'd like, but it might take a while to describe).

[ September 23, 2005, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Sampson1986 ]

[Dusty]

^Nah, I'll take your word for it. I'm just thinking that accuracy is less of an issue for situations with crowds, compounding the danger of some psycho having 30-40 rounds to play with.

[Sampson1986]

Originally posted by Dusty:
^Nah, I'll take your word for it. I'm just thinking that accuracy is less of an issue for situations with crowds, compounding the danger of some psycho having 30-40 rounds to play with.

It's kind of a convience(sp?) issue. A person could shoot a 30 round magazine without reloading or he could shoot three 10 round magazines(with a few seconds in between dropping the empty magazine and replacing it with a full one).

[ September 23, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Sampson1986 ]

[Erdawn Il Deus]

Cobalt Blues--not that he knows anything about blues [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You sir, can kiss all of the hairiest part of my ass.

[williamanthonyallen87]

Scenario #1: I am asleep at 3:00 A.M and I awake to the screams of my family. I run to the living room only to find a man pointing a gun at me. Time to repent and hope for my family's well being.

Scenario #2: I am asleep at 3:00 A.M and I awake to the screams of my family. I grab my gun and run to the living room and I shoot the guy. My family, valuables and well being are intact.

Guns are meant to enfore the law and protection of oneself and their families. Criminals shouldn't get guns and I am whole heartedly against crime like all sane people. Why not prevent a fraction myself and save my own life?

I do, however, think that guns should be given out with HARSH discrimination of character and backround. If it's imperfect, no gun, that's what I say. But one way or the other, wether through legal or illegal means, criminals will have guns and if good people can't have them...scenario #1 will become more common...

[Sampson1986]

Originally posted by Stoopid Monkey 87:
Scenario #1: I am asleep at 3:00 A.M and I awake to the screams of my family. I run to the living room only to find a man pointing a gun at me. Time to repent and hope for my family's well being.

Scenario #2: I am asleep at 3:00 A.M and I awake to the screams of my family. I grab my gun and run to the living room and I shoot the guy. My family, valuables and well being are intact.

Guns are meant to enfore the law and protection of oneself and their families. Criminals shouldn't get guns and I am whole heartedly against crime like all sane people. Why not prevent a fraction myself and save my own life?

I do, however, think that guns should be given out with HARSH discrimination of character and backround. If it's imperfect, no gun, that's what I say. But one way or the other, wether through legal or illegal means, criminals will have guns and if good people can't have them...scenario #1 will become more common...

Good post.

I believe that the law is such that a gun may be legally discharged only if there is reason to believe that life(the life of the person firing the gun, not the felon with a gun) is endangered.