City votes to "solve" problem that does not exist

[darin]

Again - more a commentary on those allowing this knuckleheads to keep their jobs; it's a systemic problem with the voting population. Our society is doomed.



A local TV station reports that the Burlington City Council has voted to approve an assault weapon ban in the city even though none of the weapons they call assault weapons have been used in crime in the city;

Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling said most gun crime in the city involves hand guns, not assault weapons.
Burlington Police could not provide statistics on how many crimes involves assault weapons as that information was not readily available.
But the citizens of Burlington know;


“How many semi-automatic rifles have been shot in the city of Burlington with people injured? None,” said Bob Reid. “How many large capacity magazines were used in those rifles? None.”



Well, that doesn’t really matter, because all that’s important to liberals is that they be seen as “doing something” no matter that there’ll be no effect on the particular issue. It’s their intentions that are paramount.


http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=33547



Emphasis mine.

[mundame]

I'm for it. Good for Burlington.

Military-type assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used in EVERY mass killing lately and for some time now. It has to stop. There is no reason non-military citizens should have weapons intended to kill lots of people. I mean, what is that all about, you know?

If you need them for the revolution, guys, the gun manufacturers have the molds and they can turn them out quickly if they have to.

In the meantime the only use for these guns and magazines is maniac amusement, and that's not a good reason to have them around.

[darin]

I'm for it. Good for Burlington.

Military-type assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used in EVERY mass killing lately and for some time now. It has to stop. There is no reason non-military citizens should have weapons intended to kill lots of people. I mean, what is that all about, you know?

What if I gave you a reason, would that settle that particular point, in your mind?

Question: How do you determine the intent of an inatimate object, say, a rock? What's the intent of an axe? A stick?



If you need them for the revolution, guys, the gun manufacturers have the molds and they can turn them out quickly if they have to.

Do you have any idea how guns are made?



In the meantime the only use for these guns and magazines is maniac amusement, and that's not a good reason to have them around.


That's not true at all. The guns are also used for sane amusement - see?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4259&d=1338574462



4259

I have a few good reasons to have them around: First, they shoot straight and reliable. Second, they work GREAT for ferral pigs. Third, my right to have them shall not be abridged by the Government...right??? RIGHT? :)

[cadet]

I'm for it. Good for Burlington.

Military-type assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used in EVERY mass killing lately and for some time now. It has to stop. There is no reason non-military citizens should have weapons intended to kill lots of people. I mean, what is that all about, you know?

If you need them for the revolution, guys, the gun manufacturers have the molds and they can turn them out quickly if they have to.

In the meantime the only use for these guns and magazines is maniac amusement, and that's not a good reason to have them around.

We don't live in the "God Father" movie.

And when it comes to mass killing, you realize that if someone really wants to kill a bunch of people, the don't need a gun. If I truly wanted to, I could take household products, mix em nicely, and put some in the air vents around school. And all that takes is a basic knowledge of chemistry, or Google.

From this logic, after all the bomb threats and mass killings, we should bane cow dung, bleach, cleaner, etc. Or make everyone wear a gas mask at all times.

[aboutime]

This makes me wonder whether we could get the same people in Burlington to also BAN Idiots like them in Washington?

Starting with Obama, and never stopping the ban until 535 Assault Spenders, and American rapists are banished from DC.

[mundame]

What if I gave you a reason, would that settle that particular point, in your mind?

Feral pigs, huh? Well, I will say that is the first and only actual good reason I have ever heard or read! I understand fully and appreciate all about varmint problems, and Himself takes out some of those very effectively here, though his most useful shot lately was with a 22. On the other hand, you all keep saying the semi-automatic hunting rifles do the job just as well as an assault rifle. So why not use a hunting rifle for the pig problem and not tempt the psychos in the camouflage and black trench coats?



Do you have any idea how guns are made?

Certainly not, why should I? Not being a naif, I understand very well why you all want your assault rifles: you are hoping for the Revolution and also you want to defend against any urban mob coming to kill whites.

If this country splits up and has to fight for it, I am so very not concerned that America, gun capital of the world, will suddenly forget how to manufacture ALLLLLLLLL it needs. Hey, you need 'em, they'll make 'em. I think the actual issue is somewhat different: is the Revolution really going to need a lot of men in their 60s and 70s?



That's not true at all. The guns are also used for sane amusement - see?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4259&d=1338574462





You call that SANE?? That pretty child is so going to get her shoulder dislocated. I practice with the 20-gauge shotgun but not too often....it's just bad for the joints and bones.



Third, my right to have them shall not be abridged by the Government...right??? RIGHT? :)

Your right to have lots of types of weapons is already abridged by the Government: tommy guns, automatic weapons of all kinds, cannon, mortars, grenades. Now, I know most of you would buy grenades in a New York Minute if they were available and more or less legal, but they aren't, and you know what? The Trenchcoat Mafia could and would throw one in each classroom as they ran down the hall; they would really enjoy grenades.

I'd say choose your battles! Don't fight unwinnable battles. The assault rifles are undefendable: they are bad weapons meant to kill lots of civilians and they DO kill lots, dozens and dozens, of children.

Draw your line somewhere that makes sense. I myself do not want to be disarmed: I want to be able to fight back if someone comes at me, not just stand there helpless to be killed by any criminal because I'm law-abiding and they aren't. I would help you fight for basic legal gun ownership. But these assault rifles and high-capacity magazines --- that's just war equipment, and I ain't planning on fighting in no wars. They aren't working out. As you like, of course, but I'd say they aren't worth drawing your line in the sand for.

[aboutime]

Feral pigs, huh? Well, I will say that is the first and only actual good reason I have ever heard or read! I understand fully and appreciate all about varmint problems, and Himself takes out some of those very effectively here, though his most useful shot lately was with a 22. On the other hand, you all keep saying the semi-automatic hunting rifles do the job just as well as an assault rifle. So why not use a hunting rifle for the pig problem and not tempt the psychos in the camouflage and black trench coats?




Certainly not, why should I? Not being a naif, I understand very well why you all want your assault rifles: you are hoping for the Revolution and also you want to defend against any urban mob coming to kill whites.

If this country splits up and has to fight for it, I am so very not concerned that America, gun capital of the world, will suddenly forget how to manufacture ALLLLLLLLL it needs. Hey, you need 'em, they'll make 'em. I think the actual issue is somewhat different: is the Revolution really going to need a lot of men in their 60s and 70s?




You call that SANE?? That pretty child is so going to get her shoulder dislocated. I practice with the 20-gauge shotgun but not too often....it's just bad for the joints and bones.




Your right to have lots of types of weapons is already abridged by the Government: tommy guns, automatic weapons of all kinds, cannon, mortars, grenades. Now, I know most of you would buy grenades in a New York Minute if they were available and more or less legal, but they aren't, and you know what? The Trenchcoat Mafia could and would throw one in each classroom as they ran down the hall; they would really enjoy grenades.

I'd say choose your battles! Don't fight unwinnable battles. The assault rifles are undefendable: they are bad weapons meant to kill lots of civilians and they DO kill lots, dozens and dozens, of children.

Draw your line somewhere that makes sense. I myself do not want to be disarmed: I want to be able to fight back if someone comes at me, not just stand there helpless to be killed by any criminal because I'm law-abiding. I would help you fight for basic legal gun ownership. But these assault rifles and high-capacity magazines --- that's just war equipment, and I ain't planning on fighting in no wars. They aren't working out. As you like, of course, but I'd say they aren't worth drawing your line in the sand for.



mundame. Just a reminder here, after reading most of your Nonsense above.

You can sleep well tonight knowing. NO PERSON ON EARTH will ever take away your Constitutional Right to be STUPID. In fact. It is guaranteed. You will never lose that right. Even as you make foolish...I mean....DUMB statements. You should be thanking the Founding Fathers for your Rights.

[tailfins]

That was good symbolism in Burlington's part. I want their next ordinance to make unhappiness illegal. Send in the clowns.

[aboutime]

That was good symbolism in Burlington's part. I want their next ordinance to make unhappiness illegal. Send in the clowns.


tailfins. What Burlington did was....ONLY THE BEGINNING...

http://youtu.be/eDzuL0K9ZMg

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm for it. Good for Burlington.

Military-type assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used in EVERY mass killing lately and for some time now. It has to stop. There is no reason non-military citizens should have weapons intended to kill lots of people. I mean, what is that all about, you know?

If you need them for the revolution, guys, the gun manufacturers have the molds and they can turn them out quickly if they have to.

In the meantime the only use for these guns and magazines is maniac amusement, and that's not a good reason to have them around.

this has been shown to be incorrect in multiple threads. Why do you perpetuate a lie?

[aboutime]

this has been shown to be incorrect in multiple threads. Why do you perpetuate a lie?


Marcus. Because it's more fun for mundame, and she has the RIGHT to do so according to the Constitution that grants her ETERNAL freedom to demonstrate stupidity. No better way to explain it.

[mundame]

this has been shown to be incorrect in multiple threads. Why do you perpetuate a lie?

It's not a lie; it's true.

Look it up. Show me, by sourcing from news reports, a recent mass killing that DOESN'T use an assault weapon, an AK-47. Usually a Bushmaster AK-47! Bushmaster isn't going out of business now by coincidence, you know.

[mundame]

That was good symbolism in Burlington's part. I want their next ordinance to make unhappiness illegal. Send in the clowns.


;) You remind me of the Berkeley, California "nuclear-free zone."

[darin]

Feral pigs, huh? Well, I will say that is the first and only actual good reason I have ever heard or read! I understand fully and appreciate all about varmint problems, and Himself takes out some of those very effectively here, though his most useful shot lately was with a 22. On the other hand, you all keep saying the semi-automatic hunting rifles do the job just as well as an assault rifle. So why not use a hunting rifle for the pig problem and not tempt the psychos in the camouflage and black trench coats?


Okay - so now you can no longer say "There's no reason" - right? Righto? And my AR IS a 22.... it's .223 - 3-one-thousands of an inch larger than a .22.

My AR IS A semi-automatic rifle. And it IS a hunting rifle. See? Why does the color matter - the 'skin' if you will. Are you racist against my chosen method for killing pests?


What kind of car do you have - just the type; SUV? Wagon? Sedan? etc?



Certainly not, why should I? Not being a naif, I understand very well why you all want your assault rifles: you are hoping for the Revolution and also you want to defend against any urban mob coming to kill whites.

That's the most-stupid thing I've read in months.



You call that SANE?? That pretty child is so going to get her shoulder dislocated. I practice with the 20-gauge shotgun but not too often....it's just bad for the joints and bones.

She WILL? Hrm. She's rand HUNDREDS - maybe a thousand? rounds through that AR. Do you know a 20-gauge kicks about, I dunno....50 times harder than an AR15? True story: I could shoot an AR off my nut-sack with no/few ill affects. The VERY low recoil is one reason it's so popular :)



Your right to have lots of types of weapons is already abridged by the Government: tommy guns, automatic weapons of all kinds, cannon, mortars, grenades. Now, I know most of you would buy grenades in a New York Minute if they were available and more or less legal, but they aren't, and you know what? The Trenchcoat Mafia could and would throw one in each classroom as they ran down the hall; they would really enjoy grenades.


You're being stupid again. Try using REAL facts and data if you want to sway opinion.



I'd say choose your battles! Don't fight unwinnable battles. The assault rifles are undefendable: they are bad weapons meant to kill lots of civilians and they DO kill lots, dozens and dozens, of children.



Well - you've already mentioned you now know of at least ONE reason to have them.

[darin]

What other comonalities are involved in mass-killings?

Number one thing they have in common: People. People killed others. We should regulate PEOPLE. Oh yeah - abortion-on-demand is doing some of that, right?

mundame - what type of car do you have?
Should we outlaw EVERYTHING involved in causes mass casualties/large numbers of deaths?

[mundame]

Are you racist against my chosen method for killing pests?

;)



What kind of car do you have - just the type; SUV? Wagon? Sedan? etc?

Ummmmm.....an F-150 and two sedans?






True story: I could shoot an AR off my nut-sack with no/few ill affects.

Please, please, please do not do this thing................... :rolleyes:




That's the most-stupid thing I've read in months.

You're being stupid again. Try using REAL facts and data if you want to sway opinion.




Whoops!! When the insults start, the conversation stops. Too bad for me! I was enjoying it.

Maybe we can talk again sometime without the insult problem. Oh, and thanx for fixing my thread title the other day.

[darin]

;)



Ummmmm.....an F-150 and two sedans?


You do not NEED an F-150. F-150's have contributed to the deaths of hundreds; did you know at one time the F-150 had a death rating of 118 deaths for every million-miles driven? How many miles would all the F150s drive in a year? At least a million I'd guess, based on teh sheer number of units. Even at half that guess, let's reasonably assume fifty people die in an F-150 every year. How could something so DANGEROUS be available to crazy people? The F-150 is not much different than a Military-style truck. We do NOT need crazy, trench-coat mafia wanna-be's with access to 6000 of metal DEATH. No background check required.

Oh - and SEDANS? TWO Of them? Just how many do you NEED? You cannot give me one good reason for having TWO Sedans. Sedans have lead to the deaths of THOUSANDS of people in the last year alone. What if a crazy person got ahold of either of your sedans? Think of the carnage that could be done!! Think of the needless killing of school children by sedans. For the sake of the children, you should have to give up your sedans AND your F-150 and leave "Driving" to those qualified to handle it! Those who framed our constitution would have NEVER imagined we'd have such deadly assualt weapons like Sedans and F-150s out there as a menace.




Whoops!! When the insults start, the conversation stops. Too bad for me! I was enjoying it.

Maybe we can talk again sometime without the insult problem. Oh, and thanx for fixing my thread title the other day.

Wait a second - you can basically accuse me of a racist seperatist with a blood lust, but I call your claims stupid and I am the one using insults?

[DragonStryk72]

I'm for it. Good for Burlington.

Military-type assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used in EVERY mass killing lately and for some time now. It has to stop. There is no reason non-military citizens should have weapons intended to kill lots of people. I mean, what is that all about, you know?

If you need them for the revolution, guys, the gun manufacturers have the molds and they can turn them out quickly if they have to.

In the meantime the only use for these guns and magazines is maniac amusement, and that's not a good reason to have them around.

Um, you do know that any semi auto handgun can be altered to fire at the same rate as the "assault" weapons, right?

And what about knives? They've been murdering people in greater numbers than assault rifles for decades. And lest we forget the rash of mass stabbings with numbers comparable to sandy point.and guess what? Those were recent, some more recently than sandy point.

Are there any other inanimate objects you'd like to blame for insanity?

And oh wait, the ban would not have stopped sandy point in any way, shape, or form, because the gun control Laws did exactly what they were supposed to: they stopped him from procuring a firearms. So clearly sandy point didn't happen, right? Oh no wait, he simply went to where the gun he wanted was, killed the owner, and went about his business.

[DragonStryk72]

Whoops!! When the insults start, the conversation stops. Too bad for me! I was enjoying it.

Maybe we can talk again sometime without the insult problem. Oh, and thanx for fixing my thread title the other day.

Except you started the insults when your first post described everyone who is in favor of assault rifles as maniacs.

[jimnyc]

Feral pigs, huh? Well, I will say that is the first and only actual good reason I have ever heard or read! I understand fully and appreciate all about varmint problems, and Himself takes out some of those very effectively here, though his most useful shot lately was with a 22. On the other hand, you all keep saying the semi-automatic hunting rifles do the job just as well as an assault rifle. So why not use a hunting rifle for the pig problem and not tempt the psychos in the camouflage and black trench coats?

You keep misrepresenting what weapons were used in all of these crimes. The semi-auto rifles are what have been being used, not automatic rifles you always refer to like the AK47. The gun that are just as well, that can be used for the pig problem ARE the guns the "psychos" are using. And take them away, and they can use a handgun to get rounds off just as quick. You really need to do a thorough research into these crimes and specifically what weapons were used, and what their fire rate and such are. No one has really been using military style weapons, weapons that can fire automatic and multiple shots on one trigger pull.

[DragonStryk72]

Again - more a commentary on those allowing this knuckleheads to keep their jobs; it's a systemic problem with the voting population. Our society is doomed.




Emphasis mine.
[/INDENT]

Gratz for Burlington for recognizing unneeded legislation for what it is.

[tailfins]

What if I gave you a reason, would that settle that particular point, in your mind?

Question: How do you determine the intent of an inatimate object, say, a rock? What's the intent of an axe? A stick?



Do you have any idea how guns are made?





That's not true at all. The guns are also used for sane amusement - see?




I have a few good reasons to have them around: First, they shoot straight and reliable. Second, they work GREAT for ferral pigs. Third, my right to have them shall not be abridged by the Government...right??? RIGHT? :)

No fair! You're making me hungry.:drool2:

[jimnyc]

It's not a lie; it's true.

Look it up. Show me, by sourcing from news reports, a recent mass killing that DOESN'T use an assault weapon, an AK-47. Usually a Bushmaster AK-47! Bushmaster isn't going out of business now by coincidence, you know.

Columbine, Aurora, Newtown - I posted all specific weapons already and NONE of them used an automatic like an AK47. They were all semi-auto at best

Columbine - http://www.acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

Aurora - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Newtown - http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/national/guns-used-in-newtown-school-shooting-legally-purchased-by-suspects-mother

[jimnyc]

I have an idea, mundame - why not post for us a reputable article from these incidents showing that an AK47 automatic or similar was used?

[darin]

China should have enacted a trebuchet ban in the 5th Century.

[aboutime]

This is for all of the Feinstein-iacks out there who are hell-bent on blaming this weapon for the mass killings.

All without any of the Feinstein-iacks bothering to think logically.....Not one of these weapons have the capability, nor are they machined by the companies who manufacture them...to OPERATE without HUMAN intervention..in other words...pulling the trigger.

So. If they are serious. Shouldn't they be screaming for the REMOVAL OF HUMAN INDEX FINGERS...also called Trigger fingers????

Or...is that to DUMB...like voting to get rid of Bullets, or this weapon????
4262 4263

[logroller]

It's not a lie; it's true.

Look it up. Show me, by sourcing from news reports, a recent mass killing that DOESN'T use an assault weapon, an AK-47. Usually a Bushmaster AK-47! Bushmaster isn't going out of business now by coincidence, you know.
Bushmaster doesn't make an ak-47. They make an ACR huh has a similar gas operation and uses he same round, but that does not make an AK47; no more than any mix of water, high fructose corn syrup and flavoring make an original coke. But let's not relish on details which have little to do with the problem nor solution.
How many rounds should a firearm hold; how fast a rate of fire; how much energy in the round?
These are questions which get to the practicalities of firearm usage and higher body counts-- manufacturers do not.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bushmaster doesn't make an ak-47. They make an ACR huh has a similar gas operation and uses he same round, but that does not make an AK47; no more than any mix of water, high fructose corn syrup and flavoring make an original coke. But let's not relish on details which have little to do with the problem nor solution.
How many rounds should a firearm hold; how fast a rate of fire; how much energy in the round?
These are questions which get to the practicalities of firearm usage and higher body counts-- manufacturers do not.


Military rifles are made to kill people. No manufacturer makes such weapons to kill less enemy. Our 2nd amendment insures our right to own such weapons! All this discussion of gun specs may seem clever by the anti-gun jackasses but it has no bearing on the illegal goal they seek.
"Shall not infringe upon" has meaning that these anti-gun dolts want to stretch from here to eternity!
Now we have them wanting to pass laws outlawing sale of bullets!

" shall not infringe upon" seems to be a non-existent concept for such ignorant bastards and biatches!

What is even worse these clowns want to call any weapon above a single shot musket an assault weapon!
Ignorance doubled down on and on parade is nothing for them to be proud of and spew forth like the ffing blindass lemmings that they truly are IMHO!-Tyr

[cadet]

Military rifles are made to kill people. No manufacturer makes such weapons to kill less enemy. Our 2nd amendment insures our right to own such weapons! All this discussion of gun specs may seem clever by the anti-gun jackasses but it has no bearing on the illegal goal they seek.
"Shall not infringe upon" has meaning that these anti-gun dolts want to stretch from here to eternity!
Now we have them wanting to pass laws outlawing sale of bullets!

" shall not infringe upon" seems to be a non-existent concept for such ignorant bastards and biatches!

What is even worse these clowns want to call any weapon above a single shot musket an assault weapon!
Ignorance doubled down on and on parade is nothing for them to be proud of and spew forth like the ffing blindass lemmings that they truly are IMHO!-Tyr

Just out of curiosity, since I am going military, and make my oath to uphold the constitution, does this mean I can fight this bill with everything I've got?

[aboutime]

Just out of curiosity, since I am going military, and make my oath to uphold the constitution, does this mean I can fight this bill with everything I've got?


Sure you can. Your constitutional rights never go away. Until you are in uniform, and try to exercise them like civilians. Then, the officers appointed over you, and the UCMJ become the guide you follow.

But, you can try anything you like. Not saying you'll be successful. That all depends on how willing you are to test the system.

[logroller]

Military rifles are made to kill people. No manufacturer makes such weapons to kill less enemy. Our 2nd amendment insures our right to own such weapons! All this discussion of gun specs may seem clever by the anti-gun jackasses but it has no bearing on the illegal goal they seek.
"Shall not infringe upon" has meaning that these anti-gun dolts want to stretch from here to eternity!
Now we have them wanting to pass laws outlawing sale of bullets!

" shall not infringe upon" seems to be a non-existent concept for such ignorant bastards and biatches!

What is even worse these clowns want to call any weapon above a single shot musket an assault weapon!
Ignorance doubled down on and on parade is nothing for them to be proud of and spew forth like the ffing blindass lemmings that they truly are IMHO!-Tyr
thats your opinion, not fact-- the 2nd amendment just says "arms", not magazine fed rifles with a cyclic rate of 600 rounds per minute. Because you're right; it could very well be argued that, when adopted, the 2nd amendment meant muskets. Times change; weapons change; as do the associated problems and solutions. There is relevance to the details tyr; talking points are getting us nowhere.

[darin]

Sure you can. Your constitutional rights never go away. Until you are in uniform, and try to exercise them like civilians. Then, the officers appointed over you, and the UCMJ become the guide you follow.

But, you can try anything you like. Not saying you'll be successful. That all depends on how willing you are to test the system.


Just ask this former DebatePolicy.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada)member about refusing to follow orders

[aboutime]

Just ask this former DebatePolicy.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada)member about refusing to follow orders



dmp. At a different time, and place. Back in the sixties, and seventies. People like that man were called Conscientious Objectors. Much like Mohammed ALI was, and was banned from boxing for four years.

Others during that time we know as the NAM years...were not afraid to show how cowards easily ran to Canada, and left their nation.

Cadet. It's Your Life. Do with it as you will. Only you know for sure.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just ask this former DebatePolicy.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada)member about refusing to follow orders

Guy is a lying chump. Likely thought of having a career without combat and when combat service looked likely he balked. Came up with the usual anti-war conviction nonsense as if he never envisioned having to actually fight just because he was in the military!--ff--him..
My nephew went and did two full tours of duty in Iraq, was wounded second tour.. Its called --DUTY-!!!! For a very good reason!!--Tyr

[aboutime]

Guy is a lying chump. Likely thought of having a career without combat and when combat service looked likely he balked. Came up with the usual anti-war conviction nonsense as if he never envisioned having to actually fight just because he was in the military!--ff--him..
My nephew went and did two full tours of duty in Iraq, was wounded second tour.. Its called --DUTY-!!!! For a very good reason!!--Tyr


Tyr. Later on in my Navy career. When more younger people were joining for all sorts of reasons. Many of them learned the hard way about how Going to Class A Navy Schools, which generally gave major pay bonuses for joining, and completing schools that are very expensive...that upon completion of those schools. THEY HAD TO GO TO SEA DUTY!

How terrible could that be? Imagine becoming A SAILOR, and getting angry because part of your contract...AS A SAILOR required you to go to sea...on SHIPS that floated, bounced, leaned, and rumbled in heavy seas?????

And what did I, and many others hear from those NEWLY graduated Well Trained SAILORS???

"The recruiter never told me I had to go to sea, be on a boat, or go to war somewhere around the world away from home!"

It's like walking into a McDonalds today, and finding somebody who is there to WORK for their paycheck instead of just pretending they are earning their way.
WORK? In today's economy. "WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO WORK FOR THEIR PAY...when UNCLE OBAMA gives out free money?"

[darin]

Guy is a lying chump. Likely thought of having a career without combat and when combat service looked likely he balked. Came up with the usual anti-war conviction nonsense as if he never envisioned having to actually fight just because he was in the military!--ff--him..
My nephew went and did two full tours of duty in Iraq, was wounded second tour.. Its called --DUTY-!!!! For a very good reason!!--Tyr

He was not lying nor a chump; he was - probably remains - a good guy; intelligent and thought-out - but in this case, WRONG. I told him once - he posted here without revealing his true identity, yet it worked just outside my office door - "If you objected to the order to FIGHT, why not wait until you got there; at that point they'd only ordered you to MOVE"

Good question :)

[Missileman]

Feral pigs, huh? Well, I will say that is the first and only actual good reason I have ever heard or read! I understand fully and appreciate all about varmint problems, and Himself takes out some of those very effectively here, though his most useful shot lately was with a 22. On the other hand, you all keep saying the semi-automatic hunting rifles do the job just as well as an assault rifle. So why not use a hunting rifle for the pig problem and not tempt the psychos in the camouflage and black trench coats?




Certainly not, why should I? Not being a naif, I understand very well why you all want your assault rifles: you are hoping for the Revolution and also you want to defend against any urban mob coming to kill whites.

If this country splits up and has to fight for it, I am so very not concerned that America, gun capital of the world, will suddenly forget how to manufacture ALLLLLLLLL it needs. Hey, you need 'em, they'll make 'em. I think the actual issue is somewhat different: is the Revolution really going to need a lot of men in their 60s and 70s?




You call that SANE?? That pretty child is so going to get her shoulder dislocated. I practice with the 20-gauge shotgun but not too often....it's just bad for the joints and bones.




Your right to have lots of types of weapons is already abridged by the Government: tommy guns, automatic weapons of all kinds, cannon, mortars, grenades. Now, I know most of you would buy grenades in a New York Minute if they were available and more or less legal, but they aren't, and you know what? The Trenchcoat Mafia could and would throw one in each classroom as they ran down the hall; they would really enjoy grenades.

I'd say choose your battles! Don't fight unwinnable battles. The assault rifles are undefendable: they are bad weapons meant to kill lots of civilians and they DO kill lots, dozens and dozens, of children.

Draw your line somewhere that makes sense. I myself do not want to be disarmed: I want to be able to fight back if someone comes at me, not just stand there helpless to be killed by any criminal because I'm law-abiding and they aren't. I would help you fight for basic legal gun ownership. But these assault rifles and high-capacity magazines --- that's just war equipment, and I ain't planning on fighting in no wars. They aren't working out. As you like, of course, but I'd say they aren't worth drawing your line in the sand for.

The first thing we need to do is educate you on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and on what a militia is, and when it comes into being. Actually, let's start with the last part first. A militia is a group of citizens who show up for military action because the army needs help OR the army needs to be fought against. They typically show up for military action with whatever weapon they can bring with them. The 2nd was written so that they show up for a fight with a weapon with which they might have a chance. The courts have ruled as much over the years. These days, that would entail a semi-auto rifle with a high capacity magazine. War-equipment posession as you call it is EXACTLY what the 2nd was meant to protect.

[Missileman]

thats your opinion, not fact-- the 2nd amendment just says "arms", not magazine fed rifles with a cyclic rate of 600 rounds per minute. Because you're right; it could very well be argued that, when adopted, the 2nd amendment meant muskets. Times change; weapons change; as do the associated problems and solutions. There is relevance to the details tyr; talking points are getting us nowhere.

The 2nd was meant to protect military style weapons for service in a militia should the need arise. I'm not advocating letting everyone own a full blown machine gun, but military style weapons with high capacity magazines are indeed what the founders intended to protect...for a reason.

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd was meant to protect military style weapons for service in a militia should the need arise.

No, it was meant to protect any American's right to own and carry ANY personal weapon he wanted to own and carry, whether it was "military" or not, whether he was in a militia or other military unit, or not, and whether any certain need arose or not.

In modern language, the 2nd says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

[Missileman]

No, it was meant to protect any American's right to own and carry ANY personal weapon he wanted to own and carry, whether it was "military" or not, whether he was in a militia or other military unit, or not, and whether any certain need arose or not.

In modern language, the 2nd says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

1. You can't restrict gun ownership to members of a militia as they don't get formed until they are needed.
2. You can't wait until a militia is formed to permit gun ownership as it might be too late to obtain a weapon at that point.
3. Military style weapons are specifically protected by 2nd. Guns for personal protection or hunting or entertainment are riding the coattails of military weapons.

Consider: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html#CA1


U.S. v.
Miller (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#TOC), 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme
Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal
firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional
decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by
which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and
remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court
had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The
Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:




In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.



Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be
constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of
"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and
that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting
forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view
that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are
members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as
guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have
discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants
met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard
to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

[NightTrain]

Mundame : I've watched you post over the years and generally you have the right idea.

However, in this arena, you don't know a .22 from a .460.

You keep talking about an AK-47; but that's never been used in a domestic shooting to my knowledge. I have a friend that owns a legit AK-47 that was made in Romania back in the Cold War. It was downgraded to Semi-Automatic operation to make it legal to own by the general public, but it's still a fun rifle to shoot. Sure, it looks like the real deal, but it's JUST A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE! It is NOT an assault weapon, but the liberals will look at it and say that it is - when it is less powerful than many other semi-automatic weapons on the market today.

YES! It's an AK-47! It shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger, just like hundreds of other rifles. Assault Weapon? Sure, if you use it to assault someone with, just like my Ruger .22 with a 30 round clip - but no one calls a Ruger 10/22 an Assault Rifle! Why? Because it doesn't look 'Mean'. The AK-47 is actually a small caliber and everyone in Alaska uses much larger caliber weapons for Bear protection.

"Assault Weapons" doesn't mean anything. All it really means is something that looks like a military-grade weapon. It's nice Eye Candy when a Senator holds up that AK-47 on camera with that big clip, and it's just as deadly (or LESS) as hundreds of other semi-automatic rifles on the market.

There are 5 types of weapons :

Automatic : This is a machine gun; you hold the trigger down and it "Rock & Rolls"... You know what a machine gun sounds like.
Semi-Automatic : This is a weapon that will fire every time you pull the trigger. One trigger pull, one shot.
Manual Feed : This is a weapon that you manually feed a round into the chamber either by Bolt Action or by a Pump (this is probably what your 20 gauge uses).
Single Shot : This is a weapon that you put the round into the chamber for each shot. Not very common.
Muzzle Loader : This is the weapon that the Revolutionary War was fought with - you dump gunpowder down the barrel, put in packing, tamp it with a ramrod, put the bullet in, blah blah blah... it sucked.

Now, a logical person would say that an 'Assault Weapon' would be a full automatic firearm, like a Tommy Gun or an M-16. I would agree with this assessment. This weapon is used for combat, and spraying large amounts of lead over an area to kill people. You don't use a full auto weapon to hunt with. It is for fighting.

The Semi-Automatic weapon is used for hunting, and it is also used for warfare. You pull the trigger, it shoots, and reloads itself in a split second. This feature saved my life when I was 15 years old and faced with a wounded Grizzly. I unloaded the Ruger .44 carbine as fast as I could pull the trigger and it saved my life.

The Bolt-Action rifle is also used for combat and for hunting. You shoot, pull the lever back, it ejects the shell casing, you lever it forward and it loads another round into the chamber. Then you're ready to fire.

The Pump-Action is what you are probably familiar with, you 'pump' the shotgun, fire, pump again and fire.

The Single-Shot weapon is a weapon that you manually load in a round, fire, then do it again. This is not something that you'd use for trying to shoot fast.

Muzzle Loader is a gun that requires about a minute (if you're very good) to load, and it is very inaccurate. This is what the Revolutionary War was fought with.


I really do hope that clears up some of the confusion on your part; it is clear to everyone that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to firearms.

No offense! Please don't get offended, I am only trying to teach you the base knowledge of firearms.


Now, as far as the 2nd Amendment goes:

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.

This means that you, me and Bob can own ANY kind of firearm that we want to.

No, read that again,

You, me, and Bob can own ANY kind of firearm that we want to.

It didn't say that if it looks 'mean' then we can't have it. It didn't say anything about 30-round clips or what color it was.

I agree that I don't need a full auto weapon to hunt with; anyone that would is an idiot - you only want one bullet killing it or you're ruining meat.

But that's not what the Founders were talking about. They didn't say, "In order to hunt Moose, everyone can have a Full Auto weapon".

They are talking about the armed society, trained and able to defend their families from threats, domestic and foreign.

And in 200 years, the debate will rage - "You don't need that full auto Pink Lazer Rifle with Bubble Tracking!!!!"

Doesn't matter. Either repeal the 2nd Amendment or live by it - so far we have allowed infringement on something that was VERY clear:


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.


So stop talking about AK-47s, Bushmaster, whatever is the catchphrase of the day. It's all spin.

We all have the right to Keep and Bear arms.

[NightTrain]

And before anyone brings up the obvious point that you can't own an Automatic Weapon without a licence; allow me to say that it is unconstituional.,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Argue all you want; this is pretty damn clear!

According to our Constitution, everyone can own these.

Until the 2nd is amended or repealed, that's the way it is!

[tailfins]

And before anyone brings up the obvious point that you can't own an Automatic Weapon without a licence; allow me to say that it is unconstituional.,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Argue all you want; this is pretty damn clear!

According to our Constitution, everyone can own these.

Until the 2nd is amended or repealed, that's the way it is!

The Constitution is a living breathing document, subject to modern interpretation. The Second Amendment gives the militia (meaning the police) a right to bear arms.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's not a lie; it's true.

Look it up. Show me, by sourcing from news reports, a recent mass killing that DOESN'T use an assault weapon, an AK-47. Usually a Bushmaster AK-47! Bushmaster isn't going out of business now by coincidence, you know.

Here's one, dumb ass.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15913678-gunmans-mother-owned-weapons-used-in-connecticut-school-massacre?lite


The gunman was clad in black and used two 9mm pistols to kill 20 small children and six adults at the school. It was unclear how many shots were fired there.

Two 9mm handguns, one made by Glock and the other by Sig Sauer, were recovered inside the school. An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting.

Now, this is the same example I posted in another thread where someone made the same incorrect claim you did... that an AK-47 was used, specifically a Bushmaster AK-47.

Again, you are either abysmally stupid, or a liar.

Which is it?

[Marcus Aurelius]

people... who FORMED the militia's in the colonial days? The PEOPLE.

[NightTrain]

The Constitution is a living breathing document, subject to modern interpretation. The Second Amendment gives the militia (meaning the police) a right to bear arms.


Wrong.


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

The Right of the People means the police?


....Please.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The Second Amendment gives the militia (meaning the police) a right to bear arms.

Might want to actually READ it...


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.

Right of the people.... NOT right of the militia.

[NightTrain]

The Constitution is a living breathing document, subject to modern interpretation. The Second Amendment gives the militia (meaning the police) a right to bear arms.

You know, I thought you were a fairly smart guy until I read that.

You are an idiot.

That statement locked you down into Stoopid Country.

Ron White said you can't fix stupid, and I agree.

[SassyLady]

Um, you do know that any semi auto handgun can be altered to fire at the same rate as the "assault" weapons, right?

Of course she knows this. Banning "assault" weapons is the first step, then everything will be the next step because ..... wait for it .....

Any semi-auto can be modified, therefore, we need to ban all guns.

Why do you think the liberals are going after the high capacity magazines as well.

What gets me is that the nuts that want to ban high capacity magazines and make everyone that wants a gun to settle for revolvers probably don't know about speed loader.

Oh, wait ................speed loaders for revolvers will be the next item on the ban list if people like Mundame have their way.


This is for all of the Feinstein-iacks out there who are hell-bent on blaming this weapon for the mass killings.

All without any of the Feinstein-iacks bothering to think logically.....Not one of these weapons have the capability, nor are they machined by the companies who manufacture them...to OPERATE without HUMAN intervention..in other words...pulling the trigger.

So. If they are serious. Shouldn't they be screaming for the REMOVAL OF HUMAN INDEX FINGERS...also called Trigger fingers????

Or...is that to DUMB...like voting to get rid of Bullets, or this weapon????
4262 4263



:smartass2:


The first thing we need to do is educate you on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and on what a militia is, and when it comes into being. Actually, let's start with the last part first. A militia is a group of citizens who show up for military action because the army needs help OR the army needs to be fought against. They typically show up for military action with whatever weapon they can bring with them. The 2nd was written so that they show up for a fight with a weapon with which they might have a chance. The courts have ruled as much over the years. These days, that would entail a semi-auto rifle with a high capacity magazine. War-equipment posession as you call it is EXACTLY what the 2nd was meant to protect.

Can anyone here tell Mundame how long it takes the National Guard to arm themselves in an emergency? Hours, days, weeks? Some people have no idea the process from state of emergency declaration to actually having armed military on the site for protection. Average citizens think that the "military" is sitting on a base somewhere with their guns in their lap waiting for the call.

Whereas, citizens who own guns can arm themselves in the time it takes to get to their guns.


The Constitution is a living breathing document, subject to modern interpretation. The Second Amendment gives the militia (meaning the police) a right to bear arms.

So, when the Constitution uses the words, "The People", it is only referring to the militia? Should we go through the entire Constitution and substitute the words "people" with "militia"?

Or, better yet ..... do you classify the National Guard as the militia? National Guard members = American citizens .... you know......doctors, lawyers, burger flippers, construction workers, truck drivers, cooks, businessmen .... etc.

What gun control does is take away the rights of National Guard members to own a private gun, correct? The ban would mean the only guns the National Guard members, citizens...people, would have access to would be those that are locked up by ..... guess what .... the government.

[logroller]

The 2nd was meant to protect military style weapons for service in a militia should the need arise. I'm not advocating letting everyone own a full blown machine gun, but military style weapons with high capacity magazines are indeed what the founders intended to protect...for a reason.
Your logic supports it. Is the reason somehow less salient with three-times the effective rate of fire?

[NightTrain]

Your logic supports it. Is the reason somehow less salient with three-times the effective rate of fire?



"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

It's pretty clear.

[Missileman]

Your logic supports it. Is the reason somehow less salient with three-times the effective rate of fire?

If military rifles only fired in full auto mode, you might have a point. Anyone who knows anything about weapons will tell you the more effective method of fire is semi-auto...AIM and CONTROL is your friend.

[darin]

^^ Spot on. Fully auto weapons are used to keep the enemy's head down. They are for engagine group or 'area' targets. Suppressive fire means fire to the amount the other guys are too busy ducking to shoot back. :)

[mundame]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Missilemanhttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=605272#post605272)The 2nd was meant to protect military style weapons for service in a militia should the need arise. I'm not advocating letting everyone own a full blown machine gun, but military style weapons with high capacity magazines are indeed what the founders intended to protect...for a reason.


Your logic supports it. Is the reason somehow less salient with three-times the effective rate of fire?



Right. If the second amendment allows the military-style weapon that everyone calls an assault rifle (I'm not interested in playing silly word games here), why shouldn't everyone get to own a tommy gun?

This question is the crux of the issue, of course.

As usual, I won't reply to abusive posts, since the people who can't think better than that aren't worth my time.

[darin]

Right. If the second amendment allows the military-style weapon that everyone calls an assault rifle (I'm not interested in playing silly word games here), why shouldn't everyone get to own a tommy gun?

This question is the crux of the issue, of course.

As usual, I won't reply to abusive posts, since the people who can't think better than that aren't worth my time.


It's not a word game it's demonizing something you do not understand. Dude - YOU make abusive posts; stop the false moral high ground?

Maybe everyone who can have a CPL be allowed a Tommy gun, too? I'd be okay with that. You tell me - why shouldn't people own fully automatic weapons?

[mundame]

And before anyone brings up the obvious point that you can't own an Automatic Weapon without a licence; allow me to say that it is unconstituional.,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Argue all you want; this is pretty damn clear!

According to our Constitution, everyone can own these.

Until the 2nd is amended or repealed, that's the way it is!


Okay, here's one of the few posters on this subject with the courage and/or IQ to stand by his logic.

So my question is, how about grenades? Obviously grenades are a normal combat weapon now, carried by every soldier, and shown being used in pretty much every action movie now: like Tom Cruise killing the giant tripod with two grenades in War of the Worlds.

Adam Lanza, one of the many rampage killers who liked to costume for it like a para-military, would have loved grenades. He could have thrown one in every classroom as he ran down the hall, and just kept running and throwing, hall after hall.

Grenades are a normal modern weapon. Should the public get to buy them freely, per the Second Amendment?

[darin]

Okay, here's one of the few posters on this subject with the courage and/or IQ to stand by his logic.

So my question is, how about grenades? Obviously grenades are a normal combat weapon now, carried by every soldier, and shown being used in pretty much every action movie now: like Tom Cruise killing the giant tripod with two grenades in War of the Worlds.

First - Not every Soldier carreis them. And what you see in movies is NOT what they really do. Secondly, sure - folks like FFL-owners; no problem with them having grenades.



Adam Lanza, one of the many rampage killers who liked to costume for it like a para-military, would have loved grenades. He could have thrown one in every classroom as he ran down the hall, and just kept running and throwing, hall after hall.



Prove it.



Grenades are a normal modern weapon. Should the public get to buy them freely, per the Second Amendment?

Buy them FREELY? Goofball. The Gov't already has provisions for folks wanting to own VERY high-power or destructive devices. Your question is moot.


Btw - I don't need grenades - I have Cold packs + Aluminum powder :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just out of curiosity, since I am going military, and make my oath to uphold the constitution, does this mean I can fight this bill with everything I've got?

That's a personal decision you will have to make but yes any bill infringing upon the gun right insured by the 2nd Amendment should be fought IMHO. When the founders chose those words they did so with great care. They understood what the government could and likely would do to try to weaken it!
I've made it my policy for over 38 years to never vote for a candidate that is on the side of the anti-gun lobby.
I am sure you'll consider wisely and make your decision accordingly too. -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

Okay, here's one of the few posters on this subject with the courage and/or IQ to stand by his logic.

So my question is, how about grenades? Obviously grenades are a normal combat weapon now, carried by every soldier, and shown being used in pretty much every action movie now: like Tom Cruise killing the giant tripod with two grenades in War of the Worlds.

Adam Lanza, one of the many rampage killers who liked to costume for it like a para-military, would have loved grenades. He could have thrown one in every classroom as he ran down the hall, and just kept running and throwing, hall after hall.

Grenades are a normal modern weapon. Should the public get to buy them freely, per the Second Amendment?
if you get your views of reality from Hollywood, no wonder you come across here as a complete moron.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And before anyone brings up the obvious point that you can't own an Automatic Weapon without a licence; allow me to say that it is unconstituional.,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Argue all you want; this is pretty damn clear!

According to our Constitution, everyone can own these.

Until the 2nd is amended or repealed, that's the way it is!

Dead on accurate. The law forbidding ownership is clearly Unconstitutional.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of course she knows this. Banning "assault" weapons is the first step, then everything will be the next step because ..... wait for it .....

Any semi-auto can be modified, therefore, we need to ban all guns.

Why do you think the liberals are going after the high capacity magazines as well.

What gets me is that the nuts that want to ban high capacity magazines and make everyone that wants a gun to settle for revolvers probably don't know about speed loader.

Oh, wait ................speed loaders for revolvers will be the next item on the ban list if people like Mundame have their way.







:smartass2:



Can anyone here tell Mundame how long it takes the National Guard to arm themselves in an emergency? Hours, days, weeks? Some people have no idea the process from state of emergency declaration to actually having armed military on the site for protection. Average citizens think that the "military" is sitting on a base somewhere with their guns in their lap waiting for the call.

Whereas, citizens who own guns can arm themselves in the time it takes to get to their guns.



So, when the Constitution uses the words, "The People", it is only referring to the militia? Should we go through the entire Constitution and substitute the words "people" with "militia"?

Or, better yet ..... do you classify the National Guard as the militia? National Guard members = American citizens .... you know......doctors, lawyers, burger flippers, construction workers, truck drivers, cooks, businessmen .... etc.

What gun control does is take away the rights of National Guard members to own a private gun, correct? The ban would mean the only guns the National Guard members, citizens...people, would have access to would be those that are locked up by ..... guess what .... the government.

O' so well stated. Bravo and BRAVO!!--:beer:--TYR

[jimnyc]

It's not a lie; it's true.

Look it up. Show me, by sourcing from news reports, a recent mass killing that DOESN'T use an assault weapon, an AK-47. Usually a Bushmaster AK-47! Bushmaster isn't going out of business now by coincidence, you know.


You keep misrepresenting what weapons were used in all of these crimes. The semi-auto rifles are what have been being used, not automatic rifles you always refer to like the AK47. The gun that are just as well, that can be used for the pig problem ARE the guns the "psychos" are using. And take them away, and they can use a handgun to get rounds off just as quick. You really need to do a thorough research into these crimes and specifically what weapons were used, and what their fire rate and such are. No one has really been using military style weapons, weapons that can fire automatic and multiple shots on one trigger pull.


Columbine, Aurora, Newtown - I posted all specific weapons already and NONE of them used an automatic like an AK47. They were all semi-auto at best

Columbine - http://www.acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

Aurora - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Newtown - http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/national/guns-used-in-newtown-school-shooting-legally-purchased-by-suspects-mother


I have an idea, mundame - why not post for us a reputable article from these incidents showing that an AK47 automatic or similar was used?


Right. If the second amendment allows the military-style weapon that everyone calls an assault rifle (I'm not interested in playing silly word games here), why shouldn't everyone get to own a tommy gun?

This question is the crux of the issue, of course.

As usual, I won't reply to abusive posts, since the people who can't think better than that aren't worth my time.

I don't think I was abusive in the slightest bit, and this is the 2nd thread you bailed on a subject you keep repeating, which is wrong. You can keep talking about AK's, and swearing they are used, and demanding people cite stories to prove they aren't used - but what is the point if you won't acknowledge that your posts about AK's being used all over is wrong?

Bottom line - assault weapons or automatic weapons were not used in these crimes, and for the overwhelming majority of other crimes/massacres either. Primarily they are semi-auto weapons, pretty much no different than a handgun, just looking a little scarier, so people without knowledge about guns get all uptight and call them "assault weapons" on appearance only.

[mundame]

No, it was meant to protect any American's right to own and carry ANY personal weapon he wanted to own and carry, whether it was "military" or not, whether he was in a militia or other military unit, or not, and whether any certain need arose or not.

In modern language, the 2nd says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."


Are you restricting the right of ownership to PERSONAL weapons? Are you sure that's in the Second Amendment? I don't think it says that.

What are you saying, that people cannot own cannons? Drones? How about a working replica of Fat Boy, the nuke that fell on Hiroshima? Somebody is a collector of WWII weapons, he wants Fat Boy. Can he have a little nuke like that? How about a hydrogen bomb? Why or why not?

Come on, people, at least the ones with enough IQ they don't need to degenerate into name-calling, those folks don't matter --- this is the question the nation is dealing with today and this very month: Obama is trying to get new gun laws RIGHT NOW for January.

Start with considering grenades? They are certainly used like the "military-style semi-automatics," the assault rifles. There is no logical way that the Second Amendment can be read to ban private ownership of grenades, as far as I can see. Are you all okay with that? If not, why not?

What weapons, if any, should be prohibited to the general population, and why or why not?

If this question were easy, you know, we'd have already solved it.

[darin]

Are you restricting the right of ownership to PERSONAL weapons? Are you sure that's in the Second Amendment? I don't think it says that.

What are you saying, that people cannot own cannons? Drones? How about a working replica of Fat Boy, the nuke that fell on Hiroshima? Somebody is a collector of WWII weapons, he wants Fat Boy. Can he have a little nuke like that? How about a hydrogen bomb? Why or why not?

Come on, people, at least the ones with enough IQ they don't need to degenerate into name-calling, those folks don't matter --- this is the question the nation is dealing with today and this very month: Obama is trying to get new gun laws RIGHT NOW for January.

Start with considering grenades? They are certainly used like the "military-style semi-automatics," the assault rifles. There is no logical way that the Second Amendment can be read to ban private ownership of grenades, as far as I can see. Are you all okay with that? If not, why not?

What weapons, if any, should be prohibited to the general population, and why or why not?

If this question were easy, you know, we'd have already solved it.



Already answered your silly grenade question

[mundame]

I don't think I was abusive in the slightest bit, and this is the 2nd thread you bailed on a subject you keep repeating, which is wrong. You can keep talking about AK's, and swearing they are used, and demanding people cite stories to prove they aren't used - but what is the point if you won't acknowledge that your posts about AK's being used all over is wrong?

Bottom line - assault weapons or automatic weapons were not used in these crimes, and for the overwhelming majority of other crimes/massacres either. Primarily they are semi-auto weapons, pretty much no different than a handgun, just looking a little scarier, so people without knowledge about guns get all uptight and call them "assault weapons" on appearance only.


Good points, Jim, and I suppose you are right I am going to have to do the work to prove some of my points. I have read carefully the news articles that do say that the last three rampage shooters did indeed use the "military-style etc." in their killings (the Batman shooter, the mall guy, and Newtown), and it amazes me that people simply deny it. But they do.

I do prefer to bail when things get too hot. I have a low tolerance for abuse, and I think that's reasonable for a woman, or anyone, and I'll probably just bug out or avoid people who do a lot of that. I mean, why, you know? Abuse is not amusing or pleasant. Who needs it. And the people who do it don't usually have much in the way of good thinking, after all.

I think a lot of this is about word games. The usual term for these rifles is assault rifles, but you all don't like that because 1) full-automatics are restricted military weapons currently outlawed to the general public and 2) you don't want the military-style semi-automatics to be outlawed.

My problem is that, as we all know, it has become a psycho fashion for some crazies to costume in paramilitary gear and use these military-style weapons for mass murder. Well, that really IS a problem.

Now, maybe we shouldn't try to solve it. Just count it as the cost of doing business. Or maybe we should try to solve it some way that does not involve guns. Or maybe there is no "we" (I believe that: there is no longer one nation, that ended 9/11/2001 and maybe earlier). Or maybe some weapons of mass destruction should be banned to the public. Or maybe we should call a Constitutional Convention to abrogate or reinforce the Second Amendment. (Which would, IMO, start the revolution: it sure did when the French did it in 1788.)

Anyway, this is the month that was: laws are being considered in Washington, as you know.

I am counting on you all to clarify my thinking on this difficult issue. So far, in fact, it's been helpful!

[darin]

My problem is that, as we all know, it has become a psycho fashion for some crazies to costume in paramilitary gear and use these military-style weapons for mass murder. Well, that really IS a problem.



It's an acute problem, not a chronic problem; what about banning paramilitary gear? and what about banning crazies? What about banning your logical fallacies and gross generalizations?

[tailfins]

It's an acute problem, not a chronic problem; what about banning paramilitary gear? and what about banning crazies? What about banning your logical fallacies and gross generalizations?

Why not ban the occult? Adam Lanza was an occultist.

[cadet]

Are you restricting the right of ownership to PERSONAL weapons? Are you sure that's in the Second Amendment? I don't think it says that.

What are you saying, that people cannot own cannons? Drones? How about a working replica of Fat Boy, the nuke that fell on Hiroshima? Somebody is a collector of WWII weapons, he wants Fat Boy. Can he have a little nuke like that? How about a hydrogen bomb? Why or why not?

Come on, people, at least the ones with enough IQ they don't need to degenerate into name-calling, those folks don't matter --- this is the question the nation is dealing with today and this very month: Obama is trying to get new gun laws RIGHT NOW for January.

Start with considering grenades? They are certainly used like the "military-style semi-automatics," the assault rifles. There is no logical way that the Second Amendment can be read to ban private ownership of grenades, as far as I can see. Are you all okay with that? If not, why not?

What weapons, if any, should be prohibited to the general population, and why or why not?

If this question were easy, you know, we'd have already solved it.

Allow me to point one thing out, we can own them. We have the right to own whatever we want. The reason the founders put that it "shall not be infringed upon", was to make sure that the Gov't is for the PEOPLE, and if the gov't tries to change that (and be for the gov't) we have the God given right to come back and say "hell no."

Guns aren't here to kill people, they're here to make sure that the masses don't get forced into a dictatorship.

Plenty of people can say "that'll never happen", but if we let one gun get banned, who's to say it won't lead into others? who's to say that won't lead into the gov't messing with the rest of the constitution? who's to say the 4 year 2 term might be lengthened? who's to say that it'll just snowball out of proportion, until everyone that works for a living leaves, and the United states suffers. No one would be able to stop it, no one would be listened to, none would have a gun to start up a militia and bring it back to what America was meant to be.
For the people, by the people, you rise, you fall, your life is your life and you make it whatever you want it to be, and no one can say otherwise.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Good points, Jim, and I suppose you are right I am going to have to do the work to prove some of my points. I have read carefully the news articles that do say that the last three rampage shooters did indeed use the "military-style etc." in their killings (the Batman shooter, the mall guy, and Newtown), and it amazes me that people simply deny it. But they do.

I do prefer to bail when things get too hot. I have a low tolerance for abuse, and I think that's reasonable for a woman, or anyone, and I'll probably just bug out or avoid people who do a lot of that.

So, you've gone down from 'they all use AK-47's, specifically, Bushmaster AK-47's'... to 'military style', eh? What will you drop to next? Pea shooters and slingshots?

If you didn't flat out lie so much, you wouldn't need to bail so much.

[jimnyc]

Good points, Jim, and I suppose you are right I am going to have to do the work to prove some of my points. I have read carefully the news articles that do say that the last three rampage shooters did indeed use the "military-style etc." in their killings (the Batman shooter, the mall guy, and Newtown), and it amazes me that people simply deny it. But they do.

They deny it because it is NOT true. I've posted the weapons, multiple times now, that were used in all of these crimes - none were "assault weapons" - unless you want to say that plain old handguns and such are considered assault weapons as well. Newspapers calling a weapon an "assault weapon" won't make them anymore lethal than a handgun, only the functionality of the weapon will do that, and all of these weapons used are no more than your average rifle, pistols and shotguns. If they were "military-style" as you put it, they WOULD be AK's and other automatic guns, which they were not.

So basically, it amazes me, that some people still continue to claim such and such guns were used, when they weren't. And curiously, WHY do you still continue to go on about AK's when this was proven wrong? And about "assault weapons" when this was proven time and time again that these weapons were ALL one pull one shot guns? You do realize that there are a bunch of handguns that are MUCH more powerful than the rifles used in all 3 shootings mentioned? And can shoot just as fast?

The news articles you read are wrong, which is likely why after several times of me asking you to prove they were AK's and such, still no links are forthcoming.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm for it. Good for Burlington.

Military-type assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used in EVERY mass killing lately and for some time now. It has to stop. There is no reason non-military citizens should have weapons intended to kill lots of people. I mean, what is that all about, you know?

If you need them for the revolution, guys, the gun manufacturers have the molds and they can turn them out quickly if they have to.

In the meantime the only use for these guns and magazines is maniac amusement, and that's not a good reason to have them around.

Actually for the most part, the 9 mm pistol is the weapon of choice.

Not to encourage you to go at us again to strip us of our rights, we are not the criminals.

That law you want would be fine with all of us so long as it took out just proven criminals.

But why hold us responsible for every whack job that shows up?

Look, since you do not like that amendment, get support and swap it for one you like.

Over my dead body. :salute:

[Robert A Whit]

Mundame...

Dear lady. They are not against assault weapons, they are against all guns.

Step one is to demonize a weapon that loosely gets called, an assault weapon.

An assault weapon must qualify to be one.

It has to shoot like a machine gun. No weapon you have named thus far used in crimes fires like a machine gun. Even the AK-47 is NOT a machine gun.

If it looks like a machine gun, it is NOT an assault weapon.

Looks do not count.

It has to be a machine gun to be an assault weapon.

Federal laws allow for machine guns but look it up, to be legal, they have to have federal permits and are not allowed to non stable persons.

So, are they really after assault weapons? Well, none get used in crimes.

Not as they are defined.

You may want to change your terms to something like all guns. That is what they are trying to do. Eliminate all guns from our hands.

We know that.

Government always sets you up for a fall by saying these words.

We are government, we came to help you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/


Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.

Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by mundame http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=605383#post605383)
Are you restricting the right of ownership to PERSONAL weapons? Are you sure that's in the Second Amendment? I don't think it says that.

What are you saying, that people cannot own cannons? Drones? How about a working replica of Fat Boy, the nuke that fell on Hiroshima? Somebody is a collector of WWII weapons, he wants Fat Boy. Can he have a little nuke like that? How about a hydrogen bomb? Why or why not?

Come on, people, at least the ones with enough IQ they don't need to degenerate into name-calling, those folks don't matter --- this is the question the nation is dealing with today and this very month: Obama is trying to get new gun laws RIGHT NOW for January.

Start with considering grenades? They are certainly used like the "military-style semi-automatics," the assault rifles. There is no logical way that the Second Amendment can be read to ban private ownership of grenades, as far as I can see. Are you all okay with that? If not, why not?

What weapons, if any, should be prohibited to the general population, and why or why not?


Cadet: If this question were easy, you know, we'd have already solved it.
Allow me to point one thing out, we can own them. We have the right to own whatever we want. The reason the founders put that it "shall not be infringed upon", was to make sure that the Gov't is for the PEOPLE, and if the gov't tries to change that (and be for the gov't) we have the God given right to come back and say "hell no."

Guns aren't here to kill people, they're here to make sure that the masses don't get forced into a dictatorship.

Plenty of people can say "that'll never happen", but if we let one gun get banned, who's to say it won't lead into others? who's to say that won't lead into the gov't messing with the rest of the constitution? who's to say the 4 year 2 term might be lengthened? who's to say that it'll just snowball out of proportion, until everyone that works for a living leaves, and the United states suffers. No one would be able to stop it, no one would be listened to, none would have a gun to start up a militia and bring it back to what America was meant to be.
For the people, by the people, you rise, you fall, your life is your life and you make it whatever you want it to be, and no one can say otherwise.

How the heck do minds work?

Leaping from non machine guns to bombs? Cannons?

First, some citizens do own cannons. And some own machine guns. It is legal so long as the state had not banned them.

We have rogue states that do not obey the constitution of the land. They have some other drummer they obey.

Many have provided Mundame with the serious sound arguments to refute her claims.

Some have shown her pictures. Some have done the research and proved that even the several cases where her AK-47 got used, those were not machine guns.

We defined machine guns for her.

We told her that the second amendment is just as important as the fifteenth or the 20th.

Hell, as important as the first amendment.

When the citizens give up their rights, they have one hell of a fight to get them back.

And look at what took place when the right to drink booze was taken from the people.

They got a result they hated. Cities erupted with crime. Men were put in jail for a home business. My god, is she certain she wants to lose her rights?

[mundame]

They deny it because it is NOT true. I've posted the weapons, multiple times now, that were used in all of these crimes - none were "assault weapons" - unless you want to say that plain old handguns and such are considered assault weapons as well. Newspapers calling a weapon an "assault weapon" won't make them anymore lethal than a handgun, only the functionality of the weapon will do that, and all of these weapons used are no more than your average rifle, pistols and shotguns. If they were "military-style" as you put it, they WOULD be AK's and other automatic guns, which they were not.

So basically, it amazes me, that some people still continue to claim such and such guns were used, when they weren't. And curiously, WHY do you still continue to go on about AK's when this was proven wrong? And about "assault weapons" when this was proven time and time again that these weapons were ALL one pull one shot guns? You do realize that there are a bunch of handguns that are MUCH more powerful than the rifles used in all 3 shootings mentioned? And can shoot just as fast?
The news articles you read are wrong, which is likely why after several times of me asking you to prove they were AK's and such, still no links are forthcoming.


Okay. I did the work. I'm surprised you need me to look up and cite what was national news over and over, but here are the gun reports from the latest three mass murders in 2012, the Batman shooter, the Clackamas Mall guy, and Adam Lanza in Newtown. These are all national news sites, two different per shooter, with links so you can look them up yourselves. The police and other officials say over and over that the guns used were AR-15 military-style weapons, usually Bushmasters, so I don't see how you can keep denying what is plain fact and well documented and well known.

　

The attack on Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

Police haven't said what kind of Glock 10 mm handgun Lanza used. But Glock lists two types on its website, including the Glock 20 and Glock 29.
Lanza had "multiple magazines" for the Glock, Vance said. Such magazines are widely available.
The other handgun police said Lanza had with him during the school massacre was a Sig Sauer. Authorities didn't say what kind, but possibilities include the P226, P229 or P250, P290, and if it was an older pistol, possibly the P220. The 9 mm P220 is no longer sold in the United States

Like the Glock, Lanza's Sig Sauer also allowed a high-capacity magazine, Vance said. Lanza used "multiple magazines" that are widely available to feed ammunition to the Sig Sauer, Vance said. Sig Sauer makes 9 mm pistol magazines with a maximum capacity of 20 bullets.

Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets

December 16, 2012 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/2012/dec/16)|By Tina Susman and Richard A. Serrano

NEWTOWN, Conn. – School shooter Adam Lanza carried hundreds of bullets when he shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and used an assault rifle to do most of the killing, authorities confirmed Sunday.

Lanza, 20, fired a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle to kill many of the 20 children and six adults at the school Friday, Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance said. He used a Glock 10-millimeter handgun to shoot himself in the head.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/16/news/la-nn-connecticut-school-shooting-assault-rifle-20121216 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/16/news/la-nn-connecticut-school-shooting-assault-rifle-20121216)

　
(Reuters) - Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza used a weapon in the Bushmaster AR-15 family to shoot all of his victims at a school in a rampage that killed 20 young children and six staff members on Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, police said. He then used a handgun to kill himself.

Some facts about Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapons:

* An automatic version of the weapon is used by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and some police forces in the United States. The M-16 is the rifle version of the military weapon, and the M-4 is the carbine, a weapon with a shorter barrel.

* A similar civilian model was used in 2002 by the Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, who shot randomly at victims during a three-week spree that killed 10 people.

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-profile-weapon-used-connecticut-massacre-004230508.html (http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-profile-weapon-used-connecticut-massacre-004230508.html)

The Clackamas Mall Shooting:

A young man yesterday slipped into an
Oregon (http://www.forbes.com/places/or/) mall, a rifle underneath his arm and an apparently blind rage in his mind. He unloaded several magazines, and had the calm presence of mind to fix the rifle after it jammed. He would later turn the weapon on himself, taking his own life, but only after killing two others.

The horrific episode underscores several important elements about today’s gun business. The rifle model used by Jacob Tyler (http://www.forbes.com/places/tx/tyler/) Roberts—the 22-year-old cited in numerous media reports (http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121212/WORLD/121219751/1002) as the killer—was an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/12/13/type-of-rifle-in-oregon-mall-shooting-drives-gun-profits-and-youth-interest/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/12/13/type-of-rifle-in-oregon-mall-shooting-drives-gun-profits-and-youth-interest/)

　




PORTLAND, ore. — The gunman who killed two people and himself in a shooting rampage at an Oregon mall was 22 years old and used a stolen rifle from someone he knew, authorities said Wednesday.

Jacob Tyler Roberts had armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had several fully loaded magazines when he arrived at a Portland mall Tuesday, said Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts.

Read more:
Police: Oregon mall shooter identified; used stolen rifle - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22176682/police-oregon-mall-shooter-didnt-know-2-he/lixzz2HVQvD2nt) http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22176682/police-oregon-mall-shooter-didnt-know-2-he#ixzz2HVQvD2nt (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22176682/police-oregon-mall-shooter-didnt-know-2-he/lixzz2HVQvD2nt)


The Colorado Batman Shootings

(CNN)
-- The semi-automatic rifle used in the Colorado theater killings jammed during the rampage, apparently because of a problem with the 100-shot magazine feeding it, a law enforcement source with direct knowledge of the investigation said Sunday.

The military-style AR-15 had a separately purchased drum magazine, which can have trouble feeding bullets into the firing chamber if the gun is fired rapidly, the source told CNN.

"These after-market extended magazines have a tendency to jam," the source said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/colorado-shooting-investigation/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/colorado-shooting-investigation/index.html)

　

Colorado shooter used shotgun, assault-style rifle with 100-round drum magazine

By NBC News staff

The four weapons that authorities say were used in the massacre at a Colorado theater showing of the latest Batman movie included a popular semiautomatic rifle, a .223-caliber assault-style rifle with a 100-round drum magazine.

The suspect also had two .40-caliber Glock handguns and a 12-gauge Remington Model 870 pump shotgun.
In the past 60 days, police said, Holmes bought more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition, at gun shops and over the Internet, including:
<dir><dir>3,000 rounds of .223-caliber ammunition for the rifle. It was described as an AR-15-type weapon built by Smith and Wesson.

3,000 rounds of .40-caliber ammunition for the Glock handguns.

300 rounds for the shotgun.

　
</dir>
AR-15 is a Colt trademark, but similar weapons are built by other manufacturers. It typically fires a .223-caliber round and can accommodate large ammunition clips. The rifle is the semiautomatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16, which first came into wide use during the Vietnam War.</dir>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12865072-colorado-shooter-used-shotgun-assault-style-rifle-with-100-round-drum-magazine?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12865072-colorado-shooter-used-shotgun-assault-style-rifle-with-100-round-drum-magazine?lite)


************************************************** ************************


All right, you see that multiple major national news sources confirm that AR-15s, described as military-style weapons and assault rifles by all the police officers quoted in each case, were the weapons used principally in the last three mass murder attacks. It is plain that this is what happened, and that I was correct in my characterization of these weapons. I think it is important that people deal with what actually did happen, not try to pretend there is no problem because nothing actually happened. Word games aren't going to save your assault rifles this time, I don't think.

[Robert A Whit]

Good points, Jim, and I suppose you are right I am going to have to do the work to prove some of my points. I have read carefully the news articles that do say that the last three rampage shooters did indeed use the "military-style etc." in their killings (the Batman shooter, the mall guy, and Newtown), and it amazes me that people simply deny it. But they do.

I do prefer to bail when things get too hot. I have a low tolerance for abuse, and I think that's reasonable for a woman, or anyone, and I'll probably just bug out or avoid people who do a lot of that. I mean, why, you know? Abuse is not amusing or pleasant. Who needs it. And the people who do it don't usually have much in the way of good thinking, after all.

I think a lot of this is about word games. The usual term for these rifles is assault rifles, but you all don't like that because 1) full-automatics are restricted military weapons currently outlawed to the general public and 2) you don't want the military-style semi-automatics to be outlawed.

My problem is that, as we all know, it has become a psycho fashion for some crazies to costume in paramilitary gear and use these military-style weapons for mass murder. Well, that really IS a problem.

Now, maybe we shouldn't try to solve it. Just count it as the cost of doing business. Or maybe we should try to solve it some way that does not involve guns. Or maybe there is no "we" (I believe that: there is no longer one nation, that ended 9/11/2001 and maybe earlier). Or maybe some weapons of mass destruction should be banned to the public. Or maybe we should call a Constitutional Convention to abrogate or reinforce the Second Amendment. (Which would, IMO, start the revolution: it sure did when the French did it in 1788.)

Anyway, this is the month that was: laws are being considered in Washington, as you know.

I am counting on you all to clarify my thinking on this difficult issue. So far, in fact, it's been helpful!

Some of us are saying, that right descriptions lead to right conclusions and wrong uses of terms leads to havoc of thought.

To persist in saying that machine guns were used in crimes is not only not correct as Jim, et al keep telling you, it derails your own mission.

We think what you are trying to accomplish is to revoke the second amendment.

Why do we fight so hard to preserve it one might wonder?

Not today, but at some point, some collection of nations might decide if we had no guns in the hands of the citizens, to create war against this land.

We like being a threat to any nation. We realize that currently our military seems able to fight a war in an area the size of Ca and win that war, but the USA is much larger than one state.

Were the military to have to defend the entire country, border to border, it would end up using nuclear bombs.

I think you may understand that most if not all of us do not want that to happen.

Then countries, according to lessons of history (For instance read the books on this by Will and Aerial Durant) that think they can get away with it, do terrible things to the citizens. We can see what took place up to modern times. Countries will hurt citizens. When we forget that, we may have planted the seeds of our own doom.

It is nuts to suppose that the Federal Government won't act against the citizens. I live in CA and I assure it has acted against citizens over a plant being sold. A simple plant from nature and the Feds are more up in arms over that it seems than the illegals who live here.

And this country will send a man with a gun to arrest you over non payment of money to the Feds. Can you believe that?

I don't see you arguing to get rid of military weapons for the Feds. I get offended at being treated as a criminal should be treated. They earned your wrath.

The rest of us have not.

You know, I look up and down streets. I see tiny cars all over the place. Do you think the public wanted those tiny cars?

No.

So how come we have tiny cars?

The government told us it came to help us.

By managing society.

They know better than you know how you ought to live.

Were I you, that would really piss me off. Big time.

[jimnyc]

All right, you see that multiple major national news sources confirm that AR-15s, described as military-style weapons and assault rifles by all the police officers quoted in each case, were the weapons used principally in the last three mass murder attacks. It is plain that this is what happened, and that I was correct in my characterization of these weapons. I think it is important that people deal with what actually did happen, not try to pretend there is no problem because nothing actually happened. Word games aren't going to save your assault rifles this time, I don't think.

And all 3 of the papers misclassified the guns. The guns mentioned are all no more than semi-auto rifles, no different really than any hunting rifle. Thanks to dummies in Congress, if you take a regular rifle, make it look like a scary gun, it's now an "assault rifle". Truth is, the guns I cited, which you just relisted for us, shoot no faster than a handgun, and some handguns likely quicker. And you fall for it, again. The PAPERS are calling these scary looking guns "assault weapons", but again, THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT than an ordinary rifle. Look up the firing rate, power and such, and you'll see what we're all saying.

What is the difference, mundame, between an AR15, a .223, an AK47 and an M-16? Seriously, tell me what the difference is between them, please. Which are the assault rifles and which the most powerful, and which can fire faster rounds and which more rounds?

[jimnyc]

Some of us are saying, that right descriptions lead to right conclusions and wrong uses of terms leads to havoc of thought.

To persist in saying that machine guns were used in crimes is not only not correct as Jim, et al keep telling you, it derails your own mission.

She seems to think that the Bushmaster .223 or an AR15 - is the same as an AK47 or M-16. The latter not mentioned in ANY of the articles as to having been used, JUST as I stated they wouldn't. The ONLY thing in those articles is someone using the term "assault rifle" or "military style rifle". Yeah, as in someone took an ordinary rifle, for the most part, and made it LOOK like the military's better half. Sorry, mundame, but appearance does not equate to the same firing rate and lethality, not by a longshot.

[mundame]

Mundame...

Dear lady. They are not against assault weapons, they are against all guns.


You may want to change your terms to something like all guns. That is what they are trying to do. Eliminate all guns from our hands.




Yes.......many are. I know some. You are right. Not everyone on the left thinks that way, but many do, and it is a big problem, I agree.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by SassyLady http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=605339#post605339)
Of course she knows this. Banning "assault" weapons is the first step, then everything will be the next step because ..... wait for it .....

Any semi-auto can be modified, therefore, we need to ban all guns.

Why do you think the liberals are going after the high capacity magazines as well.

What gets me is that the nuts that want to ban high capacity magazines and make everyone that wants a gun to settle for revolvers probably don't know about speed loader.

Oh, wait ................speed loaders for revolvers will be the next item on the ban list if people like Mundame have their way.







:smartass2:



Can anyone here tell Mundame how long it takes the National Guard to arm themselves in an emergency? Hours, days, weeks? Some people have no idea the process from state of emergency declaration to actually having armed military on the site for protection. Average citizens think that the "military" is sitting on a base somewhere with their guns in their lap waiting for the call.

Whereas, citizens who own guns can arm themselves in the time it takes to get to their guns.



So, when the Constitution uses the words, "The People", it is only referring to the militia? Should we go through the entire Constitution and substitute the words "people" with "militia"?

Or, better yet ..... do you classify the National Guard as the militia? National Guard members = American citizens .... you know......doctors, lawyers, burger flippers, construction workers, truck drivers, cooks, businessmen .... etc.

What gun control does is take away the rights of National Guard members to own a private gun, correct? The ban would mean the only guns the National Guard members, citizens...people, would have access to would be those that are locked up by ..... guess what .... the government.






O' so well stated. Bravo and BRAVO!!--:beer:--TYR

Very well stated by Sassy. I join you in thunderous applause. :salute:

[jimnyc]

Are the following guns all the same? Are they all assault weapons? What makes a certain gun an "assault" weapon? The last 2 guns are the only 2 military grade, and also automatic weapons. The first 2 are your average semi-auto rifles, of course designed to look scary.

Bushmaster .223
http://i.imgur.com/HoTUi.jpg

AR-15
http://i.imgur.com/1A47u.jpg

M-16
http://i.imgur.com/hzFum.jpg

AK-47
http://i.imgur.com/8AaOZ.jpg

[mundame]

And all 3 of the papers misclassified the guns. The guns mentioned are all no more than semi-auto rifles, no different really than any hunting rifle. Thanks to dummies in Congress, if you take a regular rifle, make it look like a scary gun, it's now an "assault rifle". Truth is, the guns I cited, which you just relisted for us, shoot no faster than a handgun, and some handguns likely quicker. And you fall for it, again. The PAPERS are calling these scary looking guns "assault weapons", but again, THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT than an ordinary rifle. Look up the firing rate, power and such, and you'll see what we're all saying.

What is the difference, mundame, between an AR15, a .223, an AK47 and an M-16? Seriously, tell me what the difference is between them, please. Which are the assault rifles and which the most powerful, and which can fire faster rounds and which more rounds?


Well, the POLICE are calling these scary-looking guns "assault weapons," and the papers are quoting them.

About words: what things are called is, after all, their name. I don't think you can make this problem go away by saying what everyone calls assault weapons aren't really assault weapons, especially since they certainly are the weapons of choice for the psycho shooters.

I don't know what is going to happen here, Jim. I think it's an iffy time. The country is very on edge, a lot of it because of the Obama election, which is widely resented. I certainly don't want everyone disarmed like England!! I live in the country. We have livestock and serious predator problems. There are drug crimes all over the county, and bad people moved up from Baltimore. On the other hand, there are the rampage shooters, more and more and more of them. What a situation.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Okay. I did the work. I'm surprised you need me to look up and cite what was national news over and over, but here are the gun reports from the latest three mass murders in 2012, the Batman shooter, the Clackamas Mall guy, and Adam Lanza in Newtown. These are all national news sites, two different per shooter, with links so you can look them up yourselves. The police and other officials say over and over that the guns used were AR-15 military-style weapons, usually Bushmasters, so I don't see how you can keep denying what is plain fact and well documented and well known.

　

The attack on Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

Police haven't said what kind of Glock 10 mm handgun Lanza used. But Glock lists two types on its website, including the Glock 20 and Glock 29.
Lanza had "multiple magazines" for the Glock, Vance said. Such magazines are widely available.
The other handgun police said Lanza had with him during the school massacre was a Sig Sauer. Authorities didn't say what kind, but possibilities include the P226, P229 or P250, P290, and if it was an older pistol, possibly the P220. The 9 mm P220 is no longer sold in the United States

Like the Glock, Lanza's Sig Sauer also allowed a high-capacity magazine, Vance said. Lanza used "multiple magazines" that are widely available to feed ammunition to the Sig Sauer, Vance said. Sig Sauer makes 9 mm pistol magazines with a maximum capacity of 20 bullets.

Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets

December 16, 2012 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/2012/dec/16)|By Tina Susman and Richard A. Serrano

NEWTOWN, Conn. – School shooter Adam Lanza carried hundreds of bullets when he shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and used an assault rifle to do most of the killing, authorities confirmed Sunday.

Lanza, 20, fired a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle to kill many of the 20 children and six adults at the school Friday, Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance said. He used a Glock 10-millimeter handgun to shoot himself in the head.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/16/news/la-nn-connecticut-school-shooting-assault-rifle-20121216 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/16/news/la-nn-connecticut-school-shooting-assault-rifle-20121216)

　
(Reuters) - Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza used a weapon in the Bushmaster AR-15 family to shoot all of his victims at a school in a rampage that killed 20 young children and six staff members on Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, police said. He then used a handgun to kill himself.

Some facts about Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapons:

* An automatic version of the weapon is used by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and some police forces in the United States. The M-16 is the rifle version of the military weapon, and the M-4 is the carbine, a weapon with a shorter barrel.

* A similar civilian model was used in 2002 by the Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, who shot randomly at victims during a three-week spree that killed 10 people.

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-profile-weapon-used-connecticut-massacre-004230508.html (http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-profile-weapon-used-connecticut-massacre-004230508.html)


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/guns_used_in_sandy_hook_massac.html


Four 9mm handguns, one made by Glock and another by Sig Sauer, were recovered inside the school. An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting, NBC News reported.

Oh, btw, an AR-15 is NOT an AK-47.

[jimnyc]

Well, the POLICE are calling these scary-looking guns "assault weapons," and the papers are quoting them.

About words: what things are called is, after all, their name. I don't think you can make this problem go away by saying what everyone calls assault weapons aren't really assault weapons, especially since they certainly are the weapons of choice for the psycho shooters.

I don't know what is going to happen here, Jim. I think it's an iffy time. The country is very on edge, a lot of it because of the Obama election, which is widely resented. I certainly don't want everyone disarmed like England!! I live in the country. We have livestock and serious predator problems. There are drug crimes all over the county, and bad people moved up from Baltimore. On the other hand, there are the rampage shooters, more and more and more of them. What a situation.

Again, what do YOU makes one gun an assault rifle and another one not an assault rifle? Do you know WHY some guns that are weak and semi-auto are labeled assault weapons? Do YOU think it's honest to label one weapon an assault weapon, simply because of the way it looks, and pretty much no basis in its firing capability?

[jimnyc]

Are the weapons used in the crimes listed on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

[jimnyc]

Are the weapons used in the crimes listed on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

I'll answer that - NO THEY ARE NOT, NOT EVEN THE AR15

[mundame]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...ok_massac.html (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/guns_used_in_sandy_hook_massac.html)


Four 9mm handguns, one made by Glock and another by Sig Sauer, were recovered inside the school. An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting, NBC News reported.




They didn't know what was going on that night, but later the Connecticut state police announced the shooter had killed all the children with multiple head shots each from the Bushmaster AR-15, to the point that the children were unrecognizable.


I wish people would answer my questions about what should be done, or whether nothing should be done, and whether citizens should be allowed to freely own grenades --- it is clear the Second Amendment does allow grenades, so what about that? Is there ANYwhere the Second Amendment allows a line drawn to let the State keep a monopoly on violence (the classic definition of a sovereign state)? If not, it's just as unconstitutional that we can't own nukes and grenades and shoulder-fired rocket artillery and mortars and full-automatic machine guns, right? So why do you make a big fuss about the AR-15s and the high-capacity magazines but not about the fact that you are forbidden to own grenades and full-automatic machine guns?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Are the following guns all the same? Are they all assault weapons? What makes a certain gun an "assault" weapon? The last 2 guns are the only 2 military grade, and also automatic weapons. The first 2 are your average semi-auto rifles, of course designed to look scary.

Bushmaster .223
http://i.imgur.com/HoTUi.jpg

AR-15
http://i.imgur.com/1A47u.jpg

M-16
http://i.imgur.com/hzFum.jpg

AK-47
http://i.imgur.com/8AaOZ.jpg

Here's a few more semi-automatics... are they assault weapons?

http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/ruger_1022rb.jpg

http://www.mcsports.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lightbox-preview/images/product-photos/1849198-64-FXP-22LR-SEMI-AUTO-RIFLE.jpg

http://shootermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/PUM_22LR.jpg

http://cdn.ammoland.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Chiappa-22-caliber-1911-clone-pistol.jpg

http://images3.backpage.com/imager/u/medium/71332112/tau2.jpg

[mundame]

Do YOU think it's honest to label one weapon an assault weapon, simply because of the way it looks, and pretty much no basis in its firing capability?

Sure, why not?

That's why the rampage killers are choosing them, after all, because they look scary and military and cool.

How they look is actually the problem, apparently. When these psychos dress up in their camo and go to the Mall, they want a gun that looks MEAN.

[jimnyc]

Sure, why not?

That's why the rampage killers are choosing them, after all, because they look scary and military and cool.

How they look is actually the problem, apparently. When these psychos dress up in their camo and go to the Mall, they want a gun that looks MEAN.

Well, as you can see, NOT ONE of the weapons you mentioned are classified as an assault weapon anyway. The papers may call them that, or even the police, but what matters is reality. That's why I asked you your knowledge about the 4 weapons I posted. No offense, but I don't think you do know what the difference is. I don't mean that as insulting, just that most people would see them as all the same, when in reality they are VERY different.

That reminds me of the guys that used to take a 'Fiero' piece if crap car and use these "kits" to turn them into Lamborghini's. When the kit is in place, and it LOOKS just like a Lambo - IS IT a Lambo, and will it have the same power and handling?

[Robert A Whit]

And all 3 of the papers misclassified the guns. The guns mentioned are all no more than semi-auto rifles, no different really than any hunting rifle. Thanks to dummies in Congress, if you take a regular rifle, make it look like a scary gun, it's now an "assault rifle". Truth is, the guns I cited, which you just relisted for us, shoot no faster than a handgun, and some handguns likely quicker. And you fall for it, again. The PAPERS are calling these scary looking guns "assault weapons", but again, THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT than an ordinary rifle. Look up the firing rate, power and such, and you'll see what we're all saying.

What is the difference, mundame, between an AR15, a .223, an AK47 and an M-16? Seriously, tell me what the difference is between them, please. Which are the assault rifles and which the most powerful, and which can fire faster rounds and which more rounds?


I have used assault weapons. If any gun qualified as one, they would not need a special word for a special class of gun.

Jim is dead right.

I want to try one more time. (sigh)

I think she understands machine guns.

But has she shot one?

I have shot a number of them. The smallest caliber was the .30 cal machine gun. That puppy is heavy. Really, it takes a crew to deal with one.
And the .50 cal is so heavy the crew is larger as I best recall. It is at least the number for the .30 cal.

I forget the military number but we had what we called, a grease gun. Those were in favor in the 2nd WW and Korea. Not sure about Vietnam. Fully automatic and using .45 cal ammo, don't mess with one of them. Those do a lot of damage in close assaults.

An assault weapon must be light to carry. It takes one person to fire it.

Most machine guns have crews. They are not worth much in an assault.

I fired the M-60 machine gun too. It was a very light machine gun. I could fire it by myself. But if you needed too much ammo, it too had a crew. But at least it was pretty light.
I fired the BAR. That shot 30.06 ammo. (this too is a machie gun) (weighs about 15 pounds I believe) And I would not want to have to use it in an assault. They came with a bi pod. This was to let you lay down and steady the barrel. One man could and did fire them. Trouble is they also are pretty heavy weapons. Not to the point that one man can't carry one, but it is not light like the grease gun was. Modern assault weapons changed but they don't need a crew. An AK-47 fully automatic is an assault weapon. But as a modified single shot gun, it is not. The term assault is closely associated with the term machine gun. Even where the AK-47 got used, it was not fully automatic.

I had in Germany a weapon that could be either a semi automatic or a machine gun. The M-14 shooting 7.62 ammo (about the same thing as 30.06) on fully automatic could do for an assault. And the magazines had something like 20 rounds I believe if memory serves me.

Maybe they had larger magazines but I can't recall seeing any of those. I was never handed any to use. My M-14 had a small mechanical switch on it. Flipped to one setting, it was not an assault weapon. It fired just semi automatic. Flipped and with one trigger pull, you could empty the magazine. Then it was an assault weapon.

I hope this old vet explined it well enough so that Mundame understands it. The media is messed up. They make claims that don't hunt.

Let me give the military view of this trying to add more to it.

I recall asking why my M-14 in Germany had a special selector switch where it was only able to fire on semi automatic.

They also couild take out that switch to change to the one I spoke of above.

I was told that on fully automacic, troops tend to burn up far too much ammo. They get very nervous in combat an don automatic can empty the clip in nothing flat. Then they reload. A man can only carry just so many of those clips. Then supply has to get him more.

It is far better to take careful aim and hit what you aim at. Machine guns scare people but they work best crew operated and locked down.

We were firing the .50 cal machine gun one day and one of the Sgts explained the lock down feature. HE said that only in the movies did they wave them around shooting all over th eplace.

He laughed and said that normally you lock them down.

So, what good is a machine gun on lock down?

Machine guns work in cooperation with other machine guns.

Point your fingers outwards. Then take your right hand fingers and sort of point them left at a mild angle. Do the opposite with the left hand so those fingers point sort of right. You end up with a crossing pattern. Machine guns need to be steady. And by crossing the field of fire, you hit more than if you tried to wave it all over the place.

John Wayne made movies. But he was not in combat. LOL

What is very strange to me is that I can still mentally see the hill we aimed the machine guns at at various ranges. I can visualise tracers at night lighting up the night sky.

[jimnyc]

Sure, why not?

That's why the rampage killers are choosing them, after all, because they look scary and military and cool.

How they look is actually the problem, apparently. When these psychos dress up in their camo and go to the Mall, they want a gun that looks MEAN.

Do they want to show things to the victims, or do they want to shoot them? What affect does having the gun LOOK scary have?

[Marcus Aurelius]

They didn't know what was going on that night, but later the Connecticut state police announced the shooter had killed all the children with multiple head shots each from the Bushmaster AR-15, to the point that the children were unrecognizable.


Now I am convinced you're just making shit up as you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=30sjtuXcvOE#!

4 handguns used in the shooting... the AR-15 REMAINED IN THE CAR, and was not taken in, 'according to federal officials'.

[jimnyc]

4 handguns used in the shooting... the AR-15 REMAINED IN THE CAR, and was not taken in, 'according to federal officials'.

Even if brought in, the AR-15 still isn't an assault weapon anyway, and FAR from the AK47 she originally stated was used in these crimes.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Even if brought in, the AR-15 still isn't an assault weapon anyway, and FAR from the AK47 she originally stated was used in these crimes.

Correct.

[mundame]

I cede to you the title of gun-knower-abouter, Jim, but the AR-15s apparently fire good enough to be used in a lot of big mass murders and made hamburger out of the heads of 20 small children recently, so I don't think their damage capacity should be minimized.

Okay, I went to the trouble of getting all those national news citations and formatting them.

My turn!

I want some answers to these questions, as I've said twice above, if people would be so kind ----

I wish people would say what should be done, or whether nothing should be done, and whether citizens should be allowed to freely own grenades --- it is clear the Second Amendment does allow grenades, so what about that? Is there ANYwhere the Second Amendment allows a line to be drawn to let the State keep a monopoly on violence (the classic definition of a sovereign state)? If not, if there is no weapon of mass destruction that citizens should be forbidden, then it's just as unconstitutional that we can't own nukes and grenades and shoulder-fired rocket artillery and mortars and full-automatic machine guns, right? So why do you all make a big fuss about the AR-15s and the high-capacity magazines but not about the fact that you are forbidden to own grenades and full-automatic machine guns?

Are you comfortable with everyone owning grenades and full-automatic machine guns and shoulder-fired rockets? If not, why not? Where are the lines?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I cede to you the title of gun-knower-abouter, Jim, but the AR-15s apparently fire good enough to be used in a lot of big mass murders and made hamburger out of the heads of 20 small children recently, so I don't think their damage capacity should be minimized.

Okay, I went to the trouble of getting all those national news citations and formatting them.

My turn!

I want some answers to these questions, as I've said twice above, if people would be so kind ----

I wish people would say what should be done, or whether nothing should be done, and whether citizens should be allowed to freely own grenades --- it is clear the Second Amendment does allow grenades, so what about that? Is there ANYwhere the Second Amendment allows a line to be drawn to let the State keep a monopoly on violence (the classic definition of a sovereign state)? If not, if there is no weapon of mass destruction that citizens should be forbidden, then it's just as unconstitutional that we can't own nukes and grenades and shoulder-fired rocket artillery and mortars and full-automatic machine guns, right? So why do you all make a big fuss about the AR-15s and the high-capacity magazines but not about the fact that you are forbidden to own grenades and full-automatic machine guns?

Are you comfortable with everyone owning grenades and full-automatic machine guns and shoulder-fired rockets? If not, why not? Where are the lines?

Why do you continually perpetuate this outright lie, even though the fact it is a lie has been proven in this thread repeatedly?

Are you mentally challenged?

[mundame]

Do they want to show things to the victims, or do they want to shoot them? What affect does having the gun LOOK scary have?


Not my thing, so I don't know.

I'M not the one buying AR-15s. Be sure. So you tell me: why do you want a scary-looking gun? You guys are defending these things like they're the last glass of water in the desert, but you also say other guns have the same firepower. So why are you so passionate about having to have these psycho-bait guns?

[jimnyc]

I cede to you the title of gun-knower-abouter, Jim, but the AR-15s apparently fire good enough to be used in a lot of big mass murders and made hamburger out of the heads of 20 small children recently, so I don't think their damage capacity should be minimized.

I'm probably at the bottom of the totem pole on knowledge about guns, but I just know what a semi-automatic is, what an automatic weapon is, and what is classified as an assault weapon. It's not that people "choose" these for murders, it just happens to be an immensely popular gun. There are tons like it and many that aren't quite as 'scary', but would have been more lethal. I've seen a 9mm that would be better than having 3 of these on hand. The damage capacity would have been even worse had a .45 Magnum been used too.


I want some answers to these questions, as I've said twice above, if people would be so kind ----

I wish people would say what should be done, or whether nothing should be done, and whether citizens should be allowed to freely own grenades --- it is clear the Second Amendment does allow grenades, so what about that? Is there ANYwhere the Second Amendment allows a line to be drawn to let the State keep a monopoly on violence (the classic definition of a sovereign state)? If not, if there is no weapon of mass destruction that citizens should be forbidden, then it's just as unconstitutional that we can't own nukes and grenades and shoulder-fired rocket artillery and mortars and full-automatic machine guns, right? So why do you all make a big fuss about the AR-15s and the high-capacity magazines but not about the fact that you are forbidden to own grenades and full-automatic machine guns?

Are you comfortable with everyone owning grenades and full-automatic machine guns and shoulder-fired rockets? If not, why not? Where are the lines?

Citizens should not be freely able to purchase or own grenades, and they can't do so now. Hell, the military is FILLED with weaponry that cannot be bought and/or used by civilians right now.

Nukes are not considered "arms", and certainly not in any sense of "bearing arms", and most honest gun advocates will state as much. Same as rocket artillery.

We fuss about the AR-15 as it's not a military weapon and not even an assault weapon.

High capacity magazines alone don't do any damage at all. But anyway, take a gun with 10 rounds and 10 clips. Now a gun with 2 clips at 30 rounds apiece. Seriously, how long do you think the difference would be in unloading all the ammo? It'll take about 1-2 seconds, tops, to pop in a new clip. Do the math, it deters very little to nothing.

[jimnyc]

Not my thing, so I don't know.

I'M not the one buying AR-15s. Be sure. So you tell me: why do you want a scary-looking gun? You guys are defending these things like they're the last glass of water in the desert, but you also say other guns have the same firepower. So why are you so passionate about having to have these psycho-bait guns?

People like what they like, just like cars. Some like the way guns look, it's as simple as that. It's no more dangerous than weapons that aren't being threatened with bans, and that makes NO sense. That's banning someone from using a gun, because they think the gun looks cool, rather than for what a gun is actually capable of.

And we don't defend a specific gun, other than to educate on the wrong classification, but rather defend a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

[jimnyc]

I thought it worthy of quoting from the Wiki article I referred to above:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine typically firing ammunition with muzzle energies and sizes intermediate between those of handgun and more traditional high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armed forces, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are generally not considered assault rifles.

Semi-automatic rifles are not always classified as assault rifles as some do no not have the capacity to carry more than 10 rounds or designed for military use. However, in media firearms reporting the term 'assault rifle' usually refers to visual appearance rather than internal functionality. Similar full sized weapons, with full-auto capabilities chambered in full-sized rifle rounds, are known as Battle rifles. Examples of Battle Rifles are the FN FAL, H&K G3 and M14 rifle.

[mundame]

Citizens should not be freely able to purchase or own grenades, and they can't do so now. Hell, the military is FILLED with weaponry that cannot be bought and/or used by civilians right now.

Nukes are not considered "arms", and certainly not in any sense of "bearing arms", and most honest gun advocates will state as much. Same as rocket artillery.

We fuss about the AR-15 as it's not a military weapon and not even an assault weapon.




Nukes are certainly considered arms: remember the "Arms Race"? that was and is all about nukes. Well, if the military is full of weaponry that cannot be owned by civilians, why not?

Here's this weapons collector, lives by O'Hare airport, he's got a nice shoulder-fired rocket launcher. He likes to keep it in shape, test-fire it. Does anyone have any problem with that? Surely the Second Amendment allows that, right? it's a personal, one-man weapon, the Second Amendment definitely says you can have have those, and grenades, too. Why not??? It's clearly against the Second Amendment that this guy can't drive around the airport with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher and a trunkful of grenades, right?

I'm asking where is the line, is there a line at all that you Second Amendment-ers would support, and why or why not.

[Kathianne]

Scalia on limitations, following Aurora, CO shooting:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/29/scalia-limitations-could-be-imposed-on-guns-in-the-future/




Scalia: ‘Limitations’ could be imposed on guns in the future 12:31 PM 07/29/2012




On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to react to the possibility that gun laws might change in the wake of the shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado earlier this month.


Wallace wanted to know how much power state governments and legislatures had to regulate firearms, including semiautomatic weapons.


“What the opinion in [District of Columbia v. Heller] said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,” Scalia said. “Some undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time [of the writing of the Constitution] … so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”


“We’ll see,” Scalia responded. “Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s ‘to keep and bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”

As a textualist known for basing his jurisprudence strictly on the Constitution’s words, rather than attempts to divine the document’s intent, Scalia said he would have to consider the issue “very carefully.”


“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” Scalia said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/29/scalia-limitations-could-be-imposed-on-guns-in-the-future/#ixzz2HVxKdWyC

[Robert A Whit]

It can't be an assault weapon unless it is also a machine gun. Look up the law on machine guns and notice you need a federal permit to buy one.

I can't explain how a .223 cal bullet can shred a child's head. I tend to suppose that at close range, a small cal bullet like that, as a head shot, can do a lot of damage to the brain, but you should not be able to see more than very small entry points. Inside the head, it would get more shredded. A child died. Does making the way the bullet works make it more usable to deny the second amendment?

Maybe it would to some.

I am told that CT gun laws are almost as draconian as are CA gun laws. And in this state the politicans crave even more power over us. But I understand that in CA we buy guns at record rates. And stats were offered on local TV saying that with more guns owned, the crime rate falls.

Figures of perhaps 11 percent were shown unless my less than perfect memory plays tricks on me. I believe if I erred, it was in too low and not too high percentages.

We do not wish to serve the needs of the crazy. We do not wish to serve the purposes of those who intend to kill.

We are not their friends.

We are the friend of those that actually understand the purpose of the constitution and its protections.

WE could ban the automobile and save up to 40,000 lives per year. We don't hear of doing that. Why not?

We could try to ban other things. Clubs for instance. That ban supposedly can save upwards of a thousand lives each year.

We don't hear of any bans at all on clubs. Then we can talk of knives.

We think some citizens have gone to war with the honest people of this country.

We actually fear they will let their wild ass thoughts get the better of them. I wish some of us could smack some common sense into them.

If they want to save lives, look no further than restraining the Fed. Government. They kill a lot of humans.

[jimnyc]

Nukes are certainly considered arms: remember the "Arms Race"? that was and is all about nukes. Well, if the military is full of weaponry that cannot be owned by civilians, why not?

Here's this weapons collector, lives by O'Hare airport, he's got a nice shoulder-fired rocket launcher. He likes to keep it in shape, test-fire it. Does anyone have any problem with that? Surely the Second Amendment allows that, right? it's a personal, one-man weapon, the Second Amendment definitely says you can have have those, and grenades, too. Why not??? It's clearly against the Second Amendment that this guy can't drive around the airport with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher and a trunkful of grenades, right?

I'm asking where is the line, is there a line at all that you Second Amendment-ers would support, and why or why not.

Why mention driving around an airport and bringing rhetoric into it? No matter the weapon, no one can be carrying them around an airport, they remain in the vehicle or at home. Why talk about test firing rocket launchers? Grenades? where are people advocating the need to have these weapons? Let's establish that first...

[logroller]

If military rifles only fired in full auto mode, you might have a point. Anyone who knows anything about weapons will tell you the more effective method of fire is semi-auto...AIM and CONTROL is your friend.
Not sure who knows what, and maybe I'm wrong, but ones aim and control have little to do with the effective rate of fire-- It's just rounds discharged-- having nothing to do with actually hitting a target, merely the physical capabilities of the weapon. For example, an m16 in semi auto has an effective rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute. in auto, is around 150; burst:90.
Regardless, my point was that your 2nd amendment justification for high cap mags and semi auto rifles should also apply to a belt fed machine gun. Where does infringement begin and why?

[Robert A Whit]

Nukes are certainly considered arms: remember the "Arms Race"? that was and is all about nukes. Well, if the military is full of weaponry that cannot be owned by civilians, why not?

Here's this weapons collector, lives by O'Hare airport, he's got a nice shoulder-fired rocket launcher. He likes to keep it in shape, test-fire it. Does anyone have any problem with that? Surely the Second Amendment allows that, right? it's a personal, one-man weapon, the Second Amendment definitely says you can have have those, and grenades, too. Why not??? It's clearly against the Second Amendment that this guy can't drive around the airport with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher and a trunkful of grenades, right?

I'm asking where is the line, is there a line at all that you Second Amendment-ers would support, and why or why not.

Hooo buoy. Great questions but thus far citizens are not using rocket launchers to take down airplanes.

The rocket launcher I fired in the Army was to harm tanks.

However I do know that rockets fired from a tube can be used on airplanes.

Apparently Scalia has put some thought into this based on a post in this thread.

I have also thrown hand grenades. They make a hell of a noise. We tossed them into tires. i think the tires were for construction equipment due to how big they were. I wanted to throw more grenades. But the Army limited us to 1 or 2. I think they wanted us to be part of a demonstration more than get good at tossing them. You know what, we had to stand behind a concrete wall when tossing them. To keep us from being injured.

First, who sells them?

To use them, one has to first get some.

Do you know of a dealer that sells hand grenades or rocket launchers one can use to shoot at airplanes?

In other words, is your question practical?

[mundame]

“What the opinion in [District of Columbia v. Heller] said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,” Scalia said. “Some undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time [of the writing of the Constitution] … so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”


“We’ll see,” Scalia responded. “Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s ‘to keep and bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”

As a textualist known for basing his jurisprudence strictly on the Constitution’s words, rather than attempts to divine the document’s intent, Scalia said he would have to consider the issue “very carefully.”


“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” Scalia said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”


Very interesting. So Scalia says that even as long ago as the Constitution was written, the writers saw some need for keeping certain weapons under government control; he's not saying what at this time, probably anticipating a case zooming up to the USSC like a runaway train.

I am fascinated that he does affirm that the Second Amendment does NOT allow for group or team weapons like cannon, he believes. AND that he, like me, sees a potential problem with the new high-power weapons of mass destruction that a single individual could hand-carry, like rocket launchers and grenades. You realize that those SHOULD be legal right this minute, by any reading of the Second Amendment, but somehow...they aren't. Small dirty nukes, portable chemical and bioweapons, anything anyone can carry around SHOULD be legal.

The main weapon at the time for people "bearing arms" was the muzzle-loading black-powder gun. The Founders did not view that as an excessive problem for mass murderers at that time. Though there may have been some such incidents, I don't know. There are always crazies, everywhere, everywhen.


The important question is, what would the founders have thought about individuals freely owning the high-power weapons of 2013, especially given the epidemic of mass murdering going on?

Is any Second Amendment supporter angry that people can't currently own grenades, rocket launchers, bioweapons, chemical weapons, anything a person can carry and thus be "bearing arms"? That's unconstitutional: is it a problem for you?

Well, should we just go straight back to the Constitution and only allow citizens to carry black powder rifles?

That might work......

[jimnyc]

Small dirty nukes, portable chemical and bioweapons, anything anyone can carry around SHOULD be legal.

mundame, and I mean this very respectfully - why should anyone answer questions and such when you use rhetoric like this? Not a single person I know of advocates such stupidity and you're trying to use it as a tool to poke fun at those who support the 2nd amendment, but are failing miserably, and I mean very miserably.

Remember, the answers you receive, and the manner in which people reply, will be directly proportionate to what you ask and how you ask it. Just sayin!

[tailfins]

Very interesting. So Scalia says that even as long ago as the Constitution was written, the writers saw some need for keeping certain weapons under government control; he's not saying what at this time, probably anticipating a case zooming up to the USSC like a runaway train.

I am fascinated that he does affirm that the Second Amendment does NOT allow for group or team weapons like cannon, he believes. AND that he, like me, sees a potential problem with the new high-power weapons of mass destruction that a single individual could hand-carry, like rocket launchers and grenades. You realize that those SHOULD be legal right this minute, by any reading of the Second Amendment, but somehow...they aren't. Small dirty nukes, portable chemical and bioweapons, anything anyone can carry around SHOULD be legal.

The main weapon at the time for people "bearing arms" was the muzzle-loading black-powder gun. The Founders did not view that as an excessive problem for mass murderers at that time. Though there may have been some such incidents, I don't know. There are always crazies, everywhere, everywhen.


The important question is, what would the founders have thought about individuals freely owning the high-power weapons of 2013, especially given the epidemic of mass murdering going on?

Is any Second Amendment supporter angry that people can't currently own grenades, rocket launchers, bioweapons, chemical weapons, anything a person can carry and thus be "bearing arms"? That's unconstitutional: is it a problem for you?

Well, should we just go straight back to the Constitution and only allow citizens to carry black powder rifles?

That might work......

Define epidemic.

[mundame]

Define epidemic.

Lots. More than ever, anywhere. Contaging one to the next, via the copycat syndrome. Meme contagion. Major new fashion in pychosis symptometology.

What do you think, tailfins? You can handle these concepts. I admit they are difficult. If I knew the answer, I would tell you all.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Lots. More than ever, anywhere. Contaging one to the next, via the copycat syndrome. Meme contagion. Major new fashion in pychosis symptometology.

What do you think, tailfins? You can handle these concepts. I admit they are difficult. If I knew the answer, I would tell you all.

I'd be surprised if you knew what half the words you just posted meant.

[mundame]

mundame, and I mean this very respectfully - why should anyone answer questions and such when you use rhetoric like this? Not a single person I know of advocates such stupidity and you're trying to use it as a tool to poke fun at those who support the 2nd amendment, but are failing miserably, and I mean very miserably.

Remember, the answers you receive, and the manner in which people reply, will be directly proportionate to what you ask and how you ask it. Just sayin!


I am not poking fun at the Second Amendment, Jim. I am trying to find out where the line is between government control of weapons and Second Amendment rights. That is EXACTLY what Scalia is also doing, and using some of the same examples I used, I am delighted to see.

You object to me saying, "Small dirty nukes, portable chemical and bioweapons, anything anyone can carry around SHOULD be legal." But indeed, according to the Second Amendment all that SHOULD be legal because it is all arms, and it is all portable by one man. That's the issue, the whole issue: what should be allowed versus what is too dangerous to be legally available to citizens? Because of the crazies.

This is the crux of the matter. It's the one presumably Scalia foresees his having to rule on, and you aren't angry that he mentioned rocket launchers same as I did.

What to do about dangerous weapons one man can carry that can easily kill many, many people, weapons that were not foreseen by the Founders, is the question this country is considering right now.

[darin]

For the record - I can't think of a reason anyone would waste a rocket trying to shoot an airplane. Missiles work tons better; I'm sorta a trained expert on that :D

[jimnyc]

I am not poking fun at the Second Amendment, Jim. I am trying to find out where the line is between government control of weapons and Second Amendment rights. That is EXACTLY what Scalia is also doing, and using some of the same examples I used, I am delighted to see.

You object to me saying, "Small dirty nukes, portable chemical and bioweapons, anything anyone can carry around SHOULD be legal." But indeed, according to the Second Amendment all that SHOULD be legal because it is all arms, and it is all portable by one man. That's the issue, the whole issue: what should be allowed versus what is too dangerous to be legally available to citizens? Because of the crazies.

This is the crux of the matter. It's the one presumably Scalia foresees his having to rule on, and you aren't angry that he mentioned rocket launchers same as I did.

What to do about dangerous weapons one man can carry that can easily kill many, many people, weapons that were not foreseen by the Founders, is the question this country is considering right now.

You started your rhetoric, about people testing out rocket launchers and driving around airports with military weapons and such, BEFORE Scalia was even brought into the conversation.

Anyway, WHERE is anyone advocating such? I'm curious as to why you are asking these lines of questioning here, in the method in which you are, when no one here is advocating such? In other words, sounds like you are placing the advocating in others mouths, things they haven't stated, supported or advocated for.

[jimnyc]

For the record - I can't think of a reason anyone would waste a rocket trying to shoot an airplane. Missiles work tons better; I'm sorta a trained expert on that :D

Do you go to your local gun shop and load up on missiles? It's clearly in the 2nd amendment, so long as you can carry them around, no? :laugh: :coffee:

[Marcus Aurelius]

You started your rhetoric, about people testing out rocket launchers and driving around airports with military weapons and such, BEFORE Scalia was even brought into the conversation.

Anyway, WHERE is anyone advocating such? I'm curious as to why you are asking these lines of questioning here, in the method in which you are, when no one here is advocating such? In other words, sounds like you are placing the advocating in others mouths, things they haven't stated, supported or advocated for.

It's called a...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TC0thVs0DoI/AAAAAAAAC3w/AfRWy2zTqPo/s1600/StrawMan.jpg
...argument.

[jimnyc]

It's called a...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TC0thVs0DoI/AAAAAAAAC3w/AfRWy2zTqPo/s1600/StrawMan.jpg
...argument.

I know that, hence my asking, just thought I would politely point out why she's not getting the answers she expects, nor the manner in which she would like to hear it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Do you go to your local gun shop and load up on missiles? It's clearly in the 2nd amendment, so long as you can carry them around, no? :laugh: :coffee:

And anyone who can build/carry a dirty nuke is allowed to, according to the 2nd amendment...http://images.zaazu.com/img/zany-zany-comic-joker-smiley-emoticon-000598-large.gif

[Marcus Aurelius]

I know that, hence my asking, just thought I would politely point out why she's not getting the answers she expects, nor the manner in which she would like to hear it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8suVjclu8Zo

[jimnyc]

I'm curious myself - CAN someone even buy a grenade, a nuke, a launcher and other high grade military weaponry? And is it legal to own them everywhere? And use them everywhere?

[Robert A Whit]

Very interesting. So Scalia says that even as long ago as the Constitution was written, the writers saw some need for keeping certain weapons under government control; he's not saying what at this time, probably anticipating a case zooming up to the USSC like a runaway train.

I am fascinated that he does affirm that the Second Amendment does NOT allow for group or team weapons like cannon, he believes. AND that he, like me, sees a potential problem with the new high-power weapons of mass destruction that a single individual could hand-carry, like rocket launchers and grenades. You realize that those SHOULD be legal right this minute, by any reading of the Second Amendment, but somehow...they aren't. Small dirty nukes, portable chemical and bioweapons, anything anyone can carry around SHOULD be legal.

The main weapon at the time for people "bearing arms" was the muzzle-loading black-powder gun. The Founders did not view that as an excessive problem for mass murderers at that time. Though there may have been some such incidents, I don't know. There are always crazies, everywhere, everywhen.


The important question is, what would the founders have thought about individuals freely owning the high-power weapons of 2013, especially given the epidemic of mass murdering going on?

Is any Second Amendment supporter angry that people can't currently own grenades, rocket launchers, bioweapons, chemical weapons, anything a person can carry and thus be "bearing arms"? That's unconstitutional: is it a problem for you?

Well, should we just go straight back to the Constitution and only allow citizens to carry black powder rifles?

That might work......


I sold my black powder rifle a year or two ago. The thing with guns when Washington waged the war was they were very slow to load.

If we go back, as you suggest, do we also limit the army to the same sort of weapons?

I had a .50 cal Hawkin rifle. It had to be muzzle loaded and I made the bullets too. Black powder really pisses off the eco whack jobs since it sure is smoky as hell.

[jimnyc]

I'm curious myself - CAN someone even buy a grenade, a nuke, a launcher and other high grade military weaponry? And is it legal to own them everywhere? And use them everywhere?

I ask this because partly I don't know. As far as I know, one can't buy any of these things and a lot of the military grade weapons. And even if collectors and such CAN get their hands on anything similar, I know there aren't a lot of places you can use them.

I've heard people actually state before though, that they felt no weapon should be eliminated from the 2nd amendment and the ability for someone to own. For my own clarification, I'm trying to see IF someone can even own them now, and use them (the high powered stuff, not rifles).

And if no all the way around, then the straw man is down before it got erected. And either way, I don't think I've EVER seen a serious gun owner or advocate claiming that civilians should be able to own and use 'rocket launchers, grenades, nukes, missiles...'.

[Robert A Whit]

For the record - I can't think of a reason anyone would waste a rocket trying to shoot an airplane. Missiles work tons better; I'm sorta a trained expert on that :D

Missiles are rockets. At least that is what I believe.

The question she poses is not practical since there is no store for us to go to so we can buy rockets, missiles or grenades.

If she intends it as a constitutional matter, as I think she does, once Roberts / Scalia and his court make up their minds on what all are arms, it will be explained to the rest of us.

[tailfins]

Lots. More than ever, anywhere. Contaging one to the next, via the copycat syndrome. Meme contagion. Major new fashion in pychosis symptometology.

What do you think, tailfins? You can handle these concepts. I admit they are difficult. If I knew the answer, I would tell you all.

I have apparently struck a nerve exposing your hyperbole. There is no mass murder epidemic. Do you care to calculate the average person's annual probability of being killed by a mass murderer? For legibility's sake, you can express the number as: n x 10 to some huge negative power.

[Missileman]

Not sure who knows what, and maybe I'm wrong, but ones aim and control have little to do with the effective rate of fire-- It's just rounds discharged-- having nothing to do with actually hitting a target, merely the physical capabilities of the weapon. For example, an m16 in semi auto has an effective rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute. in auto, is around 150; burst:90.
Regardless, my point was that your 2nd amendment justification for high cap mags and semi auto rifles should also apply to a belt fed machine gun. Where does infringement begin and why?

The 2nd was meant to protect the basic rifle that would allow service in a militia. Take WWII for example. We had the technology to provide every army grunt with a Thompson sub-machine gun, but only a couple men per unit would get one...everyone else got a semi-auto M1 carbine. Even today, even though we have the technology, only a couple men per unit are issued an M-60, the rest get the basic weapon. If a full automatic rifle were the only rifle that made it possible to accomplish military service, then a ban on full auto rifles would be unconstitutional. A belt fed full auto machine gun is not required to adequately serve in a militia, but then neither are rocket launchers, grenade launchers, aircraft carriers, nukes, bazookas, flame throwers,...you get the picture. You can't defeat the rationale for the 2nd by trying to extend it into the absurd.


The effective rate of fire for all semi-autos is approximately the same...as fast as you can repeat pulling the trigger. There is no difference between the rate of fire in the 2 rifles in the following picture. One of them is demonized based on its appearance.
4284

[cadet]

Hooo buoy. Great questions but thus far citizens are not using rocket launchers to take down airplanes.

The rocket launcher I fired in the Army was to harm tanks.

However I do know that rockets fired from a tube can be used on airplanes.

Apparently Scalia has put some thought into this based on a post in this thread.

I have also thrown hand grenades. They make a hell of a noise. We tossed them into tires. i think the tires were for construction equipment due to how big they were. I wanted to throw more grenades. But the Army limited us to 1 or 2. I think they wanted us to be part of a demonstration more than get good at tossing them. You know what, we had to stand behind a concrete wall when tossing them. To keep us from being injured.

First, who sells them?

To use them, one has to first get some.

Do you know of a dealer that sells hand grenades or rocket launchers one can use to shoot at airplanes?

In other words, is your question practical?

Why would you need to BUY a grenade? I could make you some for cheap... :wicked99:

[jimnyc]

The effective rate of fire for all semi-autos is approximately the same...as fast as you can repeat pulling the trigger. There is no difference between the rate of fire in the 2 rifles in the following picture. One of them is demonized based on its appearance.
4284

Yep, that's exactly what I've been stating. Some people will say they have no problem with the top gun, but the bottom one has to go. Hell, even Congress thinks certain guns should be banned based on lame modifications which have nothing to do with capability of the gun, only appearance.

Now, what if someone makes ammo specific to the top gun, and makes it 300% more powerful than the ammo specific to the bottom gun? Is that bottom gun still scarier?

[Kathianne]

Yep, that's exactly what I've been stating. Some people will say they have no problem with the top gun, but the bottom one has to go. Hell, even Congress thinks certain guns should be banned based on lame modifications which have nothing to do with capability of the gun, only appearance.

Now, what if someone makes ammo specific to the top gun, and makes it 300% more powerful than the ammo specific to the bottom gun? Is that bottom gun still scarier?

Jim claims to be at the 'bottom of totem pole' regarding guns. I'm then in the dirt, below the totem pole. "automatic" weapons mean from my readings, 'hold the trigger down and will keep shooting until ammo gone.'

Semi-auto means: 'have to keep pulling the trigger, but the ammo is of high number, thus many shots with one load of ammo.' That's my basic knowledge.

I'd not own a gun, but will argue for the 2nd amendment. It keeps us all safe, unless a lameass newpaper decides to 'out' the owners, making it more likely for someone like me to become a gun owner.

[SassyLady]

Not my thing, so I don't know.

I'M not the one buying AR-15s. Be sure. So you tell me: why do you want a scary-looking gun? You guys are defending these things like they're the last glass of water in the desert, but you also say other guns have the same firepower. So why are you so passionate about having to have these psycho-bait guns?

Mundame ... the reason we are defending this so passionately is because if you label the AR-15 an assault weapon because it uses high capacity magazines (and because you say they look scary), then the next guns to be banned will be 9mm .... because they have capacity magazines........and so on, and so on.

Why do you think it is so important to defend our borders? Because it is the first line in the sand to defending our nation. The same with the weapons ban.

We have already conceded not having the right to arm ourselves to the same level as our government by not owning the same caliber of arms (i.e., grenades). So, why would we want to give another inch?

[Robert A Whit]

I am tiring of this argument but one more thing.

If some nut wanders into some school, and we can lawfully wear side arms, don't you suppose that will go a long ways to stopping such criminals?

As nuts as they are, I tend to doubt a law will stop them from killing. As the NRA said, a good guy with a gun beats a bad guy with a gun.

[logroller]

Missiles are rockets. At least that is what I believe.


The question she poses is not practical since there is no store for us to go to so we can buy rockets, missiles or grenades.


If she intends it as a constitutional matter, as I think she does, once Roberts / Scalia and his court make up their minds on what all are arms, it will be explained to the rest of us.
I believe missiles have guidance; rockets do not.

The 2nd was meant to protect the basic rifle that would allow service in a militia. Take WWII for example. We had the technology to provide every army grunt with a Thompson sub-machine gun, but only a couple men per unit would get one...everyone else got a semi-auto M1 carbine. Even today, even though we have the technology, only a couple men per unit are issued an M-60, the rest get the basic weapon. If a full automatic rifle were the only rifle that made it possible to accomplish military service, then a ban on full auto rifles would be unconstitutional. A belt fed full auto machine gun is not required to adequately serve in a militia, but then neither are rocket launchers, grenade launchers, aircraft carriers, nukes, bazookas, flame throwers,...you get the picture. You can't defeat the rationale for the 2nd by trying to extend it into the absurd.




The effective rate of fire for all semi-autos is approximately the same...as fast as you can repeat pulling the trigger. There is no difference between the rate of fire in the 2 rifles in the following picture. One of them is demonized based on its appearance.

well the battlefield rifle now used has a semi/burst select fire (previously it was selectable semi/ full auto, model A1 I believe)-- Federal law prohibits either for citizens without special permitting what have you). Is that unconstitutional?
i never said semi rifles had vastly different effective rates of fire. I said full auto, semi and burst did-- even on the same weapon. However, differing weapon functionality does play a part in the number of rounds one can fire in practice. Take your examples above, curiously not to scale making the lower weapon appear scarier. that looks like a model 750 (overpriced IMO) and it has a 4 round mag (depending on chamber). the latter is an ar-15 (Yet, had it a little pin hole above the selector, it'd be a machine gun) and looks to have a 20 round mag (not common where i am, mostly 10s and 30s)
Now lets assume both have the same effective rate of fire ~ 45 rpm. In the configuration shown, that would mean the 750 would need to reload not less than 8 times in a minute; the ar only twice. Even if reloads take a second, that's an additional 6 seconds of active firing: another 5 rounds. Not to mention that the ergonomics of the ar-15 allow for more rapid mag changes than a 750-- just one reason why the military uses the Armalite design and not the Remington. Not just because it looks scarier. It works better in combat situations, making it a better combat weapon. Now if the second amendment protects those weapons which are used as general issue battlefield rifle, then why can't I have a M16A4? Or an A1 for that matter? Unless there are limits, practical limits with be intent of reducing the practical rate of fire-- things like bullet buttons and no pistol grips? I think those are both lame (aka, not as scary:lol:) but are they effective at reducing the killing efficiency of a single shooter?


Speaking of scary-- here's a California legal AR

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg

[tailfins]

I believe missiles have guidance; rockets do not.

well the battlefield rifle now used has a semi/burst select fire (previously it was selectable semi/ full auto, model A1 I believe)-- Federal law prohibits either for citizens without special permitting what have you). Is that unconstitutional?
i never said semi rifles had vastly different effective rates of fire. I said full auto, semi and burst did-- even on the same weapon. However, differing weapon functionality does play a part in the number of rounds one can fire in practice. Take your examples above, curiously not to scale making the lower weapon appear scarier. that looks like a model 750 (overpriced IMO) and it has a 4 round mag (depending on chamber). the latter is an ar-15 (Yet, had it a little pin hole above the selector, it'd be a machine gun) and looks to have a 20 round mag (not common where i am, mostly 10s and 30s)
Now lets assume both have the same effective rate of fire ~ 45 rpm. In the configuration shown, that would mean the 750 would need to reload not less than 8 times in a minute; the ar only twice. Even if reloads take a second, that's an additional 6 seconds of active firing: another 5 rounds. Not to mention that the ergonomics of the ar-15 allow for more rapid mag changes than a 750-- just one reason why the military uses the Armalite design and not the Remington. Not just because it looks scarier. It works better in combat situations, making it a better combat weapon. Now if the second amendment protects those weapons which are used as general issue battlefield rifle, then why can't I have a M16A4? Or an A1 for that matter? Unless there are limits, practical limits with be intent of reducing the practical rate of fire-- things like bullet buttons and no pistol grips? I think those are both lame (aka, not as scary:lol:) but are they effective at reducing the killing efficiency of a single shooter?


Speaking of scary-- here's a California legal AR

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg



Do they really market the item in your photo? I bet my wife would love to have one. Are you SURE they are legal in California (not that it matters).

[Marcus Aurelius]

Do they really market the item in your photo? I bet my wife would love to have one. Are you SURE they are legal in California (not that it matters).

http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2008/january/hellokitty_ar15assault_1.jpg
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9852603-1.html

This was sent to us by a tipster. I don't normally spend my time reading RifleGear.com (http://www.riflegear.com/), but from the likes of this item, maybe I should.
Awhile back we were treated to a hilarious Photoshop job called the HK-47 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9800589-1.html)--an assault rifle decorated with images of everybody's favorite nonpornographic, nontentacled Japanese import (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9793517-1.html), Hello Kitty. We were sad to learn that it was, well, Photoshopped.
But now, out of nowhere, here's a real one (http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx). As a protest against assault weapons bans, one rifle enthusiast in California decided to create a weapon that would "alleviate the fears of (his) fellow citizens and gun-banning legislators when (he) put together a new AR-15 for (his) wife." So he modded the AR-15 to make it baby-pink with an image of Hello Kitty holding a weapon, as well as some extra-cute cartoon flowers! Brilliant!
Unfortunately, according to certain other people who write for this blog, Hello Kitty won't make an assault rifle any less terrifying. Apparently, that cat is trying to take over the world (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9726633-1.html).




http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

This rifle is 100% legal in California because it is based on an "off-list" lower receiver made by Stag Arms and has no evil features at all, instead featuring a fixed stock instead of the evil collapsible stock, a muzzle brake in place of the vile flash-hider, and a MonsterMan Grip instead of the heinous and malicious plastic pistol grip. The C Products magazine looks like a 30 round magazine body but is permanently modified to only allow 10 rounds.

[Missileman]

I believe missiles have guidance; rockets do not.

well the battlefield rifle now used has a semi/burst select fire (previously it was selectable semi/ full auto, model A1 I believe)-- Federal law prohibits either for citizens without special permitting what have you). Is that unconstitutional?
i never said semi rifles had vastly different effective rates of fire. I said full auto, semi and burst did-- even on the same weapon. However, differing weapon functionality does play a part in the number of rounds one can fire in practice. Take your examples above, curiously not to scale making the lower weapon appear scarier. that looks like a model 750 (overpriced IMO) and it has a 4 round mag (depending on chamber). the latter is an ar-15 (Yet, had it a little pin hole above the selector, it'd be a machine gun) and looks to have a 20 round mag (not common where i am, mostly 10s and 30s)
Now lets assume both have the same effective rate of fire ~ 45 rpm. In the configuration shown, that would mean the 750 would need to reload not less than 8 times in a minute; the ar only twice. Even if reloads take a second, that's an additional 6 seconds of active firing: another 5 rounds. Not to mention that the ergonomics of the ar-15 allow for more rapid mag changes than a 750-- just one reason why the military uses the Armalite design and not the Remington. Not just because it looks scarier. It works better in combat situations, making it a better combat weapon. Now if the second amendment protects those weapons which are used as general issue battlefield rifle, then why can't I have a M16A4? Or an A1 for that matter? Unless there are limits, practical limits with be intent of reducing the practical rate of fire-- things like bullet buttons and no pistol grips? I think those are both lame (aka, not as scary:lol:) but are they effective at reducing the killing efficiency of a single shooter?


Speaking of scary-- here's a California legal AR

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg

Let's assume they legislate that we can own the top, but are prohibited from owning the lower. Do you know how easy it is to manufacture a high capacity magazine that would work in the upper if you were willing to break the law? And since it's so easy, then of course, the slippery slope justifications for outlawing ALL rifles with a removeable magazine start flowing. And then someone kills a few people with a revolver, so 6 shots are too many. Then someone commits a mass killing with a single barrel shotgun and we'll have to outlaw all guns, period.

Get tough on criminals who use guns. To hell with mandatory years tacked onto a sentence, warm up old sparky, make using a gun in a crime a capital offense and execute a few of these predators. The world will be a lot better off in their absence.

One doesn't have to have the "best" combat weapon available to serve in a militia either, just a functional one.

[Gaffer]

Well, the POLICE are calling these scary-looking guns "assault weapons," and the papers are quoting them.

About words: what things are called is, after all, their name. I don't think you can make this problem go away by saying what everyone calls assault weapons aren't really assault weapons, especially since they certainly are the weapons of choice for the psycho shooters.

I don't know what is going to happen here, Jim. I think it's an iffy time. The country is very on edge, a lot of it because of the Obama election, which is widely resented. I certainly don't want everyone disarmed like England!! I live in the country. We have livestock and serious predator problems. There are drug crimes all over the county, and bad people moved up from Baltimore. On the other hand, there are the rampage shooters, more and more and more of them. What a situation.

It's called propaganda. The media are calling the rifles assault weapons, not the police. It's part of the agenda the present govt has in place in order to effect their bans on all guns. You are just falling for the propaganda and buying what the govt is selling through the media. The media is not your friend and they are not giving you the full and complete truth.

[logroller]

Do they really market the item in your photo? I bet my wife would love to have one. Are you SURE they are legal in California (not that it matters).

No. And yes.

[aboutime]

No. And yes.


Agreed. The BAD GUYS have discovered EASY WAYS around being captured with REAL GUNS, but painting them, or constructing them in plastic that is UNDETECTABLE in Metal Detection devices.

Oh...and just in case nobody has seen the story.

The U.S. Coast Guard in San Diego Ca. Last week, discovered how the DRUG CARTEL'S not only have Guns that look like toys. But they have advanced in their DRUG RUNNING so well. They now have their own MINI-SUBMARINES that are undetectable, and easily driven on the beach to be unloaded by the DRUG RUNNERS we all know to be AMERICANS who NEED drugs.

[logroller]

Agreed. The BAD GUYS have discovered EASY WAYS around being captured with REAL GUNS, but painting them, or constructing them in plastic that is UNDETECTABLE in Metal Detection devices.

Oh...and just in case nobody has seen the story.

The U.S. Coast Guard in San Diego Ca. Last week, discovered how the DRUG CARTEL'S not only have Guns that look like toys. But they have advanced in their DRUG RUNNING so well. They now have their own MINI-SUBMARINES that are undetectable, and easily driven on the beach to be unloaded by the DRUG RUNNERS we all know to be AMERICANS who NEED drugs.
Agreed, we should be consuming American made drugs. ;)
That is a real ar15, just has a bullet-button, grip above the trigger guard and, of course, a custom paint job. The additional modification (exc. paint) is not to make it less detectable but, rather, CA legal. The guy who painted it usually does camo, but decided to make a statement about the tomfoolery of gun laws targeting black scary weapons.

[bingster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIYLimyRHU

[bingster]

Gun Owners Surveyed By Frank Luntz Express Broad Support For Gun Control Policies

Posted: 07/24/2012 2:26 pm Updated: 07/24/2012 5:51 pm





http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F20 12%2F07%2F24%2Fgun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html&hl=en-US)


1,226
221 (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Gun%20Owners%20Surveyed%20By%20Frank%20 Luntz%20Express%20Broad%20Support%20For%20Gun%20Co ntrol%20Policies%20http%3A%2F%2Fhuff.to%2FPUBit5%2 0via%20%40HuffPostPol&lang=en)
52
2421

Get Politics Alerts: <input class="share_boxes_input_edit" value="Enter email" id="subscribe_user_email" type="text"> Sign Up






Follow:

Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/video), Frank Luntz (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz), Frank Luntz Gun Owners (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-gun-owners), Frank Luntz Gun Laws (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-gun-laws), Frank Luntz Gun Rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-gun-rights), Frank Luntz Guns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-guns), Gun Owners (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-owners), Gun Rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-rights), Gun Laws (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-laws), Nra (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nra), Politics News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/699619/thumbs/s-FRANK-LUNTZ-GUN-OWNERS-large.jpg


WASHINGTON -- A survey of National Rifle Association members and non-affiliated gun owners conducted by a prominent Republican pollster shows that there is broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns.
According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.
The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Luntz.GunOwners.Final.Embargoed.7.23.12.pptx):


74 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

Taken in full, the numbers cut against the conventional wisdom, which holds that there is little political will for tackling gun control legislation in the wake of Friday's shooting in Aurora, Colo. But that theory, the study's authors insisted, was always based on a false reading of the public opinion data.
“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which commissioned the study. “It’s time for those in Washington -– and those running for President –- to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology."
An equally telling feature of the study is the pollster who put it together. While Luntz's work on the topic alongside Bloomberg's group and the liberal Center for American Progress may seem like the personification of a strange-bedfellows coalition, Luntz explained that his ideological bent is towards sensible gun laws.
"I grew up in an NRA family and strongly believe in Second Amendment rights," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "But I don't believe that anyone with a felony record should automatically be able to own a gun. I don't believe in absolutes."

[Missileman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIYLimyRHU

Consider the following sentence:

Because racing is fun, the right of the people to own a car shall not be infringed.

Does that sentence mean that you have no right to own a car unless you are racing?

Membership in a militia is NOT a requirement to keep and bear arms.

[Missileman]

Gun Owners Surveyed By Frank Luntz Express Broad Support For Gun Control Policies

Posted: 07/24/2012 2:26 pm Updated: 07/24/2012 5:51 pm





http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F20 12%2F07%2F24%2Fgun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html&hl=en-US)


1,226
221 (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Gun%20Owners%20Surveyed%20By%20Frank%20 Luntz%20Express%20Broad%20Support%20For%20Gun%20Co ntrol%20Policies%20http%3A%2F%2Fhuff.to%2FPUBit5%2 0via%20%40HuffPostPol&lang=en)
52
2421

Get Politics Alerts: <input id="subscribe_user_email" class="share_boxes_input_edit" value="Enter email" type="text"> Sign Up






Follow:

Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/video), Frank Luntz (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz), Frank Luntz Gun Owners (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-gun-owners), Frank Luntz Gun Laws (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-gun-laws), Frank Luntz Gun Rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-gun-rights), Frank Luntz Guns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/frank-luntz-guns), Gun Owners (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-owners), Gun Rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-rights), Gun Laws (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-laws), Nra (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nra), Politics News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/699619/thumbs/s-FRANK-LUNTZ-GUN-OWNERS-large.jpg


WASHINGTON -- A survey of National Rifle Association members and non-affiliated gun owners conducted by a prominent Republican pollster shows that there is broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns.
According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.
The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Luntz.GunOwners.Final.Embargoed.7.23.12.pptx):


74 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

Taken in full, the numbers cut against the conventional wisdom, which holds that there is little political will for tackling gun control legislation in the wake of Friday's shooting in Aurora, Colo. But that theory, the study's authors insisted, was always based on a false reading of the public opinion data.
“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which commissioned the study. “It’s time for those in Washington -– and those running for President –- to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology."
An equally telling feature of the study is the pollster who put it together. While Luntz's work on the topic alongside Bloomberg's group and the liberal Center for American Progress may seem like the personification of a strange-bedfellows coalition, Luntz explained that his ideological bent is towards sensible gun laws.
"I grew up in an NRA family and strongly believe in Second Amendment rights," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "But I don't believe that anyone with a felony record should automatically be able to own a gun. I don't believe in absolutes."

Out of curiosity, can you list what's currently required to get a concealed carry permit?