I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.

[GamecockJL]

Can anyone define what an assault rifle is?

 

[MookieBlaylock9]

Not good. 'Merica

 

[The Gadfly]

You do not want to use your M4 as a fully automatic weapon in combat. You have actual automatic weapons you use for suppressing fire. You want targeted rounds down range with your M4s.

The M16s were originally full auto, but they switched to a three round burst because they realize how ineffective it was as a automatic weapon.

Quite true. A lot of troops in Vietnam, especially early on, would use their M16s on “rock and roll”. It didn’t take too much experience with that, to figure out that was mostly a waste of ammunition; as one infantryman put it, "you can’t hit anything with it that way”. You want suppressive fire? That’s what an M60 (and now the M249) is for. I’ve had no experience with the 3 round burst version, so I don’t know how well that might work, but the typical grunt doesn’t need a full-auto weapon. A couple of M60s will put a lot of lead downrange in a hurry (as I imagine a couple M249s will). You need more than that, you need a crew served weapon, and/or indirect fire support, not individual automatic weapons fire.

 

[GamecockJL]

Not good. 'Merica

View embedded media

What is an assault weapon ban? Did the shooter use an assault weapon?

 

[Lurker123]

Just so you're accurate, the AR15 came first. Then the military adopted the platform for M16.

True, if memory serves, armalite tried to sell the ar15 to the military, who said no.

Colt then bought out armalite, or just the rights to that design. After that colt
made a fully auto rifle (m16) that was adopted by the military. When it was adopted by the miltary, colt used that popularity to sell the ar to police and the public as a civilian version.

 

[Silver_Coconut]

True, if memory serves, armalite tried to sell the ar15 to the military, who said no.

Colt then bought out armalite, or just the rights to that design. After that colt
made a fully auto rifle (m16) that was adopted by the military. When it was adopted by the miltary, colt used that popularity to sell the ar to police and the public as a civilian version.

Yep. That's the gist.

 

[psmith5532]

Fun fact...2 cases of voter fraud, let’s make voting more difficult
38,000 gun deaths a year, let’s make buying guns easier
What great leaders we have...

 

[Silver_Coconut]

Fun fact...2 cases of voter fraud, let’s make voting more difficult
38,000 gun deaths a year, let’s make buying guns easier
What great leaders we have...

Meanwhile, guns save millions of lives per year, and you want to reduce their ability to do so.

 

[psmith5532]

Meanwhile, guns save millions of lives per year, and you want to reduce their ability to do so.

How so? Any facts to back that up? Take the military and police out of the equation how do guns save lives?

 

[Silver_Coconut]

How so? Any facts to back that up? Take the military and police out of the equation how do guns save lives?

From the CDC:

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.

www.cdc.gov

 

[lilburncock]

The Shot Heard 'Round The World: April 19th, 1775. One must note however, that that initial impulse or incentive arose from what was then conceived as blatant inconsiderate arrogance/ignorance of the British Parliament.

Case in point: The Sugar Act of 1764. There's also The Stamp Act as-well, so by all means feel free to "click that link" should your curiosity influence you to do so.

The point in reference is that the initial concern of the colonies was mainly in regards to the ultimate intent of the British Parliament; the very question that, in fact, ignited the American Revolution, or in a more fitting term, The United States War of Independence, with the reasoning or main issue simply being the concern of taxation without representation!

Just thought I'd mention such. Later.

All very true, but the trigger for the rebellion was the British moving to disarm the colonist.
It all has kind of a familiar ring doesn't it?

 

[lilburncock]

Agreed.

I also find some of the complaints about the ar15 (pistol grip for example) to be minimal as well.

If I wanted to have a real debate, I'd start with burst/auto capacity, and magazine sizes as a distant second. (As functions of the weapon, not debates on sales or documentation).

Not even close. George had led multiple militia regiments in various battles prior to the revolutionary war. He didn’t just round up a group of guys whose military experience was shooting their empty Coors cans in the woods to overthrow the Brits.

Yes, and America has a huge number of battle tested veterans. Also, it would be foolish to belive all active duty, reservist, and LEO would support a tyrannical government.

Have some more soy.

 

[lilburncock]

Fun fact...2 cases of voter fraud, let’s make voting more difficult
38,000 gun deaths a year, let’s make buying guns easier
What great leaders we have...

Fun fact.
When voters have to pass a background check come back and we'll talk some more.

 

[CarlUSC]

I'm 67 years old and have never met a single individual who sincerely wanted to "ban all firearms." Maybe they're out there but I've never heard from them. And that point is irrelevant as the second amendment is here to stay. Many good points in this discussion, but I've never heard a convincing argument for permitting public ownership of military scale weapons. I own 2 firearms, and have coordinated lethal weapons training in my workplace, but the day I need an AR-15 to defend myself and my family is the day I forfeit my man card.

You and I are the same age and I share many of your views. I own a 40 caliber Glock (no bullets in the house) and a mini-14 (used for target shooting when I used to target shoot). Used to own a couple of shotguns but sold them. The point I am trying to make is that I am in favor of responsible gun ownership for recreation, hunting, and protection. I don't see the need for civilians to own AR-15's or magazines in excess of 20 rounds. I have no trouble obeying the laws currently on the books along with longer wait periods before you can buy a gun. There just are no easy answers.

 

[Dizzy01]

Yes, and America has a huge number of battle tested veterans. Also, it would be foolish to belive all active duty, reservist, and LEO would support a tyrannical government.

Have some more soy.

Well oddly enough a segment of the population does seem to believe that active duty, reservists and LEO were going to install a tyrannical government which they supported.

While I know it makes a good drinking story we aren’t at the same point when the militia and the continental army or even the British army had almost the exact same weaponry. It’s fine that some of the rifles people have are close to the equivalent and yes some people may have military training but all those ARs won’t mean anything when a tank or a Blackhawk rolls through. At that point all of the playtime in the woods with your buddies would be moot.

I’m not against guns just the stupidity of people believing that they are somehow going to overthrow the government with their pea shooters. At this point the ones still dreaming about that aren’t concerned about a tyrannical government just one they don’t like.

 

[Silver_Coconut]

Well oddly enough a segment of the population does seem to believe that active duty, reservists and LEO were going to install a tyrannical government which they supported.

While I know it makes a good drinking story we aren’t at the same point when the militia and the continental army or even the British army had almost the exact same weaponry. It’s fine that some of the rifles people have are close to the equivalent and yes some people may have military training but all those ARs won’t mean anything when a tank or a Blackhawk rolls through. At that point all of the playtime in the woods with your buddies would be moot.

I’m not against guns just the stupidity of people believing that they are somehow going to overthrow the government with their pea shooters. At this point the ones still dreaming about that aren’t concerned about a tyrannical government just one they don’t like.

What about in times of civil war, civil unrest, or the power grid goes down, or supply chains are interrupted. At that point guns become your lifeline as well as valuable commodities. Nobody is pretending a 22 caliber rifle is going to bring down a Blackhawk. An AR 15 is the perfect rifle for personal self defense and sustained living during catastrophe.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

What is an assault weapon ban? Did the shooter use an assault weapon?

yes he bought an assault rifle 4 days after the ban was lifted and attacked the store with said rifle and body armour on.

I am sure it was coincidental timing- as all of the 2nd amendment “experts” will tell you; having easy access to assault rifles has no impact on the frequency, efficacy or lethality of these attacks! 🙄

 

[Silver_Coconut]

yes he bought an assault rifle 4 days after the ban was lifted and attacked the store with said rifle and body armour on.

I am sure it was coincidental timing- as all of the 2nd amendment “experts” will tell you; having easy access to assault rifles has no impact on the frequency, efficacy or lethality of these attacks! 🙄

Define assault weapon.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

What about in times of civil war, civil unrest, or the power grid goes down, or supply chains are interrupted. At that point guns become your lifeline as well as valuable commodities. Nobody is pretending a 22 caliber rifle is going to bring down a Blackhawk. An AR 15 is the perfect rifle for personal self defense and sustained living during catastrophe.

Haven’t you seen TWD? A katana and crossbow is all you need!

 

[Silver_Coconut]

Haven’t you seen TWD? A katana and crossbow is all you need!

What is twd?

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

What is twd?

The Walking Dead

 

[Gaimcock]

True, but you forget what the British government did next; which was bring in the troops to suppress the people. The colonists formed militias(they’d already had some during the French and Indian War), and began to stockpile weapons, powder and shot. The British troops set out from Boston to seize those weapons, and the militia leaders. We all know what happened next: some “poor, ignorant, untrained militiaman" decided he’s had enough of British Tyranny enforced by the invincible British Army, and fired the first shot. We don’t know who he was, but that one man was brave enough to die rather than give in. The other part that you leave out, is that those “ignorant, untrained rabble” finally got assembled in numbers, and gave the Brits one hell of a bloody nose on their way back to Boston. We all know what happened a little over a year later. You probably think the U.S. Military is invincible. It is not. An insurgency, with capable men (which, should our own government turn on the people, and have a politicized military side with it) would have in its ranks numerous U.S. combat veterans, would not be so easy to defeat. It would of course take extremely heavy casualties, but if desperate enough, might be able to maintain a force in being sufficient to prevail. Remember, just as we learned in Vietnam and later in Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents do NOT have to actually win; all they have to do is not lose, which is exactly what happened with the Brits in our own Revolution, and happened to the U.S. several times since. The lesson: a disarmed population are helpless subjects; a population of armed citizens is very much a deterrent to tyranny. Hopefully we will never need that deterrent, but it’s nice to know we have it, just in case some political faction tries to do the unthinkable. Think of it as an insurance policy for our Constitution, which if you read the writings of Jefferson, is precisely what was intended. I hope we never have to find out whether it’s enough...

Oh I gotcha! Man I was merely giving a very brief reply to the op in reference from my android!!

Its all good, and I concur with every word you said!!

 

[The Gadfly]

Well oddly enough a segment of the population does seem to believe that active duty, reservists and LEO were going to install a tyrannical government which they supported.

While I know it makes a good drinking story we aren’t at the same point when the militia and the continental army or even the British army had almost the exact same weaponry. It’s fine that some of the rifles people have are close to the equivalent and yes some people may have military training but all those ARs won’t mean anything when a tank or a Blackhawk rolls through. At that point all of the playtime in the woods with your buddies would be moot.

I’m not against guns just the stupidity of people believing that they are somehow going to overthrow the government with their pea shooters. At this point the ones still dreaming about that aren’t concerned about a tyrannical government just one they don’t like.

It’s not quite so simple. Consider the following. First of all, the kind of government action that would provoke the kind of insurgency we’re talking about would have to be egregiously atrocious, enough so as to create considerable popular support for the insurgents. (That situation did occur with both the American Revolution, where the Crown’s disregard for the colonists’ rights as Englishmen ultimately accomplished that, and In Vietnam, where the minority Catholic RVN government never had real legitimacy with the mostly Buddhist people out in the countryside) This is the kind of situation in which an insurgency grows and is difficult to eliminate. Second, the very studiously apolitical nature of the U.S. military mitigates against that; one thing that makes the U.S. Military one of our more trusted institutions is its tradition of refusing to be used as a political tool of any party or faction; in fact, avoiding even the appearance of such. The Oath after all is specifically to the Constitution. The Armed Forces could refuse to get involved, or turn against clearly unconstitutional government, or even splinter, depending on circumstance. Even IF the military almost totally threw in with the government in power, there are other problems. When fighting in your own territory, a lot of your overwhelming advantage in heavy firepower (air superiority, heavy artillery, armor, etc. ) often cannot be totally brought to bear in many situations, since the collateral damage and casualties will cost you dearly in terms of the support of the noncombatant population. This was in fact a problem in Vietnam, and would be even more so on American soil. Even with precision munitions, that’s a very real problem for the conventional force. Just to make matter worse, remember the insurgents probably know exactly how to repair and operate captured equipment, since at least some already have considerable experience with it, and can train others. Now they’re armed with a lot more than “peashooters”. In addition, unexploded ordinance (there will always be some) can be converted to extremely effective IEDs. These guys will do what insurgents do; hide and fight among the sympathetic civil population. This can make identifying the enemy quite difficult. Ask the Brits about their difficulties operating in NI during the “troubles”, which were considerable at times. In theory, the British Army (very high quality if lacking in numbers) should have been able to virtually eliminate the various IRA groups; in fact, they largely failed to do so, even when utilizing a level of brutality not typically allowed among American troops. In addition, the conventional force has a big logistics tail supporting it, and that itself is vulnerable to insurgent attacks (meaning more captured supplies). None of these problems are necessarily impossible to manage, but it is definitely a formidable challenge. In short, it might not be as easy as it looks, and again, remember, the insurgents can win, simply by not losing. Of course, this isn’t a likely situation; in fact, I’d consider it highly unlikely for the reasons outlined above. Still, a lot of miscalculations which led to tragic, even disastrous conflicts, have resulted from a stubborn refusal to imagine the unthinkable...until it happened.

 

[world famous 3rd base hecklers]

Can anyone define what an assault rifle is?

Any weapon that can hurt you. Guns, rifles, knives, scissors, sticks, and bullets... Yep bullets... You know you can put an eye out by throwing a hand full of bullets at people.

 

[bflogger28]

Any weapon that can hurt you. Guns, rifles, knives, scissors, sticks, and bullets... Yep bullets... You know you can put an eye out by throwing a hand full of bullets at people.

you left out assault baseball bats and assault slingshots...

 

[searooster]

What about in times of civil war, civil unrest, or the power grid goes down, or supply chains are interrupted. At that point guns become your lifeline as well as valuable commodities. Nobody is pretending a 22 caliber rifle is going to bring down a Blackhawk. An AR 15 is the perfect rifle for personal self defense and sustained living during catastrophe.

How 'bout we just work hard to avoid such dire and dramatic scenarios as you describe and live peaceful and productive lives without the doomsday drama.

 

[The Doctors Back]

I see there are 15 pages of replies, so I’m probably repeating someone. The use of the term Assault Rifle is so bogus. Assault rifles are already illegal. By definition, an assault rifle has a fully automatic setting. You can not buy a fully automatic gun without a special license. The media loves using the term AR as they think it stands for assault rifle. It doesn’t. It means Armalite Rifle, a brand. Just because a gun looks like a scary machine gun doesn’t make it an assault rifle.

 

[searooster]

I see there are 15 pages of replies, so I’m probably repeating someone. The use of the term Assault Rifle is so bogus. Assault rifles are already illegal. By definition, an assault rifle has a fully automatic setting. You can not buy a fully automatic gun without a special license. The media loves using the term AR as they think it stands for assault rifle. It doesn’t. It means Armalite Rifle, a brand. Just because a gun looks like a scary machine gun doesn’t make it an assault rifle.

You should probably share your concerns with the manufacturer of.the AR 15, who promotes that weapon as an assault rifle, or at least has in the recent past.

 

[bflogger28]

I see there are 15 pages of replies, so I’m probably repeating someone. The use of the term Assault Rifle is so bogus. Assault rifles are already illegal. By definition, an assault rifle has a fully automatic setting. You can not buy a fully automatic gun without a special license. The media loves using the term AR as they think it stands for assault rifle. It doesn’t. It means Armalite Rifle, a brand. Just because a gun looks like a scary machine gun doesn’t make it an assault rifle.

I heard the Liberal ass WSOC channel nine report that a shooter used a "Semi Automatic Assault Pistol" once.. Cant remember the exact time or situation, but will never forget it..
The Liberal media just drolls over mass shootings..

 

[vacock#]

I am happy that I didn’t see a post in this thread that got personal. Maybe I missed one. I still didn’t get an answer to my question about why being designed for the military is a problem for some.

 

[duckcock2.0.0]

Fun fact...2 cases of voter fraud, let’s make voting more difficult
38,000 gun deaths a year, let’s make buying guns easier
What great leaders we have...

I'll bet you need an i.d. to buy a gun.

 

[Lurker123]

How 'bout we just work hard to avoid such dire and dramatic scenarios as you describe and live peaceful and productive lives without the doomsday drama.

Agreed. But I would use the safe driving and seatbelts analogy to answer that.

 

[Lurker123]

You should probably share your concerns with the manufacturer of.the AR 15, who promotes that weapon as an assault rifle, or at least has in the recent past.

I would find it funny, but odd if they did that. The term "assault rifle" has been a point of contention for a couple decades. Was it tongue in cheek or real?

 

[GarnetBeamer]

Wouldn't any weapon that is used to assault someone be considered an assault weapon?

 

[Lurker123]

It’s not quite so simple. Consider the following. First of all, the kind of government action that would provoke the kind of insurgency we’re talking about would have to be egregiously atrocious, enough so as to create considerable popular support for the insurgents. (That situation did occur with both the American Revolution, where the Crown’s disregard for the colonists’ rights as Englishmen ultimately accomplished that, and In Vietnam, where the minority Catholic RVN government never had real legitimacy with the mostly Buddhist people out in the countryside) This is the kind of situation in which an insurgency grows and is difficult to eliminate. Second, the very studiously apolitical nature of the U.S. military mitigates against that; one thing that makes the U.S. Military one of our more trusted institutions is its tradition of refusing to be used as a political tool of any party or faction; in fact, avoiding even the appearance of such. The Oath after all is specifically to the Constitution. The Armed Forces could refuse to get involved, or turn against clearly unconstitutional government, or even splinter, depending on circumstance. Even IF the military almost totally threw in with the government in power, there are other problems. When fighting in your own territory, a lot of your overwhelming advantage in heavy firepower (air superiority, heavy artillery, armor, etc. ) often cannot be totally brought to bear in many situations, since the collateral damage and casualties will cost you dearly in terms of the support of the noncombatant population. This was in fact a problem in Vietnam, and would be even more so on American soil. Even with precision munitions, that’s a very real problem for the conventional force. Just to make matter worse, remember the insurgents probably know exactly how to repair and operate captured equipment, since at least some already have considerable experience with it, and can train others. Now they’re armed with a lot more than “peashooters”. In addition, unexploded ordinance (there will always be some) can be converted to extremely effective IEDs. These guys will do what insurgents do; hide and fight among the sympathetic civil population. This can make identifying the enemy quite difficult. Ask the Brits about their difficulties operating in NI during the “troubles”, which were considerable at times. In theory, the British Army (very high quality if lacking in numbers) should have been able to virtually eliminate the various IRA groups; in fact, they largely failed to do so, even when utilizing a level of brutality not typically allowed among American troops. In addition, the conventional force has a big logistics tail supporting it, and that itself is vulnerable to insurgent attacks (meaning more captured supplies). None of these problems are necessarily impossible to manage, but it is definitely a formidable challenge. In short, it might not be as easy as it looks, and again, remember, the insurgents can win, simply by not losing. Of course, this isn’t a likely situation; in fact, I’d consider it highly unlikely for the reasons outlined above. Still, a lot of miscalculations which led to tragic, even disastrous conflicts, have resulted from a stubborn refusal to imagine the unthinkable...until it happened.

Well thought and well put. Could use some paragraph breaks.

 

[searooster]

I would find it funny, but odd if they did that. The term "assault rifle" has been a point of contention for a couple decades. Was it tongue in cheek or real?

Appeared to be promoting it for.sale.

 

[searooster]

Agreed. But I would use the safe driving and seatbelts analogy to answer that.

Seatbelts save lives. And I 'm guessing that you and your loved ones use them, but like me didn't use.one.until required by law back in the '60s.

 

[Ratheolcoach]

Being fully automatic has nothing to do with the description.

Any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon, but AR stands for ArmaLite rifle. Not assault rifle

 

[searooster]

It’s not quite so simple. Consider the following. First of all, the kind of government action that would provoke the kind of insurgency we’re talking about would have to be egregiously atrocious, enough so as to create considerable popular support for the insurgents. (That situation did occur with both the American Revolution, where the Crown’s disregard for the colonists’ rights as Englishmen ultimately accomplished that, and In Vietnam, where the minority Catholic RVN government never had real legitimacy with the mostly Buddhist people out in the countryside) This is the kind of situation in which an insurgency grows and is difficult to eliminate. Second, the very studiously apolitical nature of the U.S. military mitigates against that; one thing that makes the U.S. Military one of our more trusted institutions is its tradition of refusing to be used as a political tool of any party or faction; in fact, avoiding even the appearance of such. The Oath after all is specifically to the Constitution. The Armed Forces could refuse to get involved, or turn against clearly unconstitutional government, or even splinter, depending on circumstance. Even IF the military almost totally threw in with the government in power, there are other problems. When fighting in your own territory, a lot of your overwhelming advantage in heavy firepower (air superiority, heavy artillery, armor, etc. ) often cannot be totally brought to bear in many situations, since the collateral damage and casualties will cost you dearly in terms of the support of the noncombatant population. This was in fact a problem in Vietnam, and would be even more so on American soil. Even with precision munitions, that’s a very real problem for the conventional force. Just to make matter worse, remember the insurgents probably know exactly how to repair and operate captured equipment, since at least some already have considerable experience with it, and can train others. Now they’re armed with a lot more than “peashooters”. In addition, unexploded ordinance (there will always be some) can be converted to extremely effective IEDs. These guys will do what insurgents do; hide and fight among the sympathetic civil population. This can make identifying the enemy quite difficult. Ask the Brits about their difficulties operating in NI during the “troubles”, which were considerable at times. In theory, the British Army (very high quality if lacking in numbers) should have been able to virtually eliminate the various IRA groups; in fact, they largely failed to do so, even when utilizing a level of brutality not typically allowed among American troops. In addition, the conventional force has a big logistics tail supporting it, and that itself is vulnerable to insurgent attacks (meaning more captured supplies). None of these problems are necessarily impossible to manage, but it is definitely a formidable challenge. In short, it might not be as easy as it looks, and again, remember, the insurgents can win, simply by not losing. Of course, this isn’t a likely situation; in fact, I’d consider it highly unlikely for the reasons outlined above. Still, a lot of miscalculations which led to tragic, even disastrous conflicts, have resulted from a stubborn refusal to imagine the unthinkable...until it happened.

Appears to me that we tried your insurgency thingee with a "well regulated militia" back at Ft.Sumter about 150 years ago, with disastrous consequences. Starts to lose all its glamour when the other side starts shooting back.

 

[lilburncock]

Well oddly enough a segment of the population does seem to believe that active duty, reservists and LEO were going to install a tyrannical government which they supported.

While I know it makes a good drinking story we aren’t at the same point when the militia and the continental army or even the British army had almost the exact same weaponry. It’s fine that some of the rifles people have are close to the equivalent and yes some people may have military training but all those ARs won’t mean anything when a tank or a Blackhawk rolls through. At that point all of the playtime in the woods with your buddies would be moot.

I’m not against guns just the stupidity of people believing that they are somehow going to overthrow the government with their pea shooters. At this point the ones still dreaming about that aren’t concerned about a tyrannical government just one they don’t like.

No one in this thread that I have seen is advocating for the overthrow of the government.
Many have expressed the understanding that the 2A is a right and have attempted to explain to the unenlightened why we have it.

Your silly little scenario and insults about pea shooters vs M1A1s and Blackhawks is just that, silly.