If they're talking about the specific gun type, AR-15 (or the style), then it'd be accurate.

Honestly, I think it's the military style, assault style, assault weapon descriptors that don't really mean anything but are always included anyway. I never realized how much it bothers me until now.

 

always bothers us.  send folks links to ruger mini-14 and explain how it is, from a performance pov, virtual identical to an ar-15.  we typical spend +20 minutes explaining what is semi-automatic and why the "ar" in ar-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle 'fore we can even get to Heller.  etc.

 

...

 

the thing is, Gromnir ain't any kinda a pro-gun advocate, but the oft repeated "military style" nonsense drives us up the wall. every time there is a mass shooting with an ar-15 we brace our self for the predictable p00p storm o' misunderstanding and misrepresentations.

 

am not like gd.  we believe the US could benefit from additional gun regulations (preferable at the local level) and we ain't afeared o' the ridiculous scenario whereby if today we allow the State to increase background checks for gun purchases, then tomorrow the newly formed national police will be breaking down doors in the heartland and forcibly emptying citizen gun cabinets. even so, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, so is a far more significant freedom than is drinking coffee while driving or smoking in restaurants. many liberals wanna pretend as if every dead school child in a mass shooting makes radical changes to gun ownership a forgone conclusion, and we do not share such a perspective even if we ain't pro-gun.   

 

regardless, is impossible to have intelligent conversations 'bout gun control when politicians and media is indulging in hyperbole with the "powerful military style" nonsense. is exhausting.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 21, 20187 yr by Gromnir

They should make all semi-auto rifles come mandated to have pink spray jobs.

I've heard it repeated a few times that in the era the 2nd Amendment was drafted the standard firearm was smooth bore muskets. So THAT is the arms they founders meant for us to bear. Well, apparently even THAT isn't allowed in Elk Grove CA :http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/02/19/gun-laws-civil-war-reenactment/

 

  Purely for humor purposes.

I realize it is a very different reality in the media, but I don't think anyone here has been pushing the whole assault rifle narrative. 

I enjoyed reading Clarence Thomas's impassioned dissent at the SCOTUS decision not to intervene in the suit involving California's waiting period. There is a link in the article. It's a long read but worth it: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clarence-thomas-rips-high-courts-decision-not-to-hear-case-challenging-california-gun-law-second-amendment-is-disfavored-right/article/2649503

 

However, a 10 day waiting period does not seem like that big a deal to me. If you want to avoid it go buy your firearm in Nevada. You have to choose your battles. This isn't so onerous as to be worth fighting over.

Edited February 21, 20187 yr by Guard Dog

I've heard it repeated a few times that in the era the 2nd Amendment was drafted the standard firearm was smooth bore muskets. So THAT is the arms they founders meant for us to bear. Well, apparently even THAT isn't allowed in Elk Grove CA :http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/02/19/gun-laws-civil-war-reenactment/

 

  Purely for humor purposes.

 

Rifling did exist then, it just wasn't particularily commonplace, and there were problems with residue gunking it up.

 

Anyways, it seems a little silly to block the use of it in a historical re-enactment, stage blanks are a thing.... The article does mention that they didn't have any problems before now, so, it's just this particular city council being obtuse or something.

If you go fishing for logic in the halls of government you're going to have an empty net. 

Watching these two guys go at each other was interesting:

 

 

Zarif should have brought along a model of an F-16 as a prop. Or not, Bibi's prop usage is always cringe inducing.

we believe the US could benefit from additional gun regulations (preferable at the local level) and we ain't afeared o' the ridiculous scenario whereby if today we allow the State to increase background checks for gun purchases, then tomorrow the newly formed national police will be breaking down doors in the heartland and forcibly emptying citizen gun cabinets.

Reminded me of a joke I saw earlier:

 

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

 

Yes. The background checks are for the PEOPLE, not the GUNS.

Perhaps Americans would be more comfortable with legislation if it was referred to as PEOPLE CONTROL instead of GUN CONTROL.

Probably, words influence more than people admit. See; republicans rebranding family reunification as "chain migration" and suddenly people hate it.

Zarif should have brought along a model of an F-16 as a prop. Or not, Bibi's prop usage is always cringe inducing.

Isn't all prop usage, so?

Like Trump, Bibi needs a diversionary war to distract from corruption at home.

Calling it "people control" is WORSE! That is exactly what we are afraid of. If our history has shown anything it's the United States government is not an institution you want to live at the complete mercy of.

Or call it regulation of the militia.

Calling it "people control" is WORSE! That is exactly what we are afraid of. If our history has shown anything it's the United States government is not an institution you want to live at the complete mercy of.

 

 

From what I've seen that might be what you and some other libertarians are afraid of, but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem for other Americans.

Nah, we just need TRIGGER warnings. Aaahahahahaha...Ill get my coat.

 

Calling it "people control" is WORSE! That is exactly what we are afraid of. If our history has shown anything it's the United States government is not an institution you want to live at the complete mercy of.

 

 

From what I've seen that might be what you and some other libertarians are afraid of, but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem for other Americans.

 

Right. Just remember who was behind the first school mass shooting... and a few more since:

 

Right. Just remember who was behind the first school mass shooting...

 

 

This guy?

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/20/local/me-14688

 

Though maybe this doesn't count

 

Right. Just remember who was behind the first school mass shooting...

 

 

This guy?

 

 

I think for first recorded school shooting, its Heinz Schmidt who killed 5 children in a Breman, Germany school in 1913.

 

Whitman is the first school shooting I can recall for the US, but there were two school bombings (Andrew Kehoe and the Bath School in 1927 and Paul Orgeron and Poe Elementary in 1959) that preceded Whitman's bell tower attacks of '66

Have faith in your organized militia.

 

 

Fake news. There's no tigers in Yemen.