Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[80zephyr]

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

Possibly. Like I stated before, there is some question as to "right to bear" means.

Mark

And that would be?

That any weapon that is not "bearable" could be considered off limits. Even Scalia thought that this was a valid limit on the right to bear arms.

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Wrong....you and brain...you are both wrong..

The shooter at the giffords shooting shot a man in the head. He thought the man was dead and kept walking toward the guy. The guy was not dead, he was simply grazed in the head. As the shooter walked past the guy on the ground, the guy on the ground got up and tackled him. Had the guy on the ground not been lucky, he would have been dead. Then, the old lady who grabbed the magazine.....she saw the attacker approaching and decided to lay on the ground in the hope he would ignore her......when the shooter was tackled, he fell right in front of the old woman, so close she reached out and plucked the magazine out of his hand....more luck in the same shooting, they believe he changed that magazine because a spring failed....

And had they not grabbed him...there was an armed civilian with a concealed pistol ready to shoot him..he also saw this happen but decided he didn't need to shoot...he did however hold his gun on the guy after they tackled him, and then the police arrived, notice...they did not shoot the good guy with the gun when they arrived, dispelling another myth of the anti gunners.

Really?

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading

By all accounts he was reloading when he was tackled. He used a 33 round magazine and was able to get off 32 shots, if he had a normal magazine he would have had to already reload and potentially could have saved some lives.

Nice way to try to rewrite history.

Clown.

Here......the actual story....which I have posted again and again...

The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner

And from this...he wasn't tackled during a magazine change, he shot a guy, Bill Badger, and thought he killed him...he let badger get behind him and that is when he was tackled, then the old lady got the magazine after she laid on the ground in front of loughner trying to be a small target.....

Brain is wrong....

from the article...
....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....

Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain,...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......

And what did the old lady do....

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading



She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.

So...no....they did not stop him from reloading by heroically charging him as he changed magazines........dumb luck allowed them to grab him.....and on top of that, from the study on Magazine Capacity...his magazine more than likely had a bad spring in it which forced him to change the magazine....

So pure dumb luck x3

 

[2aguy]

This is the concealed carry gun owner who would have engaged the Gifford's shooter had luck not intervened to save the day before he arrived......


The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner


Zamudio had long kept a gun in his car. The previous August, when buying a Ruger P95 9mm, he had learned from the gun dealer that Arizona had legalized permit-less carry, and from that day on had worn the Ruger constantly. Left-handed, he was carrying it that day, butt forward in the inside right breast pocket of his jacket, fully loaded with 16 rounds.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground.

Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him.

There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”

So as you can see...from actual witness testimony, had the guy not been tackled at least 2 people were there long before the police arrived and were about to engage the guy.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

Possibly. Like I stated before, there is some question as to "right to bear" means.

Mark

And that would be?

That any weapon that is not "bearable" could be considered off limits. Even Scalia thought that this was a valid limit on the right to bear arms.

Mark

If you take the word bear as a literal definition.
But then I would be able to own a MANPAD....

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Wrong....you and brain...you are both wrong..

The shooter at the giffords shooting shot a man in the head. He thought the man was dead and kept walking toward the guy. The guy was not dead, he was simply grazed in the head. As the shooter walked past the guy on the ground, the guy on the ground got up and tackled him. Had the guy on the ground not been lucky, he would have been dead. Then, the old lady who grabbed the magazine.....she saw the attacker approaching and decided to lay on the ground in the hope he would ignore her......when the shooter was tackled, he fell right in front of the old woman, so close she reached out and plucked the magazine out of his hand....more luck in the same shooting, they believe he changed that magazine because a spring failed....

And had they not grabbed him...there was an armed civilian with a concealed pistol ready to shoot him..he also saw this happen but decided he didn't need to shoot...he did however hold his gun on the guy after they tackled him, and then the police arrived, notice...they did not shoot the good guy with the gun when they arrived, dispelling another myth of the anti gunners.

Really?

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading

By all accounts he was reloading when he was tackled. He used a 33 round magazine and was able to get off 32 shots, if he had a normal magazine he would have had to already reload and potentially could have saved some lives.

Nice way to try to rewrite history.

Clown.

The woman did not rush the attacker and disarm him....she laid down and hoped he wouldn't kill her....and his bad luck was her good luck......

Speaking to the press today, Maisch recalled how she stopped Loughner as he tried to reload his Glock 9 mm weapon.

"I could see him coming. [He] shot the lady next to me," Maisch said.

As he was shooting, she said, she was expecting to be hit and she wondered what it would feel like.

There was "lots of blood and confusion," she said.

She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened.

"Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "The gentleman knocked him down.

"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said.

Maisch said Badger and Sulzgeber both sat on the gunman while she held his ankles down. Police said that Zimudie helped by hanging on to Loughner's legs.

Sulzgeber was reportedly standing with his wife, third in line to meet with Giffords, while Zimudie was in the nearby Walgreens and came running out once he heard the shooting.

"I thought I would be shot. I am thankful for those two brave men," Maisch said. "I am not a hero. The other guys are. I just assisted getting the clip."

Badger, a 74-year-old retired army colonel living in Tucson, told Pottsville, Pa.'s Republican-Herald how he helped capture Loughner, and that he was grazed in the back of the head by a bullet.

 

[2aguy]

Its not an assault weapon its a defense weapon used for defense don't listen to the liberal's LIES!

Interesting take. Who was Mateen defending?

Radical islam.

lol, so you're agreeing with the other poster who implied that an AR15 is appropriate and acceptable for self-defense?

geez

Yes...it is. It has important qualities for home defense twit. It is lightweight and easier to shoot than a shotgun, which is important for women or people with physical handicaps. The round it uses does not over penetrate walls so there is less chance of hitting a neighbor next door compared to a larger pistol round. The ability to put both a light and a laser on it makes it good for low light situations and for point aiming at close quarters. since it is light, you can hold it one handed while aiming it so you can use a phone. the 3 points of contact help you shoot accurately vs. the two points of a pistol....the reputation you nuts have given it makes it intimidating, so when a thug rapist or robber comes in and sees it they are less likely to try their chances with you. The standard magazine capacity means that if you are injured at the start of the fight, you are less likely to have to reload the weapon....since any injury is going to dump even more adrenaline into your body, making small motor skills, like changing a magazine harder.....under the stress of an attack..

And for people who live in isolated places....all of those qualities become even greater advantages....like ranchers along the border who have to wait an hour for police help when they may be facing drug cartel human traffickers in the middle of the night......

Or if you are camping in a national forest on the border and run across drug traffickers and have no cell reception.......and you can't even call for help....and have to stand on your own.....

So you have no clue what you are talking about....but please, keep talking out of your ass...

 

[2aguy]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

The second amendment is not about all weapons all the time.

If you can accept the concept that somewhere between a muzzle loaded pistol and a rocket propelled grenade launcher, there is some limitation to what weapons citizens should bear, then what's your problem with limiting access to weapons designed for a battlefield?

Yes....limit access to F-16s not rifles and pistols. There...we compromised.

 

[2aguy]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Oh.....so you would ban all guns then...since they are all semi automatic....even revolvers...got you....

 

[2aguy]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

That is the anti gun bait and switch technique....then, uninformed people start squaking like parrots...."ban semi autos....ban semi autos....." and then the press will do a poll with absolutely no context...and they will say...90% of Americans and even NRA members want to ban semi autos, weapons of war, .......

and then they realize too late that the gun grabbers intended all along to ban all guns...which are all semi autos....

 

[Bassman007]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

The second amendment is not about all weapons all the time.

If you can accept the concept that somewhere between a muzzle loaded pistol and a rocket propelled grenade launcher, there is some limitation to what weapons citizens should bear, then what's your problem with limiting access to weapons designed for a battlefield?

Yes....limit access to F-16s not rifles and pistols. There...we compromised.

An F-16 is a single engine fighter jet........................

 

[2aguy]

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

And once they get all the semi autos...you just pointed out the line of attack they will use on revolvers......

 

[2aguy]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

The second amendment is not about all weapons all the time.

If you can accept the concept that somewhere between a muzzle loaded pistol and a rocket propelled grenade launcher, there is some limitation to what weapons citizens should bear, then what's your problem with limiting access to weapons designed for a battlefield?

Yes....limit access to F-16s not rifles and pistols. There...we compromised.

An F-16 is a single engine fighter jet........................

Obviously, we need to ban single engine jet fighters....since the single engine means it was meant for the battle field.

 

[Nosmo King]

Was it 87 or 92 octane?

 

[Bassman007]

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

And once they get all the semi autos...you just pointed out the line of attack they will use on revolvers......

However revolvers are as obsolete as flintlocks or open end muskets.

 

[2aguy]

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

Many people who use revolvers leave an empty chamber in line with the firing pin.

Mark

But.....they aren't required to by law, are they? So the first step to get revolvers after they get the other guns, will be to make it a crime to have a loaded cylinder under the hammer....

They will then show video of guns dropped where they fire since there is a round under the hammer....while not mentioning that that only happens in antique pistols that don't have modern drop safety features....

And the lies will continue....

 

[Bassman007]

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

Many people who use revolvers leave an empty chamber in line with the firing pin.

Mark

But.....they aren't required to by law, are they? So the first step to get revolvers after they get the other guns, will be to make it a crime to have a loaded cylinder under the hammer....

They will then show video of guns dropped where they fire since there is a round under the hammer....while not mentioning that that only happens in antique pistols that don't have modern drop safety features....

And the lies will continue....

Actually dropping the gun is not the only problem, the biggest problem is operator error, or a kid getting their hands on the gun. A mother was recently shot this way Authorities Want to Charge Mom Shot By Her 4-Year-Old Son

 

[Bassman007]

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.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

Possibly. Like I stated before, there is some question as to "right to bear" means.

Mark

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Why are all these terrorist attacks made with consumer bought guns???

Answer, because the enemy wants the USA to ban all guns in the hands of the people that it wants dead. Seriously they could easily have given this guy a real full auto or vehicle mounted gatlin gun if they chose, but watching us rip each other apart on message boards and in Congress is more effective for them.

 

[Slade3200]

Its not an assault weapon its a defense weapon used for defense don't listen to the liberal's LIES!

Interesting take. Who was Mateen defending?

He would likely answer "Islam."

He might say that, but it's all a lie. He wasn't a religious nut, he was a just a nut who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Nothing about his lifestyle showed a commitment to Islamic or even extreme Islamic religious beliefs

Nothing other than him doing a bayat while mowing people down, proclaiming their love to the pedophile who climbed up out of a well while in the midst of a murderous rampage. Yeah, he was committed to islamic violence.

You almost got it right... He was committed to violence. Isis was just his excuse to draw more attention

 

[Crixus]

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

Possibly. Like I stated before, there is some question as to "right to bear" means.

Mark

And that would be?

That any weapon that is not "bearable" could be considered off limits. Even Scalia thought that this was a valid limit on the right to bear arms.

Mark

If you take the word bear as a literal definition.
But then I would be able to own a MANPAD....
View attachment 78672

I need that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

This is only partially true. Most modern revolvers have either a mechanism that blocks the hammer and the firing pin from the cap unless the trigger is pulled (Taurus / Rugers) or the hammer/ firing pin (Smith Wesson) is "blocked" by a "hammer block" mechanism unless the trigger is pulled.

That said, there are many many OLD revolvers out there that are capable of missfiring if dropped on the hammers because the firing pin does essentially rest directly behind a live round and there is no hammer block on those old guns. .