Poll: Your opinion on the possession of "military style" semi-automatic rifles.

[jerbear30]

I posted under "mixed feelings," since the guns are technically just rifles like any other, but are also clearly different. They are functionally the same, for sure. No argument there. Yet if they were actually the same, they wouldn't be so sought after, to the exclusion of all those other "functionally identical" rifles. So what is behind their popularity? The answer to that question--whether it is aesthetics, cultural cache, or whatever--is what the difference is between assault "style" rifles and conventional rifles.

My personal feeling is that the popularity of these rifles is due to a calculated marketing push within the gun industry to popularize the "tactical" end of gun owning market. Under "tactical" I include the people who are "prepping" for the end of the world, the people who just like to pretend that they will get to shoot zombies someday, and the more standard issue para-military types. I think this trend is ugly because it degrades the real, "functional" uses of guns, such as legitimate self-defense, hunting, target practice, etc...

Don't get me wrong, I know that guns are more than functional--even though I don't own one myself, I can acknowledge that they are fun to shoot. Nevertheless, guns are also deadly and they require at least as much responsibility as driving a car. Therefore, I feel that the current emphasis on "pretend" and "fantasy" that necessarily subtends the purchase of a gun that is designed to look like something it's not is foolish and dangerous. I don't think we as a society should legislate against this tendency, but I do think that the tendency is itself a problem. It's very ugly.

[TexasReb]

=UTHORNS96;31934490]I feel like there should be a degree of regulation of any type of firearm for civilians.

.

And there are, UTH, although it varies state to state. But since we are talking about Texas, what is your personal opinion on regulations as they exist in the state? Too restrictive or not restrictive enough?

I don't believe just because you have an assault weapon that you are dangerous but I seriously question the common sense of the people that feel like they need to flash that stuff out in public. I'd say they're compensating for something

I know you to be a reasonable and intelligent person, UTH, and I could have actually given some minor yet real, agreement, to the first part of your bolded points...but you totally lost me when you got into the last part and all the Freudian implications!

To clarify a bit? I could go along to at least a certain extent with you, that many of those who make a public production of carrying a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun or whatever -- even if it is totally (as it should be) -- completely legal under Texas law. In other words, I completely understand the point they are trying to make, and totally support the said point.

But with that said, I think -- at least in a lot of cases -- they do more harm to the "cause" they claim to support than they do good for it. I mean, if I were a cop and got a call to check out some people sitting outside a restaurant with semi-automatics, or of some person walking down the sidewalk with one? Yeah, I would be obligated to respond the report and ask for identification and check on whether or not the person(s) in question are legally permitted to carry/possess one. Good lord, if the officer didn't? And the "suspicious" person later started randomly shooting? Then it isn't rocket science to know that s/he would have been subsequently subject to the Spanish Inquisition for notinvestigating the particulars and the status of the carrier at the intitial scene.

I guess bottom line (IMHO), it does indeed often appear from these "you-tube videos" to be smartass "kids" out to just provoke a response, rather than any real commitment to an otherwise admirable and needed point to be made.

Anyway, with all that said, I also maintain that such doesn't necessarily translate/stretch into a need to prove how well-hung they are. (pardon, ladies).

[jerbear30]

It's interesting that in this discussion, the pragmatic position is associated with liberal politics while the idealistic position is associated with conservative politics. The pragmatist concedes that in the end it is the right of the individual to walk around with a rifle but maintains that of course it is extremely impractical, while the idealist concedes the impracticality but in the end sides with open carry as a kind of expression that needs to be accepted on principle. I tend to be pragmatic about this because honestly, I think that the "open carry" crowd simply doesn't acknowledge the existence of mass society. Between the American Revolution and now, a lot has changed. Mainly, there are lots more people everywhere. This necessitates a certain civility not accounted for prior to the industrial revolution. It is simply not practical or even possible to have the same kind of society after industrialization as we had before it. I don't know why more Americans don't acknowledge this. We'd actually be a better, stronger America if we made our decisions based on this fact.