The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 104
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2006
    Posts
    887

    Default Spinoff 2 - Assault weapons?

    Don't have a gun, though I grew up with them in the house, have plenty of friends with them, and have no issues with gun ownership. But I truly don't understand the need for owning assault weapons. Are there really any good reasons to own an assault weapon?



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Assault weapon is a media-invented hysteria-driven term that has no meaning.

    Assault rifle is an intermediate caliber, select-fire rifle. They are what the military and some police departments use. Very few are in civilian hands, all accompanied by BATFE registration and very strict regulation.

    Semi automatic rifle is what most civilians and police departments use. They all function the same regardless of outside appearance.

    Here's one: http://images.rockwellarms.com/Produ.../031001346.jpg

    Here's another: http://img3.findthebest.com/sites/de...R-15_Rifle.jpg

    The one in the top image is chambered in a much more powerful cartridge.

    Now what was your question again?

    PS, I'm not going to bother justifying need. I don't have to and you don't have to approve or understand.


    8 members found this post helpful.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2011
    Posts
    520

    Default

    I think the problem is non-gun people are not educating themselves. They are just listening to the media and believing that guns such as the AR-15 are assault weapons which they are NOT. They are automatic rifles. You have to pull the trigger for every bullet. Assault weapons are "machine guns". You only pull the trigger once and round after round is fired.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr. 17, 2002
    Location
    between the barn and the pond
    Posts
    14,383

    Default

    I don't know what you are calling an Assault Rifle. We have an AR15 that DH bought in response to Clinton's efforts at banning certain guns.

    We have a right to own it, and we do.

    As for justification or explaining...I'd like to know why anyone would buy a Toyota Sequoia, they look like bloated ticks to me. I demand an explanation.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    I carried an assault weapon when I was in the military...an M-16A1 and A2. It was full auto or semi auto. Most of the time you used it as a semi automatic but you had the capability to spray bullets like you see in the movies. I once slept with this rifle in Panama when we were expecting a counter offensive. It was some comfort.

    A AR-15 is a civilian version of the M-16 and ONLY fires semi auto...one trigger pull equals one bullet...no spraying bullets.

    I also find it very annoying all the media hype over assault weapons which are already illegal for 99% of the population to possess.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,556

    Default

    Of the 12,664 murders in 2011, 323 of them were caused by a person using a rifle of ANY type. So I am really not seeing the problem with "assault rifles" in specific. Not that we need to include facts in the debate or anything...

    Here are the FBI statistics on murders for the last 5 years:
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8


    9 members found this post helpful.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2007
    Location
    Camden, DE
    Posts
    1,948

    Default

    Some people enjoy building them, customizing them, and doing some recreational precision shooting.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHSatwork View Post
    guns such as the AR-15 are assault weapons which they are NOT. They are SEMI-automatic rifles. You have to pull the trigger for every bullet. Assault weapons are "machine guns". You only pull the trigger once and round after round is fired.
    Fixed it for you.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2011
    Posts
    520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    Fixed it for you.
    Thank you!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,556

    Default

    Of course, as long as we all have our panties in a twist about gun control we're sure not asking about the latest economic numbers--which suck.

    Hmmm...anyone think that is a coincident?


    7 members found this post helpful.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    Of the 12,664 murders in 2011, 323 of them were caused by a person using a rifle of ANY type. So I am really not seeing the problem with "assault rifles" in specific. Not that we need to include facts in the debate or anything...

    Here are the FBI statistics on murders for the last 5 years:
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8
    Good point

    And how many of those 12K plus murders were criminals killing criminals? Quite a few, I bet.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHSatwork View Post
    I think the problem is non-gun people are not educating themselves. They are just listening to the media and believing that guns such as the AR-15 are assault weapons which they are NOT. They are automatic rifles. You have to pull the trigger for every bullet. Assault weapons are "machine guns". You only pull the trigger once and round after round is fired.
    How you like them apples?

    Maybe you prefer oranges?
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have,
    at this moment, been thrown up from below!



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    Still one press of the trigger for each shot. Just American ingenuity at its best making it happen very very quickly.

    You don't even need a special stock, or an AR15 to do that anyway.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nevertoolate View Post
    Don't have a gun, though I grew up with them in the house, have plenty of friends with them, and have no issues with gun ownership. But I truly don't understand the need for owning assault weapons. Are there really any good reasons to own an assault weapon?
    The answer is that the question is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment has no "need" standard. Nor does it contain a "sporting" standard, "hunting" standard, "target" standard, etc. If you can show me one of these I'll buy you dinner in the restaurant of your choice!

    The term "assault rifle" was invented by the German Wehrmacht in 1944 and applied to the Sturmgewehr-44. The standard battle rifle of the Wehermact at the time was the Gewehr 98. It was a rugged, reliable, bolt action weapon. It gave good service from 1898 through WWII (with only a few modifications). A need had developed for a more rapid fire weapon. The Americans were using the M-1 Garand (the first semi-auto battle rifle). There were LOTS of Russians. So a new weapon that was heavier than a machine pistol but lighter that a light machine gun was developed. They called it a Sturmgewehr* to distinguish it from a Gewehr.** Likely there was a bit of "salesmanship" in the name.

    Today most main battle rifles are semi-auto or selective fire full auto weapons. To own a full auto in the U.S. you must live in a state where they are permitted and hold a Class III license. I understand there are a number of "hoops" to jump through to get a Class III and cost is about $2500.

    G.

    * Assault Rifle

    ** Rifle
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    4 members found this post helpful.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,556

    Default

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

    George Mason: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.”

    Adolf Hitler, following the institution of strict gun control legislation in Germany in 1935: “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”


    5 members found this post helpful.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    2,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    So, yes, there are limits on Second Amendment rights. But when dealing with individual rights any restriction must pass some pretty stringent tests. First, there must be an over-riding governmental interest threatened by the behavior to be restricted. Second, the restriction must be tailored to that over-riding governmental interest. And Third the restriction must be the minimum restriction necessary to preserve that over-riding interest. In my opinion (and I'm an expert, too; the Supreme Court of the State of Texas says so ) the total bans proposed contravene Heller.
    Yes, I'm aware of your law background. But you didn't mention any of these stringent tests when you responded to the OP. You merely said that the question of the citizenry's need for a particular type of weapon is "irrelevant."

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    I don't grant the opinion of a UCLA law professor any more weight than I grant to a law professor from any other school who might have a countervailing opinion.
    WHERE he teaches was never the point. The point in mentioning UCLA at all was to indicate that as a law school professor at a school other than Bum-eff U, his opinion is probably of some merit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    The "need" standard does not exist in the words of the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court chooses to "read" one in then whose needs gets put first? The "needs" of the individual or the "needs" of the government?
    I already acknowledged the absence of the "need" standard in the Second Amendment. But the aforementioned good professor, in the paragraph I quoted in my earlier post, states that

    “In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in ‘common use,’” which is a common standard in jurisprudence, Winkler said. “A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use.”

    While I realize that “common use” and “need” may not be one and the same, there is certainly a link. Certain things tend to be in “common use” because there is a real or perceived need for them. So while a "need standard" obviously doesn't determine whether you HAVE Second Amendment rights, the needs of the citizenry, it seems to me, may absolutely be considered in SCOTUS decisions regarding LIMITS to those rights, which I believe was the point of the OP's question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    And, just to be complete, the Bill of Rights grants nothing to the persons living under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects, preserves, and defends rights that we already have. If you want to be deist then theses rights come from God. If you want to be secular they come from the place where all other "human rights" come from (where ever that might be). But "rights" are NEVER, under our system, a gift from the state.
    As important as that distinction may be in a courtroom or on a college campus, for the purposes of this discussion, it's mostly semantic nitpicking. But okay, the Second Amendment doesn't grant you the right to carry any weapon you like, and nor does it protect your right to carry any weapon you like. Of course that phrasing doesn't make sense either inasmuch as no amendment can protect a right that the Supreme Court has ruled is not a "right" at all.
    Last edited by Windsor1; Feb. 8, 2013 at 09:28 AM.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2002
    Location
    Henrico, NC 36 30'50.49" N 77 50'17.47" W
    Posts
    5,813

    Default

    I copied and pasted my response that I had posted in another thread to just that question.

    http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/im...cons/icon1.png

    I'll offer my answer on the "military type assault weapon" question that I haven't heard anyone else offer yet. It's the most obvious one that everyone so far has not thought about. I expect it's really the answer that owners really have but can't find it. It's so simple.

    The AR-15 is a good shooting gun. If you saw Piers shoot one the other night, you can see that anyone can shoot one fairly accurately.

    Here's the answer: If someone is shooting at me with one, it would be my first choice, unless in close quarters, to shoot back with. If someone was shooting back at me with anything else inside of a 100 yards it is my first choice to shoot back with. Why should I be limited to something like a bolt action rifle with 10 or less bullets to shoot back at someone who can use one of the many "military type assault weapons" that are already out there. If they are shooting at me, they have already broken all sorts of laws, and do not limit themselves. I'm not worried about "the government" taking my guns. I simply dont' want to be at a disadvantage.

    As far as the bump stocks, I'd rather someone who is shooting an AR at me to use one of them, than a standard stock in regular semi-automatic mode. Even the real full autos are mostly used to keep the enemies heads down, so others can reposition. No one can hit much that they want to with either.

    As far as a 100 round drum: I'd rather someone have one of those who is shooting at me than a 30 round magazine. Have you ever tried to hit a moving target with one? They're heavy, and harder to acquire a moving target with. They have a much better chance of making the gun jamb for someone who's not good with the gun.

    I'm all for making things as hard as possible for the bad guys and loonies to get guns. Improving the enforcement of laws that we already have will be a good start.

    More gun control laws will not simply make the guns go away, which is what it seems like the loudest voices expect. It's not going to happen. There are already more guns than people in this country.

    The only real effect all the talk about gun control is having, is causing more people to go out and buy more guns. Many, many more. I said it was going to happen when I first heard the bad news.

    I wonder if the Mini 14 Ranch Gun is on peoples' list of "military assault type weapons". It's basically the same gun as an AR-15, but has a wooden stock so it doesn't look the part.

    The biggest thing that sets the AR type rifles apart from the hunting type rifles is that the barrel is in line with the point where the stock hits your shoulder, so there is no muzzle flip. This is what makes it easy for anyone to shoot. There are many types of semi-auto guns that work the same way as the AR. Some just look like hunting rifles.

    The way to not increase the numbers of guns is not to talk so much about something that's not going to happen. Guns aren't going to go away. As much as I like guns, if for some magic reason guns could be made to go away, it would suit me just fine. In the meantime, I'm well armed. If you have something worth protecting, be prepared. I am.


    edited to add: Maybe we should just pass a law against "mean looking guns". Then only bad guys who didn't care about laws could have mean looking guns. I wonder if all the idiots talking about "military assault weapons" started talking about banning "mean looking guns" if it would make as many people think they needed to go out and buy a gun while they still can. I know someone who has a pink AR. It doesn't look so mean. They do come in other colors than black. Maybe not being black means that they are not"military type assault weapons". It makes just as much sense to someone who really can see the whole picture.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar. 10, 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    5,333

    Default

    I know of people that use an AR-15 (which I assume is one of the scary guns you're imagining) for coyote hunting because the shooter can get more done in less time. For the same reason, I've known of people using them to hunt or defend themselves against javalinas or wild hogs during hunts.

    So there are some practical reasons. Google it, for pete's sake. There are a lot of people discussing guns like we talk about horses and they have some good points. Read it from them if you're really interested in hearing their side, it's not hard to find.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    While the Second Amendment clearly has no "need/sporting/hunting/target” standard, nor does it grant citizens the right to carry whatever gun they see fit for whatever purpose they see fit. That's not my opinion, it's the Supreme Court's:
    The Bill of Rights grants NOTHING. It forbids government from infringing on already existing rights.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,118

    Default

    We use them for feral hogs, because they are the best guns for that.
    They are light and easy on the one shooting, unlike the older guns, that were heavy and recoiled more.

    Those are fine guns for whatever people that shoot need, compared with the old, heavier guns, that were also semi-automatic.

    Why still try getting around in a model T Ford at 35 m/h when we have nice pickups to drive in comfort at 70 m/h?


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 148
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 160
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 11:18 AM
  3. "Brutal Horse-Mounted Assault" on Portland "Occupiers"
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: Nov. 20, 2011, 12:38 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Dec. 11, 2010, 08:08 PM
  5. Psycho Arrested in an Assault by Horse...
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Aug. 13, 2009, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •