Skip to main content

View Diary: A crazy man with a "fighting rifle" (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Once people start getting nit-picky about such (16+ / 0-)

    things, it is because they need to change the topic.

    IMHO, the topic should be,  "Do we want these weapons in the hands of any person who can walk into a store with money?"  

    Or do we want to have some rules about them?  

    Like extremely detailed and stringent background checks?
    Like limiting or banning their sale to civilians, period?

    "Oh, that isn't an AK-47, it was an ABC12, an XYZ 13, whatever" and "that wasn't a clip it was a magazine, dummy" are all attempts to distract and derail from the situation at hand and just get into gun jargon for no good reason.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sat May 04, 2013 at 05:36:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I totally disagree. People who feel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andalusi

      strongly about good strong gun regulation should know what the fuck they're talking about. It's is the fartherest thing from to much to ask about ANY fucking subject. Why would someone NOT want to know the proper use of terms on this or any subject? I'm educating myself on this just for that reason.

      •  What I'm saying is, "I don't have to be a (14+ / 0-)

        chemist, meteorologist, or scientist of any kind to know I'm opposed to air pollution."

        I don't need to be an accident investigator to know people are killed in car wrecks.

        And I don't need to know (even though I actually know quite a bit) about each and every detail of a gun to know that military weapons do not belong in the hands of the general population.

        We've always had a line in this country.  How far do people want to move the line toward military weapons?  Sniper rifles? .50 cal machine guns?  

        The "semi-auto" weapons like that shown in the video are designed to kill people. They were created very specifically to kill people.  Their ammunition is designed to tumble inside the body -- not passing straight through -- and tear up as many internal organs as possible.  The shock wave of the round is designed to rupture organs it never hits.

        It is specifically designed as a human-killing-machine.

        Personally, I don't believe they belong in the hands of the public.

        Did anyone notice the article?  He had eight 40-round magazines with him in the car.  320 rounds ready to go.

        Do we want people with such weapons roaming our streets?

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Sat May 04, 2013 at 06:20:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're obviously on the same side. (0+ / 0-)

          Why you would want to give someone shit for clarifying terminology is really beyond me.

          We've always had a line in this country
          Knowing the differences is therefore pretty damn important, no?

          And to answer your question: No. I think semi-auto military style rifles shoul not be available for private ownership.

        •  And just because I'm curious, do you think (0+ / 0-)

          semi-automatic handguns should be outlawed?

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            ALL semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed.  
            I'd further suggest that they be confiscated and melted down.

            +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

            by cybersaur on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Does anyone know where he was going? (4+ / 0-)

          It was fortunate the cops stopped him and the incident unfolded where and when it did. He might have shouted "kill me" because he knew there was no way out once he was stopped and they found the ammo, etc. in the car. He might have been on his way to a grocery store, school or other place where a number of people would have been gathered. He is dead and we may never know what might have been if not for this incident happening at that place and time.

          I see the fool from St. Joe, IN plead a 20-year prison deal. He even said he got worked up watching FAUX News before driving to Toledo to commit the act. Now this guy in OH is found having Tactical Response literature in his residence. There is a connection, but I think it will be like the long struggle with tobacco industry before anything meaningful gets done regarding guns.

          There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu

          by OHeyeO on Sat May 04, 2013 at 08:01:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I haven't found anything on further investigation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OleHippieChick

            of where he was going at the time.  I didn't even really find why they stopped him other than "routine traffic stop."  From the dashcam, it wasn't apparent that he broke any traffic laws that i could tell.

            It would be interesting to know where he was headed with that much firepower in the car.

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Sat May 04, 2013 at 09:26:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, mamamedusa

          I've made this point before, but people never seem to get it.  The purpose of the use of jargon in the gun debate is the same as in other contexts.  The use of jargon is part of an effort to cloak the jargon user with some sort of expertise and to exclude nonusers from the conversation.  The most common example of this is the condescension one hears from gun fetishists if one says "clip" when one really should say "magazine," even when the distinction is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

          The fact of the matter is that most people are not experts in most things.  That one is not an expert does not mean one cannot have an opinion.  For example, should Kossacks (or anyone else) be disqualified from expressing an opinion on environmental laws if they cannot tell me what constitutes a "hazardous substance" for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act?  

          It takes no particular expertise to know that these killing machines are extremely dangerous.  As you say, the question is really quite simple:

          Do we want people with such weapons roaming our streets?
          That question can be answered without reference to jargon.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Sat May 04, 2013 at 10:17:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To be more clear (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dogs are fuzzy, Little

            Correcting someone who says clip when he or she means magazine, that's pedantic. Doesn't really make a difference if someone messes that up.

            Correcting someone who conflates semiautomatic rifles with automatic rifles, or assault rifles with assault weapons, is not. Those are two very different types of rifles; even if they look the same, the internals are different (you can't just play around with the sear to turn a semiauto into an automatic, despite the claims of many armchair gunsmiths).

            (Mind you, in the first example, while it can be an obfuscatory tactic, it can also just be on the same level of correcting someone for using an apostrophe to make a plural or confusing "you're" with "your.)

          •  And I never said anything close to that (0+ / 0-)

            he or anyone else should't have an opinion on this!

            •  I didn't claim you did. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, JR

              My comment was not directed at you specifically but rather at a more general feature of the debate on this topic.

              Strangely, the rigid insistence upon correct terminology appears to be a one-way ratchet.  I'm a lawyer, yet I'm regularly lectured by laymen not only about the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment but also about the proper method of constitutional interpretation.  Apparently, specialized knowledge is only necessary or important if it leads to the preferred policy result.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Sun May 05, 2013 at 12:37:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If the article had said it was a pistol it (0+ / 0-)

                would have been wrong. I simply corrected a fact.

                And honestly, this thread was started by this comment:

                Just to note: I've been reading a very lot on this (1+ / 0-)

                and talking with friends way more into guns tham myself.

                It was not an AK-47. It was an AK variant, or something like that. AK-47s by their nature are selective-fire - meaning that they can be both semi-automatic and automatic (and other things, but never mind). This was semi-auto only.

                That people are getting this worked up over that very, very mild comment is a lot more curious than my wanting to correct one tiny fact in the story.
              •  And my preferred policy result, as I've said (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JR

                in this thread, is that military style semi-automatic weapons be banned. I'll add that I also think high-capacity magazines for rifles and handguns should be banned. In fact I wouldn't mind in the least if the U.S. went to Australian rules tomorrow.

      •  It's just a little pedantic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn, YucatanMan, mamamedusa

        The thing is, even among true enthusiasts, the semi-auto variants are regularly referred to and marketed as "AK-47s." Here's an article from GunsAmerica.com, for example, that refers to them as AK-47s.

        As a firearms enthusiast myself (4 currently in the gun cabinet), the only time I ever hear anyone make the sort of distinction you're making--such as when people refuse to talk to anyone using "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably--is during policy debates where the pro-gun participant wants to disqualify the opinion of the gun control supporter as being too uniformed to be valid. But you go to just about any range in America, and you can call a mag a clip, or a Smith & Wesson M&P15 an AR-15, or an AK variant an AK-47, and nobody is going to bat an eyelash at it.

        "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

        by JR on Sat May 04, 2013 at 09:40:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's just not. (0+ / 0-)

          I never did anythign like put anybody down. Which is what ppl trying to derail an arguemtn do. I just think it's good to know the issue as good as the pro-gun fanatics do. I find the pushback on this here a bit bizarre.

      •  Let's keep it simple (0+ / 0-)

        if bullets come out of it then it should be banned.

        +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

        by cybersaur on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:36:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site