Assault weapons ban? Yes

[Crackerjaxon]

How long does it take to change a magazine in a rifle?

Longer than it takes to shoot 20 rounds.

Wrong. You know nothing about weapons. You have never been in the military. You have no training of any consequence on firearms. You are merely repeating talking points from people who know nothing about weapons, have never been in the military, and have no training of any consequence on firearms.

 

[Missourian]

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Yes, it is. A militia is a type of military unit.

And a semi automatic rifle is nothing like a machine gun.

I've qualified with both, have you shot either, because you sound like a total Dumbass when you spread that kind of manure.

An semi automatic rifle functions EXACTLY like a semi automatic pistol...there is no difference whatsoever.

I have a 9 shot .22 revolver that fires at exactly the same rate and speed as my AR...one round per trigger pull.

Is that the old High Standard .22 Revolver? I had one for years until my younger brother shot some yellow jackets through it and cracked the cylinder. Never could find a replacement.

I wish.

It's a Taurus Ultralite 9 with a two inch barrel.

I carry it most of the time.

Bet you were pissed...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Read this link if you want to know what an assault weapon is. It's pretty detailed.

ASSAULT WEAPON

That's the firearms uneducated version of an assault weapon.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Actually, it is very much about civilians having military weapons. What do you think "a well-regulated militia" means? Whose responsibility is it to regulate the militia when it gets out of hand. the government's?

Please.

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?

The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens. Unfortunately, you are part of it, too.

That thought scares the hell out of me.

 

[Darkwind]

Now we know what is in the mind of the NRA...paranoia. Guns will not give you courage.

What does that mean?

A gun does not give you courage?

How many times do you see the president out and about without the secret service and their guns to protect him...those guns seem to give him courage.

Cowards cling tightest to their guns. I've raised four children in the Los Angeles area. I've never had a firearm for protection. Anyone trying to sneak into my house will have to deal with my aluminum T-ball bat.

Well then brave man. You don't have anything to fear from a person who owns weapon then. So, you have no reason to take the rights away from others if you are so brave.

 

[Charles_Main]

The government has "banned" drugs and poured billions of $'s into enforcing that ban, without actually stopping criminals from getting their hands on drugs. Why do you believe the government would be more successful in keeping guns out of criminals hands?

They can successfully remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, but they will never succeed in getting guns away from criminals. That would dramatically skew the balance of power in favor of the criminals.

Because they can't grow weapons in the mountains. They have to be manufactured and in most countries in the world people have to past a background check before they can buy weapons. They don't sell them willy nilly to any slack jawed yokel.

We can't stop drugs, or millions of illegals from streaming into this country. But somehow liberals think we can ban assault weapons and they wont be here anymore.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Actually, it is very much about civilians having military weapons. What do you think "a well-regulated militia" means? Whose responsibility is it to regulate the militia when it gets out of hand. the government's?

Please.

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?

I am a member of a well regulated militia, it's called the unorganized militia. Most Americans are a member of the unorganized militia.

 

[tyroneweaver]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

I own an assault rifle
Light
Not bothered by other steps othe than squeezing the trigger
good rifle for the wife
great rifle for the kids

Molon Labe

 

[wihosa]

Just to enlighten you..

The Original Thompson Submachine gun in 1934 could fire at the rate 1,500 bullets per minute. That was later throttled back to 879 rounds per minute to allow for some accuracy.

I do not know of a single person who can physically squeeze the trigger of any semi-automatic 879 time let alone 1,500 times in 60 seconds.

How many rounds would that machine gun fire with a ten round clip? That's the point assault weapons can be fitted with large capacity magazines making them the functional equivalent of machine guns.

 

[wihosa]

Actually, it is very much about civilians having military weapons. What do you think "a well-regulated militia" means? Whose responsibility is it to regulate the militia when it gets out of hand. the government's?

Please.

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?

I am a member of a well regulated militia, it's called the unorganized militia. Most Americans are a member of the unorganized militia.

Unorganized by definition can not mean well regulated.

 

[Darkwind]

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Actually, it is very much about civilians having military weapons. What do you think "a well-regulated militia" means? Whose responsibility is it to regulate the militia when it gets out of hand. the government's?

Please.

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?

There is no militia requirement for a citizen to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[tallmike]

BTW you are aware that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution it would take an entire battalion to equal the fire power of a modern assault weapon. Allowing these weapons in the town square doesn't seem to jibe with insuring the domestic tranquility as Madison wrote into the Constitution.

The founding fathers never imagined that freedom of expression would extend to the internet. Freedom of the press would extend to 24 hour news channels. Freedom of religion would allow for televangelists. Search and seizure protections would extend to the inside of a car or the hard drive of a computer.

The fact that they never imagined the technological advances we have made does not mean their ideas do not extend to protect them.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?

I am a member of a well regulated militia, it's called the unorganized militia. Most Americans are a member of the unorganized militia.

Unorganized by definition can not mean well regulated.

Why?

 

[Darkwind]

Just to enlighten you..

The Original Thompson Submachine gun in 1934 could fire at the rate 1,500 bullets per minute. That was later throttled back to 879 rounds per minute to allow for some accuracy.

I do not know of a single person who can physically squeeze the trigger of any semi-automatic 879 time let alone 1,500 times in 60 seconds.

How many rounds would that machine gun fire with a ten round clip? That's the point assault weapons can be fitted with large capacity magazines making them the functional equivalent of machine guns.

10 or 10,000. It makes no difference and is not at issue.

A law abiding citizen can have all the ammunition and all the clips they want. By definition, they will not harm anyone with them. That is what law abiding means.

Should you be prosecuted for a robbery committed in Seattle?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?

I am a member of a well regulated militia, it's called the unorganized militia. Most Americans are a member of the unorganized militia.

Unorganized by definition can not mean well regulated.

You're really starting to sound stupid.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

And once again the weapons you say should be banned are the only weapons that are protected by thew second amendment

 

[Darkwind]

BTW you are aware that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution it would take an entire battalion to equal the fire power of a modern assault weapon. Allowing these weapons in the town square doesn't seem to jibe with insuring the domestic tranquility as Madison wrote into the Constitution.

The founding fathers never imagined that freedom of expression would extend to the internet. Freedom of the press would extend to 24 hour news channels. Freedom of religion would allow for televangelists. Search and seizure protections would extend to the inside of a car or the hard drive of a computer.

The fact that they never imagined the technological advances we have made does not mean their ideas do not extend to protect them.

They did not have to.

You are under the impression that the Founding Fathers were dreaming up freedoms for us to follow.

Here is a little clue about our country that seems to never have been taught to you.

The Founding Fathers created a document that restricts GOVERNMENT, not the citizen. They feared a tyrannical GOVERNMENT, and therefore, placed obstacles and restrictions on what that government can do.

It is not about them imagining that we'd have automatic weapons. It is about them knowing how abusive governments are, and stopping them from ever interfering.

The Second Amendment is a right we have, not given to us by government. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that we continue to enjoy it. Government exists to protect our rights, not give them to us.

 

[tallmike]

Because they can't grow weapons in the mountains. They have to be manufactured and in most countries in the world people have to past a background check before they can buy weapons. They don't sell them willy nilly to any slack jawed yokel.

Cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, etc. Most drugs also require manufacturing, they don't simply grow on the side of a mountain. And, drugs are illegal in most countries around the world, not sold to anyone legally. Those slack jawed yokels seem to find a way to get them though.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Just to enlighten you..

The Original Thompson Submachine gun in 1934 could fire at the rate 1,500 bullets per minute. That was later throttled back to 879 rounds per minute to allow for some accuracy.

I do not know of a single person who can physically squeeze the trigger of any semi-automatic 879 time let alone 1,500 times in 60 seconds.

How many rounds would that machine gun fire with a ten round clip? That's the point assault weapons can be fitted with large capacity magazines making them the functional equivalent of machine guns.

It could fire all the rounds that the user cared to fire. Any weapon that takes a magazine can be fitted with a large capacity magazine. Someone who knows what they're doing can change a magazine in about 2 seconds. Does it really matter if he loads them 7, 10, 20 or 30 rounds at a time?

All the talk about magazine capacity is ridiculous.

An assault weapon is anything that looks scary to a civilian.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

This would indeed be part of an outline of those supporting an AWB in court. And an AWB would indeed be Constitutional until such time as a court ruled otherwise, which would likely be the case.

Rifles account for a very small percentage of overall gun crime and violence. And AR 15s and similar weapons represent an even smaller percentage. Consequently the state can not document that a ban would have the desired effect of reducing gun violence, and absent a compelling governmental interest a court would have no other choice than to invalidate such a ban.

AR 15s and the like also meet the criterion of being ‘weapons in common use,’ since an overwhelming number of Americans own these rifles, their possession would clearly fall under Second Amendment protection.

Pure speculation on your part to assume the SC would not uphold an AWB, especially in light of the fact that as I keep saying a modern semi auto with a 100magazine is the functional equivalent of the machine guns that were available at the time the SC upheld the ban of fully auto weapons.

The Heller Court, when reaffirming Miller, determined that weapons considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ were not entitled to Second Amendment protection. To compare an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle, or a sawed-off shotgun, for that matter, is idiocy – there is no legitimate civilian use for a fully automatic weapon or a sawed-off shotgun, whereas a semi-auto AR 15 has a legitimate civilian use as a sporting and target rifle; it clearly falls into the ‘in common use’ category, and possession of this firearm is consequently protected.

 

[Missourian]

Now we know what is in the mind of the NRA...paranoia. Guns will not give you courage.

What does that mean?

A gun does not give you courage?

How many times do you see the president out and about without the secret service and their guns to protect him...those guns seem to give him courage.

Cowards cling tightest to their guns. I've raised four children in the Los Angeles area. I've never had a firearm for protection. Anyone trying to sneak into my house will have to deal with my aluminum T-ball bat.

That seems to be the standard tactic of the gun grabbers, attack the messenger.

I'm not going to bite.

I am afraid...I'm afraid of criminals hurting my family, I'm afraid that I won't be able to protect them, and I'll use every tool at my disposal to keep that from happening.

If that's not for you, fine, make that decision for yourself and YOUR family...don't try to make it for mine.