Celebrities, citizens flock to get on NRA blacklist

[Luke T.]

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting?

After all, cars kill more people than guns, but they're not worth a damn for target shooting.

A Lamborghini is not worth a damn for carrying groceries, and it certainly is capable of exceeding the legal speed limit by a great deal...

 

[corplinx]

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting?

Does it matter what its meant for? My gun choice is none of your business.

A liberal is someone who believes that an abortion is their choice and none of your business but a gun sale isn't. The big difference is, someone doesn't die every time there is a gun sale.

Kidding, sorry for the strawman. A pistol instructor once told me this and I like it:

A gun is a tool, it makes holes, thats all.

 

[EdipisReks]

That's because there are so many more 22 caliber guns out there. The question is what purpose are semi-automatic guns meant for? Hunting?

After all, cars kill more people than guns, but they're not worth a damn for target shooting.

semi-automatic simply means that every time you pull the trigger, as long as their is a catridge in the chamber, the gun fires once. if there is a additional cartridge in the magazine, that cartridge is fed and it will be fired if the trigger is pulled again. exactly how is this not appropriate for hunting or anything else? having quick followup shots is the reason double barreled rifles were invented. are you also going to say that a double barreled is not appropriate for hunting? semi-automatic rifles are simply a refinement of that.

p.s. please don't tell me that you are simply a moron who doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic but still thinks that having an opinion automatically makes it valid.

 

[John Harrison]

While I like guns, I don't like semi-automatic tec-9 type murder machines, large capacity magazines ("but I need all 30 rounds to take down a deer"), gun law loopholes, and people who think that a log of gun serial #'s is somehow a violation of their rights.

While I like guns, too, I'm perplexed when people say they like guns but swallow the tripe that the media spews forth about guns, evidenced by calling the POS tec-9 a "murder machine" or believing that magazine capacity magically makes a gun more lethal, not to mention the so-called loopholes or how registration has been used in the past.

Talk about propaganda...

 

[EdipisReks]

there seems to be some confusion. let me clear it up. SEMI-AUTOMATICS ARE ONE ROUND FIRED FOR ONE TRIGGER PULL. THESE ARE NOT "ASSAULT" WEAPONS (THAT IS A HOLLYWOOD TERM ANYWAY, SO NOTHING IS ACTUALLY AN "ASSAULT" WEAPON, BUT I DOUBT THE PEOPLE CONFUSING SEMI AND FULL AUTO WOULD UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION ANYWAY). BEFORE YOU START WHINING AND CRAPPING YOURSELVES, LEARN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SUBJECT. thank you.

 

[Roadtoad]

WE GOT THE POINT, EDIPIS. THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT CLEAR, AND FOR PROVIDING IT AT AN ACCEPTABLE VOLUME!

 

[Tricky]

Semi-automatic simply means that every time you pull the trigger, as long as their is a catridge in the chamber, the gun fires once. if there is a additional cartridge in the magazine, that cartridge is fed and it will be fired if the trigger is pulled again. exactly how is this not appropriate for hunting or anything else? having quick followup shots is the reason double barreled rifles were invented. are you also going to say that a double barreled is not appropriate for hunting? semi-automatic rifles are simply a refinement of that.

Most hunting is done for sport. You may in fact eat what you kill (as all hunters should), but for the vast majority of hunters in the US, it is not their main source of food. So if hunting is for sport, it makes little sense that sportsmanlike hunters would want to severely increase their odds to the point where the already disadvantaged prey would have no chance whatsoever. That is no longer "sport. You might as well just put them in a pen and slaughter them. That is why I say that semi-automatic weapons are not necessary for a hunt, unless you really aren't a sportsman, but rather just someone who likes killing things but is not talented enough to hit them. (And yes, I know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. I come from a family of hunters.)

p.s. please don't tell me that you are simply a moron who doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic but still thinks that having an opinion automatically makes it valid.

I don't believe most here would catagorize me as a moron. I tend to be a bit left of center on most issues, though not all. I am also an omnivore who is not in denial about having a fondness for meat. Also, I am not against owning guns or hunting, even though I choose to do do neither, but rather the proliferation of tools that make holes (thanks, corplinx) so efficiently that they become the optimal tools of criminals. If you can't hit what you are shooting at in two or three shots, then maybe hunting isn't the sport for you. Perhaps golf is your game.

And yes, I think my opinion is valid. It was not reached without considering various sides and it is not unchangeable. I hope the same can be said of you.

 

[peptoabysmal]

A Lamborghini is not worth a damn for carrying groceries, and it certainly is capable of exceeding the legal speed limit by a great deal...

If, however, you have a pregnant wife at home who wants pickles and ice cream, a Lamborghini is an acceptable choice for carrying groceries.

 

[EdipisReks]

Tricky, i wrote a point by point response here, but it was filled with vitriol so i removed it. you are ignorant of hunting, and your posts show it. i would suggest, in a friendly manner, that you read up on it. you might change your mind. hunting game is not a "bang, elk fall down" affair. unfortunately, most people don't realize that. and just so you know, i wasn't calling you moronic, as you do with Tony, i was calling your position moronic. there is a big difference.

 

[EdipisReks]

WE GOT THE POINT, EDIPIS. THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT CLEAR, AND FOR PROVIDING IT AT AN ACCEPTABLE VOLUME!

oh, i'm sure someone will pipe in with something stupid and make me repeat it all in a bigger font size. just you watch.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, i wrote a point by point response here, but it was filled with vitriol so i removed it. you are ignorant of hunting, and your posts show it. i would suggest, in a friendly manner, that you read up on it. you might change your mind. hunting game is not a "bang, elk fall down" affair. unfortunately, most people don't realize that. and just so you know, i wasn't calling you moronic, as you do with Tony, i was calling your position moronic. there is a big difference.

Thank you for removing the vitriol. I admit I am not a hunter anymore, though I did some deer hunting as a boy. Yes, I know you don't often make the kill on the first shot. Or the second or third. Sometimes you miss them all. And I admit that by prohibiting semi-automatic weapons, you may not get the kill. You may even wound the animal and leave it to die a long, agonizing death, though I have a hard time viewing hunters as animal empaths. I still do not believe that any of these reasons are great enough to justify having these kinds of guns in society. Yes, there are (rare) occasions where they may have a legitimate use, but this is outweighed by the (rare) occasions where they may be used by criminals. People were able to kill elk before the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons, and they should be able to do so now. Of course, this is just my opinion. As I say, I am not a rabid anti-gun nut.

And yes, I usually take the same tone that people take with me. Tony has a tendency to scream out things like "bedwetting leftists" at anyone who disagrees with him, so I don't cut him much slack. If you ask people like Kodiak and Wolverine, I believe that they will tell you I am a very polite loonie.

 

[Kodiak]

If you ask people like Kodiak and Wolverine, I believe that they will tell you I am a very polite loonie.

Polite, but a loonie none the less...









Check out my sig...

 

[Tricky]

Check out my sig...

(sniff)Man, I am so honored!

 

[Ranb]

I still do not believe that any of these reasons are great enough to justify having these kinds of guns in society. Yes, there are (rare) occasions where they may have a legitimate use, but this is outweighed by the (rare) occasions where they may be used by criminals.

As I say, I am not a rabid anti-gun nut.

I am not a great white hunter either, but I may be right when I say that a semi-auto rifle or handgun is rarely required or even helpful while hunting large game. Exceptions would be while hunting dangerous game. A quick second shot may be the difference between who walks away from the confrontation. But why should anyone care? I want what I want.

As an American why do you have such a big problem with the fact that gun owners enjoy enhancing their firearms collection with semi-auto firearms or even machineguns? Can you even name one time in the last 50 years when a civilian used a legally owned machinegun to commit murder?

I shudder to think of what other property would be deemed "legitimate" for the general public to own. There are more than enough restrictions on the way we live here in the USA. What else will you want banned or highly restricted because there is the rare opportunity for the criminal to abuse it? Fast cars? Recreational vehicles? Knives? Body armor?

I would say you are an anti gun nut. You would question my desire to own military firearms, and not even care that I am a non-violent person. I get crap from people who find out I make my own silencers, and like to shoot 50 caliber rifles. In my opinion they are bad Americans. They are certainly free to voice their own opinion, but they question my moral judgment just because I am a bit outside of what THEY consider to be the mainstream American gun culture.

I have had a few men tell me they were a bit worried that I owned a 50-bmg rifle. I asked them what they planned on doing to me that made them think I would try to harm them with my 50 cal. Guess what, when they were challenged in that fashion, they found their position to be indefensible and walked away.

Ranb

 

[Hexxenhammer]

While I like guns, too, I'm perplexed when people say they like guns but swallow the tripe that the media spews forth about guns, evidenced by calling the POS tec-9 a "murder machine" or believing that magazine capacity magically makes a gun more lethal, not to mention the so-called loopholes or how registration has been used in the past.

Talk about propaganda...

Who says I'm swallowing what the media (you might as well put "liberal" before that because that's what you mean) says? Of course .22 Saturday night specials kill more people than any kind of gun. You can buy one for under $50! But look at a tec-9 or any other semi-auto "assault weapon" with a big clip. No serious hunter is going to use them. No one soley interested in home or self defense is going to use one. They're too big to be used for conceal and carry. You can't use them for any competetive shooting that I know of. Why should anyone need them? Their sole purpose is to fill the air with lead. More bullets in the air faster=more chances to kill.

I know the "slippery slope" routine. You take these away it will just mean that "they" (jack-booted FBI thugs according to the NRA) will come and take our hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers next. Not going to happen.

The real reason I think many people have assault weapons is that they think they might (and secretly hope) that one day they will get to use them against jack-booted government thugs. It's a little fantasy that they'll get to be a modern day minutemen and then they can proudly spew that "from my cold dead hands" crap. A tiny little power-trip for powerless rednecks.

 

[Kodiak]

But look at a tec-9 or any other semi-auto "assault weapon" with a big clip.

You may not know it, but you're making our point for us. You, like most others who focus on the "assault rifle" term the media loves so dearly, are only addressing aesthetics, what a firearm looks like, not its power, range, rate of fire, or lethality.

I can fire my semi-auto Remington .22 "plinker" rifle or SKS as quickly as a semi-auto "murder machine". And, for the record, my groupings will be far superior to any fired from the type of guns you're so afraid of.

No serious hunter is going to use them. No one soley interested in home or self defense is going to use one. They're too big to be used for conceal and carry. You can't use them for any competetive shooting that I know of. Why should anyone need them? Their sole purpose is to fill the air with lead. More bullets in the air faster=more chances to kill.

Are you qualified to speak for all "serious hunters" and all those "interested in home or self defense"?? I personally have hunted "nuisance animals" like rabbits, raccons, and ground hogs for farmers using a 5.56mm "sporter" variant of the M-16 assault rifle.

A MAC-10, Uzi, or Tec-9 can be easily concealed underneath a light jacket. Damn near anything can be concealed under something like a trench coat.

Any weapon can be used in competition. All you need are two or more competitors with their weapons of choice, and a set of rules...

The real reason I think many people have assault weapons is that they think they might (and secretly hope) that one day they will get to use them against jack-booted government thugs. It's a little fantasy that they'll get to be a modern day minutemen and then they can proudly spew that "from my cold dead hands" crap. A tiny little power-trip for powerless rednecks.

When should I expect my bill for this psychoanalysis via internet??

 

[Furious]

Thank you for removing the vitriol. I admit I am not a hunter anymore, though I did some deer hunting as a boy. Yes, I know you don't often make the kill on the first shot. Or the second or third. Sometimes you miss them all. And I admit that by prohibiting semi-automatic weapons, you may not get the kill. You may even wound the animal and leave it to die a long, agonizing death, though I have a hard time viewing hunters as animal empaths. I still do not believe that any of these reasons are great enough to justify having these kinds of guns in society. Yes, there are (rare) occasions where they may have a legitimate use, but this is outweighed by the (rare) occasions where they may be used by criminals. People were able to kill elk before the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons, and they should be able to do so now. Of course, this is just my opinion. As I say, I am not a rabid anti-gun nut.

And yes, I usually take the same tone that people take with me. Tony has a tendency to scream out things like "bedwetting leftists" at anyone who disagrees with him, so I don't cut him much slack. If you ask people like Kodiak and Wolverine, I believe that they will tell you I am a very polite loonie.

I am also not a hunter from a hunting family, but I'm going to disagree about whether semi-automatic weapons are appropriate for sport hunting. While I'm fairly unimpressed with the lack of accuracy of modern day hunters as a whole, a couple of extra shots are probably a good thing, especially since most of the guns used are semi-automatic shotguns firing slugs, which are pretty inaccurate.

In the rural farming area where I grew up, deer overpopulation is a huge problem. Many of the hunters I know have multiple permits as the state is making a conscious effort to cull the population. My high school physics teacher apparently clears an average of 30 deer a year in roadkill from in front of his house.

You're analogy of herding them into a pen and slaughtering them is practically a reality in my state. I agree one can hardly call it "sport", but there does need to be a serious check on the deer population when no other natural predators exist.

While I think semi-automatic 9mm weapons or better are a little over the top for hunting, saying any semi-automatic shouldn't be used doesn't really fit the bill either.

Having said that, I think the NRA is appalling. I don't want to live in a country that completely bans guns used for the purposes of sport shooting (even target competitions with howitzers would be fine by me if they are registered and done safely) and will most likely never happen, but to hear the NRA say it, background checks and trigger locks today mean the gestapo tommorrow.

The car/gun analogy is rather humorous as well. I know it is primarily for tax purposes, but a major reason cars are registered is for the purpose of tracking down the owner for hit and run accidents. Is it such a big deal to know who bought the gun?

As mentioned before, the NRA would have been a great organization for ensuring the personal liberty of owning a gun if not for the right wing conspiracy whackos who think they actually have a serious shot of defeating a modernized military unaided by a foreign country, and so scream at the thought of having to wait a whole day to get a gun.

 

[EdipisReks]

Who says I'm swallowing what the media (you might as well put "liberal" before that because that's what you mean) says? Of course .22 Saturday night specials kill more people than any kind of gun. You can buy one for under $50! But look at a tec-9 or any other semi-auto "assault weapon" with a big clip. No serious hunter is going to use them. No one soley interested in home or self defense is going to use one. They're too big to be used for conceal and carry. You can't use them for any competetive shooting that I know of. Why should anyone need them? Their sole purpose is to fill the air with lead. More bullets in the air faster=more chances to kill.

I know the "slippery slope" routine. You take these away it will just mean that "they" (jack-booted FBI thugs according to the NRA) will come and take our hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers next. Not going to happen.

The real reason I think many people have assault weapons is that they think they might (and secretly hope) that one day they will get to use them against jack-booted government thugs. It's a little fantasy that they'll get to be a modern day minutemen and then they can proudly spew that "from my cold dead hands" crap. A tiny little power-trip for powerless rednecks.

did you ever think that maybe people just like to have such weapons, just like some people like to have very fast cars? and what do i have to do to get you to realize that semi-autos are not "assault weapons"? and saturday night specials have never been shown, in a study, to contribute to crime, as a cheap gun is still more expensive than a stolen gun. "saturday night" specials aren't even the .22's that are being specified as having killed more poeple than any other cartridge (that is incorrect, however, as the 9mm Prabellum actually takes that honor). and TEC-9's don't have "clips", btw. the last modern firearm to have a clip was the Kelgren designed Grendel pistol.

more bullets in the air doesn't guarantee kills. look at the vietnam statistics. for example, more than 1000 rounds were expended for every one viet cong kill. and if "semi automatic assault weapons" (as you keep erroneously stating) aren't appropriate weapons for home defence, why does Clint Smith, the director of the prestigious Thunder Ranch defence training program, advocate keeping an AR-15 in the home for defence? Massad Ayoob, one of our countries premiere experts in self defence and one of our finest police officers, also reccomends such weapons be kept for home defence. maybe you should try learning a little bit before you spew forth what it is that you spew.

 

[Kodiak]

but to hear the NRA say it, background checks and trigger locks today mean the gestapo tommorrow.

Respectfully, you're misinformed. The NRA is all for a national computerized instant background check. They are opposed to a waiting period, though. Also, do not infer that the NRA does not want firearms left unsecured. The NRA has no problem with trigger locks, only when someone proposes that they be mandatory. There are alternatives to trigger locks that do not impede the rightful owner from quickly accessing his weapon.

The NRA is not some super-sneaky cabal as Micheal Moore and others, including many in the media, would have you believe. The NRA is nothing more than concerned people joining together to protect a cherished right. If you are pro-gun, but anti-NRA, feel free to join and make changes from the inside. Every member is heard, and anyone can run for a leadership or advisory position within the NRA.

 

[Wolverine]

Check out my sig...