Author Topic: Please sign petition for Target to stop allowing open carry policy in its stores  (Read 101958 times)

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Target has decided today to change its policy and is now requesting that customers no longer bring guns into its stores.  To anyone who signed the petition and/or supported these efforts in other ways, I really appreciate your help.

http://abullseyeview.com/2014/07/target-addresses-firearms-in-stores/#.U7QVkzuEOjs.facebook

Doing some shopping tonight near a target.  I'll test this out. 

Anyone want to bet nobody says a word to me?

Let us know how it goes Timmy.

Phil - you are correct, America, the United States of, is governed by the rule of law.  I don't know about where Timmy lives, but most states treat no carry policies (and their pretty signs) as suggestions, not the rule of law.  If you are in violation of the suggestion and the management asks you to leave, then you must leave...if you do not, you can be arrested for trespass.  In other states, the signs carry the weight of a legal no trespass warning, and you can be arrested for trespass without being first asked to leave by management.  We should all make sure that we follow laws, wherever we are, and Timmy, make sure you know and are following the law in whatever jurisdiction you are in.

An update from my shopping trip to Target last night.  Spent about 15-20 minutes in the store wondering around looking at various things last night.  Loaded up a few things for the up coming holiday weekend and checked out without a problem. 

Nobody said a word to me, nobody even seemed to care at all.  Like I suspected, much ado about nothing. 

Petition = Failed

avonlea

  • Guest
It's not those that want gun regulation vs. those that don't.  It is, however, those who want stricter regulation vs. those that don't.  46% to 48% respectively according to the most recent poll I could find.  68% want the government to enforce existing laws more strictly...seems to reason that some of those opposing stricter regulation want better enforcement of the already existing regulation.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/68_think_u_s_needs_stricter_enforcement_of_existing_gun_laws
So that does not mean that those people are minority, given the error of the survey.  Also, I would be fine with just in enforcement of the laws in say California but in Georgia, I would want them stricter.  I think this survey is not showing exactly what you are using it to say.

I just ran a google search and think that this survey is a little bit more relevant to the thread.  It doesn't look at the broad topic of gun control as a whole, but specifically looks at how Americans feel about guns in restaurants and stores.  It found that a majority of Americans do not want guns in these places.  http://publichealthwatch.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/poll-most-americans-want-no-gun-policies-at-restaurants-shops/

Quote
According to the poll, 55 percent of Americans prefer that retailers and restauranteurs don’t allow guns, while only 32 percent prefer that they do.

Quote
The new survey was conducted after Chipotle announced its new gun policy, but before Chili’s and Sonic said they would do the same. By a 61 percent to 32 percent margin, most Americans said they approved of Chipotle’s decision.

avonlea

  • Guest
Target has decided today to change its policy and is now requesting that customers no longer bring guns into its stores.  To anyone who signed the petition and/or supported these efforts in other ways, I really appreciate your help.

http://abullseyeview.com/2014/07/target-addresses-firearms-in-stores/#.U7QVkzuEOjs.facebook

Doing some shopping tonight near a target.  I'll test this out. 

Anyone want to bet nobody says a word to me?

Let us know how it goes Timmy.

Phil - you are correct, America, the United States of, is governed by the rule of law.  I don't know about where Timmy lives, but most states treat no carry policies (and their pretty signs) as suggestions, not the rule of law.  If you are in violation of the suggestion and the management asks you to leave, then you must leave...if you do not, you can be arrested for trespass.  In other states, the signs carry the weight of a legal no trespass warning, and you can be arrested for trespass without being first asked to leave by management.  We should all make sure that we follow laws, wherever we are, and Timmy, make sure you know and are following the law in whatever jurisdiction you are in.

An update from my shopping trip to Target last night.  Spent about 15-20 minutes in the store wondering around looking at various things last night.  Loaded up a few things for the up coming holiday weekend and checked out without a problem. 

Nobody said a word to me, nobody even seemed to care at all.  Like I suspected, much ado about nothing. 

Petition = Failed

Target did make a request, like Starbucks.  I was wrong earlier when I thought that Starbucks no longer allowed guns.  They did ask their customers to not bring them into their shops but said they would not make their employees enforce this request, one reason being that the CEO was not comfortable asking his employees to confront someone carrying a gun.  Some businesses like Peet's Coffee and Whole Foods more strongly enforce their no guns policy from what I understand.  So, you are right, Timmmy, in that Target will not ask you to leave its store when you shop there.  However, I don't think that the petition is a failure.  Other gun owners are choosing to respect Target's request.  The leader of Open Carry Texas, the group that organized many of the demonstrations, said that he is asking its members to no longer carry long rifles in Target's stores.  I would also say that another positive side of this might be that the public is becoming more aware of this issue.  I lived in a peaceful little bubble until just a little while ago.  I had no idea what types of activities were allowed to go on in my state or in other states.  I currently have a better understanding.  I think more people do now, too.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Location: USA
One of the things that really surprises me about this issue is... how much of a non-issue it is.

I think it's ostentatious and obnoxious to openly carry rifles in stores and restaurants, unless you're specifically presenting yourself in a neutral and passive manner. It can be annoying and even scary for people who are not used to weapons and it is apparently not good PR for the gun rights movement.

With that said, no one can possibly argue that open carry protesters are the least bit violent or dangerous. They haven't shot anyone and they haven't threatened anyone (with the possible exception of those rare occasions where they brandish weapons), so this whole thing is just another battle in the culture war.

That's one thing I hope people who want Target to stop tolerating open carry realize: it's not going to save any lives at all. You might give some people a better shopping experience, and you might get to slap your political opponents in the face, but if you're under the impression that you're going to actually help anyone, you're mistaken.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
With that said, no one can possibly argue that open carry protesters are the least bit violent or dangerous. They haven't shot anyone and they haven't threatened anyone (with the possible exception of those rare occasions where they brandish weapons), so this whole thing is just another battle in the culture war.

What you're saying is demonstrably untrue.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/30/1303128/-Open-Carry-Texas-harasses-threatens-former-Marine-for-speaking-against-them#

http://politicalblindspot.com/racist-open-carry-ar-15-protest-results-in-arrests-warrants-and-charges-filed/

http://csgv.org/blog/2013/pro-gun-activists-contradict-claim-stalking-peaceful/

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Location: USA
First link refers to open carry protesters "harassing" a guy, but if you look at the video it seems that the protesters themselves did nothing more than follow a guy for a short distance while (arguably) being rude to him. This is a perfectly legal course of action and does not amount to threatening or intimidating activity.

Second link has people exercising Second Amendment rights and First Amendment rights at the same time. Charges have been filed, but we'll see how they play out in a court of law. In any case, this may be more like racists openly carrying, than open carry people being racist. You might as well post up a video of Craig Cobb doing what he does.

Third link refers to a counter protest. For fuck's sakes, if you want to remove from people what they consider to be their rights, you may well get some of them to protest against you. I don't support the crass comments referred to in the article, but does this amount to intimidation or threats? No, and if you disagree with me, I recommend that you inform local law enforcement about them. Remember, the First Amendment is very permissive, you can make sexual comments about people and fantasize about their deaths and stuff, (which is why Mike Malloy is still on the air). About the only thing you can't do is make serious threats against people, which apparently law enforcement doesn't think has happened.

And if you think people on the other side of the issue don't threaten people, you're mistaken. The most obvious, undeniable, and widespread example of anti-gunners being threatening and violent is by proxy: when they use police, and the criminal justice system, to threaten or perform severe violence against people who disagree with them about what guns are appropriate to own, or about where it's appropriate to carry them. Let us say that I decide to buy a rifle or something without going through the applicable licensing procedure, and the cops happen to find out about it. I may then be subjected to a search of my home, not to mention being taken to jail or prison against my will. That's orders of magnitude more violent than a few nasty comments on Facebook, or even an armed counter protest.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20746
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
General response to various comments - you have had 33 amendments to the Constitution.  At first people could be enslaved, women could not vote, etc. etc.  Various amendments - I am not a U.S. citizen so I am not going to go into detail on a topic I am ignorant about.  But if there can be amendments (alcohol was prohibited, alcohol wasn't) then others can happen as well, right?  So if enough people want a constitutional amendment about guns, I am assuming it can happen?

In the meantime, as someone who comes from a generally non-gun culture, I do not understand this strong need to be able to carry a gun in public.  Please note I did NOT say anti-gun, Canadians do not have an anti-gun culture, we have a "guns in their proper place" culture, and the proper place is hunting, protecting livestock, controlling vermin, and target practice.  This means we do not see a need for hand-gun or military-type automatic and semi-automatic rifle ownership by the general public

Yes we have had shootings, including gang killings and the odd random nut job.  I have had peripheral contact with three of those and it is not fun.  But in general our response is to try to prevent access to guns by those who should not have them, not arm everyone in anticipation.  And guns do not make people polite - Canadians have an international reputation for being polite, and it is not because we expect to be shot if we are rude.

I would appreciate not being mis-interpreted.

And if you want to see a not bad (not bad = very good in Canadian English) video which will give you a good feel for who were are, go watch/listen to Commander Chris Hadfield and his brother Dave's video "In Canada".  After all how many many commanders of the Space Station have had their music videos (Space Oddity) go viral?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVsHt3rBnc

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
General response to various comments - you have had 33 amendments to the Constitution.  At first people could be enslaved, women could not vote, etc. etc.  Various amendments - I am not a U.S. citizen so I am not going to go into detail on a topic I am ignorant about.  But if there can be amendments (alcohol was prohibited, alcohol wasn't) then others can happen as well, right?  So if enough people want a constitutional amendment about guns, I am assuming it can happen?

In the meantime, as someone who comes from a generally non-gun culture, I do not understand this strong need to be able to carry a gun in public.  Please note I did NOT say anti-gun, Canadians do not have an anti-gun culture, we have a "guns in their proper place" culture, and the proper place is hunting, protecting livestock, controlling vermin, and target practice.  This means we do not see a need for hand-gun or military-type automatic and semi-automatic rifle ownership by the general public

Yes we have had shootings, including gang killings and the odd random nut job.  I have had peripheral contact with three of those and it is not fun.  But in general our response is to try to prevent access to guns by those who should not have them, not arm everyone in anticipation.  And guns do not make people polite - Canadians have an international reputation for being polite, and it is not because we expect to be shot if we are rude.

I would appreciate not being mis-interpreted.

And if you want to see a not bad (not bad = very good in Canadian English) video which will give you a good feel for who were are, go watch/listen to Commander Chris Hadfield and his brother Dave's video "In Canada".  After all how many many commanders of the Space Station have had their music videos (Space Oddity) go viral?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVsHt3rBnc

All fine and well.  But you have your laws/political process and we have ours.  Butt out.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20746
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
On a general lighter note - I know now why you (some of you) American guys have issues - you don't have what Chris sings of here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWefDVg4aw

And Brewer, from the discussion, it sounds like a lot of your fellow American citizens do not agree with you, which is why I asked about constitutional amendments.  Are they impossible on this one front?

And for the rude "butt out" - go watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFUbrQWK_A&feature=kp

And, when you have had a colleague lose a good friend to a nut with a hand-gun, and a student go to a friend's funeral because of a nut with a rifle, and cradled a 6 month old daughter while another nut job shoots women because he thought they took his place in University, and had a daughter live through a day of CBC coverage of Moncton because a co-worker's family was there, maybe you would not like guns in just anyone's hands either.

I know you only care about what happens to you and yours in your country, but it is a big world out there.  As a Canadian, brought up to be polite, I regret feeling I have to say this, but you are being provincial.


quote author=brewer12345 link=topic=19136.msg335181#msg335181 date=1404514077]
General response to various comments - you have had 33 amendments to the Constitution.  At first people could be enslaved, women could not vote, etc. etc.  Various amendments - I am not a U.S. citizen so I am not going to go into detail on a topic I am ignorant about.  But if there can be amendments (alcohol was prohibited, alcohol wasn't) then others can happen as well, right?  So if enough people want a constitutional amendment about guns, I am assuming it can happen?

In the meantime, as someone who comes from a generally non-gun culture, I do not understand this strong need to be able to carry a gun in public.  Please note I did NOT say anti-gun, Canadians do not have an anti-gun culture, we have a "guns in their proper place" culture, and the proper place is hunting, protecting livestock, controlling vermin, and target practice.  This means we do not see a need for hand-gun or military-type automatic and semi-automatic rifle ownership by the general public

Yes we have had shootings, including gang killings and the odd random nut job.  I have had peripheral contact with three of those and it is not fun.  But in general our response is to try to prevent access to guns by those who should not have them, not arm everyone in anticipation.  And guns do not make people polite - Canadians have an international reputation for being polite, and it is not because we expect to be shot if we are rude.

I would appreciate not being mis-interpreted.

And if you want to see a not bad (not bad = very good in Canadian English) video which will give you a good feel for who were are, go watch/listen to Commander Chris Hadfield and his brother Dave's video "In Canada".  After all how many many commanders of the Space Station have had their music videos (Space Oddity) go viral?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVsHt3rBnc

All fine and well.  But you have your laws/political process and we have ours.  Butt out.
[/quote]

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Sorry for your losses, but I will say again:

Butt out, Canuckistani.  You can have your laws the way you like them, we will have ours the way we like them.  MYOB.

On a general lighter note - I know now why you (some of you) American guys have issues - you don't have what Chris sings of here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWefDVg4aw

And Brewer, from the discussion, it sounds like a lot of your fellow American citizens do not agree with you, which is why I asked about constitutional amendments.  Are they impossible on this one front?

And for the rude "butt out" - go watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFUbrQWK_A&feature=kp

And, when you have had a colleague lose a good friend to a nut with a hand-gun, and a student go to a friend's funeral because of a nut with a rifle, and cradled a 6 month old daughter while another nut job shoots women because he thought they took his place in University, and had a daughter live through a day of CBC coverage of Moncton because a co-worker's family was there, maybe you would not like guns in just anyone's hands either.

I know you only care about what happens to you and yours in your country, but it is a big world out there.  As a Canadian, brought up to be polite, I regret feeling I have to say this, but you are being provincial.


quote author=brewer12345 link=topic=19136.msg335181#msg335181 date=1404514077]
General response to various comments - you have had 33 amendments to the Constitution.  At first people could be enslaved, women could not vote, etc. etc.  Various amendments - I am not a U.S. citizen so I am not going to go into detail on a topic I am ignorant about.  But if there can be amendments (alcohol was prohibited, alcohol wasn't) then others can happen as well, right?  So if enough people want a constitutional amendment about guns, I am assuming it can happen?

In the meantime, as someone who comes from a generally non-gun culture, I do not understand this strong need to be able to carry a gun in public.  Please note I did NOT say anti-gun, Canadians do not have an anti-gun culture, we have a "guns in their proper place" culture, and the proper place is hunting, protecting livestock, controlling vermin, and target practice.  This means we do not see a need for hand-gun or military-type automatic and semi-automatic rifle ownership by the general public

Yes we have had shootings, including gang killings and the odd random nut job.  I have had peripheral contact with three of those and it is not fun.  But in general our response is to try to prevent access to guns by those who should not have them, not arm everyone in anticipation.  And guns do not make people polite - Canadians have an international reputation for being polite, and it is not because we expect to be shot if we are rude.

I would appreciate not being mis-interpreted.

And if you want to see a not bad (not bad = very good in Canadian English) video which will give you a good feel for who were are, go watch/listen to Commander Chris Hadfield and his brother Dave's video "In Canada".  After all how many many commanders of the Space Station have had their music videos (Space Oddity) go viral?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVsHt3rBnc

All fine and well.  But you have your laws/political process and we have ours.  Butt out.
[/quote]

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20746
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Like I said, provincial and rude.  The Forum encourages intelligent and rational discussion, so why are you ducking the honest question about constitutional amendments?

Anyway, I leave it to the Americans on this forum to discuss the attitudes of your compatriots.  I am sure this has been enlightening for readers of other nationalities.

Have fun.


And, since you obviously have no clue about how Canadians think, go watch some Arrogant Worms videos. 



Sorry for your losses, but I will say again:

Butt out, Canuckistani.  You can have your laws the way you like them, we will have ours the way we like them.  MYOB.


brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
You don't see me discussing facets of Canadian politics I find objectionable (such as the crack-smoking mayor of Toronto, widespread socialism, and the fact that the gubmint has decided to make a handful of financial institutions national champions by allowing them to rape the citizenry wholesale).  I don't really care.  These issues are your problems. to the extent you find them to be such.  I would just like the same courtesy extended to US politics.

Like I said, provincial and rude.  The Forum encourages intelligent and rational discussion, so why are you ducking the honest question about constitutional amendments?

Anyway, I leave it to the Americans on this forum to discuss the attitudes of your compatriots.  I am sure this has been enlightening for readers of other nationalities.

Have fun.


And, since you obviously have no clue about how Canadians think, go watch some Arrogant Worms videos. 



Sorry for your losses, but I will say again:

Butt out, Canuckistani.  You can have your laws the way you like them, we will have ours the way we like them.  MYOB.


GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Location: USA
I would like to make it known that I welcome Canadian perspectives in the American firearms debate, as long as they're well informed and polite. I strongly object to comments like "butt out, it's not your country".

NinetyFour

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 6875
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Southwestern US
I agree with GrayGhost, and I'm a bit biased because though I am a US citizen, I have Canadian blood.

I thought RetiredAt63 made some excellent points and wrote them eloquently.

I would like to think that most of us in the US agree that we have a problem with gun violence, and it would be nice if we looked to other countries as places we could learn from.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
I would like to make it known that I welcome Canadian perspectives in the American firearms debate, as long as they're well informed and polite. I strongly object to comments like "butt out, it's not your country".

Well, why don't we welcome, say, the Saudi perspective on women's rights?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
I find the attitude that people on this forum from other countries are not allowed to discuss the gun issues in the US really just sad and pathetic.  I would think that perspectives from other cultures would be a welcome contribution.  Are your arguments so weak that they can't face any other perspectives but your own?


PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
You don't see me discussing facets of Canadian politics I find objectionable (such as the crack-smoking mayor of Toronto, widespread socialism, and the fact that the gubmint has decided to make a handful of financial institutions national champions by allowing them to rape the citizenry wholesale).  I don't really care.  These issues are your problems. to the extent you find them to be such.  I would just like the same courtesy extended to US politics.
Now that is a laugh.  A citizen of the USA wanting people from other countries to butt out of their politics when the USA has been militarily enforcing it's corporate imperialism on most of the rest of the world for 60 odd years now.  My sides hurt from laughing so much at the hypocrisy.

Maybe people from other countries will stop politely discussing USA politics over the internet when the USA stops invading and bombing other countries and installing puppet governments they hope they can control for the economic benefit of the USA.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
I would like to make it known that I welcome Canadian perspectives in the American firearms debate, as long as they're well informed and polite. I strongly object to comments like "butt out, it's not your country".

Well, why don't we welcome, say, the Saudi perspective on women's rights?
ROFL, give the current decisions from the Supreme Court, and the attitudes of the GOP in that regard, we might as well.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
You don't see me discussing facets of Canadian politics I find objectionable (such as the crack-smoking mayor of Toronto, widespread socialism, and the fact that the gubmint has decided to make a handful of financial institutions national champions by allowing them to rape the citizenry wholesale).  I don't really care.  These issues are your problems. to the extent you find them to be such.  I would just like the same courtesy extended to US politics.
Now that is a laugh.  A citizen of the USA wanting people from other countries to butt out of their politics when the USA has been militarily enforcing it's corporate imperialism on most of the rest of the world for 60 odd years now.  My sides hurt from laughing so much at the hypocrisy.

Maybe people from other countries will stop politely discussing USA politics over the internet when the USA stops invading and bombing other countries and installing puppet governments they hope they can control for the economic benefit of the USA.

I would be only too happy if the people running things in the US pulled the heads out of their asses and pulled US troops out of all foreign countries.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
I would be only too happy if the people running things in the US pulled the heads out of their asses and pulled US troops out of all foreign countries.
But you would not be "all too happy" with the economic consequences for the USA of doing that, which is why your government will never do it.

Actions speak louder than words and bullets and bombs are about as actionable as it gets.  So I'd suggest skipping the false butthurt about foreigners discussing USA politics on the internet.

EricL

  • Guest
I'm not going to sign a petition to tell a business what it can't do in its own stores.  I'm a gun owner and I support the 2nd Amendment.  That said, America is, or was, or should at least aspire to be a civilized nation.  And even in the mighty uncivilized nations I've been to average people don't make it a habit walking around in public with assault rifles.  Even in a place like Afghanistan where everyone would understand.  Contrary to Hollywood, even in the old West walking around strapped in public was considered threatening - something only outlaws and gunfighters did.  Public opinion then didn't differentiate the two much.  So any American who goes into a public space with an assault rifle, in my opinion, destroys his or her credibility as a responsible gun owner.  And they're completely missing the point that a gun does not automatically make you a bad ass.  Yes, a maniac with a gun scares me.  But a maniac with a gun surrounded by well meaning yahoos with heavy weapons trying to stop him with a bullet fest scares me much more.  I'm not voting against that stupidity with my signature but with my wallet.

EricL

  • Guest
Addendum:
If you own an assault rifle because they're fun.  I get it.  They are.
If you own an assault rifle because you feel you need it for home defense, you need to work on having more friends and fewer enemies. 

And consider this:


It didn't help much.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
I would be only too happy if the people running things in the US pulled the heads out of their asses and pulled US troops out of all foreign countries.
But you would not be "all too happy" with the economic consequences for the USA of doing that, which is why your government will never do it.

Actions speak louder than words and bullets and bombs are about as actionable as it gets.  So I'd suggest skipping the false butthurt about foreigners discussing USA politics on the internet.

Actually, I would be overjoyed with the long term economic consequences.  No more wild military overspending, way less pressure on the deficit, an opportunity to put money into infrastructure rather than idiotic military adventures, etc.  But I digress.

If any Iraqis want to opine on US politics, I suppose they have the right.  Canuckistanis?  Please. Stick your transcontinental pipeline dreams where the sun don't shine and stay out of US politics.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Actually, I would be overjoyed with the long term economic consequences.  No more wild military overspending, way less pressure on the deficit, an opportunity to put money into infrastructure rather than idiotic military adventures, etc.  But I digress.
That's assuming your economy recovers in your lifetime which is highly doubtful unless you are no more than about 10 years old right now.
Quote from: brewer12345
If any Iraqis want to opine on US politics, I suppose they have the right.  Canuckistanis?  Please. Stick your transcontinental pipeline dreams where the sun don't shine and stay out of US politics.
Sorry but when your country goes around bombing other nations in order to force them to do what you want you lose the right to pick and choose who gets to politely discuss your politics on the internet.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Addendum:
If you own an assault rifle because they're fun.  I get it.  They are.
.....
This is the only honest reason I have ever heard for owning an assault rifle.  All the others that people spout are nothing more than justifications.

Frankly, the above reason coupled with the constitutional right to own firearms is all that is needed.  I truly don't understand the compulsion so many over there feel to try to justify the fact they like playing with assault rifles.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Location: USA
I'd like to note that true assault rifles are illegal unless you go through extensive red tape in a procedure that can take months, and are willing to spend at least $10,000 on one gun.

What are legal in the US are rifles that look like assault rifles, but function quite differently.

As to why one would want to own them, they tend to be more ergonomic than traditional firearms, they have a different aesthetic, they're more adjustable and adaptable, and, properly loaded, they may well be better for home defense, too.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Actually, I would be overjoyed with the long term economic consequences.  No more wild military overspending, way less pressure on the deficit, an opportunity to put money into infrastructure rather than idiotic military adventures, etc.  But I digress.

If any Iraqis want to opine on US politics, I suppose they have the right.  Canuckistanis?  Please. Stick your transcontinental pipeline dreams where the sun don't shine and stay out of US politics.

Two questions . . .
1.  Could you stop giving your not very well controlled guns to our criminals then?  If there were better American controls on weapons we would have many fewer shooting deaths.
2.  Is 'Canuckistani' supposed to be insulting because it sounds middle eastern and you hate Arabs, or because it sounds like a country that might contain Muslims and you hate Islam?

EricL

  • Guest
I'd like to note that true assault rifles are illegal unless you go through extensive red tape in a procedure that can take months, and are willing to spend at least $10,000 on one gun.

What are legal in the US are rifles that look like assault rifles, but function quite differently.

As to why one would want to own them, they tend to be more ergonomic than traditional firearms, they have a different aesthetic, they're more adjustable and adaptable, and, properly loaded, they may well be better for home defense, too.

Technically you are correct.  True assault rifles are illegal (unless you're willing to go through a ton of federal paperwork to get one).  But in practice you can cycle through a 30 or 90 round magazine on semi almost as quickly as you can on full auto.  Firing single shot also gives greater control and accuracy whereas full auto causes muzzle climb and wastes ammo.  True, a trained and/or experienced shooter can use full auto effectively but most aren't.  Maniacs almost never are so semi auto weapons are a net positive for them.

As to how effective an assault rifle or assault style rifle is for home defense, again you are technically correct.  It is.  The weapons can be accessorized like Barbie Dolls with many fine tacticool gadgets.  But are you really going to be swarmed by the Cali Cartel or MS13?  If so I heartily approve of your weapon choice and furthermore recommend more of the same, a fake ID, a bunker in Idaho, and claymore mines.  Goose stepping Berkeley hippie assault troops of President Obama's New World Order?  Don't forget to stock up on tinfoil for the hats.  Zombie Apocalypse?  I recommend counseling or at least a subscription to Skeptics Magazine.  But for most people with a limited set of enemies a conventional pistol, shotgun, or rifle is more than sufficient with training and/or experience being the greater determinant for success. 

In my opinion assault style weapons are overkill marketed by an industry manufacturing solutions for which there is no problem.

I'll now stop my bloviation so that you can return to the ongoing bloviation between angry Canadians and angry Americans.


GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Location: USA
Your first paragraph is highly speculative. I see no reason to believe that, in untrained hands, semi auto firearms are more effective than full auto firearms. You might make intuitive sounding statements, but until there is evidence to support the claim, I will remain skeptical. Many criminal shootings take place at very close range or involve drivebys, so I would imagine that spraying and praying is a perfectly reasonable tactic in these cases.

Your second paragraph amounts to ad hominem bashing and I do not see a reason to respond to it other than by saying that when it comes to risk management, I am given to being very careful. I wear my seatbelt whenever I get into my car and I unplug my weedwhacker whenever I need to adjust the spool, and I'd rather have too many rounds in my rifle than too few. The website I linked to had nothing to do with gadgets, rather it had to do with ballistics. I'd say that ballistics + ergonomics are a great reason to choose modern styled rifles instead of the old comb grip deer rifles. I object to referring to traditional rifles as "conventional", particularly when they tend to be overpowered for home defense (a thirty caliber bullet is not a good choice for killing humans, and is very capable of penetrating multiple walls) and when AR-15s may well be the most common gun in the US. A .223 rifle is a .223 rifle, no matter if it's an AR-15 or a Mini-14, or a bolt action varmint gun.

In my experience, most people who dislike modern styled rifles are put off by their non traditional appearance and don't realize that the appearance of a rifle doesn't make it shoot harder or faster. The video I linked to has a section about this.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 10:30:07 AM by GrayGhost »

EricL

  • Guest
My first paragraph is based on 28 years in the US Army, both enlisted and officer.  I'll admit it's an opinion not all veterans share.  But it is an informed opinion.

The second opinion is an attack on stupidity I've observed in US gun culture.  Attacks on stupidity are always justified to a certain extent.  I'll reiterate that if you own an assault or assault style weapon for fun or to fend off hordes of gangsters you pissed off during an Elliot Ness type law enforcement career I completely understand.  But most people aren't in that boat.  And carting one around weapons in public is irresponsible and unacceptable. 

Finally, there's only room for one flame war on this thread and the Canadian vs. Americans vs. foreigners was here first.  I'm out.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Like I said, provincial and rude.  The Forum encourages intelligent and rational discussion, so why are you ducking the honest question about constitutional amendments?


Like I said, provincial and rude.  The Forum encourages intelligent and rational discussion, so why are you ducking the honest question about constitutional amendments?

 

To answer your question, yes, the anti-gunners could try and pass a Constitutional amendment.

But they won't, because they know there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that it will be ratified.

It takes a strong national sentiment to get a Constitutional amendment passed, and on an issue like eviscerating the 2nd amendment, the nation is far too divided for any chance that an amendment would go through the system.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Addendum:
If you own an assault rifle because they're fun.  I get it.  They are.
If you own an assault rifle because you feel you need it for home defense, you need to work on having more friends and fewer enemies. 

And consider this:


It didn't help much.

Probably because an assault rifle is a terrible choice of weapon for home defense.  As is any long rifle.

Unfortunately, the gun grabbers don't want us to have shotguns (great choice) or hand guns (not as good, but still better than an assault rifle) either. 

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395

2.  Is 'Canuckistani' supposed to be insulting because it sounds middle eastern and you hate Arabs, or because it sounds like a country that might contain Muslims and you hate Islam?

I'll let the other guy defend the "Canuckistani" comment, but there are a couple of important points that need to be made:

1.  None of the 7 "stan" nations is "Arab."  They are based on Persian, not Arab, culture.  Calling a Persian an "Arab" not only shows ignorance, it will likely be taken as an insult.

2.  None of the "stan" nations is in the Middle East.




libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
I'd like to note that true assault rifles are illegal unless you go through extensive red tape in a procedure that can take months, and are willing to spend at least $10,000 on one gun.

What are legal in the US are rifles that look like assault rifles, but function quite differently.

As to why one would want to own them, they tend to be more ergonomic than traditional firearms, they have a different aesthetic, they're more adjustable and adaptable, and, properly loaded, they may well be better for home defense, too.

Technically you are correct.  True assault rifles are illegal (unless you're willing to go through a ton of federal paperwork to get one).  But in practice you can cycle through a 30 or 90 round magazine on semi almost as quickly as you can on full auto.  Firing single shot also gives greater control and accuracy whereas full auto causes muzzle climb and wastes ammo.  True, a trained and/or experienced shooter can use full auto effectively but most aren't.  Maniacs almost never are so semi auto weapons are a net positive for them.

As to how effective an assault rifle or assault style rifle is for home defense, again you are technically correct.  It is.  The weapons can be accessorized like Barbie Dolls with many fine tacticool gadgets.  But are you really going to be swarmed by the Cali Cartel or MS13?  If so I heartily approve of your weapon choice and furthermore recommend more of the same, a fake ID, a bunker in Idaho, and claymore mines.  Goose stepping Berkeley hippie assault troops of President Obama's New World Order?  Don't forget to stock up on tinfoil for the hats.  Zombie Apocalypse?  I recommend counseling or at least a subscription to Skeptics Magazine.  But for most people with a limited set of enemies a conventional pistol, shotgun, or rifle is more than sufficient with training and/or experience being the greater determinant for success. 

In my opinion assault style weapons are overkill marketed by an industry manufacturing solutions for which there is no problem.

I'll now stop my bloviation so that you can return to the ongoing bloviation between angry Canadians and angry Americans.

Claymores (the modern ones, not the old fashioned "William Wallace" Scottish kind), while effective, tend to really mess up your paint and wallpaper.  Not recommended for in home use. :)

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
I'll let the other guy defend the "Canuckistani" comment, but there are a couple of important points that need to be made:

1.  None of the 7 "stan" nations is "Arab."  They are based on Persian, not Arab, culture.  Calling a Persian an "Arab" not only shows ignorance, it will likely be taken as an insult.

2.  None of the "stan" nations is in the Middle East.
Both of which are probably why GuitarStv said "sounds arab" and "sounds like a country that might contain muslims".  You know, to highlight the ignorance evident in the phrasing of the insult to begin with.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 03:33:06 AM by PKFFW »

Michael792

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Age: 31
  • Location: US
    • Rising Ascendant
I'd like to note that true assault rifles are illegal unless you go through extensive red tape in a procedure that can take months, and are willing to spend at least $10,000 on one gun.

What are legal in the US are rifles that look like assault rifles, but function quite differently.

As to why one would want to own them, they tend to be more ergonomic than traditional firearms, they have a different aesthetic, they're more adjustable and adaptable, and, properly loaded, they may well be better for home defense, too.

Technically you are correct.  True assault rifles are illegal (unless you're willing to go through a ton of federal paperwork to get one).  But in practice you can cycle through a 30 or 90 round magazine on semi almost as quickly as you can on full auto.  Firing single shot also gives greater control and accuracy whereas full auto causes muzzle climb and wastes ammo.  True, a trained and/or experienced shooter can use full auto effectively but most aren't.  Maniacs almost never are so semi auto weapons are a net positive for them.

As to how effective an assault rifle or assault style rifle is for home defense, again you are technically correct.  It is.  The weapons can be accessorized like Barbie Dolls with many fine tacticool gadgets.  But are you really going to be swarmed by the Cali Cartel or MS13?  If so I heartily approve of your weapon choice and furthermore recommend more of the same, a fake ID, a bunker in Idaho, and claymore mines.  Goose stepping Berkeley hippie assault troops of President Obama's New World Order?  Don't forget to stock up on tinfoil for the hats.  Zombie Apocalypse?  I recommend counseling or at least a subscription to Skeptics Magazine.  But for most people with a limited set of enemies a conventional pistol, shotgun, or rifle is more than sufficient with training and/or experience being the greater determinant for success. 

In my opinion assault style weapons are overkill marketed by an industry manufacturing solutions for which there is no problem.

I'll now stop my bloviation so that you can return to the ongoing bloviation between angry Canadians and angry Americans.

Claymores (the modern ones, not the old fashioned "William Wallace" Scottish kind), while effective, tend to really mess up your paint and wallpaper.  Not recommended for in home use. :)

Also, they're kind of indiscriminate. You either have it as victim operated, at which point you'll probably kill someone you actually like, or command operated, at which point you have to stay awake all the time watching the lanes of approach. Not to mention that if they're inside the house, the overpressure is liable to kill you as well. And there's a back blast which really isn't friendly to decor.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
I'd like to note that true assault rifles are illegal unless you go through extensive red tape in a procedure that can take months, and are willing to spend at least $10,000 on one gun.

What are legal in the US are rifles that look like assault rifles, but function quite differently.

As to why one would want to own them, they tend to be more ergonomic than traditional firearms, they have a different aesthetic, they're more adjustable and adaptable, and, properly loaded, they may well be better for home defense, too.

Technically you are correct.  True assault rifles are illegal (unless you're willing to go through a ton of federal paperwork to get one).  But in practice you can cycle through a 30 or 90 round magazine on semi almost as quickly as you can on full auto.  Firing single shot also gives greater control and accuracy whereas full auto causes muzzle climb and wastes ammo.  True, a trained and/or experienced shooter can use full auto effectively but most aren't.  Maniacs almost never are so semi auto weapons are a net positive for them.

As to how effective an assault rifle or assault style rifle is for home defense, again you are technically correct.  It is.  The weapons can be accessorized like Barbie Dolls with many fine tacticool gadgets.  But are you really going to be swarmed by the Cali Cartel or MS13?  If so I heartily approve of your weapon choice and furthermore recommend more of the same, a fake ID, a bunker in Idaho, and claymore mines.  Goose stepping Berkeley hippie assault troops of President Obama's New World Order?  Don't forget to stock up on tinfoil for the hats.  Zombie Apocalypse?  I recommend counseling or at least a subscription to Skeptics Magazine.  But for most people with a limited set of enemies a conventional pistol, shotgun, or rifle is more than sufficient with training and/or experience being the greater determinant for success. 

In my opinion assault style weapons are overkill marketed by an industry manufacturing solutions for which there is no problem.

I'll now stop my bloviation so that you can return to the ongoing bloviation between angry Canadians and angry Americans.

Claymores (the modern ones, not the old fashioned "William Wallace" Scottish kind), while effective, tend to really mess up your paint and wallpaper.  Not recommended for in home use. :)

Also, they're kind of indiscriminate. You either have it as victim operated, at which point you'll probably kill someone you actually like, or command operated, at which point you have to stay awake all the time watching the lanes of approach. Not to mention that if they're inside the house, the overpressure is liable to kill you as well. And there's a back blast which really isn't friendly to decor.

Not to mention the ugliness that can ensue if your dog can't read "Front Toward Enemy" and accidentally spins the darned thing around.

Blowing one's self up with a Claymore.

That could earn you a Darwin Award nomination! :)

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Addendum:
If you own an assault rifle because they're fun.  I get it.  They are.
.....
This is the only honest reason I have ever heard for owning an assault rifle.  All the others that people spout are nothing more than justifications.

Frankly, the above reason coupled with the constitutional right to own firearms is all that is needed.  I truly don't understand the compulsion so many over there feel to try to justify the fact they like playing with assault rifles.

I own one for hunting.  They are easy to carry in a near ready position, shoot fairly accurately, allow for a quick follow up shot if the first one isn't perfect, and I don't care if it gets scratched up while tromping through the thick underbrush. 

A relative of mine uses one for hunting too.  Mostly due to the ergonomics and the low recoil is all his shoulder can handle. 

I do agree though,  "because I can" is a good enough reason to own one. 

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
MOD NOTE
Thread is not going anywhere or productive in any way anymore.  I'm assuming everyone has had a chance to say their piece, and change everyone's mind.

Locking thread.

Please PM me or another mod with any questions.

Cheers!
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.