You are correct, the mistake is mine. I mean to say its automatic function was stripped away.As I said: You better look at that again.
There is far larger difference between a man and women than converting a ar-15 into a fully automatic weapon. Removing the sear is good enough for a gun, going loretta bobbit on a man doesn't make him a women.You mean how like a man is a woman, save for one small technical change.
I don't really want to explain the fully process for converting an ar-15 to full auto. I will end with this. The AR-15 shares enough similarities with assault rifles from both a technical and historical point of view. Calling a semi-automatic assault rifle is perfectly acceptable for a journalist point of view. A best, you can claim he got a tiny detail wrong in an honest mistake.Remember what I said about people talking about guns when they dont know what they;re talking about?
You need more than the sear, and you need to machine the receiver.
You making that statement doesnt make the AR15 an assault rifle; any statement to that effect is absolutely incorrect.I will end with this. The AR-15 shares enough similarities with assault rifles from both a technical and historical point of view.
That they are 'similar' doesn't excuse the journalist for not getting it right.
Your position on this does not account for a reasonable purpose or need to carry a semi-automatic riffle around in a city public area. Yes, it may be his legal right to do so, but why do that?
"Law abiding citizen just trying to make a point about the 2nd amendment by doing something outrageous." -- is that what it said on his t-shirt to let everyone know it was okay, he was just making a political statement?
This uneducated, narrow-minded reading of the second amendment has done more to hurt your cause than help it. The majority of gun owners enjoy their interest/hobby in a safe and respectful manner. They are intelligent and mature about exercising their rights, fully acknowledging that guns represent a lethal weapon and respectful of friends and neighbors that don't share this particular interest or fascination with guns.
Then there is this hot-headed overzealous minority who thinks the ATF and DOJ are tapping their phones. They buy books on building hidden storage compartments, spend ridiculous amounts of money on the latest, coolest guns and ammo, waiting for the rebellion or race war that never comes.
Does any reasonable, intelligent person who saw this asshole walking around with an assault riffle think, "There goes a Patriot defending my second amendment right." No, they go home with a distaste for guns and gun rights because some total loser had to misrepresent what gun ownership and responsibility is all about.
What was it, two weeks ago, some lame walked into a health club and shot up the place? You can not be that lacking in common sense to understand why a person walking around with a semi-auto riffle as described in this news story would make people uncomfortable. His actions, though technically not illegal, are totally inappropriate. He has no respect for his community and the people in it.
Funny you mention that whacko... considering the location that he did it... in one of the more heavily gun regulated parts of our country... by all definitions and their laws he shouldn't even have had his guns there.
So, you're under the same impression with gay people who flaunt their sexuality in the light of "it's my right"?
What about liberals who go on about being pro-choice anytime they can in public? Cause it's their right to speak freely?
I am intelligent and mature about my rights to possess firearms and use them. While I'd never have done this, I admire this person for being brave enough to take unfounded criticism from the likes of you, and rathi for exercising his constitutional rights.
I'd imagine you're the same person who looks down on those who open carry pistols in public as well... boy, you just can't win with some of them.
Again, I am under ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION to have a purpose or need to justify my rights in your eyes, or in society's eyes. They are my inalienable rights afforded to me by the constitution. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that they've changed and I should moderate myself in your presence.
Last edited by stevenb; 08-17-09 at 03:56 PM.
George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.
I know that gay is not contagious so gay pride demonstrations don't bother me. Harmless self-expression. My children are only going to be more tolerant by learning that some people are just naturally different.
Re: Pro-Choice, I'm not sure what you're saying. Usually the people displaying inappropriate depictions of abortions are pro-life. I've never known a pro-choice activists to use graphic descriptions of abortions to win people over. So, could you be more specific?
There's no reasoning with you. By freaking people out, he did more to hurt the public perception of gun owners. You want to win people over. Let mature, reasonable people who understand and appreciate the concerns of the unarmed public be your representative. Not wingnuts trying to make a point and misfiring all the way.I am intelligent and mature about my rights to possess firearms and use them. While I'd never have done this, I admire this person for being brave enough to take unfounded criticism from the likes of you, and rathi for exercising his constitutional rights.
If they have a carry permit and legitimate need to be armed, sure, it's all good as long as they follow the law.I'd imagine you're the same person who looks down on those who open carry pistols in public as well... boy, you just can't win with some of them.
See, in Wyoming, I don't even think they need guns laws. Those people are smart and sensible and can police themselves as far as firearms. But in New York City and Los Angeles, gun regs should be draconian. I want anyone in L.A. county purchasing ammo to leave a fingerprint. I want the California carry permits to be strictly regulated. People who don't live in one of three or four really big cities with diverse populations really don't get it. There are more people in L.A. and Manhattan than in some states. Your gun laws will not work for us.
You could fit roughly 3 Maricopa County's (which is surrounded by desert) into 1 L.A. county which is surrounded by Orange and Ventura County. That jackass would have been shot dead if he tried a stunt like that in L.A. or NYC.
The Thune amendment was thankfully shot down this July--it would have lowered all state gun laws to the lowest common denominator.
Funny, you started this post with examples of people, Gays and Pro-Choice, who should moderate themselves in your presence. Your examples were a particular speech or personal expression that you feel infringes on your space.Again, I am under ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION to have a purpose or need to justify my rights in your eyes, or in society's eyes. They are my inalienable rights afforded to me by the constitution. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that they've changed and I should moderate myself in your presence.
What I'm talking about is the carrying of a lethal weapon, a rifle, into a public space for no other purpose than to press your rights. How can you not see the very big difference?
So the major difference between naming it as an assault rifle and a normal rifle is that "assault rifle" is a liberal scare tactic? And bringing a loaded gun of any type to a crowded area in protest of a hated and feared President (for one subset of the population) won't provoke fear?
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK