Standard, semi-automatic weapons used in Norway attack.

[Atypical Liberal]

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

He hollowed out the rear seats of his Hyundai Atos in order to have enough space for the firearms he hoped to buy. After two days, he bought professional materials about mining, which were supposed to give him an alibi in case someone suspected him of preparing a terrorist attack.<79> He wanted to buy an AK-47 assault rifle (this firearm is however not common in the country, unlike Vz. 58), a Glock pistol, hand-grenades and a Rocket-propelled grenade, stating that getting the latter two would be a "bonus". Contrary to his expectations, he was completely unable to get any firearms in the Czech Republic, and noted that it would likely be easier to buy illegal weapons in Western European cities. Following this failure, he decided to obtain a semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol legally in Norway, noting that he had a "clean criminal record, hunting license, and a pump action shotgun Benelli Nova already for seven years", and thus obtaining the guns legally should not be a problem.<77>

Back in Norway, Breivik obtained a legal permit for Ruger Mini semi-automatic carbine, ostensibly for the purpose of hunting deer. He bought it in autumn 2010 for € 1,400. Getting a permit for the pistol proved more difficult, as he had to demonstrate a regular attendance at a sport shooting club.<79> He was able to acquire a suppressor for the Ruger, and bought 30 magazines from a US supplier. In November, December and January he went through 15 training sessions at the Oslo Pistol Club, and by mid-January his application to purchase a Glock 16 pistol was approved.<80>

So, it seems now that the shooter in the Norway attacks purchased his firearms legally, using a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle and a standard semi-automatic pistol. He bought his weapons one to seven years prior to the attack, had permits for them, and belonged to a sport shooting club to satisfy the requirements of the law.

What can we infer from this?

Waiting periods, mandatory registration and/or permits, and sporting club memberships won't stop anyone who is committed to a course of action.

[AzWorker]

1. Yep, not even a so-called "assault weapon"....

Worth repeating....

"What can we infer from this?

Waiting periods, mandatory registration and/or permits, and sporting club memberships won't stop anyone who is committed to a course of action"

[iverglas]

9. you can "infer" what you like

... or say you infer it.

Me, I'll continue to infer what I generally do.

Handguns and semi-automatic firearms should not be available to the general public.

Period.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. Firearms appropriate for militia use.

Handguns and semi-automatic firearms should not be available to the general public.

As you know, in our country, our Constitution specifically enumerates the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Arms appropriate for infantry militia use.

By this metric, nearly any firearm appropriate for infantry in the National Guard should be appropriate for the people to bear. This would include handguns and semi-automatic firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Doesn't say anything about non militia use

I'm sure all the OC and CC toters are members of the NG toting on official Militia business.

[petronius]

29. The national guard isn't the militia

And there is nothing to suggest the right to own firearms is limited to militia-related activities, merely that that possibility is the justification for it...

[Starboard Tack]

32. Well you need to tell Atypical Liberal that

but I think the inference is not the right to own but to bear being militia related. You keep your musket on the farm unless you're called to duty in the militia.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. The National Guard IS the militia. Or is what is left of it.

The Dick Act of 1903 created the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia.

Of course, the actual intent of militias during the founders' day was to create state-controlled military forces not directly under the control of the federal government. State National Guard units function much more on behalf of the federal government today than state militias did then.

[RSillsbee]

42. Several states DO have state militias

that are NOT under Federal control nor are they subject to be.

[PavePusher]

45. Feel free to cite to support for your hypothesis. n/t

[SteveM]

60. You have missread the Second Amendment...

The so-called "militia clause" states the federal government's interest in the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. You will find authority for the federal government to call up the militia in the Articles. The rest of the Second Amendment speaks to "the people," and no where else will you find "the people" abstracted to mean a group or organizational "right." Put another way, had the federal government not been given the power to call up a militia, you would have seen an even shorter version of the Second.

[Starboard Tack]

62. No I haven't misread it, just interpret it differently

That's why it needs to be repealed, rethought and rewritten so as to be less ambiguous.

[petronius]

63. It's only ambiguous to those who wish to see it that way...

:shrug:

[SteveM]

68. Well, at least you are up front about repealing the 2nd, and for that I commend you...

Alan Dershowitz, no friend of the Second, said in debate that you cannot torture the Amendment into meaning something it doesn't; that it is obsolete or no longer relevant, description which he feared could be applied to other Amendments. He said if you didn't like the Second, repeal it.

I think the prospects for that are nil; in fact, the only viability in such a proposal would be to drop the "militia clause" altogether (though the powers given Congress would still exist in the Articles). Curiously, though I do not favor such, one could make the case, given the militia clause, that Americans when summoned to militia duty, providing THEIR arms which shall be suitable for military service, could bring full-auto weapons, since these are the standard suitable weapon around the world and certainly in our own military.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Yeah, well some use 2A to justify the indiscrimate proliferation of firearms

while others recognize how ludicrous it is to base the justification for this proliferation on a document produced over 200 years ago for reasons that no longer apply in a world that has produced military grade weapons beyond the imagination of the founding fathers.

[petronius]

85. What "some"? I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who favors

"indiscriminate proliferations" - sounds like a remarkably fringe position at most. :shrug:

More importantly, I really dislike your casual dismissal of part of the BoR as obsolete - what else do you want to chuck out because the Framers couldn't have imagined something? As SteveM points out, there is a method for revising the document, and it's rigorous for good reason. If you think we need a new amendment you're free to advocate for it, but simply pretending the 2nd A. is irrelevant or obsolete is the truly ludicrous position (with disturbing implications)...

[Starboard Tack]

87. I didn't say chuck anything out

It needs to be re-written (amended) in the same way amendments gave women and minorities the rights to fully participate. There is nothing extreme about my position, in spite of my occasional rhetorical excesses.
I do not believe for one moment that any of the founding fathers would support the toting of such weapons as are around today in a civilian environment. What's next? A suitcase nuke for everyone.

[petronius]

89. As long as you're aware of your rhetorical excesses

(And so I'm clear, "suitcase nuke" is one of them, yes? :))

You're certainly free to advocate for a change in the Constitution, but until it actually happens I say that claims about the obsolescence of elements of the BoR, or anything the Framers couldn't imagine, deserve zero credibility. In a general sense, I see that line of thinking as a form of picking and choosing what laws 'really' matter and which ones can be dismissed - a dangerous mindset, IMO...

[Starboard Tack]

91. Well that's how laws get changed, by picking and choosing

or do you just accept whatever is dished out? Like drug prohibition

[petronius]

93. Perhaps we should define our terms - I'm not talking about the rigorous process

of amending the Constitution or passing a law when I say "picking and choosing." What I'm objecting to is the casual dismissal of any part of the BoR, with claims like "the founders couldn't have meant..." or "that's just obsolete." So long as the 2nd is in the BoR it deserves a great deal of deference, and the arguments I listed and their like deserve none...

[SteveM]

90. No one here has "justified the indiscriminate proliferation of firearms:"

In fact, I believe I am safe in saying that all pro-2A folks support current laws which ban firearms possession by convicted felons (some want the ban to extend to domestic battery misdemeanors), and which ban firearms from those adjudicated as mentally incompetent. That firearms have proliferated is clear, but even after over 100,000,000 more have gone into civilian hands since the mid-1990s, our crime rate has actually fallen.

The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, adding that the federal government must insure this because it is charged with the power to call up militia -- but is the government's only interest; otherwise, the right is to be strongly defended, just as the First, or any of the others.

I should point out that the meaning of militia, from pre-Revolutionary times to the present, is that the citizen is charged with the duty to report when called and providing his/her own weapon suitable for military service. Please don't get hung up on flintlocks and such. The First Amendment speaks of the "press," yet who would blithely support the restriction of, say, your computer? After all, it is not a "press." Neither the First nor the Second reference a static technology, just what was available and suitable for the times.

[RSillsbee]

75. Maybe this will help you get it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

Enjoy

[beevul]

82. There are clear directions how it is to be read, within the bill of right itself.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org


It is not our fault if you can't be bothered to read it according to them.

[Starboard Tack]

92. Oh that's great. Thanks a lot. Debate over. Wonder what all the hoopla was about

[beevul]

98. I don't.

The hoopla is about people that dont LIKE to read it acording to those directions, and don't WANT to read the bill of rights that way, except for when they do.

Nobody questions the fact that the first amendment is a restriction on government power.

Oddly, though, when it comes to the second amendment, there are those that seem to forget that the entire purpose of the bill of rights is to constrain government.


Based on your "militia" argument, that would appear to describe you.

[beevul]

80. You're right about that.

Of course it doesn't say anything about militia use either.

In fact, the restriction on government commonly known as the second amendment makes no distinction whether government is only forbidden from infringement in the case of militias, or the case of individuals.

It just makes clear that government shall not infringe BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

If it had stated that government shall not infringe because "we the framers feel like it", the restriction on government would not have changed one bit.


The "militia" card has been played, and it was one from a losing hand.

Losing due to a lack of fundamental understanding of the document itself, and how it functions.

[iverglas]

36. ideas appropriate to the 18th century

I love 'em!

I can think of loads of them that I miss sorely ...

[Atypical Liberal]

39. Like freedom of speech? Separation of powers?

Just because an idea is old does not mean it is not right.

Democracy and Republics date at least to ancient Greece and Rome.

[iverglas]

40. or maybe women, children and other people as property

Just because an idea is old does not mean it should not be examined.

If upon examination it is found to be counterproductive in modern society, or contrary to modern values, then boot it to the dustbin of history.

I can't think of many ideas more counterproductive and ludicrous in modern society than the one that individuals in the USA should possess weapons designed for military use in order to form a militia. I mean, it's not even like you have potential invaders sitting on your borders (lest anyone raise the Switzerland thing, where the whole idea has become dustbin-ready and problematic anyhow).

I mean, it's not like anyone really believes in the suitability or efficacy of this notion, from the right wing of the Supreme Court down to the right wing of the Democratic Party. And it's not like anyone else is actually fooled when they say they do.

[Atypical Liberal]

49. Absolutely!

Just because an idea is old does not mean it should not be examined.

Absolutely.

If upon examination it is found to be counterproductive in modern society, or contrary to modern values, then boot it to the dustbin of history.

We have examined the right to keep and bear arms, and have decided as a nation that it is better for people to have the means to defend themselves and endure the consequences of the tiny minority of firearm owners who abuse that right than it would be to not have the means to defend themselves.

I can't think of many ideas more counterproductive and ludicrous in modern society than the one that individuals in the USA should possess weapons designed for military use in order to form a militia. I mean, it's not even like you have potential invaders sitting on your borders (lest anyone raise the Switzerland thing, where the whole idea has become dustbin-ready and problematic anyhow).

That's because you misunderstand the motivation for having a decentralized military force. The reason for having a decentralized military force, or at least having the ability to counter the central military force, has nothing to do with potential invaders sitting on our borders.

Military forces were intended to be decentralized to make them difficult to wield without a unifying cause, for use against either internal or external threats.

That means that the federal government would not have the military teeth to oppress within nor without, because with the military power resting in the hands of the people of the respective states, you would have to collectively marshal them to inflict oppression either on their fellow states, or in pursuit of imperialistic efforts.

Our country has been marching inexorably towards an imperial entity at least for the last 40 years. We now wield our federal military might primarily as a tool to protect financial interests. To say that decentralizing this kind of power has no application in modern society is to turn a blind eye to the abuses that such a concentration of military power has already allowed our nation to perpetuate.

I mean, it's not like anyone really believes in the suitability or efficacy of this notion, from the right wing of the Supreme Court down to the right wing of the Democratic Party. And it's not like anyone else is actually fooled when they say they do.

I believe it.

[Nicolo Republic]

71. Very well said.

The U.S. was never intended to have a full time standing army. The writers of the constitution feared both the cost of upkeep and threat to individual liberties. Individual state militias made up of citizens (what we now call National Guard) were considered sufficient in all cases except for foreign invasion.

We never had a large full time standing army until World War II/the Cold War era and we've now turned the corner to becoming an empire as a result. The Patriot Act and the debt crisis are no mere coincidence with the fact that we are currently fighting 2 1/2 wars of empire to protect corporate interests.

There is sound logic for the Second Amendment and it's still true today. Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote in a constitutional commentary in 1833 regarding the Second Amendment:

"The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

[iverglas]

94. ideas appropriate to the 18th century ...

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Our state constitution is significantly more modern.

Never had slavery in our state.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

-1889

(well within the timeperiod of repeating arms.)

[RSillsbee]

23. You're welcome to your opinion NT

[Starboard Tack]

27. It sure would save a lot of lives

Seems like some folks are never satisfied.

[Kennah]

31. Prohibition worked so well with alcohol, and it's paying off like a charm with drugs, right?

[iverglas]

38. my fingers are tired

Here. Just one of many.

iverglas demolishes the idiotic drugs/firearms prohibition analogy

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. So are your arguments, though they are very persuasive to those that already agree with you.

Just for starters:

I do note that you mention that there has been fully-automatic weapons fire in areas where cigarette smugglers operate.

That fact that is highly illegal both in the States and Canada did not prevent it.

Why should we believe that "harm reduction" (which is what any gun law is) won't work, when it seems to be working in the US?

[redgiant]

76. Flaw in your argument

You said, "Prohibitions on owning or doing things that large numbers of people have either very strong reasons or very strong urges to own or do on a regular basis certainly do often result in crime and violence. Prohibitions on owning or doing things that people have no need and no raging desire to do, don't."

You apparently believe that firearms fall into the category of things described in the last sentence. It's fine with me if you want to hold that erroneous opinion, but you seem to want to use the force of law to impose that view of what others don't need or want to do on others.

[iverglas]

95. nope

you seem to want to use the force of law to impose that view of what others don't need or want to do on others.

I'm always amazed at how things seem to some people hereabouts, I always am.

I actually want to use the law, where advisable in the public interest, to place such reasonable limits on the exercise of rights and freedoms as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

You won't recognize what I'm quoting from, but I assure you it is one of the most widely-admired and copied rights-and-freedoms instruments in the modern world.

The limits I advocate on the exercise of the freedom to possess firearms are, in my own and more exalted opinion, reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

It ain't just me who believes that nobody has such an intense "need" to cart a firearm around with them in public, for instance, that it is not outweighed (applying a somewhat complex and very careful analytical framework) by the public interest in keeping firearms out of public spaces.

[redgiant]

74. Your words really mean...

...the general public has no right to the means of effective self-defense.

[iverglas]

96. your words really mean

that you will say anything at all to advance your agenda, regardless of reality and regardless of what you actually know to be reality.

[jpak]

2. "and bought 30 magazines from a US supplier"

Did Jared Loughner get his there too - from some other NRA Ameriklan gun shop asshole?

Gunwalkers & accessories/co-conspirators to mass murder.

yup

[Atypical Liberal]

3. There are thousands of such suppliers.

You can buy factory and aftermarket magazines for the Ruger Mini series of rifles and the Glock series of pistols from literally thousands of stores in the United States and, no doubt, around the globe.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

[jpak]

6. Spreading Death Ameriklan Style around the world

yup

[TPaine7]

17. Do you have a problem with America, too? Is that part of being an anti,

not merely the domain of certain pretentious Europeans and Canadians?

Do tell.

Aren't there better places for a discontented anti than amongst "Ameriklan" people? And where did you get your gun(s) if not from the family and self defense and sport and hunting equipment "death merchants"?

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Probably not made in America.

I would bet you a dollar that 75% or more of the magazines are not even manufactured in the United States.

[Riftaxe]

4. I suspect with enough help and patience

and a remedial visit to 7th grade shop class, even you could be taught to make a magazine.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. but

no one has to make them because they are so readily available for killing in America.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. I know, it's a shame he wasn't forced to reload like Seng-Hui Cho.

Then there wouldn't have been a mass shooting.

Oh, wait...

[RSillsbee]

24. Do all your weapons have 10 round or less magazines? NT

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. IIRC, the original "postal" killer had nothing BUT 10 round magazines.

So all this talk of "dangerous" high-capacity magazines is, at best, security theater embraced by the overly credulous.

[RSillsbee]

61. I am aware of this

However, I wanted to see if Myrna was a 'Guns (and standard capacity magazines) for me and not for thee" hypocrite.

Please note that he has ignored my question. Which is, I think, all the answer I need.

[east texas lib]

5. Always with the well thought out, intellectual response...

You're the bomb! Yup.

[gejohnston]

15. I bought pistol magazines from a Canadian supplier, so is the RCMP doing a

gunwalker too?

[PavePusher]

18. Your conflation is utterly vile. n/t

[MyrnaLoy]

7. So you are saying

any law-abiding citizen, with access to such weapons, can go bad. Making more weapons available is the answer I guess.

:sarcasm:

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Nah, tough gun laws like Norway, or Mexico, or Jamaica are the answer.

That'll put an end to this sort of thing...

[TPaine7]

12. Lead the way--give up your permit and gun(s). n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

19. How did having no weapons available work out?

Making more weapons available is the answer I guess.

How did being defenseless for nearly 2 hours in the face of a single man armed with a rifle and a pistol work out?

[Euromutt]

78. Yes, that's exactly what he's saying, apart from the bits where he's not

Those latter bits would be the entire post. As the OP makes quite clear, Breivik was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "law-abiding citizen who went bad." He first developed the plan of committing mass murder, and then set out to acquire the weapons with which to do it. In fact, his first efforts were by illegal means.

The fact is that someone who wants a weapon badly enough, and is willing to acquire and possess it illegally if necessary, can get one with a modicum of time, effort and money almost anywhere in the world. Pim Fortuyn and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29">Theo van Gogh are not dead as a result of Dutch gun laws not being stringent enough.

And very few people will claim that "making more weapons available is the answer." However, many pro-RKBA types, myself included, will argue that there is no reason to believe that permitting private citizens to carry firearms in public will make matters worse (since any would-be mass shooter will acquire the weapons he wants, and given that he's intent upon committing multiple instances of premeditated murder--generally considered the most severe crime an individual can commit--will not be stopped by laws, regulations or institutional policies prohibiting from bringing guns to the site of his prospective massacre) and it will at least give any prospective victims at least a chance of fighting back and perhaps cutting short the murderous rampage. Thus, when we subject the idea of relaxing restrictions on concealed carry in supposedly sensitive areas to a cost/benefit analysis, there is at least a potential (albeit not guaranteed) benefit, with no discernible cost.

That is, as long as you don't subscribe to the idea that regular people "just snap" without warning and with minimal provocation. Which you shouldn't because it's bullshit. Remarkably resilient bullshit, but bullshit all the same.

[onehandle]

13. Clearly it won't do any harm to sell nukes at the quickie mart. nt

[gejohnston]

14. even if you could, who can afford one or have a place to put it

perfect example of what I just posted here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439792&mesg_id=440147

[petronius]

21. At least that would be safer than the hot dogs down there...

[ileus]

16. Looks like I may have to invest in some more 30 round mags for my AR's and Mini.

[RSillsbee]

25. I got a mess of 20/ 25 rounders for my mini

at the last gunshow. 15 bucks each

[ileus]

37. I only bought factory 20's for my mini...

I've actually thought about buying a couple of 30's just to have. It come with 15 30's of various quality but I've never shot any of them. In fact my 20's are still in their package. I've only used the two factory 5's.

[RSillsbee]

41. Believe it or not ProMag makes a good Ruger magazine

I used my 20 rounders just enough to know they work and then put them away. I practice strictly w/ the factory 5 rounders.

Ruger factory 20 round magazines are too damned expensive

[ileus]

44. I have a promag 30 but have never tried it...

my promags for my Sub2000 (9mm) work great.

Yeah I have a thing for 20's....most of my AR's mags are pmag 20's.

[RSillsbee]

50. My theory is I'd rather find out it doesn't work at the range

than sitting on top of my house shooting zombies.

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in the Army I made sure that all my M16 magazines were 20 rounders because I have short arms and it makes it easier to become one w/ the earth when you are being shot at

[Blown330]

47. I have a more than a dozen...

of pre-1970 Colt 20-rd AR magazines. Prefer them to the USGI 30rd mags i have. More comfortable to load and shoot from the prone. I have a few of the H&K high quality steel 30rd mags too.

[applegrove]

26. There should be a limit to how many guns somebody can own and how many

magazines they can buy.

[Kennah]

30. Because it's OK to kill 6 people with a revolver, but no more?

Are we seriously talking about death mitigation and reaching the point it's OK so long as fewer than X number of people get killed?

[slackmaster]

33. Yeah, the magazines do tend to get out of hand

I don't know what I'm going to do with forty subscriptions to Vibe.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. How would this have done anything to prevent the Norway shooting?

The shooter there owned one of every standard class of firearm. A hunting rifle, a pistol, and a shotgun.

[RSillsbee]

43. Why ?

What would that accomplish?

[Blown330]

46. I guess you also want limits...

on how much property you can own, how many cars you can own, a limit on personal income, a limit on how many Calories you can consume, a limit on how much freedom of speech you can enjoy and how many times you can invoke your 5th Amendment rights. How very thoughtful of you.

[Hoyt]

48. When I see gunners with a lot of guns, and one or more strapped to their body-- I wonder about them.

Pretty good indications something ain't right.

[RSillsbee]

51. And just how often do YOU see "Gunners"

W/ more than one gun strapped to their body?

[ileus]

52. I saw one on Showtime this weekend.

[Hoyt]

53. Pull up a lawn chair outside gun shows, Tea Party meetings or similar gatherings.

[RSillsbee]

54. That's odd Every gunshow I've EVER been to

forbids the carry of loaded weapons on the premises.

Are you sure you know what you'r talking about?

[Hoyt]

58. That's why I said "lawn chair" -- watch em parade their old or new acquisitions outside.

Obviously, gun show promoters know it's best not to have toters walking around and drooling.

[ileus]

59. So what do you have against funshows? and people attending them?

[Hoyt]

66. Today's popular guns aren't "fun." They are marketed for capability to kill a lot of folks quickly.

Bought and carried for same reason by many.

[oneshooter]

70. So you prefer to do your killin one shot at a time? n/t

[ileus]

79. I've bought two this year...both single shots

both hunting rifles....a 308 and a 7mm-08

You could also call both of them sniper rifles depending on what application I put them to.

Same goes for my AR's I can use them improperly, but I don't. Technically they're no different than my single shots except I don't have to reload them as often.

My pistols same difference, they're paper punchers unless I make them do otherwise.

As I always say guns are innocent safety/hunting/target devices. They were made to enjoy, to enhance our lives and the time we spend with our family shooting them. Some also serve double duty with the task of defending us.

[Euromutt]

81. You've made that claim before, in January, and you didn't substantiate it then either

Can you show us an example of an advert for a firearm intended for the private market that says, in so many words, "this firearm is highly suitable for killing a lot of folks quickly"? Just provide a link; after all, if we're talking marketing, we're talking advertising, and you can't advertise a product if prospective buyers can't see it, so logically, it should be viewable to the general public.

Or does this "marketing" only exist in the same pocket dimension as your "photo of some 'cowboy' with two guns poking out", which you claimed "I could show you" but oddly haven't managed to actually produce? I think we might be forgiven for suspecting that this pocket dimension is accessible only from your colon because you certainly appear to have pulled these claims out of your ass.

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. And you have some examples of said marketing techniques to show us, right?

You made the argument, it's up to you to demonstrate it.

[oneshooter]

99. Don't expect a reply. He is too scared to even show us a "cowboy" picture! n/t

[benEzra]

97. Au contraire. They are *more* fun than your traditional, kludgy-gripped, hard-kicking

Today's popular guns aren't "fun." They are marketed for capability to kill a lot of folks quickly.

Au contraire. They are *more* fun than your traditional, overpowered, kludgy-gripped, hard-kicking "traditional" guns.

My "fun gun", competition gun, plinking gun, target gun, and HD long gun is a Rock River Arms 16" midlength carbine (non-automatic centerfire .22, for non-gunnies).



And I'd love for you to show me where Rock Rivers are "marketed for a capability to kill a lot of folks quickly." Which is BS anyway, since rifles are the least misused weapons in America and you know it.

[ileus]

56. guns at gun shows.....couldn't be.

[rrneck]

88. Will Gretchen be there to bring us a Chardonnay?

I just hate venues that can't provide properly obsequious service. It's barbaric, not properly serving people of substance. Some simply have no appreciation for good taste and proper breeding. The only thing that should stick out is one's flatulent bigotry.

[Blown330]

64. False.

We all know when you see something that even hints of a gun you find a place to hide. Your impotent rage at those who have made the decision not to be victims is comical. If it was me I would judge your actions to be evidence of something that "ain't right".

[Hoyt]

67. Learn to protect yourself in public parks, restaurants, churches, bars, etc., without need for gun.

Your "impotent" fears are comical and detrimental to society.

[Blown330]

73. I can protect myself just fine...

...in any situation regardless of how I'm armed. Far better than you could ever be seeing as I'm not so delusional as to spurn a tool simply because I harbor unfounded and irrational fears. Impotent rage, impotent fear, impotent mind....you check every block.

[beevul]

83. Learn to live your life without the need to control the lives of others.

People that just can't live without making sure everyone is living life THEIR way, are far more a detriment to society than every firearm ever made.

[oneshooter]

69. Why don't you show us your pictures of a "cowboy" with 2 guns sticking out.

[gravity556]

77. I agree completely

You should only be permitted to have as many guns and mags as you can afford and/or fit inside your house.

[SteveM]

65. But it matters not to some controller/banners. The intellectual dishonesty...

was by intent:

"Assault weapons¿½just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms¿½are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons¿½anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine Gun¿½can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." (Peculiar markings on VPC website.)

This is intellectual dishonesty and corruption as its starkest, and it fueled and continues to fuel the MSM-led push for more gun-control.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

BTW, "...few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." Is wrong as well. Three years ago it was estimated that AK and AR platformed rifles were now in the hands of 15,000,000 ("few") people, as the weapon is increasingly used for home defense, outdoor shooting sports and hunting. Yes, hunting. As has been explained by others in this forum, the AK-47 clone (semi-auto) has an approximate caliber of .30, and with the proper bullet design has the power and performance of the old "30-30," one of America's oldest and popular deer rifles. More importantly, this weapon-type has been re-chambered for more powerful big-game rounds. And "few people" dispute the ergonomics and firing ease of these weapons when compared with, say, the semi-auto Remington 742 and its derivatives, walnut & blue-steel semi-auto hunting rifles which have been around for decades.

Further, according to FBI data, rifles (of ALL types) are used in fewer than 3% of shootings. That includes the ubiquitous .22 as well as the AKs, ARs, etc. Not a popular gun for crims & thugs -- except on CSI T.V. shows.