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

[BreezeWood]

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

.

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

public (police) and private firearms to be lever or bolt action, maximum six round capacity non detachable magazine. -

all other firearms to be made illegal.

.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

It's still scary-looking, so, of course the LW anti-gun mob wants to ban it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Is an AK47 semi auto rifle an assault weapon if 500 terrorists are attacking a town using them to kill people?

Dude, the terrorists are using full auto AK-47 assault rifles. "Assault weapon" is a made-up phrase used by the anti-gun Left to mean a "scary-looking" semi-automatic civilian rifle.

 

[Divine Wind]

These are BOTH Ruger 10/22s

The one on top is no faster nor more deadly than the one on the bottom. And a person CAN assault another person with either one.

Agreed. The only difference is cosmetic, not lethality.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Yes, you are correct. The reason Americans could "bear arms" is to fight tyranny in government, so some military hardware would be permissible.

Mark

Personally I think we'll need all the fire power we can get.....

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts... Don't you think if it could save lives then it would be worth it?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

.

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

public (police) and private firearms to be lever or bolt action, maximum six round capacity non detachable magazine. -

all other firearms to be made illegal.

.

Great. . . Now fire up the bkack market and let's see how many cops from getting police issued firearms ftom being stolen.

Also no cops would ever be corruptible enough to abuse the system with their access to guns. . . Would they?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Yes, you are correct. The reason Americans could "bear arms" is to fight tyranny in government, so some military hardware would be permissible.

Mark

Personally I think we'll need all the fire power we can get.....

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

I would take that bet on any given day.

 

[80zephyr]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts... Don't you think if it could save lives then it would be worth it?

I ask again. If a reduction in body count is the goal, what is the acceptable number of deaths per mass shooting?

Mark

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts... Don't you think if it could save lives then it would be worth it?

I ask again. If a reduction in body count is the goal, what is the acceptable number of deaths per mass shooting?

Mark

As little as possible... You know there is no number or answer to that question. We do what we can to protect our public from external threats while providing the public the ability to protect themselves.

 

[RandallFlagg]

These are BOTH Ruger 10/22s

The one on top is no faster nor more deadly than the one on the bottom. And a person CAN assault another person with either one.

Agreed. The only difference is cosmetic, not lethality.

Indeed. They are both the same rifle. The problem? The left sees the rifle on the bottom and pisses their pants...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Yes, you are correct. The reason Americans could "bear arms" is to fight tyranny in government, so some military hardware would be permissible.

Mark

Personally I think we'll need all the fire power we can get.....

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Any gun nutters want to answer the question as to why you nutters buy an AR 15, then go out and buy all the accoutrements to make the AR look like a full auto M16 assault rifle.

It was not even an AR-15. That said, So let's say we ban large clip semi-autos and the Terrorist start using IEDs, Bomb Vests, and Car Bombs? Gee, will you now become

You want to try and answer the question I asked.

Or is Bullshit deflection all you've got?

You live in France? Your problem, not mine.

Did you know we control explosives very tightly in this country.
Even fertilizer is controlled. How about that. No fertilizer bombs since American Tim McVeigh used one in Oklahoma. You go ahead and be scared of bombers. I'll pass.

Bullshit. You can buy Tannerite at any sporting goods.

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access. Let's say we do it your way and drop all gun control. Mr Orlando walks into the local gun shop and gets a machine gun, hand grenades and the body armor he attempted to buy. You honestly think the body count in that club would t have been any different?

Of course BG checks, gun regulation and bans doesnt effect the black market but it does make it harder to obtain high power weapons and puts less of them out there in the market

 

[Slade3200]

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

Yes, you are correct. The reason Americans could "bear arms" is to fight tyranny in government, so some military hardware would be permissible.

Mark

Personally I think we'll need all the fire power we can get.....

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

 

[BluesLegend]

Is an AK47 semi auto rifle an assault weapon if 500 terrorists are attacking a town using them to kill people?

Is a farm pitch fork? Baseball bat? Machete? Hence the absurdity of your logic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, you are correct. The reason Americans could "bear arms" is to fight tyranny in government, so some military hardware would be permissible.

Mark

Personally I think we'll need all the fire power we can get.....

And, whether guns are banned or not. . . Should the time ever come when we the people decide to take the same actions that our founding fathers did in the revolutionary war. . . I am pretty damn sure that it will be just about ANYTHING goes.


I have said this before but just imagine any of the founder's reaction to the king and the king's tyranny if the king tried to dictate what weapons the founders could have and use to defend THEIR (our) freedoms.

I imagine the founders would have written different laws if they had the type of weapons that we have today.

Your imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.

You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely valid

But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Slade3200]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No. It does not.
Neither restriction will prevent shootings like that in Orlando.

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this