Open carry in Oklahoma

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Platapus

When seconds count
The police are only minutes a way.

The police are there to enforce the law after the crime has been committed. The police are not there to protect people or to prevent crimes from being committed.

As soon as the police can guarantee that they will be there to prevent crimes from being committed, then I will start to believe that responsible citizens no longer need to keep weapons for self defense.

I see your point. I disagree about the necessity for citizens to be armed as a general civic ideal, but this is where the rub comes in regarding the US.

I don't see the country as being legislatively or socially willing to disarm the populace. THat's because the way it is now is how it's been for a very long time. Any change in this is incremental at very best, so talking up aggressive gun control or outright popular disarmament is just blowing smoke - I treat the same way I look at laws declaring "state guns" or suggesting that firearms be compulsory. When people start advocating that the government try to take all the weapons off the streets, it makes no sense. Like it or not, it's in the Constitution and that's difficult to change, which is both good and bad.

I wonder how the issue of reforming the Constitution will fare, given that there is now a not-insignificant chance that President Obama could be re-elected while losing the popular vote. The Electoral College system will come under scrutiny if it has delivered a counter-intuitive result twice in three elections. Whether this produces an appetite for constitutional reform is anyone's guess.

I think just making the system a little safer at a time, a little more responsive at a time, is the only way to go. The population will follow slowly.*


*=Maybe. Who knows. Not me.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

By that token my ought-three Springfield bolt-action rifle is an assault rifle, since that was what it was designed for all those years ago. For that matter so is my friend's 1865 muzzle-loader. Whether it's "bull" or not is your opinion, so please don't state it as a fact you know and everyone else denies.

By definition an Assault Rifle is capable of fully automatic fire. Your calling it "bull" doesn't make it so
.

Nice and very powerful gun you got there.

When it comes to modern guns disabling a feature which is not used very much in military does not make the gun a civilian gun.
It is still the same gun using same ammo which can pump out 30 rounds as fast as you can press the trigger...if one is into rage killing.
Actually it may make it more efficient.
So it is just a matter of definition and laws involved.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Who exactly is saying that? Fully automatic weapons are indeed illegal. Semi-autos are not. Some people want to ban them as "assault rifles", mainly because they look like their fully automatic counterparts.

There are several reasons for wanting to ban them that have nothing to do with their look, including that they are just as dangerous as the full auto versions (skilled operators will often not use full auto, or fire very short bursts of a couple of rounds) due to the quantity of ammunition they can shoot without reloading (up to 100 rounds with a c-mag), certain models can be easily converted back to full auto, and they serve no purpose as hunting weapons since the rounds they use are designed to cause casualties not kill outright.

Full auto weapons are also not illegal in some states, and lots of people have illegally modified weapons.

[Armistead]

I use to own a few so called assault weapons, sold them because I had no use for them other than shooting fun. In reality, so called assault rifles may look mean, but they function exactly as your standard hunting rifles. Ammo has nothing to do with it, I can buy a vast array of ammo for my semi hunting rifles.
The issue is clips, but about any gun can be rigged. The problem is when you start banning assault rifles, about every semi auto would be effected, so gun owners have no give on the issue.

If someone wants to do mass and quick damage, a simple 12 gauge minus the plug would cause havoc.

We're a nation of guns, no amount of laws would solve the issue, just take guns out of the hands of legal owners. Even the Dems ignore the issue now.

[Platapus]

I have been a big supporter of gun control for over 30 years

1. Modified Weaver Stance
2. Breath control
3. Smooth trigger pull

In my opinion, gun control is a must.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

There are several reasons for wanting to ban them that have nothing to do with their look, including that they are just as dangerous as the full auto versions (skilled operators will often not use full auto, or fire very short bursts of a couple of rounds) due to the quantity of ammunition they can shoot without reloading (up to 100 rounds with a c-mag), certain models can be easily converted back to full auto, and they serve no purpose as hunting weapons since the rounds they use are designed to cause casualties not kill outright.

First, nobody calls our military "operators" except no nothing civilians and media shills. The Special Forces themselves hate the term.

Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.

Third, bullets are bullets. Even a 30-06 is "designed" to wound instead of kill outright if the target is large enough. Trust me, against Prairie Dogs and other varmints up to a Deer a 5.56 or 7.62mm is definitely a killing bullet.

[antikristuseke]

What August said, also full auto fire does not really increase leathality unless you are at point blank range, it is used for suppression, pin down the enemy while others manouver to a position to take them out. People tend to have an aversion to sticking their head up with bullets cracking by over their head.
In the context of most shootings done by a lone gunman it would be a liability rather than an advantage, with organized groups though that changes quite a bit but assault rifles have a very short time where they are capable of providing supressing fire since the weapon overheats and seizes up, even with maschine guns designed for that role have to have frequent barrel changes t allow hot barrels to cool off while maintaining suppressing fire.

[MH]

Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.

...but

My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
It sort of makes me wonder about those guys....who also own all those guns.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Full auto weapons are also not illegal in some states, and lots of people have illegally modified weapons.

To purchase a fully automatic weapon requires a Class 3 Federal Firearms License. It doesn't cost much ($200) but there are some serious interviews to pass first. Also, a Class 3 FFL means you are a licensed dealer of firearms, which means you come under quite a bit of scrutiny, and are considered responsible if anything untoward happens.

When I said "illegal" I meant that it's not like you can go to a gun show or shop and pick one up just because you want it. You have to jump through some fairly serious hoops.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

...but

My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.

Well it might seem that way but remember when you hear such statements that they're almost always responding to someone who is going out of their way to play up their lethality in order to get them banned.

In fact the very term "assault weapon" was rather obscure until it was brought into the public vernacular by people with an anti-firearms ownership agenda. After all I carried an M16 for seven years in the Army and not once did I ever hear anyone call it an "assault weapon" yet now it's practically a household word.

Bottom line here is aside from cosmetics there is nothing to distinguish a so called (civilian type) assault weapon from any semi-auto rifle. It's just easier to demonize them in the media.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

...but

My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
It sort of makes me wonder about those guys....who also own all those guns.

Very true, but it also works the other way. Those of us who support gun ownership see a lot of alarmist yelling from the other side, rather than reasoned arguments. A lot of people who want to ban guns are of the "all guns are evil" variety, and talk of "assault rifles" and similar turns as part of a larger agenda.

As for "all those guns", polls of various types indicate that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all American households contain at least one gun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ership-us-data

If we assume the lowest number (30%) and assume that no household has more than one gun (certainly not true, but taking the lowest possible numbers), that would mean that there are currently ninety million (90,000,000) privately owned guns in the United States. To someone who doesn't like guns that number might be truly alarming. To the gun-owner the next question would be "And how many of them were used to shoot somebody last year?"

The simple fact is that most people are responsible citizens and have no desire to kill anyone else, even in the heat of an argument.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Meaningless parrot fodder

Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true. Ban all guns. Good sheep will go along. Criminals will still find a way to get one. Also a majority of violent criminals tend to be young, strong and male. Weaker beings like women and us older guys become easy prey.

Here's another trite cliche for you: "God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal."

[Buddahaid]

Perhaps but a lot of formerly good sheep will then become criminals like me. Only three of my guns were purchased over the counter. The others I inherited. Do you have any idea how many millions of guns are in that category? They will never be all accounted for.

[Sailor Steve]

There are also millions of perfectly serviceable guns that are no longer classified as "firearms" at all. Due to age or type of mechanism a great many are now classified as "relics" or "curios".

Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true.

Not at all since there has never been any serious call to ban all guns which means it is a meaningless phrase that some people parrot as though it means something.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

There are also millions of perfectly serviceable guns that are no longer classified as "firearms" at all. Due to age or type of mechanism a great many are now classified as "relics" or "curios".

All of mine actually. 1916, 1919, 1943, 1945, and 1945.