They can't define what an assult weapon is, but they will ban them...

[there4eyeM]

The term 'assault rifle' has been effectively destroyed. It had a meaning once as identifying a compact, light, rapid fire weapon for storming trenches, buildings, emplacements, etc. Now, it means nothing in common speech.
The only excuse for owning such a weapon (and the people who obsess in having them know full well what they are) is to replicate an image of macho martial man. They should probably only be permitted for organized militias where marauders and invaders are likely; i.e., nowhere in the continental U.S.A. But, to keep the hotheads happy, maybe we can convince the populace that these fetishists can be kept in check. The ball is in their court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

It’s a good start

I would make it simpler.......anything capable of being fired at a rate above 100 rpm is an assault rifle

That just shows how much of an idiot you are.

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

 

[MindWars]

and whether taking away guns like this has actually ever worked to make anyone more safe, more free---- or less?

Yes, more safe and freer from the threat of massacres, as demonstrated by the safety of pupils in the other developed nations.

As history shows.

Yeah instead they use knives, cars, bombs keep telling yourself how much safer they are lmfao.

OH BUT WAIT THEY TOOK THEIR GUNS HMMMMMM

London's hospitals 'look like war zones due to gun and knife crime epidemic' - Westmonster

 

[MindWars]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

It’s a good start

I would make it simpler.......anything capable of being fired at a rate above 100 rpm is an assault rifle

That just shows how much of an idiot you are.

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

U are so GUN STUPID

 

[martybegan]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

It’s a good start

I would make it simpler.......anything capable of being fired at a rate above 100 rpm is an assault rifle

That just shows how much of an idiot you are.

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

The law can't ban something protected by the RKBA.

Progressives need to stop only following the Constitution when it suits their depraved causes.

 

[skookerasbil]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

It’s a good start

I would make it simpler.......anything capable of being fired at a rate above 100 rpm is an assault rifle

That just shows how much of an idiot you are.

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

Irrelevant comment.... they defined the law very clearly here in New York and the neighbor in Connecticut. Banned "assault" rifles.... only a handful of people complied

 

[Ridgerunner]

No it isn't. They are banning certain categories of semis. Read the damned legislation.

 

[2aguy]

and whether taking away guns like this has actually ever worked to make anyone more safe, more free---- or less?

Yes, more safe and freer from the threat of massacres, as demonstrated by the safety of pupils in the other developed nations. As history shows.

ANOTHER JACKASS SPEAKS, from the "history book" of Leftist Propaganda.

How gun confiscation has made you safe and free over the years:

1911, Turkey
Established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were rounded up and exterminated. Search Armenian Genocide.
1929, Soviet Union
Established gun control. In 1937, about 2 million dissidents, including 30000 military officers, were rounded up and imprisoned or executed. Search The Great Purges
1935, China
Established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
1938, Germany
Established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." - Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition, Pg. 425-426.
1956, Cambodia
Established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. SPECIAL NOTE: The law was passed in 1956, but was not used for 20 years. But it WAS used.
1964, Guatemala
Established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
1970, Uganda
Established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million.
1996, Australia
In 1996, with the homicide rate at 1.6/100000, The National Firearms Agreement was signed into law. Australians were forced by the new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. By 2002, the homicide rate had risen to 1.8/100000. Since then, the rate has steadily declined(as well as the USA and other developed countries) to 1.2/100000 for the 2008 - 10 period. Theoretically, if gun confiscation reduced murder(or other violent crime), rates should have immediately dropped and remained lower.

And so it goes. Now if a lot of people do what I think they will and should do, they will defy this new law and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Idiot Left here, all they have to say is that everyone should just OBEY THE NEW LAW, this from a group of people who've done nothing but SPIT IN THE FACE OF LAW ever since Trump took office---- now with the democratic Oregon governor refusing to send the National Guard as she is "shocked" Trump would use them to defend the border. Yes, Folks, that is the Left---- they always have ONE standard for YOU but quite another one for THEMSELVES. Fuck the Left.

Thank you....excellent post......



Now I am going to steal it.

 

[2aguy]

The term 'assault rifle' has been effectively destroyed. It had a meaning once as identifying a compact, light, rapid fire weapon for storming trenches, buildings, emplacements, etc. Now, it means nothing in common speech.
The only excuse for owning such a weapon (and the people who obsess in having them know full well what they are) is to replicate an image of macho martial man. They should probably only be permitted for organized militias where marauders and invaders are likely; i.e., nowhere in the continental U.S.A. But, to keep the hotheads happy, maybe we can convince the populace that these fetishists can be kept in check. The ball is in their court.

No...moron...you asshats are using that term to go after all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns....the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular, was never used by the military, has never been used in war....and it makes a great civilian rifle for self defense, sport and hunting...

And as it is the most common and useful rifle in the United States, it is protected by the 2nd Amendment per the Heller and Caetano decisons in the Supreme court...as are all civililan semi automatic weapons.....

 

[2aguy]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

It’s a good start

I would make it simpler.......anything capable of being fired at a rate above 100 rpm is an assault rifle

That just shows how much of an idiot you are.

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

No...it is the left that are lying....using an unspecific term to try to ban as many rifles, pistols and shotguns as they can in one go or with many different attempts at the law....the Supreme Court protects these rifles......Heller specifically protected all weapons that are in common use...that means that since the semi automatic rifle, pistol and shot gun are the most common and popular weapons in this country, they are protected....

From Heller.....showing that the any ban of the AR-15 civilian rifle or semi automatic weapons in general is unConstitutional...

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.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”



And Caetano....again.....bitch slapping the 4th Circuit Court of appeals when they tried to say stun guns weren't protected by the 2nd Amendment....telling the 4th that the Heller decison means they need to back down...

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

 

[cnm]

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

If they haven't got gunsplainin' they've got nothing.

 

[cnm]

Look at that towns proposal, it covers all semi-autos.

It does not. Read the fucking legislation.

 

[2aguy]

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round, it's whatever the law defines it to be, regardless whether you agree with that definition.

Conservatives need to stop with the tedious sophistry.

If they haven't got gunsplainin' they've got nothing.

Yes, Gunsplaining = telling the truth about guns......

For a left winger Gunsplaining = how gun owners tell a left winger they are stupid because they want to ban guns without facts, truth or reality...

 

[2aguy]

Look at that towns proposal, it covers all semi-autos.

It does not. Read the fucking legislation.

Heller and Caetano make what they did unConstitutional...... those rifles, pistols and shotguns are the most common guns in the United States....making them protected items under the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment.

Caetano v. Massachusetts


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

 

[cnm]

It covers basically any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine.

That's all of them except for M-1's.

You can't even gunsplain.

 

[Esmeralda]

It hardly matters what question would be better asked, the reality is that overall opinion is swinging toward greater supervision of firearms ownership and transport.

Really? Maybe if the question had been asked by more and more loudly, then public opinion wouldn't be swinging in the direction it is! And how do you equate the total banning of and arbitrary criminalization of entire classes of firearms (and the people who hold them) by a handful of ignorant and fearful committee people with "greater supervision of firearm ownership?" In one fell-swoop, these idiots have seen fit to make felons out of a major portion of the community they serve (except retired cops of course).

Public relations efforts on the part of the N.R.A. and its sympathizers would have been much better directed toward calm, quiet education. Rabid, frothing recitation of constitutional amendments while implicitly suggesting armed intervention worked to the advantage of their adversaries, and against the rest of us.

And yet the NRA DOES offer a whole litany of gun safety training courses and education which they have promoted calmly and quietly. All of the rabid frothing has come from the fear-stricken gun grabbers.

View attachment 186416

When a 17 year old kid is your greatest enemy, you know you've lost.

 

[cnm]

Yes, Gunsplaining = telling the truth about guns......

Gunsplaining = Deflecting by irrelevant detail, often incorrect.

 

[cnm]

Those other countries have guns

Where they are strictly regulated and access to handguns and military style semi automatic rifles is not easy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When a 17 year old kid is your greatest enemy, you know you've lost.

When a 17 year old kid is leading your political movement, your shit is in the wind and you are downrange...

 

[cnm]

The thread premise is as ignorant as it wrong.

The town clearly defined what an assault weapon is.

An assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be.

Bears repeating.