Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress

[Dagosa]

It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations. It’s not up to Biden to actually write the laws. He makes proposals and the houses have to agree then go before him for final signature. Watering down regs often occurs between the houses of congress, not with the president.

 

[Blues Man]

It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations.

The definition of an "assault weapon" does not mention anything about the rifle's round, accuracy, loading mechanism etc instead it concentrates on cosmetic things like pistol grips, flash suppressors and folding stocks.

 

[Dagosa]

The definition of an "assault weapon" does not mention anything about the rifle's round, accuracy, loading mechanism etc instead it concentrates on cosmetic things like pistol grips, flash suppressors and folding stocks.

There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture .

 

[Blues Man]

There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated ir banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture .

Show me a single definition that isn't solely banning cosmetic doodads or limiting magazine size and that have to do with the round fired, the loading mechanism or any other aspect of the actual function of the weapon.

The 94 AWB was nothing but a ban of cosmetic additions to a rifle that had absolutely no effect on the performance of the rifle at all

 

[Mac-7]

So, now you’re claiming that criminals turn themselves in whenever they touch a gun ? Amazing. Maybe their moms do.

Now you are making a weak attempt at mocking to cover your retreat

 

[tyroneweaver]

Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress​

Biden demands ban on 'assault weapons,' high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress

In his first speech before both chambers of Congress, President Joe Biden focused heavily on his administration’s gun control agenda, calling once again

americanmilitarynews.com

29 Apr 2021 ~~ By Liz George

In his first speech before both chambers of Congress, President Joe Biden focused heavily on his administration’s gun control agenda, calling once again for “reasonable reforms” on firearms, including a ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.
“We need a ban on assault weapons and high—capacity magazines again. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. We’ve done it before … and it worked,” Biden asserted in his speech. “Talk to most responsible gun owners, most hunters – they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds – 100 bullets – in a weapon. They will tell you that there are too many people today who are able to buy a gun, but who shouldn’t be able to.”
~SNIP~

NRA on Twitter: "Biden just touted the ‘94 Assault Weapons Ban during his #PresidentialAddress. In ‘94, Americans owned 850,000 AR-15s. Even the Clinton DOJ proved this ban to be a failure. Today, the ban is long gone & law-abiding Americans own 20 million AR-15s. Who beat who, Mr. President?" / Twitter​

In 2004, the Department of Justice National Institute of Justice issued a report stating that the 1994 “assault weapons” ban did not actually reduce crime.


Comment:
I’m sure that law enforcement all across the nation are busy today ridding themselves "Assault Weapons" and Large capacity magazines that hold more than seven rounds ( a very popular New York solution except for NYPD).
Most states with the U.S. have limits on the number of rounds that can be loaded in a rifle or shotgun.
For rifles hunting big game (Deer, boar, elk or bear) rifles are limited to 4 in the magazine/clip, or tube. For shotguns the normally loads are three in the magazine/tube and one round chambered.
Obviously both the president and his handlers know little about hunting laws or what is manufactured within the sporting arms industry of America.
While the popular AR-15 system is now calibered from .22 cal, 5.56/.223, 6.5mm, 6.8mm .300 Blackout, 7.62x39mm and .308 calibers.
The system created by Eugene Stoner like Kalashnikov has outlived his name.
Unlike the mlitary M4A1 Carbine is only manufactured for war in one standard caliber 5.56mm NATO and may be fitted with a selective fully automatic trigger assembly where the AR-15 is not. .

banana clips have a tendency to jam at the elbow. That's why i never use one.

 

[Batcat]

This happens all the time. Gun store owners have no reason to make up shit to sell guns. Neither do car salesmen. It must be fact. Home invasions are running ramped.

But gee, no ones reporting them. Let’s just use the official stats from the nra gun store owners. Oh, and they’re all little girls shooting back.

The incident I described was back in the 1970s. I was a friend of one of the owners of the store. I never bought anything there. I should have.

I missed the opportunity to buy two Colt Python revolvers with sequential serial numbers. If I could have convinced my wife at the time to allow me to purchase the pair and I had put them in a safety deposit box they would be worth a small fortune. An unfired Colt Python goes for around $6000 tp $7000 today.

 

[Rigby5]

Convicted felons still have some rights

but voting or owning firearms are not among those rights

Not being allowed to vote but still having to pay taxes, is illegal based on the principle of taxation without representation.
Not being allowed to own firearms violates the 4th and 2nd amendments.

 

[Rigby5]

Its not my problem you misinterprete it. The problem is you think it gives permission for an army of ratbag rednecks to prance around expanding their egos. Waving guns around like rambo. Tough guys that have never fired a shot in anger. Go away you fool.

The people are who are supposed to have all power and authority, not some corrupt politicians who hire a bunch of mercenaries with our money.

 

[Mac-7]

Not being allowed to vote but still having to pay taxes, is illegal based on the principle of taxation without representation.

Not according to the all-knowing unelected demigods on the high court

 

[Rigby5]

Oh, now you’re claiming that every gun felons use in the US is a Taurus ? Really ?
Here is a list of guns used by felons. Gee, no Taurus. Glocks are made in Smyrna USA as well as Ruger colts etc. Now we know you’re full of shot. It’s been fun. Now spread you BS elsewhere.

• Glock 19. ity. ...
• Glock 22. ...
• Smith & Wesson M&P 9. ...
• Beretta Model 92. ...
• Sig Sauer P226. ...
• Heckler and Koch HK45. ...
• Ruger LC9. ...
• Colt M1911.

Wrong.
It is equally easy to buy stolen guns as to import them.
What guns happened to have been used in the past is not relevant.
We are talking about the false claim that you can prevent future illegal gun use by more purchase restrictions.
It is obvious you are lying.
For example, the police use Glocks more than any other pistol, but clearly when a cop murders someone, the federal gun laws did not help the murdered victim at all.
More stringent background checks don't help if the buyer is not yet a convicted felon.
And what authority is there to prevent a convicted felon from defending himself after he has served his sentence?
Your claims are false, hypocritical, and unethical.

 

[Rigby5]

They don’t. There are no inherent rights in the bill of rights. Nine, nada nix.
Every Supreme Court decision had said so. No exceptions. I guess the Supreme Court has been wrong since the constitution was written. Of course the constitution GIVES the power to the judiciary to make those decisions.

Wrong.
No one ever said that the Bill of Rights created rights.
The Bill of Rights instead are restrictions on the federal government mostly.
All law in democratic republics can ONLY be based on inherent rights, not anything arbitrary.
And no one can "give" any power to the judiciary.
That would be a circular fallacy, since you can not give that which you do not already have yourself.

 

[Rigby5]

In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.

American guns are flooding into Mexico and wreaking havoc | Robert Reich

Mexico has tried almost everything to stop US-made guns from fueling cartel violence. So now it’s doing what any litigious American would do: suing

www.theguardian.com

Wrong.
You are lying because you are implying those Mexican cartels are getting guns through legal purchases in the US, when in reality they are more likely stolen.
But the fact there are no gun factories in Mexico, does not at all prevent guns from being imported from South America, China, Pakistan, etc.
It is just that stolen guns are cheaper.

 

[Rigby5]

It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations. It’s not up to Biden to actually write the laws.

Except that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" and any attempt to retro actively criminalize, violates the ex post facto legal principle.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture .

There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
With WWII, it was a carbine, because it fired a weak recoil, pistol bullet.
With Vietnam, they just went alloy on the frame and made the magazine larger.
But any pair of pistols can still be used as an assault weapon as effective as anything made.
Maybe even more so, since with 2 pistols, you can reload one while the other remain in use.
And there also will never be a way to prevent someone from cutting down a shotgun barrel.

The idea one has to buy a firearm already set as an "assault weapon", so that it can be controlled by legislation, is totally insane, and ignorant.

 

[Likkmee]

 

[Rigby5]

Not to mention that it is illegal to make people criminals for something they bought legally.
It violates the legal principle of ex post facto.
Meaning you can not criminalize after the fact.
And there are hundreds of millions of assault rifles and high capacity magazines out there already.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
With WWII, it was a carbine, because it fired a weak recoil, pistol bullet.
With Vietnam, they just went alloy on the frame and made the magazine larger.
But any pair of pistols can still be used as an assault weapon as effective as anything made.
Maybe even more so, since with 2 pistols, you can reload one while the other remain in use.
And there also will never be a way to prevent someone from cutting down a shotgun barrel.

The idea one has to buy a firearm already set as an "assault weapon", so that it can be controlled by legislation, is totally insane, and ignorant.

It's a political bastardization of the term "Assault Rifle" which got its name from the Strumgewehr 44 (literally "Storm Rifle" means assault rifle).

Assault Rifle parameters include select fire, a mid-sized round, and a detachable magazine.

Select fire means being able to shoot semi-auto and full-auto or burst.

"Assault Weapons" means anything congress decides to ban, including grandpa's single fire shot gun.

 

[Colin norris]

The people are who are supposed to have all power and authority, not some corrupt politicians who hire a bunch of mercenaries with our money.

Thats what you think.
I know different.

 

[Dagosa]

There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
With WWII, it was a carbine, because it fired a weak recoil, pistol bullet.
With Vietnam, they just went alloy on the frame and made the magazine larger.
But any pair of pistols can still be used as an assault weapon as effective as anything made.
Maybe even more so, since with 2 pistols, you can reload one while the other remain in use.
And there also will never be a way to prevent someone from cutting down a shotgun barrel.

The idea one has to buy a firearm already set as an "assault weapon", so that it can be controlled by legislation, is totally insane, and ignorant.

Humpers are all in a tizzy cause their desire to play toy soldier is threatened. You guys are hilarious.