I wrote this

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TySixtus

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
17
I'm not spamming my blog. I want to have a conversation about this, but it is fairly long and there are some expletives, and I know those don't fly over here.

Basically I got tired of all my liberal friends frothing at the mouth over ASSAULT RIFLES!!!. I post on a very left-leaning message board and the hullabaloo over there is insane. And I got soooo tired of repeating myself. So I went to my blog and tried to explain to these knuckle heads what a so-called "assault rifle" is and how it is all made up nonsense.

Anyways I would appreciate any input on what I wrote. Factual inaccuracies are a big deal to me, and I hope I got everything right.
 
I appreciate your efforts in schooling the misinformed. There are plenty of them out there, thanks in part to the media.
 
The problem is that Harold E. Johnson’s assault rifle was already banned. In 1934, the National Firearms Act was passed, an act which effectively banned civilian owner ship of automatic-fire weapons. ... The act was eventually voided and replaced with other laws, but the point here is that since 1934, fully automatic weapons have been tightly controlled items that most civilians could never get their hands on.
Click to expand...
This paragraph is more than half untrue.

Try: "In 1934, the National Firearms Act was passed, an act which tightly regulated civilian owner ship of fully automatic weapons. ... The act was eventually further tightened by the FOPA in 1986 which made it illegal for citizens to buy newly manufactured machine guns, but the point here is that since 1934, fully automatic weapons have been tightly controlled items that most citizens do not own."
 
Last edited:
Let me counter a big part of your argument here by restating the following:

Me said:
The more frustrating thing is that the difference is so completely irrelevant. Many perfectly law-abiding citizens own real M-16 assault rifles and know that they are hardly more or less lethal than the neutered AR-15 semi-auto everyone else owns. And many competition shooters know that with a plain jane AR-15 and a bit of skill a shooter could, were he so sick and deranged, kill just as many (if not more!) people just as fast with rapid aimed fire than could someone burning through a mag with an M-16.

The tools DON'T matter, and aren't the problem. We've used the "they aren't really 'assault rifles' dodge for decades. It doesn't matter to the anits and probably hurts us more than it helps.

We divide and conquer ourselves when we play the "oh, that wasn't MY kind of gun" card.
Click to expand...

The differences are technical and important to us, sure. But don't play the divide and fail game.
 
Finally, “semi-automatic” refers to weapons that will fire one round for every pull of the trigger. This term includes most pistols except for revolvers,...
Click to expand...
Don't the majority of revolvers fire one round for every pull of the trigger? There HAS to be a better way to say that...

... and a fair amount of rifles (not including bolt action, breech loading, or lever-action rifles). Semi-automatic weapons are the most common guns in America – and yes, so called “assault rifles” are included in this group.
Click to expand...
Breech loading? They're ALL breech loading rifles. Every cartridge firing arm made is breech loading.
 
Law makers got together and decided that certain models of certain guns should be banned. They rightfully figured that as soon as they started rattling off model names, other gun companies would swoop in, create a similar weapon and be able to sell it like hotcakes. So, they took the most common characteristics of the models they wanted to get rid of, and set the ban according to those. The problem with this approach is that most of those characteristics were cosmetic in nature. They didn’t deal with the lethality of those guns in any meaningful manner.
Click to expand...

This one's got some unfortunate statements as well. The "problem with this approach" is that the ban was a completely inappropriate and useless infringement on the right to bear arms. The inanity, silliness, and absurdity of that approach is that the factors they picked on were cosmetic and did not reduce lethality ... as if that was a worthy goal in the first place.
 
Read it. Have to say, even in the short time I've been self-censoring on THR, I've noticed how much more intelligent and well-reasoned an argument seems when it's phrased as non-confrontationally as possible, without insults and obscenities. At home, I still sometimes say things that surprise and offend the woman who's loved me for decades, but I'm starting to wonder if I cleaned up my potty mouth, if people wouldn't think I'd found Jeebus... I'm definitely not the one to be judgemental... just saying it might come off better cleaner and less hostile. Being correct is good, but it's hard enough to get people to listen to fact when you HAVEN'T given them an ad hominem reason to dismiss you.
 
Just my .02 but I keep it simple for the simpletons

AR does not mean assault rifle, It means armalite rifle.

My rifle is a stop assault rifle.

Would you like to come to the range with me some time?

Seems to take the wind out of their sails most of the time.
 
The Right to Bear Arms and Then Argue About it on the Internet


Question #4 states a very common argument. It's an argument you’ll hear most often from people who want to ban assault rifles, and it goes something like this: “Assault rifles are designed for killing people. They’re military weapons. Nobody hunts with assault rifles!”
Click to expand...

If you're going to discuss the right to bear arms, might want to mention that the 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, target shooting, or intimidating your wife with whatever you leave on the kitchen table.
 
Sam1911, you're right about the "breech loading" thing. I don't know how that got in there!
 
Also, guys, you have to understand the people I'm communicating with.

We all know that automatic weapons aren't banned banned. They can still be obtained by dealers and other licensed individuals. But the point is, some yahoo off the street can't go into a store and buy one, and that's the point I'm trying to make with regards to which weapons are allowed.

However, if you think I'm doing the argument a disservice I will certainly change it.
 
We all know that automatic weapons aren't banned banned. They can still be obtained by dealers and other licensed individuals. But the point is, some yahoo off the street can't go into a store and buy one, and that's the point I'm trying to make with regards to which weapons are allowed.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you understand. There is no license to buy a machine gun. If you can pass the background check to buy a rifle or pistol, you can purchase a machine gun. It just takes a little longer for the paperwork to clear and costs you a $200 fee to the government. There seems to be no reason why the Aurora, CO shooter would not have been able to buy one if he were so inclined and had the cash.

That and the fact that since the supply has been capped they're very expensive these days.

But if you're going to go kill people, which seems to be pretty danged illegal anyway, a few minutes with a file could make many guns go "full auto." Who cares how illegal that conversion is if you're going to die, or get life in prison, for your actions?
 
I understand that. But, say, in New York, machine guns are banned. If you want to buy a machine gun you need to be a licensed dealer and shell out the requisite money. I know it is different in other states.

But you're right, I should put a paragraph in there about the 1986 law. Thanks for the criticism though.
 
I really like your closing, and i hope you get to many readers
they say you cant fix stupid but keep on trying bro
 
Thanks for the criticism though.
Click to expand...
No problem and good luck.

Just watch out for mis-statements and errors of under/overstatement or omission. Remember, its better in the long run to be perfectly factual and clear. If you rail against ignorance and emotional argument all it takes is one of your opponents to pick up on one little half-truth or exaggeration to blow your credibility all away.
 
A lot of is being born and raised in NY. The atmosphere is so different WRT guns. The whole reason I keep saying machine guns are "banned" is because, well, in New York they are! It's frustrating to keep clear in my brain, but I will make the change.
 
Understood. Probably worth keeping in mind that for many gun owners the restrictions of New York State (to say nothing of NYC!) are unfathomable and abhorrant. Very scary stuff. So, unless you're discussing only what happens in NY, and only with NY residents, you'll need to do a bit more research.

You can always check here for brief overviews of general federal and state laws: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws.aspx

And here for more detailed information on carry laws: www.handgunlaw.us

And here for more detailed info on open carrying laws: www.opencarry.org

And if you want it straight from the horse's mouth (and nearly all correct, even, mostly!): http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html

If none of that helps, just come here and ask! ;)
 
After 1986 new machine-guns were banned.

Post '86 machine-guns are banned.

Legally purchasable machine-guns are all made before 1986.
 
Which makes them insanely expensive and only within the grasp of very serious gun owners and/or collectors . . . who, historically, are not law breakers.
 
I've been doing my best not to respond to my Facebook associates on this issue. I failed in that earlier today when a college buddy posted the most assanine graphic I've ever seen regarding gun deaths and areas with strict ownership regulations. When I was researching his information so I could debunk it I found the following factoid, that since 1986 a fully automatic has been used in the commission of a violent crime twice, in both instances the offender was a sworn officer. I didn't bookmark the article so I can't cite the source and forgive ne if its wrong but if true it goes toward your point above.

BTW, my buddy's misinformation graphic included all gun deaths. Which according to the CDC (2008) 55% of which are suicides.

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2
 
BTW, my buddy's misinformation graphic included all gun deaths. Which according to the CDC (2008) 55% of which are suicides.
Click to expand...

I always love that particular nugget of dishonesty. It makes my day to read it haha.
 
Look at our Resources page in Activism for links to the Uniform Crime Reports, the NICS reports, the ATF reports that show violent crime on the decline for years, firearms sales on the rise. Also compare the number of shall issue carry states to just a few years ago (a dramatic increase).

The correlation of all this information strongly indicates that while we can't prove that "more guns equal less crime" we can conclusively show that more gun control laws does NOT equal less crime. No gun control laws have a beneficial effect on the overall crime rates. The national average for violent crime has dropped ~4% while it has only dropped 0.8% for the part of the U.S. with the most restrictive gun laws. NICS checks for firearms is at an all time high while firearms crimes are at a low for years.

Ask the concerned individuals when's the last mass murder that they can remember where someone used anything like an AR to kill more than 10 people. 5 people? These are so rare that they can't remember when/where/who was involved. They're horrendous, but they don't happen often enough to remember (ask where the largest number of innocents were murdered in the world in the last 3 years and then point out it was Norway where firearms laws are much stricter than the U.S. laws and the culture of gun violence is far milder).
 
ask where the largest number of innocents were murdered in the world in the last 3 years and then point out it was Norway where firearms laws are much stricter than the U.S. laws and the culture of gun violence is far milder
Click to expand...

Wasn't Norway the highest toll in history by a single active shooter? I believe the death toll was 91 people, including the handful that were killed by his bomb before he started shooting at the second location.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Went shooting with my SO in AZ last week
Replies
7
Views
760
HellsBelle
H
O
  • Locked
A piece I wrote for my Contemporay Moral Problems class @ UNCG
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Matt G
M
K
  • Locked
Local Journalist agrees with Zumbo
Replies
9
Views
767
Justin
Justin
H
  • Locked
Another Misinformed Writer
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
bumm
B
theriflespeaks1863
  • Locked
Something I wrote to inspire us...
Replies
17
Views
1K
theriflespeaks1863
theriflespeaks1863
Back
Top