Assault rifle reprieve in USA

The way I see it is that the reason the motion had to be defeated is to preserve an individuals freedom of choice. If someone wants a 'black' rifle who is to stop them? Knee jerk reactions to the actions of the mentally subnormal are not justification for restrictions on the activities of the law abiding. It is the responsibility of society to help, police, treat or remove from harms way those who pose an genuine risk to that society. One man's view of aesthetics will differ to another's but no-one is wrong or absolutely right. The fact is that in a balanced society if a man wants to own a rifle to hunt, compete or collect then the shape or action or power of the thing is irrelevant, a sane man is no more threat with a semi-auto fifty cal' than a single shot .22 with BB caps.
To put the U.K narrow eyed view of the uses of 'black' rifles etc into perspective, in the U.S.A a man has the right to defend his home with lethal force in a number of states using a legally held weapon often against perpetrators with illegally held weapons. Semi-auto with home defence loads are common place and courses can be attended to teach home guardians how to best utilise them.
Sport shooting in America has a huge following for shooting competitions based on courses of fire suited to 'black' rifles (and pistols). It should also be pointed out to younger shooters in the U.K that we also had these sports until we were robbed of our freedom to participate by the self same knee-jerk reactions to the activities of a mad man.
​ Just because a weapon does not fit into our own mental view of the aesthetics of what we perceive as justifiable does not give us the right to judge what another sane, mentally well balanced person following a different path should or should not be able to do.
In short, a mad man with a 4x4 outside a sports stadium is considerably more dangerous than than any gun owner but gun ownership does not bring in the same revenue as car ownership so one will suffice as a whipping boy for politicians and one will go unmentioned.
 
To put the U.K narrow eyed view of the uses of 'black' rifles etc into perspective, in the U.S.A a man has the right to defend his home with lethal force in a number of states using a legally held weapon often against perpetrators with illegally held weapons.

Actually thats no longer totally true in a good many states in this country !

For instance .

You can be sitting in your living room in a good many states and some idiot can kick your door in , walk in a take your TV , stereo etc etc and unless you think your life was in danger you cannot legally shoot them and expect to get away with it !

Now that also has to be considered with the old saying "It's better to be judged by 9 then laid to rest by six !".
 
As a hunter, in Germany, it made all the sense in the world to lock my rifles and pistols in a fire-proof safe where no one could get to them and a fire would not ruin them. I NEVER once, felt my "American 2nd Ammendment" was being infringed upon, in any way shape or form. Being required to keep my unloaded rifles and pistols locked in a Fire-Proof safe felt refreshing. I knew that if I were not home my daughters' friends would not be able to go snooping around and find one of them and start playing with it, out of ingorance. We ALL know what the result could be, and I never liked the idea of that.

I was raised around rifles and pistols and the idea of picking up one without clearing , myself, was/is, simply put, ludicrist.

I was, also, taught, "one shot, one kill".

Having spent 20+ years in active combat arms (US Army), I see Semi- and full Automatic weapons good for one thing; killing people, and lots of them in a short time. Notice I did not say "Assault Weapons". This is becasue a lot of the "Sport Rifles", "Shooting Rifles" and ALL pistols were either "Assault Weapons" or are replicas there of, at one time or another. I own a .303 British(with 1945 stamped on the combustion chamber), an M1903 Springfield 30.06, and an 1898 30.40 Craig, which were ALL used during a war, making them and "Assault Weapon". If a person needs more than one shot to kill a beast (with the exceptioin of a rare mis-placed shot), my best suggestion would be for them to spend more time at the range with a private trainer. If one has the uncontrolable urge to be able to shoot semi- and full automatic weapons, join the military. They have to qualify with their weapons on regular intervals and, I am sure anyone who has served will agree, they will get a lot more shooting than they, really, wanted.

Stop allowing the purchase of Semi- and full automatic weapons, except for military, and force the security of all private weapons and we will see a drastic reduction of these senseless killings. One can do more damage, on an intruder, in a shorter amount of time with a shotgun loaded with bird-shot.

Also, the media sensationalizes the senseless killings and make the low-life slugs famous. The last one will not remember those children or teachers who were slaughtered, but, rather the 'Sick-o" that did it. It is claimed, by the media, that he wanted to beat the record of that other 'Sick-o' in Sweden (I believe) who kill all those innocent children on that island. Those children won't be remembered by anyone other than family and some friends. History will only remember those "Sick-os" and try to analize why they did it.

Bottom line, and I will get off my "Soap-Box", enforce weapon security, ban the authorization of semi- and full automatic weapons, and, somehow, stop the sensationalization, by the media, and our rights to continue as shooters and stalkers will stay intact. The question is, how do we do all of that? We can get the enforcement of secure weapons storage, without too much trouble; we can get the ban of semi- and full automatic weapons, with a great deal of compromise and hard work; but getting the media to not sensationalize the senseless killings is like stopping the earth from turning. It would be much easier to pull hens' teeth out of a wildcats behind.

The best we can do is ensure we have our own back yard clean and prevent the "antis" from finding a reason to attack us, as individuals; thereby uniting us as one.

Cave and cower. Hope that if they just take away the weapons that you have no need for, or desire to own, and that they will then leave you alone.

Foolishness. You sound like an anti gun Troll to me. Living in the USA "for now"?? and that after twenty years in the Army? Thanks for that, at least, I guess....~Muir
 
I'm always amazed by the amount of hunters and "firearms' owners who are still naive enough to believe that the anti-gun movement gives a rats ass as to what type of firearm you own. In their eyes ALL guns are evil and any of you who would throw other gun owners under the bus should realize that to the anti-gun, anti hunting orginizations your firearms should be banned to. In the Canadian firearms community we call it the Fudd syndrome, looks like its alive and well in the UK.

AB
 
In the media's eyes, any rifle over .223 is 'more powerful than what they army use to kill men', any 'scoped' rifle, is a 'sniper rifle', god forbid if it has a moderator and bipod on too, that's the realms of 'silent assassin' types.
So anybody who roams the countryside in camo with a scoped, bipodded AI or TRG looking for bambi or cute foxes 'must' have a screw loose.
It's all about perception though, we, and other 'informed' people know the difference.
I once had an AR15 straight pull that was my only suitable caliber for foxes at the time, I got seen 'creeping around camo'd up with a machine gun' by one of the householders who regularly see me rabbiting with the 10/22 semi auto, but rang the police 'thinking I'm a terrorist'
So, up went the chopper, Armed Response Car turns up and I'm confronted by the muzzles of several G36's whilst getting blinded by the (awesome) lamp from the chopper. After they had checked me out, and realised I wasn't an al'quada member, it was suggested that maybe the AR wasn't the best choice to go foxing with. Bearing in mind, this is on the outskirts of a military training area where 'camo'd up' squaddies regularly run around with SA80's.
so yes, it's all about people's perception, normally warped by media.
Regards
​Pete

I own one of Mark Bradley's SP ARs which I mainly use to compete in Service Rifle comps.. Its ticketed for fox too though and is very effective whenever I have that to do as a specific task (otherwise the .260 rem tends to be at hand). I actually have a spare slot on my ticket for another .223 because the FEO was concerted about mistaken call-outs and suggested that as a solution. The thing is that AR has a fantastic form factor - nothing quite like pistol grips for a solid mount and though its has other drawbacks (noisy to cycle, magazine also makes a racket) its robust, reliable and compact. Consequently, I've never used the slot and might in fact let it go this summer.
 
I'm always amazed by the amount of hunters and "firearms' owners who are still naive enough to believe that the anti-gun movement gives a rats ass as to what type of firearm you own. In their eyes ALL guns are evil and any of you who would throw other gun owners under the bus should realize that to the anti-gun, anti hunting orginizations your firearms should be banned to. In the Canadian firearms community we call it the Fudd syndrome, looks like its alive and well in the UK. AB

Maybe even a surprise to some that there is a well established, well funded and vociferous lobby working against our sport in the UK!

"I'm a Farmer. Nobody is out to get me" Is a comment on this forum that has stayed with me. This shows both incredible naivety and a good portion of "I'm alright Jack"

The method the Anti Gun lobby has used successfully is that of 1000 little cuts. So we lost Semi -Auto's then Pistols. It will be the same your side of the pond.

Our Anti's are have attacked the distribution of shooting publications to young people in order to stifle youth entering our sport. On the back of US outcry they had a stab at our AR styled rifles (Which included an attack by our largest circulation newspaper on .22Lr guns styled as military) If they can turn the public against any particular facet of our sport, be it a discipline or a style of gun then they will. Oh its only Semi -Auto shooters, Its only pistol shooters, Oh its only mags more than 10 rounds etc. Nibble nibble nibble. The "I'm alright Jack" element of 700,000 shooters further reducing the effectiveness of our defence. I wonder how many Stalkers participated in the Scottish consultation on the licencing of Airguns?

500,000 odd shotgun certificate holders could easily turn their back on 150,000 Firearms users in the UK. "Oh its only Centrefire"

Well done to the NRA for the pressure they have put upon the US Government. Oh that any of our multiple niche insurers here had such teeth. I was on our NRA's website this morning. The News page on which is just basically an obituary column!


Our sport is being marginalised and pretty much driven underground in the name of security. Its generally in decline. Eventually we wont raise a voice loud enough to be heard.
 
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a casual shooter and does not own any semi auto rifles. We both agree that you must be very careful of government. They may be taking away something from your neighbor that you don't care about, but eventually, they will get around to something you DO care about and doing it with license -as you said nothing while your neighbor lost what was precious to him. "Death by a thousand cuts". Dammed straight.~Muir
 
All this raises an interesting philosophical question: I imagine the majority on here believe in democracy. The American members probably in a more proud and vocal way (I mean that as praise). What then is the appropriate response when a majority in a democratic society decide they are no longer comfortable with a small minority owning firearms of certain types?

I'm not implying that this situation has arrived in the US, but it appears to be coming closer.

What would you do, as a gun owner, if and when it becomes apparent that a majority favour increased gun control? Do you accept that being part of a democracy means that you will have to comply? This is not the Government restricting your rights, but fellow citizens voicing their discomfort. Do you have a right to retain arms in a society that no longer deems them acceptable?

I think this is an issue people need to think about very carefully, and it is where the image that gun owners present to the world will become decisive.
 
Mungo, you raise a very fair point. I see your point and raise you another....is the opinion of an ignorant majority of any worth, or must one as a minority stand one's ground and fight out of the corner and into the light?
 
Mungo, you raise a very fair point. I see your point and raise you another....is the opinion of an ignorant majority of any worth, or must one as a minority stand one's ground and fight out of the corner and into the light?

One needs to be exceptionally careful with exactly which battles are worth fighting, and with how best to get your message across.

For instance: in the US, agreeing to much stricter vetting and background checks, with no gunshow and face-to-face loopholes; and increasing the consequences for failures of security (such removing licenses for improper strorage) might easily mollify many of the critics. And might do so to the extent that they stop demanding that certain categories be banned - or at least make thier demands less credible. In essence, finding ways to police the existing range of ownership more effectively and reduce the incidence of crime would remove much of the political impetus for further restriction.
 
Before it ever comes to the majority being anti private ownership, I hope we can persuade a heap of people off the fence.

Start talking about the sport positively and not in hushed whispers. Take your friends and colleagues shooting. Impress upon them how safety concious and controlled the sport is. Tell them about the application process, the vetting, the security, the qualifications. Show them also that its fun for goodness sake!

The next time someone tells them that all "Gun nuts" are psychopaths in waiting they might venture an opinion.
 
One needs to be exceptionally careful with exactly which battles are worth fighting, and with how best to get your message across.

For instance: in the US, agreeing to much stricter vetting and background checks, with no gunshow and face-to-face loopholes; and increasing the consequences for failures of security (such removing licenses for improper strorage) might easily mollify many of the critics. And might do so to the extent that they stop demanding that certain categories be banned - or at least make thier demands less credible. In essence, finding ways to police the existing range of ownership more effectively and reduce the incidence of crime would remove much of the political impetus for further restriction.

In a utopian society your ideas may have merit !

But in the real and or present state of the nation in the USA gunwoners cannot afford to gie into ANY new laws or restrictions . Once the anti gun people get their foot in the door so to speak they won't be satisfied with what they have but rather will go after more and more until firearms period are outlawed .

As to decreasing crime thats a pipe dream . Crimes are typically not done with legally owned firearms . So it's kinda like when someone says locks are only for honest people , the same can be said with ANY laws , laws are only for honest people .

And lord knows most of the elected officials in the USA are not HONEST people . Just look at Nixon , Slick Willey and the present so called president . And to be honest the only difference between them and the others is they got caught .
 
I'm always amazed by the amount of hunters and "firearms' owners who are still naive enough to believe that the anti-gun movement gives a rats ass as to what type of firearm you own. In their eyes ALL guns are evil and any of you who would throw other gun owners under the bus should realize that to the anti-gun, anti hunting orginizations your firearms should be banned to. In the Canadian firearms community we call it the Fudd syndrome, looks like its alive and well in the UK.

AB

Hallelujah Brother. :thumb:

Yorkie.
 
I have a lot of silverware from the days when putting rounds down an ETR range like a boss gave you shooting team holidays at Barry Buddon and Bisley. I've got to be honest and say without prejudice that military frame rifles capable of throwing 10+ rounds a second at a target should not be in civilian hands for any reason. They serve no purpose other that to put a lot of fire down quickly and with lethal accuracy. What purpose is there for that kind of firearm other than to kill people?

Now hold on before you kick off, if laws say that you can defend yourself and or others from bad guys with lethal force then you're going to get the most lethal firearms you can possess to maintain your safety and that of your family and others. If the laws also have allowance for military frame rifles for sporting and or home defence then what's going to be your best buy?

That's just an observation,
 
Seems like a lot of selfish replies...

Because you don't personally enjoy or are even aware of situations where semi's, pumps etc are used your ok for them to be wiped off.

If you weren't aware that the world championships for practical shotgun were held at Dorchester you might be asking why anybody needs a 12 shot pump action and solid slugs. The stages and set up there were brilliant last time I was there.

This thread is turning out like the bow hunting threads

I don't do it or want to do it so ill deprive your enjoyment of doing it..
 
Believe it or not, some guys like to own AR-type rifles for the exact same reason some people like to drive Ferraris fast. As to them being designed for killing people. Yes. That is their roots, but there are many sporting "uppers" made for these rifles and people use them as a kind of switch barrel gun: .223 to... whatever... and back.

Like you said, if the law allows defense of home then you're going to get what you think you need but undrstand this, and it bears repeating: The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is not about home defense and not about hunting. It is about defending oneself against an oppressive Government. The drafters of the Constitution thought this so important that they made it the second amendment agreed upon. Talk about hunting. Talk about home defense. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. But if you aren't justifying the Right to own a firearm based on this premise, you are just talking.

The real reason the ban was backed off of was because during our mid-term elections in 2014 those who voted for it would get creamed. Hell. Over 340 State law enforcement officials nation-wide have already stated that they will NOT enforce any new Federally mandated gun control statutes. Despite what the BBC or many other media sources will tell you, it is a very unpopular bit of legislation.

No matter. They will keep trying until we look like you guys.~Muir
 
I know what you're saying ps1 but the likes of a milspec AR15 is in a different league to semi auto and pump firearms, I'm cool with them!
 
The AR platform probably has more R&D budget thrown at it than any other gun in the world.

Any surprise it's simple and easy to shoot and has a big fan base?

It's a Semi-Auto not Automatic like a military gun. Frankly for a quick follow up shot for humane dispatch any other action is illogical.

Who would want you to believe otherwise?
 
Back
Top