The Media's Latest Depictions of the AR-15 - Is it fair?

[Spungo]

We completely eliminate the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that states guns with "no sporting purpose" are illegal.

What does that even mean? No sporting purpose? Can we invent a sport that involves shooting a minigun at a tree? We already have a sport that involves cutting a tree with a saw. We also have a sport that involves cutting a tree with an axe. I wish I were joking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2NCDJOmaOM

I can somewhat see why they ban different types of gun stuff, but those bans only make sense when other regulations are not available. Instead of having some kind of licensing system like car or a fork lift, we declare that any nutcase can buy a gun, but that nutcase should have only 10 bullets. Our laws are so screwed up and backward.

 

[bozack]

I'm inclined to take all of that with some skepticism, given the whine about no "new handguns" on the roster. The roster already includes 768 handguns-

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

it was five months ago so who knows what happened since then, regardless in both Cali and NY, two states with super restrictive laws on AR15s, they both allow removable mags, Cali with assistance from a tool, and NY at a ten round minimum.

Here is a video of a NY compliant AR15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFhAe28fMjs

 

[bozack]

What does that even mean? No sporting purpose? Can we invent a sport that involves shooting a minigun at a tree? We already have a sport that involves cutting a tree with a saw. We also have a sport that involves cutting a tree with an axe. I wish I were joking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2NCDJOmaOM

I can somewhat see why they ban different types of gun stuff, but those bans only make sense when other regulations are not available. Instead of having some kind of licensing system like car or a fork lift, we declare that any nutcase can buy a gun, but that nutcase should have only 10 bullets. Our laws are so screwed up and backward.

wouldn't target and competition shooting be considered a "sporting purpose" and can't all semi automatic weapons be used for this?

 

[agent00f]

I disagree. Much of "White America" does give a shit. Of course you'll be hooted down as a racist. But still, you hear of this problem every time gun laws pop into the convo.

I live in North Carolina. This state has a large black population yet few of the problems. But we're in NC, not Chicago. What do you want us to do?

Fern

Gun control is a classic all or nothing issue unless security checkpoints are set up around cities like at national borders. The problem is NC won't give up guns for the sake of Chicago.

The reason this has a racial component is more incidental but substantial nonetheless; just look at the color of NRA rallies, that's where the political money is coming from. IME minorities tend to be more sympathetic or at least ambivalent toward gun control rather than clutching on tightly.

 

[OutHouse]

now that fat fuck michael moore is spouting a bunch of lies.

Ammo used in AR-15/M-16 is banned by Geneva Convention. It enters the body, spins & explodes. Show the crime scene photos & the NRA is over.— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) June 15, 2016

 

[pcgeek11]

The reporter heard that from Alan Grayson, Congressman from Florida.

Facts are important to the left unless they have a righteous agenda.

Oh, and for those not aware, an AR-15 was not used in Orlando.

Yes, that was it. That moron Grayson.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Venix]

now that fat fuck michael moore is spouting a bunch of lies.

lol, what an idiot. The Geneva Conventions cover the treatment of people not engaged in hostilities like civilians and prisoners-of-war. The Hague Convention of 1899 is what bans expanding and fragmenting ammunition in combat.

Standard M-16 ammunition (5.56 NATO) obviously isn't banned, and the United States isn't a signatory of the ammo ban declaration, anyway. Even countries that did sign widely use hollow/soft point ammunition for police work, hunting, and other non-military purposes. In fact, "banned" expanding bullets are legally mandated for hunting in some areas.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Gun control is a classic all or nothing issue unless security checkpoints are set up around cities like at national borders. The problem is NC won't give up guns for the sake of Chicago.

The reason this has a racial component is more incidental but substantial nonetheless; just look at the color of NRA rallies, that's where the political money is coming from. IME minorities tend to be more sympathetic or at least ambivalent toward gun control rather than clutching on tightly.

NC knows transgenders in the "wrong" public bathrooms are more of a public safety threat than anything gun-related. It's just common sense people.

 

[bshole]

I myself favor smart guns. We engineers could invent the technology. Basically if you point the gun at a person, the gun doesn't fire. If you want to use the gun for personal protection, you can beat your attacker over the head with it.

Another idea, only allow atheists to own guns. Gun murder rate would go to zero almost instantly. Just saying...

 

[compuwiz1]

I myself favor smart guns. We engineers could invent the technology. Basically if you point the gun at a person, the gun doesn't fire. If you want to use the gun for personal protection, you can beat your attacker over the head with it.

Another idea, only allow atheists to own guns. Gun murder rate would go to zero almost instantly. Just saying...

Why are you so light on your feet? I think you were dropped on your gourd and it might have messed up your lettuce. Using a gun for personal protection is just that....personal. There is only one reason that anyone will find out what firearms I have...and that would be a very bad idea. I say fuck what you engineers say, I'll control my own results and conduct my own studies, on my own property.....without YOU. Thank you very much!

 

[bshole]

Why are you so light on your feet? I think you were dropped on your gourd and it might have messed up your lettuce. Using a gun for personal protection is just that....personal. There is only one reason that anyone will find out what firearms I have...and that would be a very bad idea. I say fuck what you engineers say, I'll control my own results and conduct my own studies, on my own property.....without YOU. Thank you very much!

How about if the gun only functions while on your property and a federally regulated gun range? Would that be better? I am flexible as all hell. Work with me here.

 

[glenn1]

How about if the gun only functions while on your property and a federally regulated gun range? Would that be better? I am flexible as all hell. Work with me here.

I see you reached the bargaining stage of grief regarding your fears of scary guns and the knowledge that they are not going away.

 

[cbrunny]

Nothing but fear mongering by the LMSM.

The left loves to tell us how smart they are, and how logical they are, and how many facts (and the best facts) they use. Yet the reality is, these rifles (assault rifle, assault weapon, are both made up terms made to spread fear) are used in a tiny number of shootings.

more than zero.

 

[cbrunny]

Why are you so light on your feet? I think you were dropped on your gourd and it might have messed up your lettuce. Using a gun for personal protection is just that....personal. There is only one reason that anyone will find out what firearms I have...and that would be a very bad idea. I say fuck what you engineers say, I'll control my own results and conduct my own studies, on my own property.....without YOU. Thank you very much!

Aaaaaand that's what's wrong with America. "All about me. Fuck all y'all."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I myself favor smart guns. We engineers could invent the technology. Basically if you point the gun at a person, the gun doesn't fire. If you want to use the gun for personal protection, you can beat your attacker over the head with it.

Another idea, only allow atheists to own guns. Gun murder rate would go to zero almost instantly. Just saying...

LMAO!!!! I'm sure you would change your mind if the attacker knocked you out and when you came to you saw your wife lying on the floor in a pool of blood and your daughter was being raped by the attacker. A couple rounds placed center mass could have prevented this from occurring.

 

[bshole]

LMAO!!!! I'm sure you would change your mind if the attacker knocked you out and when you came to you saw your wife lying on the floor in a pool of blood and your daughter was being raped by the attacker. A couple rounds placed center mass could have prevented this from occurring.

Teeheeheeheee. Expanding on your logic, given that my or my family's chances of being maimed or killed in a horrible traffic accident is statistically 100 TIMES more likely to occur than your example above, I have decided to never leave home. SAFETY IS EVERY FUCKING THING. Perhaps with the right safety precautions, I will never die.

Or maybe I can live my life w/o being a paranoid little bitch.....

 

[runzwithsizorz]

My local paper had a story in it today which stated the AR 15 fires rounds at
"thousands of feet per second"

 

[Painman]

Aaaaaand that's what's wrong with America. "All about me. Fuck all y'all."

You've identified a symptom; not the disease.

Fundamental lack of faith in each other is the disease.

 

[glenn1]

My local paper had a story in it today which stated the AR 15 fires rounds at
"thousands of feet per second"

They mean muzzle velocity. Rate of fire (a.k.a. cyclic rate) is also expressed in seconds as unit of measurement but is a different thing obviously; how fast you can make the weapon go "pew pew!" versus how fast the pew-pews travel.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Aaaaaand that's what's wrong with America. "All about me. Fuck all y'all."

Just because you feel threatened doesn't mean you have a right to deny the rights of other individuals.

You've identified a symptom; not the disease.

Fundamental lack of faith in each other is the disease.

I sort of agree with this. The founders believed that the citizenry had a moral foundation sufficient to engage in civil public society, that the individuals would respect the rights of other individuals.

 

[Kwatt]

I'm inclined to take all of that with some skepticism, given the whine about no "new handguns" on the roster. The roster already includes 768 handguns-

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

The no "new handguns" may have been referring to the requirement for new semi-auto handguns. To be certified for sale in CA a new semi-auto handgun must have the micro-stamping feature. Which no handgun has and no manufacturer has been able to get to work. The patent holder/inventor has said it is not ready to be implemented.

This was added to the "safe gun" testing requirement. That called for manufacturer to send a sample handgun and $200 for testing every 5 years. The stated goal was to insure the firearm would not discharge when dropped and only safety related stuff.

After the requirement had been implemented for a few years. Micro-stamping was added to the test. Effectively banning new semi-auto handgun sales in CA. After the current 5 year certification expires. If I recall correctly the last one expires in 2017 maybe 2018 though.

.

 

[Artdeco]

Another military sourced rifle that needs banned:

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*FPvQViQ36NuU2DGjOhiruw.jpeg

Virtually every single gun can be traced back to military use, back to flintlocks.

 

[alien42]

Another military sourced rifle that needs banned:

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*FPvQViQ36NuU2DGjOhiruw.jpeg

Virtually every single gun can be traced back to military use, back to flintlocks.

the problem isn't if a gun has origins in the military or is used by the military so your point is, well, pointless.

can you really not see the difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war?

obviously that line is going to vary some, but we all know about where it is.

 

[glenn1]

the problem isn't if a gun has origins in the military or is used by the military so your point is, well, pointless.

can you really not see the difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war?

obviously that line is going to vary some, but we all know about where it is.

No I can't. Since our founding any individual primary rifle or sidearm (i.e. not crew served) that would have been appropriate for a solider to carry would have also been appropriate for most hunting and self-defense situations. For the last 200 years the weapon preferences of the military and civilian markets have been roughly identical; for example the Winchester 1873 would have been the weapon to have no matter whether you were in the Army or a frontiersman in the later part of the 19th century.

That not only makes sense but is also a symbiotic relationship - the AR-15 platform benefited from all the R&D money spent by the military on design and ergonomics, and the military has benefited from the innovations of the private sector on the civilian variants of the weapon such as the integrated rail system, tritium sights, etc.

 

[Artdeco]

the problem isn't if a gun has origins in the military or is used by the military so your point is, well, pointless.

can you really not see the difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war?

obviously that line is going to vary some, but we all know about where it is.

You're completely missing the point, think about it, the image I linked to was the state of the art military firearm at the time, hunting rifles are really sniper rifles, they just look pretty, matter of fact, some of the best snipers used a hunting rifle for sniping.

This is a non assault rifle: https://youtu.be/p-3YE13dqW0