Replies

"The terms are not exactly intuitive, and they get erroneously swapped back and forth quite a bit, which doesn't help matters.
"

That's true. What else is true is that the distinction is irrelevant to the issue. That's why I hate to see these discussions reduced to arguments about such details. Such a reduction only serves to alienate, not to convince.

There are good arguments to be made. Yet, every one of these threads quickly deteriorates and becomes useless. One group wants to begin a revolution, a prospect that does, and should, alarm most folks.

Another group wants to show off just how much they know about firearms and is quick to call those who know less names. A third group threatens to vote for anyone but Republicans. That's really helpful.

Clip, magazine....nobody really cares. The two refer to mechanisms to hold rounds. Even the precise definition of "assault rifle" is a waste of time. Under the AWB, there is a definition that is used in that law. That definition is the only one that matters.

Yes, we all know the difference between semi-auto and select-fire. The bulk of the public does not, and does not care. They just want those ugly-looking military-style firearms out of the street and the schoolyard. It's an easy sell to the public to ban them.

But, what do we do? Tell them they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about? That seems to be the general run of things here and elsewhere.

Frankly, I'd rather have my old bolt-action deer rifle and stand off a couple hundred yards. If I have to be in close combat, I want my Mossberg 12-ga. in hand, unless I'm facing the military, which is unlikely to occur. I wouldn't trade either for an AR-15 or anything similar. Not ever.

The arguments are wrong. They do not convince. Therefore, we get such things as the AWB. We need new arguments.

Yes, we all know the difference between semi-auto and select-fire. The bulk of the public does not, and does not care. They just want those ugly-looking military-style firearms out of the street and the schoolyard. It's an easy sell to the public to ban them.
But, what do we do? Tell them they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about? That seems to be the general run of things here and elsewhere.

Holy cow, I almost found myself agreeing with you there. But wait...

I wouldn't trade either for an AR-15 or anything similar. Not ever.

And then you go and display your true agenda.

Like the man said, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, nor is it about what YOU think is appropriate weaponry.

While I agree that it's tough to argue in favor of ugly black guns, the REAL point is, we should'nt even have to...

"We need new arguments."

Many of us are out of patience, because we've tried using logic and reason, and it doesn't work. We've pointed out that the AWB has had absolutely no effect on crime (thank you, John Lott) and yet we still have people preaching the benefits of the AWB.

The problem, MM, is that these people want our guns, period. And nothing we do or say will have the least bit of effect on them. You can say that we are alienating folks with the "no compromise" talk, but the truth is that they have already alienated themselves with their blindness to the truth.

You seem to be saying that we should soften our stance, to appear more reasonable. I think we've been reasonable, and patiently tried to explain the error of their thinking, and backed up the assertion of error with cold, hard facts. So if they won't listen to reason, we don't need to be more "reasonable", we need to be more resolute.

There is nothing more unreasonable than a gun-hater; they simply are too blind to the facts to argue with them. So we must be resolute in asserting our rights. If we waver, we'll just continue losing. And then we'll be forced to do whatever unreasonable things our goverment demands, except that we'll be on the other end of the gun.

I offered the clarification about "clips" and "magazines" simply because someone asked. I seek not to denigrate, but only to educate. Yes, some like to "lord it over" others on such matters, but I'm not one of them, and they are a minority in any case. Don't focus on them.

I concur with your statements about a good bolt action and a high standoff distance. That correlates with my earlier post about asymetrical conflict.

As for, "We need new arguments", well, that sounds good. What do you suggest?

Well, if that antique is your idea of a hunting rifle, I'm pretty sorry for you. Doesn't look a thing like mine. I'll bet my groups at 200 yds. are a heckuva lot tighter, too.

You also mentioned – somewhat disparagingly, it seemed - a “group [that] wants to show off just how much they know about firearms and is quick to call those who know less names.” Looks like you may be a member of that group yourself.

;>)

Clip, magazine....nobody really cares. The two refer to mechanisms to hold rounds. Even the precise definition of "assault rifle" is a waste of time. Under the AWB, there is a definition that is used in that law. That definition is the only one that matters.

Actually, the “definition” in the AWB only "matters" if the ban was “made in pursuance” of the United States Constitution. If it was not, then it is the AWB “definition” that doesn’t matter.

Frankly, I'd rather have my old bolt-action deer rifle and stand off a couple hundred yards. If I have to be in close combat, I want my Mossberg 12-ga. in hand, unless I'm facing the military, which is unlikely to occur. I wouldn't trade either for an AR-15 or anything similar. Not ever.

Congratulations. In “the parlance of our times,” you would apparently ‘rather have your bolt-action sniper rifle, stand off a couple hundred yards,’ and kill people from a distance. If you had to be in ‘close combat,’ you would prefer your ‘street sweeper.’ Unless you were ‘facing the military,’ of course, ‘which is unlikely to occur’ - unless you belong to an unpopular religious group & live near Waco, Texas. And obviously you ‘wouldn't trade either for an AR-15 or anything similar’ – even though there are AR-15s (and similar ‘assault weapons’ ;>) that are probably capable of “a heckuva lot tighter” groups “at 200 yds” than is your “old bolt-action deer rifle.”

By the way, I suspect your .22 rimfire already qualifies as an “assault weapon” in some States. Extending the federal AWB not only encourages and validates such perverse State legislation, it also provides a foundation for future federal legislation banning your ‘sniper rifle’ and ‘street sweeper’ as well.

(By the way, the "antique" you referred to is no "antique:" it was manufactured after 1898. And there is no reason to suggest it could not out-shoot your "old bolt-action deer rifle" - British military and police forces used sniper rifles based on the No.4 action until fairly recently... ;>)