SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment

[Broomstick]

That is a good point. Really, the whole point of a firearm (outside of target shooting for sport) is to kill something. The only humane way (in my viewpoint) to kill game with a gun is to use sufficient firepower to make a clean kill, that is, one that is quick and certain. Unfortunately, the same qualities that make a good hunting rifle can also make it exceedingly dangerous in the wrong hands.

[Kitsune]

Also, as far as self defense, a .22 does not have a high enough chance of stopping an opponent. You need a reliable enough caliber to stop the target.

[SVPD]

That is a good point. Really, the whole point of a firearm (outside of target shooting for sport) is to kill something. The only humane way (in my viewpoint) to kill game with a gun is to use sufficient firepower to make a clean kill, that is, one that is quick and certain. Unfortunately, the same qualities that make a good hunting rifle can also make it exceedingly dangerous in the wrong hands.

In thory, yes. In actuality, hunting weapons are way, way down the list of criminal weapons because they aren't concelable and are more unweildy than assault weapons.

Generally, concealability, ease of use, and rate of fire are what a criminal wants in that order, probably followed by magazine capacity (which can hurt concealability). Very few criminals actually care about defeating body armor, because their main objective is usually not attacking the police (actually, almost never). Even relatively dumb criminals realize that A) they will be overwhelmed if they engage in the sort of battle a hunting weapon would favor, and B) that they generally don't have the marksmanship skill to use it well.

This is why the .357 Magnum, for example, is very very popular. It's not too big to conceal, it's very easy to use, and a double action revolver can fire fairly rapidly. Magazine capacity and reloading are real weaknesses, of course, but when you're holding the revolver to the gas station clerk's face at 3 feet, you generally rely on the near-certainty of the hit and the power of the slug to render reloading a moot point.

[Darth Wong]

So what's wrong with outlawing privately held handguns? If people are paranoid about self-defense and absolutely insist on the "right" to walk around cities armed, why not let them carry long guns? At least then they wouldn't be able to hide the things.

[gizmojumpjet]

So what's wrong with outlawing privately held handguns? If people are paranoid about self-defense and absolutely insist on the "right" to walk around cities armed, why not let them carry long guns? At least then they wouldn't be able to hide the things.

Becuase it's unconstitutional.

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Good work there trying to paint people who are prudent as regards to their self-defense as "paranoid."

[Lancer]

Unless you're an expert at shooting from the hip, long guns would probably be too unwieldy for self-defense.

[Darth Wong]

So what's wrong with outlawing privately held handguns? If people are paranoid about self-defense and absolutely insist on the "right" to walk around cities armed, why not let them carry long guns? At least then they wouldn't be able to hide the things.

Becuase it's unconstitutional.

I wasn't asking in the specific context of Americans. People are making a lot of general statements which apply to other countries. Your constitution does not.

Good work there trying to paint people who are prudent as regards to their self-defense as "paranoid."

It is paranoid. You're far more likely to die in a car accident as you are to be murdered (even in the US, the ratio is more than 2:1), and yet, we would think it was paranoid for someone to drive around in a military-type Hummer because he's worried about safety.

[MKSheppard]

Plus, handgun rounds penetrate much less than even the weakest commonly available rifle rounds....

[gizmojumpjet]

I wasn't asking in the specific context of Americans. People are making a lot of general statements which apply to other countries. Your constitution does not.

I understand that, and that's why I incuded the SCOTUS' comments on the issue, where they point out a number of reasons that the handgun is generally more appropriate for self-defense than the long gun. Shep points out another excellent reason.

It is paranoid. You're far more likely to die in a car accident as you are to be murdered (even in the US, the ratio is more than 2:1), and yet, we would think it was paranoid for someone to drive around in a military-type Hummer because he's worried about safety.

Paranoia is irrational behavior. There's nothing irrational about being prepared.

[Darth Wong]

Paranoia is irrational behavior. There's nothing irrational about being prepared.

Bad risk assessment is irrational. Think of all the times you've come close to death. Almost all of them have probably occurred while driving, assuming you were observant enough to see the danger.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not to mention risk for driving is pretty well-distributed across the population. Most North Americans must drive relatively regularly, and do so on major roads. Most gun crimes do not take place evenly across the population, but are heavily biased in favor of low-income, inner city ghettoes. So if anything, Mike was being charitable in how much the average conservative in suburbia paranoiacally frets about the need to protect himself with a personal firearm. Not to mention I don't think the statistics comparing successful use of private firearms to deter crimes or prevent personal harm to the incidence of gun accidents is very favorable. The protection is more in people's heads than anything else.

[Stark]

Paranoia is irrational behavior. There's nothing irrational about being prepared.

That's how paranoia works. You feel the need to be prepared for things in ways not commensurate with actual risks. If there's nothing irrational about 'being prepared', then any 'preparation' for any absurd risk is fine. As Mike pointed out, people PERCIEVE risks as being greater or lesser, and this isn't necessarily connected to the ACTUAL level of risk.

[Illuminatus Primus]

On that note, I'm going to prepare my transdimensional life raft in anticipation of the immanent spontaneous phase transition in the metastable false cosmic vacuum.

[gizmojumpjet]

Bad risk assessment is irrational. Think of all the times you've come close to death. Almost all of them have probably occurred while driving, assuming you were observant enough to see the danger.

Your line of thought seems to be based around the idea that it's irrational to prepare for a given situation if the probablity of its occurence does not exceed an arbitrary statistical value. 'You're more likely to die because of X than Y, therefore, it's irrational to prepare for Y.' I fail to see how recognizing the fact that one might be required to defend onesself, and preparing to deal with it, is "bad."

Most gun crimes do not take place evenly across the population, but are heavily biased in favor of low-income, inner city ghettoes. So if anything, Mike was being charitable in how much the average conservative in suburbia paranoiacally frets about the need to protect himself with a personal firearm. Not to mention I don't think the statistics comparing successful use of private firearms to deter crimes or prevent personal harm to the incidence of gun accidents is very favorable. The protection is more in people's heads than anything else.

Not all violent crimes are gun crimes, and you too are resorting to the same lame argument that those who take it upon themselves to provide for their own defense are paranoid, or otherwise unreasonable, if the chance that they will actually have to do so falls below an arbitarily defined value. They're probably also trying to compensate for their tiny penises too, right?

Not to mention I don't think the statistics comparing successful use of private firearms to deter crimes or prevent personal harm to the incidence of gun accidents is very favorable.

Let's see those statistics. You brought them up, so you get to provide them.

[Darth Wong]

Bad risk assessment is irrational. Think of all the times you've come close to death. Almost all of them have probably occurred while driving, assuming you were observant enough to see the danger.

Your line of thought seems to be based around the idea that it's irrational to prepare for a given situation if the probablity of its occurence does not exceed an arbitrary statistical value. 'You're more likely to die because of X than Y, therefore, it's irrational to prepare for Y.' I fail to see how recognizing the fact that one might be required to defend onesself, and preparing to deal with it, is "bad."

You are spending time and money and stressing yourself about something which is vanishingly unlikely. This fear will probably take more years off your life than the probability of being violently murdered.

[Galvatron]

So what's wrong with outlawing privately held handguns? If people are paranoid about self-defense and absolutely insist on the "right" to walk around cities armed, why not let them carry long guns? At least then they wouldn't be able to hide the things.

I can't speak for the entire gender, but I do know that women tend to find it much more difficult to carry and wield a large firearm than, say, a .38 snubnose revolver.

[Darth Wong]

So what's wrong with outlawing privately held handguns? If people are paranoid about self-defense and absolutely insist on the "right" to walk around cities armed, why not let them carry long guns? At least then they wouldn't be able to hide the things.

I can't speak for the entire gender, but I do know that women tend to find it much more difficult to carry and wield a large firearm than, say, a .38 snubnose revolver.

Well, my whole line of reasoning was kind of based on the idea of making it less convenient to walk around unobtrusively with the thing.

[Kanastrous]

You are spending time and money and stressing yourself about something which is vanishingly unlikely. This fear will probably take more years off your life than the probability of being violently murdered.

1) It's my time to spend as I please, so long as I am not harming someone else in the process. And it's time pleasantly spent, from my point of view, because I enjoy target shooting and therefore regular range practice is not a burden but a pleasure.

2) It's my money to spend as I please, so long as I am not harming myself or my wife by spending it there. Maintaining a small collection of firearms for target shooting and the remote possibility of self-defense employment is not a financial burden, for me. Paying for ammunition and range time is not a financial burden, either, and it's money spent on doing something I enjoy.

3) I'm not stressing myself over something vanishingly unlikely. I find that time spent on the range helps to moderate stress. I agree that it is very unlikely that I will be called upon to draw a handgun again, in self-defense. However, I would rather be prepared for a very unlikely event during which nothing but a handgun will do, for my purposes (and never see it happen) than be unprepared for a very unlikely event during which nothing but a handgun will do, if and when it does happen. Anyway, should I avoid ever needing the weapons for self-defense purposes, I still enjoy the benefits of having them available for recreational shooting. Which, for me, is a treatment for stress, rather than a cause.

4) I don't know what "fear" you are talking about. I don't live in fear of burglars/rapists/home invaders/whatever. I am aware that they are out there, and believe it proper to cultivate an ability to deal with them in the unlikely event they should appear. The fact that I am aware that mountain lions frequent places where I hike, doesn't mean that I live in fear of mountain lions; it just means that I take some precautions against becoming lunch, for one.

[Surlethe]

Hmm. I learned something new last night. Apparently, SCOTUS did create a new right by misinterpreting the Second Amendment: if we want to go by the intent of the Constitution's writers, we must take into account that they explicitly rejected an amendment to the effect of ...

Don't believe that bullshit for a second, as every single amendment the Pennsylvania delegation proposed was shot down, despite the fact that many were later ratified as the 1st-10th amendments as the Bill of Rights.
<snip>

I know; the point is that they didn't incorporate the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense or hunting into the Bill of Rights, while they did use many of the others.

Surlethe, the 2nd Amendment (or the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.) wasn't ratified at the Philadelphia Convention either; that's why the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments. The Convention overruled enumerating explicit rights at all in the main body of the Constitution because they feared that by enumerating some rights, they would by implication deny others, which is the last thing they wanted to do.

The Bill of Rights was ratified later as a compromise measure; that they rejected similarly worded proposals at the Convention itself doesn't mean anything.

These 14 proposals weren't at the Philadelphia Convention; they were generated by the Antifederalist faction at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in their dissenting opinion. The Bill of Rights incorporated many of the ideas and proposed amendments in the 14 points that the Antifederalists proposed. The point here is that the Congress did not use a proposed amendment which explicitly protected the right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting -- and therefore, the Second Amendment does not protect those "rights".

[Lusankya]

You are spending time and money and stressing yourself about something which is vanishingly unlikely. This fear will probably take more years off your life than the probability of being violently murdered.

1) It's my time to spend as I please, so long as I am not harming someone else in the process. And it's time pleasantly spent, from my point of view, because I enjoy target shooting and therefore regular range practice is not a burden but a pleasure.

2) It's my money to spend as I please, so long as I am not harming myself or my wife by spending it there. Maintaining a small collection of firearms for target shooting and the remote possibility of self-defense employment is not a financial burden, for me. Paying for ammunition and range time is not a financial burden, either, and it's money spent on doing something I enjoy.

3) I'm not stressing myself over something vanishingly unlikely. I find that time spent on the range helps to moderate stress. I agree that it is very unlikely that I will be called upon to draw a handgun again, in self-defense. However, I would rather be prepared for a very unlikely event during which nothing but a handgun will do, for my purposes (and never see it happen) than be unprepared for a very unlikely event during which nothing but a handgun will do, if and when it does happen. Anyway, should I avoid ever needing the weapons for self-defense purposes, I still enjoy the benefits of having them available for recreational shooting. Which, for me, is a treatment for stress, rather than a cause.

4) I don't know what "fear" you are talking about. I don't live in fear of burglars/rapists/home invaders/whatever. I am aware that they are out there, and believe it proper to cultivate an ability to deal with them in the unlikely event they should appear. The fact that I am aware that mountain lions frequent places where I hike, doesn't mean that I live in fear of mountain lions; it just means that I take some precautions against becoming lunch, for one.

So is the primary purpose of your gun for your hobby, or for self-defence? Would you find yourself much less likely to use it if (say) the law required that you keep it at the shooting range, or that you store it in a locked, immovable safe, with the ammo kept seperately?

If it's just a hobby, then it's no more or less irrational than any other hobby. People take pleasure in all sorts of different things and for the most part, that's just personal idiosyncracy.

If it's primarily for self defence, on the other hand, then your feelings are irrational, since you are acting out of proportion to the threat (not to mention the facts that an escalation of force can increase the probability of violence and that your gun can just as easily be used against you. Also, you're posing a danger to the community by having an easy-to-use, concealable weapon in an easily accessible location.

[Darth Wong]

You are spending time and money and stressing yourself about something which is vanishingly unlikely. This fear will probably take more years off your life than the probability of being violently murdered.

1) It's my time to spend as I please, so long as I am not harming someone else in the process. And it's time pleasantly spent, from my point of view, because I enjoy target shooting and therefore regular range practice is not a burden but a pleasure.

It never fails. You point out that something is irrational, and the person responds by citing his right to do it anyway. Hint to the stupid: that does not refute the point.

2) It's my money to spend as I please, so long as I am not harming myself or my wife by spending it there. Maintaining a small collection of firearms for target shooting and the remote possibility of self-defense employment is not a financial burden, for me. Paying for ammunition and range time is not a financial burden, either, and it's money spent on doing something I enjoy.

See above.

3) I'm not stressing myself over something vanishingly unlikely. I find that time spent on the range helps to moderate stress. I agree that it is very unlikely that I will be called upon to draw a handgun again, in self-defense. However, I would rather be prepared for a very unlikely event during which nothing but a handgun will do, for my purposes (and never see it happen) than be unprepared for a very unlikely event during which nothing but a handgun will do, if and when it does happen. Anyway, should I avoid ever needing the weapons for self-defense purposes, I still enjoy the benefits of having them available for recreational shooting. Which, for me, is a treatment for stress, rather than a cause.

So you need to spend time with your gun in order to calm your nerves ... and you think this refutes my point?

4) I don't know what "fear" you are talking about. I don't live in fear of burglars/rapists/home invaders/whatever. I am aware that they are out there, and believe it proper to cultivate an ability to deal with them in the unlikely event they should appear. The fact that I am aware that mountain lions frequent places where I hike, doesn't mean that I live in fear of mountain lions; it just means that I take some precautions against becoming lunch, for one.

But you wouldn't take such precautions to protect yourself against the possibility of a lion attack in your living room, because that would be ridiculous. That's the problem with all of these "I need to carry a gun with me all the time" idiots.

[Kanastrous]

So is the primary purpose of your gun for your hobby, or for self-defence?

About 50/50, in that if I am going to have an accessible firearm in my home, I feel responsible for maintaining some competence in handling it. And I find the practice rewarding, like I find a workout or a hike rewarding. I don't find that it's an either/or proposition.

Or, if you like, on the range it's primary purpose is as an exercise, and in the home its primary purpose is availability against the very small possibility of need.

Would you find yourself much less likely to use it if (say) the law required that you keep it at the shooting range, or that you store it in a locked, immovable safe, with the ammo kept seperately?

I might use it slightly more frequently if I were to store it at a range. I don't like to leave it in my car, and my employers generally prohibit firearms on their premises, so not having to go home to retrieve a pistol on the way to the range might be handy.

If it's just a hobby, then it's no more or less irrational than any other hobby. People take pleasure in all sorts of different things and for the most part, that's just personal idiosyncracy.

On the hobby aspect of it, I guess I agree.

If it's primarily for self defence, on the other hand, then your feelings are irrational, since you are acting out of proportion to the threat

In what way am I acting out of proportion?

I am not expending resources out-of-proportion to my needs, since I can easily afford the required investments in the weapon, ammunition, securing equipment and practice space.

I am not acting out of proportion to the most likely bad actor that I would expect to encounter in my home; a small, short-range, light antipersonnel weapon like a handgun, is appropriate.

If you mean to say that that the burden of simply owning and maintaining a weapon is disproportionate to the likelihood that I'll need to use it, you need to demonstrate that the burden is more than a manageable expense, difficulty, or hazard.

Also, you're posing a danger to the community by having an easy-to-use, concealable weapon in an easily accessible location.

I would like you to describe in detail how you believe I secure weapons in my household. You evidently think that you know my protocol well enough to make conclusions regarding safety. Let's see your outline of what I'm doing, here.

It never fails. You point out that something is irrational, and the person responds by citing his right to do it anyway. Hint to the stupid: that does not refute the point.

You led with citing expenditures of time and money as a problem. My point is that for my budget and my priorities, it's easily bearable and time/money costs don't apply as drawbacks. So it does refute the point that You are spending time and money is a problem to cite. For me, it's not. I have enough of both to indulge myself.

So you need to spend time with your gun in order to calm your nerves ...

No, target shooting is one of many activities that I find relaxing. "Spend time with" makes it sound like the gun and I have some kind of relationship, which we don't, and "need" makes it sound as though I am without alternate pastimes, from which to choose.

and you think this refutes my point?

You chose to cast the ownership of a handgun as exacerbating stress. I indicated that I find ownership of a handgun as conducive to relieving stress. Being a handgun owner, I can reasonably describe my own experience and posit that my experience is probably not unique.

But you wouldn't take such precautions to protect yourself against the possibility of a lion attack in your living room, because that would be ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous because one's living room is a far less likely place to encounter a mountain lion, than it is to encounter a human intruder. I have been unable to locate any record of a mountain lion attack inside a residence, but I was able to locate records of human intruders attacking people inside their residences, with relative ease. I'm not going to offer links because I doubt you would argue that there aren't plenty such stories available for the Googling.

That's the problem with all of these "I need to carry a gun with me all the time" idiots.

I agree that carrying a gun on one's person literally all the time is bad practice. However, maintaining an available weapon under reasonable safeguards within one's home, is not carrying "a gun with me all the time."

[Darth Wong]

You led with citing expenditures of time and money as a problem.

No, I led with stating bad risk assessment as a problem. Wasting time and money is the consequence of that problem, and saying that you have the right to do so anyway is not a rebuttal.

So you need to spend time with your gun in order to calm your nerves ...

No, target shooting is one of many activities that I find relaxing. "Spend time with" makes it sound like the gun and I have some kind of relationship, which we don't, and "need" makes it sound as though I am without alternate pastimes, from which to choose.

Ah, so it doesn't calm your nerves, it's just "relaxing" instead. Yeah, that's TOTALLY different.

and you think this refutes my point?

You chose to cast the ownership of a handgun as exacerbating stress.

Wrong, fucktard. I chose to cast fear of being murdered as exacerbating stress. How the fuck did you conclude that I thought the ownership of the handgun was the stress inducer, rather than fear of murderers? Fear of crime has been such a dominant feature in American politics for the last 30 years that for you to pretend it's not a major problem for your society is either massive dishonesty or outright stupidity.

But you wouldn't take such precautions to protect yourself against the possibility of a lion attack in your living room, because that would be ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous because one's living room is a far less likely place to encounter a mountain lion, than it is to encounter a human intruder.

And similarly, most people don't live in bad neighbourhoods where crime is rampant.

I have been unable to locate any record of a mountain lion attack inside a residence, but I was able to locate records of human intruders attacking people inside their residences, with relative ease. I'm not going to offer links because I doubt you would argue that there aren't plenty such stories available for the Googling.

So? For every violent home invasion of a quiet suburban house, there are a shitload of other ways to die, none of which the average American worries about as much as being murdered.

That's the problem with all of these "I need to carry a gun with me all the time" idiots.

I agree that carrying a gun on one's person literally all the time is bad practice. However, maintaining an available weapon under reasonable safeguards within one's home, is not carrying "a gun with me all the time."

If you don't carry it with you all the time, then it's of limited value in self-defense. Either take up the self-defense argument or abandon it; don't try to do both at the same time.

[Kanastrous]

You led with citing expenditures of time and money as a problem.

No, I led with stating bad risk assessment as a problem. Wasting time and money is the consequence of that problem, and saying that you have the right to do so anyway is not a rebuttal.

Considering the fraction of my resources that goes into maintaining a handgun and proficiency with it against the very small possibility of need, I don't find it a waste. It's not interfering with my ability to address other risks against which I want to cover myself. Heck, the knowledge that I have something available even while I simultaneously know that the likelihood I'll need it is very small is a positive, for me, in this particular case.

The very small likelihood is not zero likelihood, and since I can easily manage it, I find no reason not to cover that very small likelihood since I can. It's not like it's the only one; it's just the one we happen to be discussing.

Ah, so it doesn't calm your nerves, it's just "relaxing" instead. Yeah, that's TOTALLY different.

I objected to need and spend time with because I think they lay on a characterization that's inaccurate and unfair.

I didn't object to "calm your nerves." Sure it does, sometimes. Why shouldn't an activity requiring concentration, breath control and body-feedback calm my nerves?

Wrong, fucktard. I chose to cast fear of being murdered as exacerbating stress.

Dwelling on it all the time, sure. Constantly focusing on or having intrusive thoughts about how one could be injured, killed, whatever, is fundamentally unhealthy behavior. Being aware that there is a threat to your safety - even if it is a statistically minor threat to your safety - and deciding to address it within your ability and means, is not unreasonable.

Owning handguns doesn't require living in fear of being murdered. I own them, and I can't recall the last time that I found myself thinking or worrying about being a murder victim.

Any more than wearing a seatbelt means that I am constantly thinking of death-by-car-crash while driving, even though we agree that that fate is much more likely.

Fear of crime has been such a dominant feature in American politics for the last 30 years that for you to pretend it's not a major problem for your society is either massive dishonesty or outright stupidity.

I know that playing up fears of violent crime, especially crimes perpetrated by non-whites against whites, is a media project that's been running for a long time. But the fact that crime reporting is exaggerated does not mean that I shouldn't be prepared for a very small possibility for which I can easily afford to be prepared. Especially when I can find benefits in the preparation, independent of any need to put it to practical use.

And similarly, most people don't live in bad neighbourhoods where crime is rampant.

People outside of rampant-crime neighborhoods can be victimized, too. I don't find that the burdens of ownership are so expensive, or onerous, or dangerous, that the very small possibility of need is so very small that I care to dismiss it.

So? For every violent home invasion of a quiet suburban house, there are a shitload of other ways to die, none of which the average American worries about as much as being murdered.

I can't speak for the average American, but being murdered isn't particularly on my mind when I think of likely ways to die. I don't expect to be assaulted in my home; I provide for the possibility of effective response, just-in-case. Along with a whole lot of other just-in-case preparations I maintain, of which home-invaders are closer to the bottom of the list, than the top.

Maybe it's how I grew up; I don't see properly secured firearms in the home, maintained by responsible adults, as the all-hands screaming klaxon code-red emergency button that it seems to be, sometimes.

If you don't carry it with you all the time, then it's of limited value in self-defense.

Yes. Limited value is not no value. I carry within certain limits that define how and where I'm comfortable carrying, and accept the limits that places upon the utility of the weapon. Carrying "all the time" will eventually get you arrested, unless you carry with a CCW.

Either take up the self-defense argument or abandon it; don't try to do both at the same time.

I don't believe that a self-defense argument means that one has to make the identical self-defense preparations for every situation and follow them indiscriminately, all the time. My decision to maintain a self-defense weapon in the home, but not necessarily on my person, just means flexibility to suit my situation. It doesn't mean that I am making multiple arguments at the same time.

[Mr. Coffee]

In thory, yes. In actuality, hunting weapons are way, way down the list of criminal weapons because they aren't concelable and are more unweildy than assault weapons.

That .375 Magnum revolver you mention later in that post can be used as a hunting weapon just fine. It's the the weapon itself that makes it a "hunting weapon", it's the cartridge used. Last time I looked every state in the Union bases it's hunting firearms restrictions by the caliber/cartridge and not by the firearm itself.

As far as "assault weapons" go, other then it being a retarded term, one of my favorite hunting rifles is an AR-10 which I've got 20 round magazines for (hi-cap, oh noes!), and it looks meanacing as all hell... Never used it to assault anything other then deer though.