Short Lunch Conversation


September 16, 2003, 12:54 PM
I'm supposed to be in class now, but my alarm didn't go off in time.

In any case, I was at the cafeteria, eating lunch with a couple of guys from my hall. They're all like, "Well, I think it's okay if you want to own handguns, rifles, and semiautos, but not assault weapons. I asked the one gentleman if he knew what an assault weapon was. He said he did because he was in the military. I told him it's a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. He says, "right, like the AR-15". Try as I might to tell him otherwise, he would NOT believe that you can't go to a gun show and buy a select fire AR or AK. "I've seen them there!" he says. I told him that they're either semiautos or pre-86 rifles costing thosuands of dollars.

He was in Army Intel, he says, and they once went on the internet and figured you could buy all the parts (including depleted uranium, apparently) to build an armor-piercing minigun. :rolleyes:

I was trying to avoid semantics, though. I was asked why I "need" an "assault weapon". I told him that I'LL decide what I need and don't need, thank you. And he tells me that "that's your freedom of THOUGHT, but not choice" or something like that.

I might have to work on this guy, but don't see him enough to really do it. He is a gunower, apparently, as it started when he was talking about going shooting this weekend. Handguns are fine, he says, just not "assault weapons".

I honestly don't understand these people. It's like saying you can have a Ford Probe but not a Mustang because nobody really NEEDS a sports car.

Going to get my blood pressure up, is what. But at least my cholestorol is down; half my mozzerella sticks didn't have any flippin' cheese in them. :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Short Lunch Conversation" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Art Eatman
September 16, 2003, 01:07 PM
There was a comment in another thread about how many shotgunners dissociate themselves from the rest of the gun fraternity.

My wife is a good shot. Carries a Model 36 and is willing to use it if necessary. I had an AR15 for a while. Upon first seeing it she commented, "Why would anybody need that? It's ugly!" Some people just can't deal with the "need/want" issue. (I showed her a five-shot, half-MOA group, and pointed out that many target shooters really do like them. She finally agreed that having 20 quick rounds of rabbit-ruiner would likely do for home defense...)

About all you can do is point out that the difference between an AK and a Browning semi-auto hunting rifle is purely cosmetic. And point out that "freedom of choice" is an important and broad-based concept that applies to guns, houses, wives, whiskey, fast-food joints and SUVs.


Henry Bowman
September 16, 2003, 01:11 PM
"Virtual Freedom"

We are free to "think" about freedom. :rolleyes: :fire:

Steve Smith
September 16, 2003, 01:33 PM
Amazing how explaining the TRUE reason for the Second Amendment will get you some very strange looks and even stranger visitors.


September 16, 2003, 01:43 PM
He was in Army Intel, he says

Surely you know what they say about Military Intelligence...

September 16, 2003, 02:13 PM
An oxymoron?

Anyway, the sport car comparison works very well. Who needs a car that can go 150 when you're restricted to 55 or 65 on the highway? Because some people enjoy cars! Point out that more people die in car accidents every year than are killed by armed felons. Good job on not being snobbish about it. Sounds like he listened to too much of that liberal BS on freedom. Freedom of thought??? Everyone has that. There's nothing that can take that away. Freedom of choice, however, was what you were debating, whether he likes it or not.

September 16, 2003, 02:17 PM
Freedom of thought??? Everyone has that. There's nothing that can take that away.
Sounds like a wager to me!
*reaches for hypodermic needle*

September 16, 2003, 02:20 PM
Surely you know what they say about Military Intelligence...
"It ain't..."


September 16, 2003, 02:27 PM
Senator Sheila Kuehl - “There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want.”


Virtual freedom indeed.


September 16, 2003, 03:04 PM
It helps to ding someone with something they like when hearing the "who needs" question.
For example, who needs...
swiss cheese when you have velveeta,
nikes when you have keds,
expresso when you have folgers,
color tv when you have black and white,

and on and on and on and on.

Carlos Cabeza
September 16, 2003, 03:45 PM
A Vespa can get you from point "A" to point "B" but nobody NEEDS a Hayabusa...........:evil: But I'm sure there is some do gooder who is trying to outlaw those too...................:rolleyes:

Travis McGee
September 16, 2003, 04:14 PM
SO many sheeple, so little time. So much work to do, bringing them back around!

Standing Wolf
September 16, 2003, 04:41 PM
Handguns are fine, he says, just not "assault weapons".

Well, I guess somebody's got to hold down the far left end of the bell curve.

September 16, 2003, 08:05 PM
first shoot him with a hand gun and then shoot him with an ar15 and ask him,

"ok, which one hurt more?"


no, nooo, i'm kidding, just kidding...


being an old navy boy, i can say this,,,

Army Intelligence. Isnt that one of them oxy-morons you read about every once in a while?


September 16, 2003, 08:25 PM
If those Colonial Rebels were not better armed than the Redcoats, we would still be paying taxes to the Queen. Yup, those evil Rebels had rifles that could pick off Brit Lieutenants and Sergeants at 300 yards. The Redcoat's Brown Bess smoothbores were sadly outclassed. American riflemen were key to winning battles like Saratoga and King's Mountain. The FFs knew all about this when they penned the 2A.

I bet Mr. "I was in Intelligence" has no clue.

Silver Bullet
September 16, 2003, 08:39 PM
Handguns are fine, he says, just not "assault weapons".
Until, of course, anything that looks like an assault weapon is gone. Then, it's

"Shotguns are fine, just not handguns."

Then, it's

"Single-shot muskets are fine, just not modern firearms."

Then, it's

"Pepper spray is fine, just not anything that shoots a ballistic projectile."


September 16, 2003, 10:37 PM
"Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person".

September 17, 2003, 01:29 AM
Intelligence not required to be "in" intelligence ?.:D


September 17, 2003, 01:53 AM
"Just not assault weapons"

The end argument of "Crime Control". Never mind what the 2A is really about. :rolleyes:

September 17, 2003, 03:16 AM
He seems like a fairly intelligent guy, acutally. This seems to be a case of severe ignorance; he believes that people can buy AKMs at gun shows, and also believes that this is somehow a threat to society.

*shrug* Dont' know how to convince people not to be threatened by something, especially since he's already a shooter and all. You certainly couldn't talk me out of arachniphobia.

(But notice you don't see my trying to enact anti-spider legislation, making the keeping of pet spiders a felony. You creepy spider-lovers can keep your hairy arachnids, for all I care, just don't expect me over for tea. :neener: )

September 17, 2003, 03:43 AM
"Words" get stereotyped .

Best example I observed was behind a "barrier" a shooter fired two rds each from a AR, a single shot .223 and a Mini 14. One rd into a target, one rd into a mellon. He asked the obervers to correctly pick which target was hit with the evil "assault weapon".

They couldn't. Some did ask to shoot the AR...opinions changed...well most of the gals save one thought it was thought it was "functional".

Old Fuff
September 17, 2003, 09:50 AM
It should always be remembered that being in the military does not necessarily make one “gun literate” beyond the particular weapon(s) the individual was trained on. The anti-gun movement has deliberately demonized the “assault rifle” or “assault pistol” or the “assault weapon” because they know that most people, especially the ones that live in urban areas don’t know anything about guns (except that they are scared of them) and those “evil black kind” are the easiest to be scared of.

The rationale of all this is that YOU don’t NEED this particular kind of firearm because **I** am scared of them, and it makes ME uneasy if YOU have one. And no, they don’t want to hear any other explanation from you. They’ve made up their minds, and see absolutely no reason THEIR judgments shouldn’t be imposed on YOU. Of course if things were turned around they’d be very upset. This is the base strategy of the anti-gun movement in the United States, if not the world - and outside of rural areas in the U.S. and Canada it is generally working.

September 17, 2003, 11:41 AM
It all comes down to the sad fact of life that there will always be a large percentage of people who, if they don't like a particular thing, feel some strange compulsion to deprive that thing from others. Be it muscle cars, motorcycles, ARs, Playboy, beer or junk food, somewhere there is a person who has some personal antipathy to it and wants to ruin your day because you don't share that antipathy.

September 17, 2003, 04:47 PM
Remember to quit calling them "assault weapons", they are "homeland defense weapons"

September 17, 2003, 04:56 PM
Remember to quit calling them "assault weapons", they are "homeland defense weapons"

Why? Because "assault rifle" sounds scary? As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to own assault rifles, I mean, real military definition assault rifles (select fire).

I generally dislike playing the semantics game. "Ooh, don't call them assault rifles, that's not politically correct."

Now, I don't call my FAL an assault rifle. It is not, since it's not select fire and fires a full power cartridge (though the nomeclature on the weapon is STG58, STG being a German acronym for something like Strumgwehr, or "assault rifle"). It's a battle rifle.

Don't have a "correct" term for your typical magazine fed, intermediate cartridge, semiautomatic rifle. "Paramilitary rifle" seems to be somewhat descriptive, though not technically correct since, for example, a Mauser isn't a "paramilitary" rifle, but it WAS a "miltary" rifle, being a service arm.

And, of course, you could defend the homeland as well with a boltgun as you could with an AR, depending on the situation.

But, if it makes you guys worry less, when I decribe the laws regarding these types of firearms, I refer to them as "so called" assault weapons, and explain the minor mechanical differences between an "assault weapon" and a non-assault weapon, as defined by the law.

September 17, 2003, 07:30 PM
But "Homeland Defense Rifle" sounds so much more un-bannable :p

If you enjoyed reading about "Short Lunch Conversation" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!