A Modern Sporting Rifle Thought question and Boston

Glenn E. Meyer said:
What makes them EBRs - the research suggests that they are seen as instruments of extreme violence. Probably from exposure to military and police usage in news and media. Remember the hunting community debate from some supposed gun folks who saw them exactly in that fashion.

I don't think anyone actually cares about the full auto vs. semi as compared to the power of appearance. However, I haven't empirically tested that. I don't know if you explain the difference folks would care.
Click to expand...

They (meaning AR-15s, basically, although the category of "assault weapon" encompasses other firearms) are seen as instruments of extreme violence because the anti-gun forces have successfully created in the minds of the general public an unshakable belief that these semi-automatic rifles ARE identical to the full-auto or burst fire rifles carried by the military. Go back and read some of the vitriolic statements from the anti-gun players immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting. You'll find innumerable statements of the standard "These weapons are only designed for one thing -- to shoot as many bullets and to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time" genre. It doesn't matter which politician it is, because they're all reading from/parroting the same script.

The ONLY thing that makes EBRs "evil" is the perception created by these anti-gun types that the guns are designed as mass killing machines. This is why (as you encountered, Glenn) I think trying to call them something like "Modern Sporting Rifle" makes it look like we're trying to dodge the issue. Yeah -- it makes it look like we're trying to dodge the issue because that's exactly what that's doing. IMHO we need to face the issue squarely, and take every opportunity to point out that the anti-gun politicians and the anti-gun media are lying when they tell us that our AR-15s are the same thing as military M16s and M4s.

Point out to people that the Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook was purchased legally while CT had an AWB in effect. Ergo: the rifle was not by legal definition an "assault weapon." Connecticut's solution, of course, was to change the definition of "assault weapon" so that, as of noon on April 4, 2013, the Bushmaster became an assault weapon. On December 14, 2012, it was not. What changed? Certainly not the rifle -- it was in State Police custody.

And what about the "evil" features that were banned under the old Federal and the old CT AWBs? A flash hider? What's so dangerous about a flash hider. Very few people even know what a flash hider does. Back in 2004 I was in a local gun shop when a reporter was interviewing the proprietor about the impact of the AWB expiring. I had to bite my tongue when he told the reporter that the purpose of a flash hider is to make it so when you shoot at night, the person you're shooting at can't see the muzzle flash from your rifle. This came from a guy who had been selling firearms for over 20 years!

Bayonet lugs? There's a classic. Ask your anti-gun, anti- "assault weapon" friends to tell you exactly how many drive-by bayonettings there have been in the United States over the past ten years.

Etcetera ...
 
I suggest putting it into perspective. Here are some other police with modern sporting rifles of their day:

tumblr_m81g6lIfre1ronatdo1_500.jpg



Here are some more:

Cover%20Photo.jpg
 
I am squarely with Glenn on this.

Call it what it is, accept it's purpose, and rest on the protection of the 2A while jealously guarding it.

By accepting the term Assault Weapon and taking it as our own, defining it's purpose and our justification for ownership we are making our Kung Fu strong.

We are taking the energy from the enemies' attack and turning it against them. Redirecting it's force and making it ours.

What began as a lie, a misdirection, and an tool for attacking the 2A, now becomes another brick in the wall of it's protection.
 
The police use what they can afford that is most effective at that time.

The police are not allowed to shoot except in self defense or defense of others (in nearly all cases).

The same is true of just about everyone.

As their rifle is for self defense, so is yours. Why should it not be as effective as theirs?

Call it a "defense" rifle instead of an "assault" rifle.
 
For a while, I thought that calling EBRs "modern sporting rifles" seemed like a good idea. I no longer think so. The term makes them seem more like sporting goods than weapons. The 2A doesn't protect basketballs. It protects arms. I'm prefectly comfortable simply calling an AR a semiautomatic rifle.
 
On one hand there are folks who complain about "it's not a clip it's a magazine" nazis. Then there are the folks who point out it's not an assault weapons, it's just a modern sporting rifle. Words do have meanings, and using words correctly helps us all understand what we're talking about.

But I also think that we're not going to gain much ground here by trying to adjust our terminology. And a downside is that we just give the anti-gun folks better ways to describe what they don't want us to have.
 
Well Frank, I believe you got it nailed down pretty good.

Taking or seriously limiting the guns is just a step down the path. There are several others and the antis as we call them really aren't just antis. They are actually people who want to change our country, guns are just one of several things on the list of what is preventing the change.

"When You understand the nature of a thing,You begin to understand what it's capable of."
 
I prefer to call it what it is, a rifle.

Or in the case of most of the AR-15s with all the evil features that the antis- seem so worked up about, a carbine.

When police officers use one, it seems to magically become a patrol rifle. Which I think is sort of funny, if the assualt weapon assualts, I guess that one puts out an LP/OP and takes long walks in the woods.
 
I would really like to get a straight answer from the antis as to what makes the EBR so evil.
Click to expand...

At the root core, the Anti's do not hate guns per se. But they are deeply disturbed by other peoples interest in firearms. They hate the fact that I am enthusiastic about firearms and shooting, in the same way that other people are enthusiastic about football or golf. They see my interest in shooting as a character flaw. They see gun collecting as pathological.

I think they accept guns as part of another pursuit, such as hunting. Many have accepted the idea (in principle) of a self defense handgun. But they feel the correct attitude one must have toward the gun is that it is a necessary evil, an unpleasant tool that is unfortunately required. In much the same way that an animal control officer should not take glee in euthanizing a stray dog, "normal" people should not enjoy their firearms.

What really bothers them is people like me who really enjoy shooting. I enjoy shooting my AR-15 BECAUSE it IS a military pattern rifle. Its military origin is fundemental to my enjoyment, not incidental to it.

And THAT is what really bothers the antis.
 
When I see pictures like this, I sometimes wonder if all our discussions about what to call our AR-15s are rendered mute by the growing militarization of police.

I can I have been woefully and willfully ignorant of the trend, the Sheriff's Dept. in my county still issues Mini-14s and Remington 870s with wood furniture, but seeing police officers outfitted like the SF guys I saw in the Sandbox is scary. And I'm not saying that the police shouldn't carry AR-15s, it is a great platform, but seeing that guy sorta makes me take pause.

I didn't go tromping around Afghanistan to see this back here.
 
That's a great photo depicting how they want the balance of power to truly be. Them with all that and us with twitter and you tube like the scarfed lady.
 
...the growing militarization of police.

...the growing militarization of police.
Click to expand...

Let's not start blaming the police now. They are finally catching up to the situation on the ground. And it's been long time coming.

I remember only 10-15 years ago it wasn't unusual for police to find themselves outgunned by gang members with AK-47 and MAC-10. They only had service pistols and occasional shotguns. With big narco gangs out of Mexico and now terrorist in the homeland the police needs the gear.

I also remember visiting Paris in 1998 and under the Arch Du Triumph there was a military SUV/truck with a group of 4-6 para-military police in full view of everyone. Here in America we're now catching up to the rest of the world.

One of the things that has always irked me is the Posse Comitatus laws prohibiting use of the military on the homeland. I can't think on anything that is more fundamental to security then border integrity. Yet our armed forces with all their gear are forced to sit on bases and do nothing when they could seal the borders tight as a drum.
 
I'm not blaming the police at all. I just find that scary. And an exact example of why posse comitatus is a good thing.

Perhaps as the "stupid American" stereotype, I'm just not accustomed, nor will I ever be of seeing police forces looking like Special Forces guys.

Border security though, is an entirely different ball park.
 
I think it's really telling how bad things are getting in some places here in the US when LLE' need to up gun themselves to the point that they are essentially civilian MP/SF's.

It's kind of distressing when you think about it. I have a great deal of respect for LEO's to be honest (There is always an exception to that rule, as there are just as many bad cops as there are good). My Uncle was an Illinois state trooper and was the designated sniper for the Chicago SWAT team and range master. It's thanks you him that I fell in love (well I was already infatuated) with the world of shooting and firearms. He taught me most of what I know today, and he has been a great role model to me over the years.

As far as LEO's becoming more militerized, I feel it is something that is necessary in light of the increasing threat of organized crime and extremists here on US soil, it's just sad that's its come to this point IMHO.
 
there are just as many bad cops as there are good
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with you Kimio, but as with the population in general the police are mostly good with only a few bad apples. It's just that with the preponderance of media today the 1% of bad apples ruin the image of the other 99%.

A disclaimer is in order. I am not a LEO or employed in any type of law enforcement. I don't even have relatives that are LEOs. I'm just a guy that pays taxes and benefits from an orderly society.
 
Last edited:
I think most people are from Missouri; "SHOW ME".

I use my AR's for target practice, either 3-Gun or High Power. To me an AR is a "target rifle"

But most people don't shoot high power and 3-gun. They don't know and can't under stand where I'm coming from.

Same with self defense, most just assume since you have 9-12 pellets coming from a shotgun it has to be better for home defense then a rifle.

Like Uncle Joe, they just don't know, and you can't tell them.

BUT

You can "show them".

I teach a ladies Firearm Safety and Self Defense class every Wednesday night.

Same thing comes up. They ask, and I tell them I prefer the rifle, but I don't tell them which to choose, I SHOW THEM.

I have the women shoot both the shotgun and AR, I haven't found one yet that after shooting both that would rather have a shotgun then a carbine type rifle.

I had the ladies measure the distance from their bedrooms to their child's bedroom of their homes.

Then in the next class I have them shoot both shotguns and rifles at that distance. They for the most part don't like the idea of the spread of shotgun pellets.

Not to mention, the recoil of the shotgun. They want to shoot the ARs, M1 Carbines, Marlin 38/357s etc, they don't want to shoot the shotgun any more then they have to.

We can talk until we are blue in the face and accomplish nothing, if we get these people out shooting, trying each gun themselves, we'll go a lot farther in proving our case.

I think women, young mothers, grandma, single ladies, are the ones we should target. These are the people who on the average don't know about guns, that they can be safe, fun, and useful.

You win over the mothers and grandmothers, you win over their kids, the kids are the future of our shooting sports.

We're not accomplishing nothing selling the ideal of AR's and other such rifles to 3-gun or High Power shooters. We need to target those who know nothing about guns except what Uncle Joe and the media tells them.
 
Fair enough, a few bad apples spoils the entire bunch eh?

Most LEO's that I meet, both retired and active are very cool. Granted I've never had any real issues with the law, I hold to the belief, that so long as you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to fear for the most part.

I've had my occassional brush with them (A single speeding ticket, though he was very polite when I addressed him with respect) and not once have I ever met one who was badge heavy (Though there are of course those that do have that complexity).

LEO's deal with enough crap as it is, city LEO's have to deal with all sorts of riff raff, from gang bangers and all sorts of other undesireables of modern society. Making a routine traffic stop or a casual chat at a local coffee stop as painless as possible is the least I can do for them. Hell, I try to make it a point to thank them for their time when I get the chance.

In most cases, I feel LEO's go under appreciated in terms of how much they sacrifice in order to help keep the beasts at bay, especially in terms of being with their families.
 
I think alabama shooter's mini-history lesson is appropriate. If you want to pick a fight with "military patterened weapons" you're not going to stop at ARs.

I think that the term ''modern sporting rifle" is inaccurate and sounds like the user is trying to hide something behind a term created by a gov't committee. I have a rifle. I have several rifles. I refer to them as rifles. Some are bolt action, some are semi-auto. Some are antiques. If I'm feeling particularly non-apologetic on any given day, I might refer to some of my semi-auto rifles as "ARs". I have a right to keep all of my rifles. End of story.
 
One of the things that has always irked me is the Posse Comitatus laws prohibiting use of the military on the homeland. I can't think on anything that is more fundamental to security then border integrity. Yet our armed forces with all their gear are forced to sit on bases and do nothing when they could seal the borders tight as a drum.
Click to expand...

Actually this shouldn't be what is bothering you, I'll explain.

First, Posse Comitatus restricts, not prevents, the use of Federal Military Forces for State Law enforcement purposes. Those that would call for activities like search, seizure, and arrest. The State National Guard is not under this Law. But the Reserves are. The Coast Guard also does not fall under this Law's restriction. Of course the State national Guard are part time troops called up for emergencies and can augment the Regular Army and Air Force if needed. But they aren't part of our "standing military".

Now think about two other issues, first, that there is a government agency charged with policing our borders, trained, equipped, and manned for this mission.

Second, this is not what our Military is trained for, they are not Law Enforcement, they are killers. They shouldn't be pulling border security missions because that detracts from training for their real mission, killing the enemy. Would you really feel comfortable facing the threat of a real shooting war, a war for national survival knowing our Military has spent most of the last century playing border cop instead of training to beat Tank Divisions?

What do you think the Army's equipment would start to look like? Would Congress fund new Battle Tanks for patrolling the Arizona desert?

Is this becoming clear?

What should be bothering you is that we have the capability to secure our borders and refuse to do it at the leadership level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top