Nut With Gun at Town Hall

[dropzone]

@Kearsen

Usually no. It’s typical in Texas to not allow firearms on the premises where alcohol is sold.

So what you are saying is that Minnesota is manlier than Texas?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@elucidator

I’ll repeat my public stance: keep the goddam things. Its not worth it. I do not fear my fellow enough to keep a weapon handy, and he has no reason to fear me.

And yet you see fit to post your drivel multiple times in every single gun related thread. For someone who claims that “It’s not worth it” you are awfully invested in the discussion.

What flattery! “Even someone as blindly biased as yourself can, perhaps, have a rare moment of clarity in order to agree with me, before you withdraw into your cocoon of ignorance”

Were that I were only half as bitterly sarcastic as you…

But, sadly, no, I still don’t that much give a shit, and I’d never heard of this guy until you brought him into this. Am I expected to defend him, or what? I’ll take a part in your play, maybe, but I write my own lines.

You do? I’ve seen shills that were more independent in their thinking than you are.

@Squink

These are reporters, not rocket scientists. They practically majored in writing about stuff they can’t understand. Guns are certainly no exception to that norm, and it’s a little naive to expect them to be.

Not hardly. They are complicit in the process that Mr. Sugarmann describes. In playing fast and loose with their language, in (perhaps inadvertently) writing the things that they do, they are perpetuating the strategy of misinformation. Is that what the role of the press should be? I don’t believe so.

Bitching about poor reporting aside, if too many people take their guns to these events there is going to be some sort of serious incident. In their eagerness to shoot down health care reform, I don’t think many of the organizers are giving sufficient thought to the ramifications of such an incident. All it’ll take is ONE asshole with a gun to spoil a whole lot of people’s fun this summer.

In this we are in agreement. While these people may be doing things that are legal, it is not a wise course of action by any means.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

@Squink

Bitching about poor reporting aside, if too many people take their guns to these events there is going to be some sort of serious incident. In their eagerness to shoot down health care reform, I don’t think many of the organizers are giving sufficient thought to the ramifications of such an incident. All it’ll take is ONE asshole with a gun to spoil a whole lot of people’s fun this summer.

In this we are in agreement. While these people may be doing things that are legal, it is not a wise course of action by any means.

I make this observation without regard to whether open carry per se is or is not a good thing: It seems to me that anyone who would take a gun and display it in such an emotionally charged situation is almost by definition displaying poor judgment. Even assuming said gun owner has the self-control not to go beyond the display, no matter what provocation he may perceive, what’s to stop some unhinged person near him from grabbing the weapon and using it, or causing the gun to go off in a struggle over it? All it takes is one out-of-control nutcase, and we’ve seen quite a number of out-of-control unarmed nutcases in those demonstrations.

I really, really want to be overreacting to this. Really. Because being right would majorly suck.

[elucidator]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

And yet you see fit to post your drivel multiple times in every single gun related thread. For someone who claims that “It’s not worth it” you are awfully invested in the discussion…

Oh, I still have an opinion, I just don’t think anything on the poltical action level is worth the effort. A position I’ve expressed several times, in your presence. So maybe someone is going to pry it from your hand, but it ain’t gonna be me, 'cause I don’t want one.

…Were that I were only half as bitterly sarcastic as you…

Pretty sure this is poorly worded, I don’t think you’re stupid enough to admire bitterness. For your sake, sure hope not.

…You do? I’ve seen shills that were more independent in their thinking than you are…

My thinking is independent of yours, I can pretty much guarantee that.

Thing is, my thinking isn’t that much different than any of a dozen others here. People you don’t go out of your way to shit on. So I think maybe your issue is me, and not what I think.

[Argent_Towers]

The “semi-automatic assault rifle” thing is comparable to the idiots who call everything that Obama does “socialist.” It’s an unbelievably disingenuous and weaselly twisting around of words and meanings, and it especially bothers me that it so often comes from such high places. When we have people like Jimmy Carter, senators, congressmen, and others who ought to know better, talking about how “no law-abiding person should be able to own an assault rifle” and pushing for bans of “assault weapons,” it’s a very real and serious case of chicanery and I think they should be called out on it every single time it happens.

It’d be like if there were news reports of hackers possessing “supercomputers” when in reality they were using run-of-the-mill Dell laptops, or calls to ban “supermodems” stating that “no honest person needs anything better than a 56k modem.”

[Gyrate]

Since we’re on the subject: what constitutes an “assault” weapon that distinguishes it from your regular plain ol’ weapon? I personally have no idea.

[Argent_Towers]

I’m happy to provide factual information to those who are willing to listen.

Here’s the Wikipedia entry for Assault rifle.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Note the requirement that it be select-fire. Select fire means the ability to switch between one shot with one pull of the trigger, and continuous shots with one pull of the trigger (automatic fire.) Some rifles will have the option of three-round bursts as well.

Also note the emphasis on the buttstock for firing from the shoulder. Some people, such as Carolyn McCarthy (authoress of the “assault weapons” ban) claim that “assault weapons are meant to be spray-fired from the hip.” A classic bit of bullshit. No rifle on the planet is meant to be fired from the hip.

A true assault rifle will be chambered in an intermediate round like the 5.56 NATO cartridge used by the M16 and many other modern combat rifles. That would mean that the HK G3 or the FAL - which fire full-power .308 rounds - are not assault rifles but simply “battle rifles.”

Also from there:

Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following featurers:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher
* Barrel shroud

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons were unaffected by the ban and have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed.

Note the bolding above (mine.)

In other words, “assault weapon” was created, as a term, from whole cloth and has no precedent in military or sporting usage whatsoever. It was invented by people with a very direct anti-gun agenda, and the rules of it are completely senseless and arbitrary.

[cosmosdan]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I make this observation without regard to whether open carry per se is or is not a good thing: It seems to me that anyone who would take a gun and display it in such an emotionally charged situation is almost by definition displaying poor judgment. Even assuming said gun owner has the self-control not to go beyond the display, no matter what provocation he may perceive, what’s to stop some unhinged person near him from grabbing the weapon and using it, or causing the gun to go off in a struggle over it? All it takes is one out-of-control nutcase, and we’ve seen quite a number of out-of-control unarmed nutcases in those demonstrations.

I really, really want to be overreacting to this. Really. Because being right would majorly suck.

The first guy who carried a gun to exercise his rights seemed like a reasonable guy when interviewed, but this is what his demonstration led to. I understand asserting your rights but is carrying a gun to volatile gatherings seems incredibly unwise and unnecessary.

[Jack_Batty]

Fuck that made my dick hard!

If I can just get a “grain count” or maybe a “stopping power” you’ll push me right over the edge. Yeah baby!

[Alessan]

@Argent_Towers

Note the requirement that it be select-fire. Select fire means the ability to switch between one shot with one pull of the trigger, and continuous shots with one pull of the trigger (automatic fire.) Some rifles will have the option of three-round bursts as well.

You know, I carried M-16 variants for three years and for various periods afterwards, and never once did I fire it in automatic - not even for fun. Does that mean that what I carried were not assault rifles? The select fire ability is as archaic as the bayonet lug - only unprofessional soldiers fire in full auto, and when they do, they have less of a chance of hitting anything than if they’d actually aimed. In fact, I’d say that select fire makes a rifle *less *dangerous, because it’s a way of making idiots waste their ammo.

I saw the picture. The guy was carrying an assault rifle. Carrying it incorrectly, I might add.

[Squink]

@Argent_Towers

In other words, “assault weapon” was created, as a term, from whole cloth and has no precedent in military or sporting usage whatsoever. It was invented by people with a very direct anti-gun agenda, and the rules of it are completely senseless and arbitrary.

Having been an America hater for the past 7 years, pardon me if I don’t show a lot of sympathy for your semantic agony.
The phrase is in common public usage now and it’d take a massive effort to purge it from the language; maybe something along the lines of the French government’s language purity board? Acckk!!! The creation of new terminology is seldom fair. Deal with it and move on.
At least they didn’t call the rifles ‘jesus murderers’ or ‘suicide pop tarts’ or anything really offensive.

[Czarcasm]

Let me get this straight-angry people are carrying weapons to town halls, and the main reason some of you are upset is because newspapers aren’t being entirely accurate about what types of weapons they are?

[SenorBeef]

You constantly attempt to redefine the argument. There are several discussions happening in this thread, they do not all inherently have to make statements directly to every other discussion.

[plankter]

@SenorBeef

You constantly attempt to redefine the argument. There are several discussions happening in this thread, they do not all inherently have to make statements directly to every other discussion.

“How dare you call me out for trying to derail the thread!”

[Marley23]

At least the guy didn’t do anything really dangerous, like chant some slogans. Then he might’ve been tyranted off to a free speech zone.

[Argent_Towers]

@Alessan

You know, I carried M-16 variants for three years and for various periods afterwards, and never once did I fire it in automatic - not even for fun. Does that mean that what I carried were not assault rifles? The select fire ability is as archaic as the bayonet lug - only unprofessional soldiers fire in full auto, and when they do, they have less of a chance of hitting anything than if they’d actually aimed. In fact, I’d say that select fire makes a rifle *less *dangerous, because it’s a way of making idiots waste their ammo.

I saw the picture. The guy was carrying an assault rifle. Carrying it incorrectly, I might add.

Are you sure it was an assault rifle? Did you see the selector switch with the full-auto or burst fire option? Because if it didn’t have that, then all it was was a semi-automatic rifle. Which is not an assault rifle.

I am not a soldier but I’ve heard from those who are that the full-auto setting is useful for cover fire. This is what I’ve been told by Marines who served in combat.

Let me get this straight-angry people are carrying weapons to town halls, and the main reason some of you are upset is because newspapers aren’t being entirely accurate about what types of weapons they are?

Yeah, I’m upset that the newspapers aren’t being accurate. If there were a demonstration of Cherokee Indians, and the newspaper reported them as being Sioux Indians, I would be pissed off at the newspaper’s negligence in reporting. If someone was attacked by a dog, and the newspaper reported him as being attacked by a wolf, it would piss me off.

Reporters should get their fucking terminology straight. I wrote seven feature articles, as a freelance writer, for a health and physical-education magazine. I didn’t know jackshit about the topics I was assigned, such as the effect of sodium on the constriction of blood vessels and the specific chemicals that are used in different types of asthma inhalers - but I made sure to research it all, so that I’d get all the details right for the people who did have medical knowledge - and because I don’t believe in spreading incorrect information for the sake of cutting corners in journalism.

[SenorBeef]

Really, it’s not simple ignorance. There’s a deliberate effort to misguide the public on gun related issues as to facilitiate public support of bans. For example, remember the “cop killer bullets” epidemic of the 80s? The actual bullets they referred to, the teflon coated black talon rounds, were actually very soft, open hollow point rounds that were actually the least likely of any type of bullet to penetrate a police vest. The teflon wasn’t to lubricate a penetrator, it was to protect the gun barrel because the point of the round was so wide open. The bullets weren’t particularly dangerous and had no useful armor penetration capabilities, but the media worked the public up into a hysteria about “cop killer bullets”, and then congress later attempted to pass bans on ALL rifle bullets under the guise of ridding the country of cop killer bullets.

Similarly, current news media will refer to weapons as “machine guns” and “assault rifles” which are clearly, unambiguously not those types of guns. They do this because they want to create a perception that anyone can walk into a gun store and pick up an AK-47, and therefore WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!

Similarly, they created the term “assault weapon” to sound like “assault rifle” and bring up the same image in the public mind. But the advantage here is that while “assault rifle” has a definition, and they know these weapons don’t fall under it, “assault weapon” is anything they want it to be. It’s essentially anything that looks scary.

It is a deliberate campaign to lie to the public in an effort to turn that ignorance and manipulation into support for gun restrictions.

The thing is - if anyone on my side of an argument lies in order to support their view, I become uncomfortable. I correct them, or argue against them. You may embrace a gun control agenda, but why embrace the liars and manipulators? Can’t you attempt to argue the issue on its own merits? If you lie, or support those who lie, to try to push your ideas - how worthy and sincere can your beliefs be?

[Argent_Towers]

They’ll say one of two things:

“The semantics don’t matter.” (Really? They don’t? So then I assume it’s okay for me to say negro, colored, and chinaman. I mean, people know the meaning, so the words shouldn’t matter. Right, liberals?)

Or…

gunpenisgunpenispenisenvypenissizepenispenissizebigdickbigdicksmallpenispenispenisgunpenispenispenisgunsgunsassaultriflespenispenispenis

[Marley23]

@SenorBeef

There’s a deliberate effort to misguide the public on gun related issues as to facilitiate public support of bans.

Similarly, there’s a deliberate effort from SenorBeef to show the press is on an anti-gun conspiracy for reasons that are never made clear. “Assault weapons” is a vague and useless term, but it’s been part of the public discourse on guns for at least 15 years, so good luck making it go away.

[Squink]

@SenorBeef

Really, it’s not simple ignorance. There’s a deliberate effort to misguide the public on gun related issues as to facilitiate public support of bans.

Well sure, it’s a lot like Republicans spreading all sorts of lies about government run health care plans.