Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I'm not digging out my old English textbooks.

Save the time. Buy one at Walmart....

If only Walmart sold textbooks. College would be cheaper.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.

Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.

I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.

Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.

He called you ignorant because you if you think that semi automatic rifles are a public safety threat, you're either not familiar with the statistics or too politically biased to be willing to base your conclusions on actual data. The only category of firearms that might have a meaningful effect on the crime rate are inexpensive handguns, and even removing those from sale or banning them won't really do anything to keep them off the black market. Either way, banning semiautomatic rifles to prevent crime would be like trying to ban red sports cars in an attempt to reduce traffic accidents. It's nothing more than a pointless political statement that doesn't really accomplish anything meaningful.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
The ammo comment is weird too. Only gonna stock "hunting ammo"? The hell does that mean?

Hunting and sports, wasn't it? Means they'll probably just get rid of anything marketed specifically as "man-stopper" rounds.

Whats a man stopper round?

 Frazzled wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
The ammo comment is weird too. Only gonna stock "hunting ammo"? The hell does that mean?

Hunting and sports, wasn't it? Means they'll probably just get rid of anything marketed specifically as "man-stopper" rounds.

Whats a man stopper round?

I don't know about "man stopper" rounds. But if I had to guess what Walmart means by "hunting ammo" I would think that they are talking about shotgun shells, .22 ammo, and other ammo that is marketed towards hunting instead of being marketed as SD rounds.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.

Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.

I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.

Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.

Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore. We're citizens not subjects here. And as some fresh off the refugee boat relatives of mine said while reloading their rifles "Take that steenking English, and here's one for your Prussian friends too! That will teach you to make me flee to this mosquito infested godforsaken land! Vive Le Emperor! Quickly, someone get me more wine!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Personally I don't see why Walmart sell guns at all. That in itself worries me. Perhaps there is a major difference between US and UK supermarkets, but I wouldn't want to buy a gun from ASDA (Walmarts UK arm).

 Manchu wrote:


As long as everyone follows the site rules, we can have a million threads where posters who actually care about and know about firearms dispute posts made by posters who apparently don't.

I think your confusing "care about" and "enjoy". Just because people are anti guns does not mean they don't care about them. This is one of the major pro gun issues. Assuming that people who want gun controls know nothing and want all guns banned. The U.S. has a problem in that it lets the two extreams control the debate, and both use an argument of "your with us or against us". But the in the UK we have let the hard line anti gun movement have too much say.

Most don't sell firearms, even in the South.

To the argument its sales-thats horsegak. On gun sites there've been notation of deep sales. Walmart's trying to dump them and get out.
As another noted, fine by me. thats their purview and I make it a point to darken their door almost never as nothing they sell is made in the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
You mean words don't just mean what I assume they do??

I know right. If you had a teenager there used of words is...interesting.

"that so totes!"
"what are you talking about. You don't need an umbrella, it hasn't rained here in three months. We're in a drought."
"Dad just, Ga go sit on the sofa, rub Rodney's belly and quit talking."
"Yes rub my belly!"
"OH GOD RODNEY CAN TALK!!!!"

well that post went in a different direction didn't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Those are some interesting examples, you seem to be arguing for and against might is right in the same post.

Just making the point that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's 'right.'

I'm not comparing SCOTUS to Nazi Germany, because SCOTUS is governed by checks and balances, but you can't deny that SCOTUS is vastly different from its original conception and has become far too politicised over the years, which is never a good thing for a judiciary.

Nazis banned firearm ownership. Nazis, why does it always have ot be Nazis? I really hate those guys.

Ouze wrote:
The rationale was that the market is saturated, rather than political pressure. I believe it; you can get an entry level AR for like $500 now, and there's only so long you can prime the market with "OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS" panic buying. Walmart guy is also right that the AR15 really doesn't fit with the rest of the stuff they sell super well; .223 is not really a great hunting round for anything other than varmints and wild pigs.

This is, I believe, the core of it. Once the post 2012 craziness died away, and the rifles were going for $500-700 instead of double that, and demand correspondingly dropped as well, it makes sense that they're dumping them.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.

Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.

I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.

Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.

Well, it's a good thing we don't just discard the rights of citizens just because a foreign national things they're unnecessary.

Me oh my, do you not see how your line of thinking could be used against any and all rights and how absurd they look when applied to say, freedom of speech?

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats a man stopper round?

Probably pistol hollow-points and shotgun loads marketed as stopping bad guys instead of moose. .308 soft-nose should be safe since it's meant for hunting.

 Frazzled wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
The ammo comment is weird too. Only gonna stock "hunting ammo"? The hell does that mean?

Hunting and sports, wasn't it? Means they'll probably just get rid of anything marketed specifically as "man-stopper" rounds.

Whats a man stopper round?

There doesn't seem to be a definition, but the Research president of G2 Research seems happy enough to refer to their R.I.P. rounds as "an effective one-shot manstopper".

Cliff Brown, G2 Research President, told The Blaze that excitement for the new round “went viral” after they visited the Las Vegas Shot Show in January, and published their research videos online.

“We went around and talked to several vendors and it knocked their socks off,” Brown said. “I’ve been in the ammunition business for many years and I wanted to create a round that would work well against a home intruder — there were so many stories out there about a woman trying to defend her home and having to shoot someone five or six times and they’d still come after her, we wanted to create an effective one-shot manstopper.”

So my guess would be a round that was designed to reliably incapacitate a human with a single shot, regardless of where it hits that person.

So Speer Gold Dots are ok then.

if its good enough for the BATF its good enough for me.

 Henry wrote:
my guess would be a round that was designed to reliably incapacitate a human with a single shot, regardless of where it hits that person.

So...... Hollywood rounds?

 Alex C wrote:

 Henry wrote:
my guess would be a round that was designed to reliably incapacitate a human with a single shot, regardless of where it hits that person.

So...... Hollywood rounds?

Sounds like it. Thats the kind I have for my AK-16.

 Alex C wrote:

 Henry wrote:
my guess would be a round that was designed to reliably incapacitate a human with a single shot, regardless of where it hits that person.

So...... Hollywood rounds?

Well, hitting them anywhere might have been a bit too much. I doubt that shooting the toe off of your target is going to cause them to bleed out.
How one determines what level of force or effectiveness in causing trauma is required to upgrade a round to a "man-stopper" is beyond me. I just know that the old chaps I talked to early in my career would call the old 7.62 a man-stopper when compared with a modern 5.56.

Its no different than the terms "Assault Rifle", "High powered rifle", etc...

Its a word with no real meaning that anti-gun people like to toss around.

 Henry wrote:

How one determines what level of force or effectiveness in causing trauma is required to upgrade a round to a "man-stopper" is beyond me.

Probably a similar method to determining "high-powered" rifles...

 Alex C wrote:

 Henry wrote:

How one determines what level of force or effectiveness in causing trauma is required to upgrade a round to a "man-stopper" is beyond me.

Probably a similar method to determining "high-powered" rifles...

If its bought at Wal-Mart, odds are it isn't upgraded in any way. I only ever see your basic Winchester, Remington, and Wolf ammo at mine.

 Alex C wrote:
Probably a similar method to determining "high-powered" rifles...

I guess my point was that terms like man-stopper, high power, assault rifle, high capacity, tactical (seriously, WhyTF is everything called tactical - you've spray painted some crappy "urban" camo design on it, or it looks like what you think you saw some special forces dudes using in some high budget, crap plot, explosion filled, dog egg film, doesn't make it "tactical"), may not have technical definitions, but they are terms that are colloquially used in reference to armaments.
A quick trawl of internet gun fan forums will show these terms being used by gun owners as well as opponents - the only people not using these terms are aficionados. Kind of like when a lexicographer points out that lake Windermere is a tautology - everyone knows, we just don't care.
(Or like when some regiment goon says the tired old "It's not a gun, it's a rifle. If you want a gun go and sign a howitzer out of the armoury!" Oh, how we laugh along with the regiment banter. Those long winter months in the regiment office must fly by with that humour)


Edit: just thought I'd give a little substance to back up the above. My regular weapon has an effective range of 300m and fires 5.56. It's ... ok as far as rifles go (wish I could get something left handed). Our sharp shooters fire a rifle with an effective range of 800m and fires 7.62. These are not sniper rifles, but higher power, higher calibre rifles. Compared with what I've got they are indeed high power and man stoppers. It's all subjective I guess.

 Frazzled wrote:
Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore.

Actually your ancestors were invited to a Mexican territory, they squatted in it, then at the right time called it their own. Eventually they named it Texas and invented Tex-Mex. Later they pussied out and let the Federal government of the US acquire it, mostly for the seasoned carnitas recipe.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore.

Actually your ancestors were invited to a Mexican territory, they squatted in it, then at the right time called it their own. Eventually they named it Texas and invented Tex-Mex. Later they pussied out and let the Federal government of the US acquire it, mostly for the seasoned carnitas recipe.

OK if we're going to be accurate that branch didn't get to Texas until after Texas wussied out and let the Federal government join it, then chased some Comanche out of a perfectly serviceable horse plain to poorly farm crops that would one day be fought over by bikers in a titty bar. Later they would be best known for not ducking from a Yankee minie ball at Shiloh. And thats it.
Thats why I'm Frazzled "My ancestors made it safe for a Twin Peaks in Waco" Jr.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its no different than the terms "Assault Rifle", "High powered rifle", etc...

Its a word with no real meaning that anti-gun people like to toss around.

I believe the term you're looking for is assault weapon. Assault rifles are a distinct, real life object, with certain characteristics (selective fire, detachable mag, etc.) while an assault weapon is far more wishy-washy. According to the US Justice Department in 1994, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." That's vague. Assault rifles are not.

You are correct.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sorry but- here's the definiton for your 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Class dismissed.

Lets look at the part you omitted, because that is the important par; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Just to help you understand the Second Amendment (NSFW language)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Guns make it easier to kill people, which means that the death rate is higher than if guns were not readily available.

The District of Columbia which has some of the strictest gun control in the country is also one of the most violent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.

We also didn't have cellphones, the internet, text messages, wireless warrant taps, etc. do you want to remove the right to free speech and right to a fair trial also?

If you can't trust Pen and Teller to be Constitutional Legal scholars who can you trust?

TBF the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conditional upon their participation in a well-regulated militia is no more "scholarly" than the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms arises from the danger posed to them by well-regulated militias. They're both just "plain meaning" interpretations.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
I must admit, I didn't know about citizens owning cannon and the like. America was founded on the "I'll do anything I like and no one can tell me any different" attitude though, so I guess it shouldn't come as a shock. All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me." Say what you will about me not understanding the situation or the culture or whatever you like, we will continue to disagree and I'm fine with that.

We obviously see things differently. I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

And the militia was any male over age 18.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.

I suspect this is a marketing strategy meant to associate gun ownership with mental illness. It's like attacking people by calling them "gun nuts" because they are wary of yet more gun control legislation.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Yes, I realize that they are rare. What purpose does it serve for an average Joe to have a weapon with a rate of fire that high? Doesn't accuracy fall drastically when you're trying to deal with that sort of recoil?

An AR15 has very little recoil and is very easy to control. There have been incidents where an AR15 has been used to defed a group of multiple assailants. Now, in which school or other mass shooting was 60 people killed using a firearm?

 Lord Corellia wrote:
I think I know the answer: because we're allowed to. My aunt (by marriage) has a brother who owns a massive .50 cal sniper rifle. That he can legally own but can't legally fire anywhere within a hundred miles of where he lives. He has literally never fired this thing. What's the point of owning something if you can't use it for the purpose for which it was intended?

Ask him. He is responsible for the decision to own such a firearm, so he is the best placed to answer that question


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?

If you live in a state that allows NFA registered weapons, and pay the $200 tax stamp and the ludicrous asking price for such weapons - a legal select fire rifle starts at around $20k USD and goes up from there - then nothing is stopping you from doing so.

So long as you can also get a firearm manufactured before 1986


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its no different than the terms "Assault Rifle", "High powered rifle", etc...

Its a word with no real meaning that anti-gun people like to toss around.

Like "common sense"

Thought this was interesting for all sides.

 Henry wrote:
(wish I could get something left handed)

Try the FS2000, the PS90, or the ARX 160

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

You misspelled drugs.

Drugs are the reason are crime rate is so high.

You'd have to be on drugs to say that with a straight face

Mexicans I know who fled their country would disagree with you.