Load up on Guns

I think most of us do..

Originally Posted by duramat

LMAO!

The bigger question is do most know who he is

Everyone knows who he was, a seasonal park ranger aka cactus Ed...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174328785.html

McChrystal says ‘serious action’ needed on gun control

Speaking on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" Tuesday, Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said some weapons should be carried only by soldiers, not civilians.
"I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine," he said. "And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry."
The general added, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look. I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."
The general, who had to resign his position as commander of the U.S. Forces in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone magazine profile in 2010 that included unflattering comments about the Obama administration, is back in the public eye to promote his book, "My Share of the Task."
The former military man told the show, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.”
Asked what his message would be to the NRA and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, “I think we have to look at legislation. The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

I don't own an AR or any "Military-style Assault rifle". So feel free to rip my comments to shreds.

I am a gun enthusiast and shoot pistols regularly. The problem I have with the argument against tactical rifles (specifically 223 ARs) is that it is built around the false assumption that they are anymore effective than other guns. Please excuse me for being extremely dark, but is a 223 AR the best weapon for killing unarmed masses compared to a high capacity shotgun or a Glock? Probably not. There lies the real fear for all gun owners. We have already proven that a ban on "Military Style Assault Weapons" is ineffective so what is the next logical step?

I live in Texas where concealed-carry is a way of life for many people. Consider the horrible situation in Aurora. What if there was one person in the crowd with a pistol? It would have certainly changed the dynamic of the massacre. It is hard to concentrate on a slaughter when you are being shot at.

Let's be honest about 223 AR rifles. They are a lot of fun. They are popular, ammo is cheap, versatile and don't beat you to death if shoot all day. Most people I know who own tactical rifles are not prepping against a tyrannical government. They just want to shoot some steel plates. Shooting tactical rifles is a great hobby.

A couple of things that I can contribute and maybe someone else can clarify:

I believe that originally, the 5.56x45mm was designed with two goals in mind: Incapacitation, and weight reduction. The round was designed to wound a soldier, rather than kill them outright like the 7.62x51mm NATO round that came before it, as it would take two more soldiers out of the fight to take care of them. It is also much lighter than the 7.62x51mm NATO meaning that the soldier can carry a lot more ammo.

Also, I wonder if the good, errr bad, General, knows about DeShaney v. Winnebago County or Castle Rock v. Gonzales. They both say that the police or any government entity, including the military, has no obligation what so ever to protect you from harm. Without a gun how is someone suppose to protect themselves against a physically superior aggressor, the police have no obligation to do so.

IMO, military styled guns are much better tools for the general public than your run of the mill hunting guns. The military is the front runner of pushing design/tech. The weapons are made to be simple, reliable, and effective. They are made to be easy to understand, easy to fix in the field, and easy to use. Because they are used by the military, parts are made in overwhelming number, and there are many experts that can assist an owner with an issue. If your weapon has an issue, you do not necessarily need to be gouged by a gunsmith as the military is turning out experts daily. The fire controls are simple, functional and intuitive. They are designed to be caried by people under stress in close proximity to one another without accidentally shooting each other.

If you were buying a semi auto rifle for your mom to protect herself or hunt with, why wouldnt you want to get her the easiest, lightest, most reliable, easy to fix, safest gun out there? Should you have to give her any less just because it looks mean? Should you have to give her any less because it can hold alot of bullets? Should the entire population have to deal with less in hopes that a bad guy might have to deal with less as well?

Most (about 75%) of the gun murders in America are gang on gang murders no one gives a rat's ass about. Admit it... three bodies found in the trunk of a burned out car in the driveway of a known drug house. Next story, pass the salt and get me another coffee. No one cares. If drug dealers want to kill each other no problem. Have fun. Just stay the f--k out of my neighborhood because I can shoot and don't spray bullets all over the place like you idiots do. The problem I have is when they kill some innocent 2 year old sleeping in their crib. I can't imagine being forced to live in some of these drug infested, slaughter house hoods. These people need to get out and start over. I have never understood staying. They don't have a single relative that lives in a safe neighborhood they can stay with for a while for the sake of their children?

I don't give a crap what a retired General thinks. I doubt he is an expert on gun violence or has reviewed the statistics involved.

Justin, Outside of the home, or in close proximity to your threat, I'd say an AR is a much more effective weapon. The AR projectile is light and travels fast, so the gun is highly accurate. If you're in a gun fight from 100+ feet away, you're screwed in the AR vs. Glock scenario. Also, I'm no expert, but I thought the idea of the AR round was to fragment and tear apart your insides while bouncing around like a pinball, rather than going straight through you.

Problem also being is the made up definition culls certain hunting or ranch rifles into this AW ban. Legislation proposed in California is looking scary.

Here's one of the best articles I've seen. Please share where you can because it is hard for even the most radical anti-gun advocates to argue with and not crazy like that Alex Jones guy on Piers Morgans show (who I believe set gunowners back in this debate).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...sis-is-amoral/

Harry Binswanger, Contributor
OP/ED | 1/01/2013 @ 11:15AM |31,092 views

With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral

Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would deny Ayn Rand’s point that “the government is the means of placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.”

On the other hand, what about those who want to use guns to defend themselves? What about people who aren’t ever going to fly into a rage and shoot anyone in anger? And at Newtown, wouldn’t a few armed adults have meant that the lives of many of those children could have been spared? We don’t need statistical studies to know that banning guns from cities doesn’t stop criminals from getting them.

Note that this “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” does not arise from looking at different aspects of the same case but from focusing on two different kinds of cases. The pro-gun side focuses on cases of legitimate self-defense (and hunting and target-shooting). The anti-gun side focuses on wrongful uses of guns: the Newton killer or an enraged husband who shoots his wife (and on deaths from accidents with guns).

Both sides are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think about this issue?

The answer I’ve come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist mindset. Don’t look at populations; don’t ask: among 300 million Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost? That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a God’s eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve the herd. Mankind is not a herd.

Junking the collectivist approach, ridding myself of the idea that the lives of the few can be sacrificed to the lives of the many, I found the issue almost settled itself. Taking the individualist approach, I asked myself: what laws should the individual be subject to? What is the principle governing the individual’s relation to the state?

The principle is “individual rights”–your rights and mine.

Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the Declaration states, government is established “to secure these rights.”

To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns, clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual’s rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by criminals or foreign aggressors.

The issue with guns is the threat of force. But the threat of force is force. Orders issued at gunpoint are as coercive–as rights-violating–as laying on hands and overpowering you. (All this is explained in more detail in Ayn Rand’s articles “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government.”) The government may use force only against an objective threat of force. Only that constitutes retaliation.

In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.

The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. The remaining issue is: what constitutes an objective threat?

An objective threat is constituted by specific evidence of a clear and present danger to someone’s person or property. For instance, waving a gun around (“brandishing”) is an objective threat to the individuals in the vicinity. Having a rifle at home in the attic is not. Carrying a concealed pistol is not (until and unless it is drawn). Yes, there are always borderline cases, but rational standards, such as “clear and present danger,” can be set.

Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That’s collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make.

People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do.

The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And the tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school personnel.

The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force.

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.

Harry Binswanger blogs at www.hblist.com