Should these be included in an assault weapons ban?

[Defiant1]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

There goes my rubber band gun...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

This:

Operates no differently than this:

Neither is a "weapon of open warfare".

Or this

 

[chikenwing]

Yup - common sense is all too uncommon here sometimes.

So if they where blasted in two with a double aught buck shot it would have been different?

I don't think as many would have been killed. Takes too long to re-load. By the time he put six or seven shots into each victim with that bad boy, he might of gotten two people before he got taken down during a re-load.

You can't know that at all pure BS there was nobody there to take him down,he did it himself.

at that range 1 shot would have gotten two or three at a time ,are you getting the picture?

He had more than one gun how are you going to work that out?

Shooting those kids so many times means he wasted bullets and most likely didn't kill more than he could have thank goodness it could always be worse,a couple of cans of gas
same resuts dead people.

 

[nodoginnafight]

at what range?

and were not talking about an "expert" we're talking about mentally deranged idiots who get their hands on enough firepower to take out that many people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but there is absolutely no difference between an AR 15 that fires .223 rounds and any other semi auto rifle that fires .223 rounds.

If I can fire and change out 3 10 round magazines almost as fast as one can empty 1 30 round mag then what's the difference?

Again I'll ask you to be honest and just state outright that you people want to ban all semiautomatic rifles.

no difference at all - I'd support banning both.

then you better start working on repealing the second amendment

 

[The Rabbi]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271073-cbs-dc-more-murders-with-clubs-than-rifles.html

18, 19, 20 people getting clubbed to death at once? Where's your responsibility?

Gee, a 12ga pump shotgun loaded with #4 Buck will put out 27 .22caliber pellets at a single shot. With practice you can empty an 8-rd magazine in something like 4 seconds. That beats the crap out of any fire rate from a semi auto AR15.
Do you want to ban pump shotguns too? Good luck with that, you ignorant asshole goose-stepper.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup - common sense is all too uncommon here sometimes.

So if they where blasted in two with a double aught buck shot it would have been different?

I don't think as many would have been killed. Takes too long to re-load. By the time he put six or seven shots into each victim with that bad boy, he might of gotten two people before he got taken down during a re-load.

Wrong.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrlsElWfnC0]T.I.G.E.R. Valley combat shotgun reload - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Inthemiddle]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271073-cbs-dc-more-murders-with-clubs-than-rifles.html

18, 19, 20 people getting clubbed to death at once? Where's your responsibility?[/QUOTE]

You're right. Clubbings happen on a common and frequent basis. Mass shootings are comparatively rare and still kill less people total in the grand scheme of things. They way to make the public safer is obviously knee-jerk reactions based on rare events, and the kinds of every day events that are even more deadly over the course of a year.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well, glad to finally see some action on this, and you gun control folks didn't disappoint in highlighting your complete lack of knowledge and reactionaryism. Allow me to identify the types of weapons seen in the OP:


1. AR-15
2. AR-15
3. AR-15
4. AR-15
5. AR-15
6. a bolt action, single shot rifle with pistol grip
7 a bolt action, single shot rifle with pistol grip and low capacity magazine (did not show up because of display difficulties, but can be seen here)


Just goes to show how many people's perceptions of guns are based on nothing more than emotive reactions to visual stimuli.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Each of the weapons shown there including the target rifle are fine with me. They all do a specfic job. the M1, and the Ruger ranch carbine are great guns. One was even touted to be the best implement ever made by one Gen. George S. Patton.

 

[Nosmo King]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271073-cbs-dc-more-murders-with-clubs-than-rifles.html

18, 19, 20 people getting clubbed to death at once? Where's your responsibility?

You're right. Clubbings happen on a common and frequent basis. Mass shootings are comparatively rare and still kill less people total in the grand scheme of things. They way to make the public safer is obviously knee-jerk reactions based on rare events, and the kinds of every day events that are even more deadly over the course of a year.[/QUOTE]
We all understand that hammers and clubs were designed to perform specific tasks and not designed to kill. Yet assault weapons have one over riding characteristic: to propel lead and mass quantities of it at very high speed. Could you please describe the virtue of an assault weapon? What indispensable good do they provide? What design characteristics are there in assault weapons that make them anything other than dangerous weapons best suited for war?

 

[Darkwind]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

You are incorrect about #3.

There is no militia requirement to keep and bear arms.

 

[Nosmo King]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

What regulations are there when a "well regulated" militia is described?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

What regulations are there when a "well regulated" militia is described?

Well regulated is not about government control or modern day regulatory procedures.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

 

[Nosmo King]

1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

What regulations are there when a "well regulated" militia is described?

Well regulated is not about government control or modern day regulatory procedures.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Then there are, presumably, some controls, rules, principles, methods to assure regular operation and someone responsible to ensure good order and proper discipline. Could you elaborate on that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What regulations are there when a "well regulated" militia is described?

Well regulated is not about government control or modern day regulatory procedures.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Then there are, presumably, some controls, rules, principles, methods to assure regular operation and someone responsible to ensure good order and proper discipline. Could you elaborate on that?

Basically what well regulated means is "as expected and in working order"

 

[Rinata]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

 

[Inthemiddle]

We all understand that hammers and clubs were designed to perform specific tasks and not designed to kill. Yet assault weapons have one over riding characteristic: to propel lead and mass quantities of it at very high speed.

You don't even understand what an "assault weapon" is. All firearms were designed to propel mass quantities of projectiles at high speeds.

Why does nobody ever call for sword control? They were designed for one purpose only, which is to kill. Bows were designed with the singular purpose of killing. Nobody demands that these be banned. Your singular focus on firearms is irrational. All the moreso your ignorant attachment of "assault" to the term "weapons."

Could you please describe the virtue of an assault weapon? What indispensable good do they provide?

There is no such thing as "assault" weapons on American streets. Semiautomatic firing technology does not an assault weapon make. True "assault" weapons are full auto capable. That is all.

As for the virtues of semi automatic weapons, they help provide superior stopping power against aggressors, by allowing the user to fire multiple shots in rapid procession. This is important, because contrary to Hollywood created popular belief, a single shot rarely is sufficient to disable an aggressor. If you have to recock after every shot, there is a significant chance that an aggressor can still manage to harm you, or even kill you, before you are able to disable him. In addition, the simplified operation contributes to improved accuracy. This helps to minimize the chances of property damage from missed shots, as well as prevents accidental injury to other people from stray rounds. That simplicity also lends itself to improved overall proficiency. A semiautomatic can be carried cocked and safety in place, and always be ready to use instantly. Single shot weapons do not have this ability. Upon drawing the weapon has to be subsequently cocked before it can be fired, and this delay can be the difference between surviving an attack or becoming a statistic. The alternative for single shot weapons would then be to carry them cocked, which is dangerous. There's a reason why semiautomatic guns are overwhelmingly the recommendation for the novice shooter on which to learn. Because they lend themselves to the greatest potential for safe operation of a firearm.

For the most part, that all applies to semiautomatic pistols (and double action revolvers). Semiautomatic rifles also offer certain benefits in self defense situations in addition to those mentioned above regarding the semiautomatic technology in general. Rifles have improved range over handguns, and improved accuracy. This is particularly valuable in rural settings where one lives on a large property with open areas, if one were to ever be approached from a distance by an armed assailant. But it's also particularly useful when one lives in areas where dangerous wildlife may be encountered. Dispatching a dangerous coyote or wolf from a distance is the safer approach than coming close enough to use a handgun effectively. Even in close quarter settings, rifles can have certain advantages. Rifles can allow for better accuracy in reflexive fire situations for the competent shooters. Aiming the weapon is reduced to simply pointing your finger. This in turn allows for improved response time.

Now, after all of that, everything said thus far applies to self defense applications. It doesn't even begin to touch on the benefits of a semiautomatic rifle for hunting purposes. But considering you asked for only one thing, I think I've accomplished that.

What design characteristics are there in assault weapons that make them anything other than dangerous weapons best suited for war?

A true "assault" weapon is a weapon best suited for war. But a semiautomatic weapon is not an assault weapon.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What regulations are there when a "well regulated" militia is described?

Regulation #1 was that all able bodied men were REQUIRED to own and maintain arms.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I know somebody that had a relative killed with a big frying pan. Maybe we should ban frying pans that are big enough to fry more than 6 pieces of bacon at once.