Refute common anti gun talking points
- Thread starter Kaybee
- Start date
- Status
badkarmamib
Member
Not enough room on the server to discuss the misinterpretation of the words of the Second Amendment...
Deanimator
Member
No military worthy of the name uses semi-automatic versions of the AR-15 or AK47/AKM/AK74 as its general issue weapon.
But as in the case of Holocaust denial, you can't advocate for racially invidious gun controls WITHOUT being a liar.
FlSwampRat
Member
Internet. Not enough room on the internet.
FlSwampRat
Member
Unlike "assault rifle/weapon", I can define a weapon of war, and my definition is a weapon used by a legitimate army of some country or other in some armed conflict against another country or organized militia and vice versa.
There go a lot of cool M-14's, M-1's, 1903 Springfields, 1883 Trapdoors, Spencers,etc. and that's just American weapons of war that have been much sought after by collectors and rather silly to consider in the context of assault arms.
Tommygunn
Member
"Weapon of War." ALL guns are, or have been that. The most common longarm used in wars of the 20th century was a bolt-action rifle. Do you have a Remington 700? A Winchester 70? A Browning A Bolt?
I don't know if you can really fight it, atleast against the true believers. Just inure yourself, keep a stiff upper lip and entrench yourself.
Back in the 1990s when President Clinton was prattling about a assault weapon ban, the term "weapon of war" was being tossed about for the same reason. At that time the AR-15 was the demon gun, even though it is really only a SEMIauto version of a real "weapon of war."
I didn't have one back then.
But, I DID have an M-1 carbine my father had brought back from the Korean War. It had actually been used in that war, and likely a soldier using it had killed some enemy soldiers with it.
It could well deserve the apellation, "weapon of war." But no one worried about the M-1 carbine.
Just a tidbit to contemplate amongst the hypocrisies of this great debate .......
I don't know if you can really fight it, atleast against the true believers. Just inure yourself, keep a stiff upper lip and entrench yourself.
Back in the 1990s when President Clinton was prattling about a assault weapon ban, the term "weapon of war" was being tossed about for the same reason. At that time the AR-15 was the demon gun, even though it is really only a SEMIauto version of a real "weapon of war."
I didn't have one back then.
But, I DID have an M-1 carbine my father had brought back from the Korean War. It had actually been used in that war, and likely a soldier using it had killed some enemy soldiers with it.
It could well deserve the apellation, "weapon of war." But no one worried about the M-1 carbine.
Just a tidbit to contemplate amongst the hypocrisies of this great debate .......
A few points that I try to get across.
* AR rifles have been sold to civilians for 50 years. In fact the military 1st rejected the idea and they were sold to civilians before the military.
*Real military surplus rifles used in WW-2 were sold to civilians as far back as 1946. Rifles such as the M-1 Carbine hold more than 10 rounds and do essentially the same thing as AR rifles.
*Semi auto and even full auto weapons have been available to civilians for well over 100 years. Hunters and home owners were quicker to adopt such weapons that LE or military.
People have had the tools to initiate mass shootings for a long, long time but did not. The fact that it is happening now isn't a hardware problem. The problem is something else other than the guns.
* AR rifles have been sold to civilians for 50 years. In fact the military 1st rejected the idea and they were sold to civilians before the military.
*Real military surplus rifles used in WW-2 were sold to civilians as far back as 1946. Rifles such as the M-1 Carbine hold more than 10 rounds and do essentially the same thing as AR rifles.
*Semi auto and even full auto weapons have been available to civilians for well over 100 years. Hunters and home owners were quicker to adopt such weapons that LE or military.
People have had the tools to initiate mass shootings for a long, long time but did not. The fact that it is happening now isn't a hardware problem. The problem is something else other than the guns.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
It doesn't matter how you try to correct them on the term "assault weapon" the anti's aren't going to listen and for those that are on the fence and don't know much about guns the best way to reach them is point out maniacs have done as much carnage with other types of guns.
There is one point that can't be refuted though when it comes to gun restrictions " when seconds count the cops are only minutes away".
There is one point that can't be refuted though when it comes to gun restrictions " when seconds count the cops are only minutes away".
This is an old debate that correcting antigun folks on some aspect of naming will make any difference. It won't. If you haven't noticed the more intelligent antigun folks have moved to just calling for bans on semi auto guns totally. The name doesn't make a difference. The term MSSA - military style semi-auto has now started to be used.
So the AR isn't fully auto and not a weapon of war, chortles the gun person. Oh, says the antigun person, Patton said “In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised”. Thus, gun person - at one time a weapon that was semi auto and only had a capacity of 8 rounds was a battle implement. Now, you claim that a semi auto that can have a capacity up to 30 or even 60 rounds cannot be considered a weapon of war.
Well, you are sunk. Also, by pointing out that the AR is nice because it isn't fully auto, you just bought into the NFA bans as those guns are EVIL.
It is the same for MSR usage. Who cares? I said it before and it drives folks nuts. You cannot reduce opposition by making the guns seem nice and sporting. That is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Headlines:
Gun ban proposed as madman uses assault rifle to kill 30.
Gun ban proposed as madman uses modern sporting rifle to use 30.
So the second headline reduces opposition to the ban?
If you point out that other guns are equally lethal, that has been baked in. The anti folks go for the AR because of their appearance and they regard it as an easy target. Then, your point that other guns are equally lethal will lead to an expansion of bans on limited capacity (modified semis that exist in some states and countries with fixed mags), lever action and pump guns. Guns that avoided the bans such as the Mini-14s will be banned as smarter folks figure that out and nuts used them. The same will go for 10/22s as they have been used.
The terminology battle with the risky caveat of full vs semi, is a losing strategy. Folks think it is clever. It is not. It is angels on the head of a pin in the scope of the conflict.
Unless, gun folks can make the case that possessing inherently lethal and deadly weapons (not nice ones) are protected by the 2nd Amend. to protect oneself and protect against tyranny - the battle is lost. No nice terms, sporting, competition, collecting or hunting usage matters. Unfortunately, the gun world messaging sucks in general from the major organizational player. We don't want to redo that cluster debate.
So the AR isn't fully auto and not a weapon of war, chortles the gun person. Oh, says the antigun person, Patton said “In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised”. Thus, gun person - at one time a weapon that was semi auto and only had a capacity of 8 rounds was a battle implement. Now, you claim that a semi auto that can have a capacity up to 30 or even 60 rounds cannot be considered a weapon of war.
Well, you are sunk. Also, by pointing out that the AR is nice because it isn't fully auto, you just bought into the NFA bans as those guns are EVIL.
It is the same for MSR usage. Who cares? I said it before and it drives folks nuts. You cannot reduce opposition by making the guns seem nice and sporting. That is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Headlines:
Gun ban proposed as madman uses assault rifle to kill 30.
Gun ban proposed as madman uses modern sporting rifle to use 30.
So the second headline reduces opposition to the ban?
If you point out that other guns are equally lethal, that has been baked in. The anti folks go for the AR because of their appearance and they regard it as an easy target. Then, your point that other guns are equally lethal will lead to an expansion of bans on limited capacity (modified semis that exist in some states and countries with fixed mags), lever action and pump guns. Guns that avoided the bans such as the Mini-14s will be banned as smarter folks figure that out and nuts used them. The same will go for 10/22s as they have been used.
The terminology battle with the risky caveat of full vs semi, is a losing strategy. Folks think it is clever. It is not. It is angels on the head of a pin in the scope of the conflict.
Unless, gun folks can make the case that possessing inherently lethal and deadly weapons (not nice ones) are protected by the 2nd Amend. to protect oneself and protect against tyranny - the battle is lost. No nice terms, sporting, competition, collecting or hunting usage matters. Unfortunately, the gun world messaging sucks in general from the major organizational player. We don't want to redo that cluster debate.
Tommygunn
Member
(See post #10) ------ And that is why I usually resort back to intractable procrustean dogmatism with these people.
Those headlines will sway people more than cold hearted logic will. People aren't being taught to THINK, only to feel.
Those headlines will sway people more than cold hearted logic will. People aren't being taught to THINK, only to feel.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
Quote from someone I was just debating with on another forum about politics who admits they don't know much about guns
quote "Don't you guys love your kids? Or at least your nieces and nephews, friends kids, etc?
If I had been a castaway for the last 5 years, and was presented with political topics and news stories, I would have thought without hesitation, that banning assault rifles would be the one issue that everyone could agree upon.
What would one need one for that is positive? Target practice? Protection from all the (apparent) dozens of psychos hiding in the bushes waiting to attack you at any moment? I know nothing about hunting, but I don't think you hunt with them either, do you?"
You have to understand the average person that may generally support the right to have a gun but isn't in to them is going to think with emotion while being hammered by the anti's with propaganda, they are going to think " I want my kids safe at school and if banning a AR-15 helps so be it".
Don't bother debating a pro-gun control person you will never change their mind you are better off reaching out to those on the fence.
When the democratic party candidates all raised their hands in favor of free healthcare for illegal immigrants it made it a huge possibility they won't win the next election thus preventing gun bans for now.
quote "Don't you guys love your kids? Or at least your nieces and nephews, friends kids, etc?
If I had been a castaway for the last 5 years, and was presented with political topics and news stories, I would have thought without hesitation, that banning assault rifles would be the one issue that everyone could agree upon.
What would one need one for that is positive? Target practice? Protection from all the (apparent) dozens of psychos hiding in the bushes waiting to attack you at any moment? I know nothing about hunting, but I don't think you hunt with them either, do you?"
You have to understand the average person that may generally support the right to have a gun but isn't in to them is going to think with emotion while being hammered by the anti's with propaganda, they are going to think " I want my kids safe at school and if banning a AR-15 helps so be it".
Don't bother debating a pro-gun control person you will never change their mind you are better off reaching out to those on the fence.
When the democratic party candidates all raised their hands in favor of free healthcare for illegal immigrants it made it a huge possibility they won't win the next election thus preventing gun bans for now.
Last edited:
FlSwampRat
Member
I just checked that and was surprised to find out that there is both a state and federal background check to purchase handguns. In Fla, at least during the first 90 days of a pawn, we used to be able to check with NICS (free check) and after 90 days of a pawn or on any sale we went with FDLE (state check, fee involved) until the state realized how much money it wasn't making.
My question is, what would be different in either database? Why isn't someone trying to make the two identical? As in complete. Who is leaving what out? What's in one that's not in the other that would make the redundancy logical?
When I was RTO at Fort Carson and ran the CCIC/NCIC terminal the data was pretty much the same. Probably because Colorado Crime Information Center just queried the NCIC computer. Seems to me one of the largest problems with enforcing laws and fighting crime is departmental rivalries, is that extending now to their computers, too?
AlexanderA
Member
That's lame. Even the military-issued M16's are habitually used in semiautomatic mode.
We should embrace "weapons of war." After all that's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
FlSwampRat
Member
For ammo conservation and keeping subsequent shots on target. But you have the option with a 16. One flick of the thumb and you go from Waltzing Matilda to Highway To Hell.
Magazine Bans:
This video is probably unnecessarily thorough. The backpack full of revolvers is enough. It isn't rational to think a suicidal mass-murderer will limit themselves to one gun, one magazine, or constrain themselves to only what is lawful.
This video is probably unnecessarily thorough. The backpack full of revolvers is enough. It isn't rational to think a suicidal mass-murderer will limit themselves to one gun, one magazine, or constrain themselves to only what is lawful.
mcmurry
Member
I saw an ad in a gun mag about 2 years back where someone invented a New York approved AR. It had a non removable magazine limited to either 5 or 10 rounds I think, and was bolt action. I haven't heard anything about it since,
FlSwampRat
Member
Deanimator
Member
That's the most facile bit of sophistry. By your "logic", an M1918 BAR and a Remington Nylon 66 are both "weapons of war" because they can both fire in semi-automatic mode.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
That is a uphill battle towards convincing the average voter also. Many don't want to believe tyranny can or will happen in this day and age of the U.S.A. Years upon years of free elections and a good system of government many will look at you as a armchair commando and laugh to think you will take on the might of U.S.A military will your lone AR-15.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
A broken beer bottle is a weapon of war if that's all I got.
Won't someone think about the children?
Won't someone think about the children?
P5 Guy
Member
I gave up a couple years ago. My opinion, if you want is most of the unwashed masses know nothing about the folks/party they are told to vote for. They could not give a flying leap about anything but the football scores or who THINKS THEY CAN DANCE or America's next Idol.
These people should not be granted the privilege of voting in America's elections.
These people should not be granted the privilege of voting in America's elections.
JR24
Member
Right. The very fact that the modern sporting rifles are specifically designed to be semi auto and not select fire means they are weapons of civilians, not weapons of war.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
