Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I'm wondering now even more what qualifies to be an "anti-gun nut

That would be anyone who believes that a pistol grip makes a rifle more deadly, even in the absence of tests or studies that would confirm that belief. Also, anyone who falsely believes that some semiautomatics fire more rapidly than other semiautomatics. And then there's the ones who believe that the AR-15 is the favored weapon of mass shooters. And of course there's the ones who mistakenly equate style with function when it comes to semiautomatic fire, and automatic fire.

Why do you ask?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Hi. My name is Poster Glennn, and I approve this message.

Quote:

That is incorrect. We are not the ones who are diverting away from the issue of large capacity magazines. That would be your compatriots on the left.

Given that you never complain when your fellow leftists divert away from the issue of large capacity magazines, you are complicit as well.

Rapidity of fire of the sort provided by semi-auto, pump-, and lever-action is necessary for self defense. It is also pretty useful in hunting when a quick follow-up shot is needed.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Why do you ask?

Just out of interest, because I do think that farmer has quite some knowledge and experience about guns.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Just out of interest

I see.

Quote:

I do think that farmer has quite some knowledge and experience about guns.

Well we all have our heroes.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
you deny and divert away from the real issue of large capacity and rapid fire.

That is incorrect. We are not the ones who are diverting away from the issue of large capacity magazines. That would be your compatriots on the left.

Given that you never complain when your fellow leftists divert away from the issue of large capacity magazines, you are complicit as well.

Random progressive extremist says: We're going to try to ban pistol grips, and this will be the centerpiece of the entire gun control fight.

Farmerman says: Nothing at all.

Gun rights advocates reply to progressive extremist: We will not allow you to ban pistol grips.

Farmerman says: Why are you gun rights advocates changing the subject to pistol grips?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glenn wrote:

No matter how many times anti-gun nuts have it pointed out to them, they still refuse to acknowledge the difference between style and function.

The US military didn't adopt pistol grips and collapsible stocks in their battlefield weapons for stylistic purposes, they adopted them because they were functional and advantageous to these killing instruments.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Actually, I was talking about the difference between style and function as it pertains to the ridiculousness of equating a semiautomatic rifle with an automatic rifle on the basis that it appears to be an automatic rifle.

A pistol grip is an ergonomic improvement; no one is contesting that. But you really need to show that the presence of a pistol grip on a rifle would increase the lethality of that rifle in a mass shooting scenario. And then provide something to show that a folding stock increased the lethality of a rifle in mass shooting scenario.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The US military didn't adopt pistol grips and collapsible stocks in their battlefield weapons for stylistic purposes, they adopted them because they were functional and advantageous to these killing instruments.

Can you demonstrate a compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Pistol grips and collapsible stocks were incorporated into semiautomatic battlefield rifles. It had nothing to do with making them appear like automatic rifles. These functional implementations served to increase these instruments' lethality. The same applies to assault weapons based on these battlefield weapons.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

So you think the military uses semiautomatic rifles? Perhaps this notion comes from the same place that your notion that AR-15s are the favored weapon of mass shooters comes from.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Pistol grips and collapsible stocks were incorporated into semiautomatic battlefield rifles. It had nothing to do with making them appear like automatic rifles. These functional implementations served to increase these instruments' lethality. The same applies to assault weapons based on these battlefield weapons.

In addition to my main point asking if you can demonstrate a compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, I am curious if you can at all justify your claim that pistol grips serve to increase the lethality of a rifle.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

So you think the military uses semiautomatic rifles? Perhaps this notion comes from the same place that your notion that AR-15s are the favored weapon of mass shooters comes from.

The military used to use semiautomatic rifles. They were standard issue in WWII.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Pistol grips and collapsible stocks were incorporated into semiautomatic battlefield rifles. It had nothing to do with making them appear like automatic rifles. These functional implementations served to increase these instruments' lethality. The same applies to assault weapons based on these battlefield weapons.

In addition to my main point asking if you can demonstrate a compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, I am curious if you can at all justify your claim that pistol grips serve to increase the lethality of a rifle.

A pistol grip allows for a more ergonomic grip on the weapon allowing for more accurate shooting. Better accuracy increases the lethality in these weapons.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Can you produce any evidence that pistol grips result in more accurate shooting?

My main point though was the question about any compelling government interest in outlawing such pistol grips.

3 Replies

@InfraBlue,

You need to produce something to validate your apprehension concerning folding stocks. Like maybe some law enforcement figure saying something after a shooting like, "If it weren't for the folding stock on that damned AR-15, lives would have been saved."

And when was the last time--after a mass shooting--you heard anyone say something to the effect that the detrimental factor in the shooting was the pistol grip? Nevertheless, you believe that the pistol grip causes more loss of life. Do you honestly believe that someone using a semiautomatic rifle without a pistol grip is going to kill less people because of the lack of a pistol grip. You must think that they have magical powers.

3 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

The military used to use semiautomatic rifles. They were standard issue in WWII.

Just a note - I'm pretty sure the standard issue Lee Enfield, and Mauser rifles were bolt action. The M1 Carbine was semi-auto.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Your main point has always been in error. No one is trying to outlaw pistol grips. They have been banning weapons, some of which have pistol grips, some of which don't, not the grips. That's why they're called assault weapons bans, not pistol grip bans. You've been peddling a red herring for years.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And the compelling government interest is obviously to reduce the number of victims of gun violence, which SCOTUS has found compelling, no matter what you think, and you have no standing. Pistol grips have never had anything to do with that, no matter how often you try to make them the core of your argument.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You've bought into oralloy's nonsense. Pistol grips and folding stocks are irrelevant, have always bee irrelevant, and the courts don't buy the whole
silly argument you guys produce.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You're the one who is fighting so hard to ban them that you are sabotaging the entire gun control agenda.

And it certainly isn't irrelevant to all of the people whose civil liberties you are wantonly violating for your own enjoyment.

I'm betting the Supreme Court cares more about upholding the Constitution than you give them credit for.

But regardless of the courts, you are going to have to stop violating people's civil liberties for fun and compensate all of your victims before you get any support from me for any new gun laws.

So in other words: No soup for you!

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know