In response to:

Clarifying America's Gun Culture

hagar2 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 9:37 AM
The American gun culture is a misnomer. What we have is a culture of individual responsibility and action where law abiding citizens have an inalienable right to protect themselves and their loved ones against ANY threat and use ANY arms sufficient to do so. There are tyrannical elements in our society that believe only they should have the power to met out safety and protection (read control). Unless you can mount a police officer on your hip you are unprotected. The police are minutes away when seconds count even when they are benevolent. Then we have the criminal culture please learn to discriminate between the two.
rauljg69 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 9:58 AM
"ANY arms sufficient to do so."

You capitalized the wrong word. SUFFiCIENT needs to be capitalized. An AK47 or any other military style assault weapon is beyond sufficient.
kjwood Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 10:17 AM
rauljg69 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 10:22 AM
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Cmon a grenade launcher is obviously essential to protect yourselves and your property right. And banning it means we are taking away your 2nd amendment right in your nutbag minds!
Joesolis Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 10:33 AM
What you seem to not know, Rual is that the 2nd amendment is primarily there to protect us from a tyrannical government, and THEY have military assault weapons. Individual personal protection from the criminal element is a secondary purpose of the 2nd amendment. If you studied American history a little better, you would know that.
jrobson Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 10:36 AM
Wiki says: Assault weapon is a political term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]
The English didn't let the Scottish arm themselves with anything more deadly than rocks and sticks.... that is interesting history. Read some for enlightenment.
midfielder2 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 10:53 AM
Let's all hear it for wikipedia. Dimwit! The criterea for an "Assault Rifle" is that it be "selective fire" that means capable of being fired in full auto mode which is already covered by the machine gun law of 1934. Get your facts straight you ignorant twit.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:00 AM
There is actually a technical definition of "assault weapon", in military terminology, though. It means "anti-tank weapon", i.e. BAZOOKA.

Nobody's advocating for civilian ownership of those.

The "assault weapons" that silly little law bans are indistinguishable, except cosmetically, from a number of civilian firearms it does nothing about. It is an emotionalistic gesture with no meaning and no basis in facts.

Google "Carolyn Mccarthy barrel shroud", sans quotes, for another example of gun-banners' IGNORANCE.
MarkinIdaho Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:29 AM
I'll consider agreeing with the "beyond sufficient" concept when our government returns to the doctrine of 'least intrusive means." Cops use all means to protect themselves even when they have little to no 'just cause' to feel threatened. Bureaucrats also fail to abide by 'least intrusive means.' The M-16 was designed as a 'least intrusive means' of removing an enemy combatant from the field of combat. If they wanted true 'knock down' power, they would have gone with the 308 Winchester or NATO equivalent (7.62). Instead, they chose the 5.56 NATO as the least intrusive means to take down an enemy that also provided an opportunity to carry more rounds of ammo so they could use 'least intrusive means' on more enemy combatants.
MarkinIdaho Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:37 AM
Raul, btw, an AR-15 or similar weapon is the minimally sufficient way to fire a 5.56 round at a charging wild boar with the ability to quickly fire a follow-up round or more until the charging wild boar is no longer a threat. The less than sufficient weapon would be a bolt action with a three round magazine. The more than sufficient weapon would be a select fire, semi-auto, 3 round burst, or full auto, M-16 weapon. The ATF has already put more than sufficient restrictions on possession of such an M-16. The AK-47's available do not have a full auto capability so they, too, are minimally sufficient for taking down a charging threat. I doubt law breakers care about minimally sufficient standards.
MarkinIdaho Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:39 AM
kjwood, You are right. Can't any weapon be used to assault a threat?
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 1:59 PM
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 1:59 PM
In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be protected.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 1:59 PM
During the LA riots of 1992,the police REFUSED to enter the riot zone to protect citizens,and Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" to hold off the rioting mob that came to burn them and their families alive in their shops/homes. that's just ONE good reason,not that we need ANY reason to own them.
it also is justification for 30 round magazines,you need firepower to hold off a riot mob.
Not that we need any justification.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 2:00 PM
the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's right to keep and bear arms.
The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 2:03 PM
explain the TEC-9,an AWB handgun that has the SAME capabilities that a Glock 17,such as police and many citizens use. that one was merely about "looking bad".

and what does a pistol grip or flash suppressor have to do with lethality?
you speak from ignorance,raul.

Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas went on his halftime anti-gun rant on Sunday using words written by Fox Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock, we’ve heard a lot from the media and from uniformed commentators about America’s “gun culture.” The fact is, America actually has two gun cultures and it is important to distinguish them from one another.  

The first gun culture is deeply seated in American history and her founding. Founding Fathers like George Washington understood that an armed citizenry would prevent government tyranny, which is why we have the Second Amendment. This is a concept rapper...