NRA

[mraynrand]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

Where would you draw the line? 30 rounds/minute, 1 round per minute? Would those rules have prevented the killer from obtaining a semi-automatic gun that fires 40 rounds/minute. What if he used a machete that was ultra sharp? Should we pass a law saying that machetes have to be relatively dull? How about outlawing knives or 'any instrument that can be used to kill?' Please outline what your criteria are for outlawing certain implements and how you would ensure that these implements would not fall into the hands of criminals.

[Little Whiskey]

PIP, the point is that it is our Constitional Right to be able to own a firarm. It they want to change it make them follow the process, not just pussy-foot around and take the short cuts.

Are more people killed each day due to highspeed auto crashes? (I realize there are more cars than guns) Should the gov't (like mentioned ealier) ban all sports cars? or install governors on all cars that only allow them to reach 55 mph?

[swede]

I went to do a little target practice with my son-in-law and his new .40 caliber pistol.

We had to go to three different stores before we found ammunition.

The word on the street is that the Obama administration has been messing with ammunition manufacturers.

I'm willing to believe that demand for ammo has simply gone up as Americans have watched Obama kneel before Europe and offer to disarm for the sake of world peace.

Edit: I am a horrible shot. At 25 yards I only put three out of 16 rounds in the black. It seems like the easiest thing in the world to do, but being accurate within a few inches in twenty-five yards is tough sledding.

[Patler]

But if owning this weapon was already illegal, a Constitutional Amendment wouldn't help, better definition wouldn't help. I'm not sure you can make it "more illegal" than it already is in a hope to achieve compliance. Perhaps increasing the penalty would help dissuade some from violating laws that already exist, but not all would be dissuaded.

[packinpatland]

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

I understand that, and I wasn't suggesting there was confusion with respect to the one incident. I think there is some confusion when people try to discuss the issue generally.

Per the information provided by 3irty1, buying, selling or owning that particular weapon is already illegal. So, I will ask again in another way, what are you suggesting in stating that it should be "banned"?

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to understand your position so that we might discuss it. If it is already illegal to buy, sell or own it, what more do you think should be done?

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic? Where are most of these guns, banned or not, produced? Are they meant for military use, and they find their way into the hands of 'civilian' dealers? And if that kind of weapon is illegal and banned, as 3irty1 says, why are they for sale on the internet? Maybe the AK-47 isn't one of those banned....yet?
I too am just trying to understand.

[Little Whiskey]

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic? Where are most of these guns, banned or not, produced? Are they meant for military use, and they find their way into the hands of 'civilian' dealers? And if that kind of weapon is illegal and banned, as 3irty1 says, why are they for sale on the internet? Maybe the AK-47 isn't one of those banned....yet?
I too am just trying to understand.

most class 3 fire-arms (machine guns, full auto) are not allowed to be produced an more. but you can buy them (if your state allows) from other previous owners. all are pre-1970's (i think pre-1968).

[SkinBasket]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

Where would you draw the line? 30 rounds/minute, 1 round per minute? Would those rules have prevented the killer from obtaining a semi-automatic gun that fires 40 rounds/minute. What if he used a machete that was ultra sharp? Should we pass a law saying that machetes have to be relatively dull? How about outlawing knives or 'any instrument that can be used to kill?' Please outline what your criteria are for outlawing certain implements and how you would ensure that these implements would not fall into the hands of criminals.

I've already pointed out why it didn't matter what weapon that guy used. PIP doesn't want to see things for what they are. She wants to see them for what she wants them to be. The officers were shot at close range in the head. What relevance does rounds/minute have?

Does anyone even know if the AK was modified for full auto? If not, then it's pretty much the same as any other rifle. Again, not that it mattered in this situation and not that it has anything to do with the NRA.

[mraynrand]

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic?

Of course it is. Think, Mcfly, THINK.

[Zool]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47

A little info on the AK and its variants.

[SkinBasket]

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic?

Of course it is. Think, Mcfly, THINK.

They sell bullets by size, not by weapon. Any number of weapons can use the same sized ammunition. The AK-47 uses a very common type of ammunition. Another reason it's still used around the world today.

[Freak Out]

Get this crap out of my Romper Room.

If anything is FYI material this is.....Mods?

[Freak Out]

Edit: I am a horrible shot. At 25 yards I only put three out of 16 rounds in the black. It seems like the easiest thing in the world to do, but being accurate within a few inches in twenty-five yards is tough sledding.

Common.

[mraynrand]

[quote="Freak Out"]

Get this crap out of my Romper Room.

[hoosier]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

[Patler]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.