Assault Weapons Ban

[Grindelwald]

Should assault weapons be banned?

[gonzoliberal]

Can they be adequately defined?

[flyboy56]

No one is going to prevent semi-automatic rifles from being sold. And isn't that what really determines the lethalness of a rifle? The speed at which a shooter can pull the trigger determines the rate of fire. And what does it matter whether a shooter has a 10 clip magazine or 30 when it takes seconds to change them out. And watching Obama on Meet the Press this morning, he didn't seem getting assault rifles banned would happen.

[Contumacious]

Can they be adequately defined?

yes, of course.

"An assault weapon is any device that allows Americans to defend themselves"

Diane Feinstein (D-USSR)

.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

Can they be adequately defined?

Can we at least admit four things?

1. If you want to ban so called “assault weapons”, it makes absolutely no sense not to ban all semi-automatics. All of them.

2. The term “high powered assault weapons” is a term meant to scare people who do not know any better. The very nature of The Ar15 construction, (aluminum forgings) limit the power of the cartridge that can be used. 5.56 NATO is about half the power of a .30-06 which is probably the most popular hunting cartridge sold., and there are several, (7MM mag, .300 Win mag, .460 Weatherby, etc. that dwarf it in power). So do we call hunting cartridges ‘Super Extra High Powered” hunting weapons?

3. All firearms with removable magazines can have “high capacity magazines”. You can buy them for most semiautomatic and even most bolt-action rifles. And if you think a bolt-action rifle cannot be fired quickly, Google “Mad Minute with the SMLE”.

4. The previous assault weapons ban was symbolic at best, in spite of what antigun people bleat about how effective it was. Why? It was based on cosmetic features. It never ceases to amaze me that antigun people actually think that an AR-15 without a flash hider or bayonet lug (a gun which was available through out the previous ban) functions any different than a pre-ban gun. Or that of the millions of magazines that existed before the ban miraculously evaporated after the ban.


The term “assault weapon” was coined by Josh Sugarmann of the then “Violence Policy Center”, (which later became the Brady Center). His openly expressed, deliberate attempt to deceive citizens and politicians into believing that semi-auto rifles were the same thing as machine guns just because they look externally similar is as follows:

The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

There is no real mechanical difference between a modern AR-15 and a Remington model 8 introduced in 1906, except that the so-called hunting rifle fires a vastly more powerful cartridge. They both use a detachable magazine. Flash devices and a pistol grip can be fitted should one desire to the old Remington.

The Browning BAR is a well known hunting rifle that been around for sometime.
It is now made in tactical model, supposedly to give the police a tactical rifle that would not give the willies to the public because it did not look some much like an evil black assault rifle.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

No one is going to prevent semi-automatic rifles from being sold. And isn't that what really determines the lethalness of a rifle? The speed at which a shooter can pull the trigger determines the rate of fire. And what does it matter whether a shooter has a 10 clip magazine or 30 when it takes seconds to change them out. And watching Obama on Meet the Press this morning, he didn't seem getting assault rifles banned would happen.

One of the Columbine killers used ten round magazines in his 9MM pistol. It didn't seem to slow him down.

[Grindelwald]

yes, of course.

"An assault weapon is any device that allows Americans to defend themselves"

Diane Feinstein (D-USSR)

You do not need an assault weapon to defend yourself. Any handgun is adequate protection.

[Grindelwald]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...sault%20weapon

[flyboy56]

You do not need an assault weapon to defend yourself. Any handgun is adequate protection.

Isn't that an assault weapon under Feinstein's definition?

[Grindelwald]

Isn't that an assault weapon under Feinstein's definition?

Feinstein never said that. I googled the quote and got one result, this page.

[flyboy56]

Feinstein never said that. I googled the quote and got one result, this page.

Right. Thanks.

[Grindelwald]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...s-ban-20121220

[flyboy56]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...s-ban-20121220

"How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?" link above

And if a shooter has 10 five round magazines how would that change anything?

[Grindelwald]

"How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?" link aboveAnd if a shooter has 10 five round magazines how would that change anything?

Let me ask you this. What good purpose could an assault weapon serve that could NOT be served with an ordinary handgun?

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

You do not need an assault weapon to defend yourself. Any handgun is adequate protection.

I guess that depends on where you live.

Tell me, where do your credentials on firearm instruction and procurement come from?

[Gopher]

A description of her proposal from Ms. Feinstein's Senate webpage:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

[BlandFood]

Let me ask you this. What good purpose could an assault weapon serve that could NOT be served with an ordinary handgun?

Brindlefly, you obviously have never been to a rifle range nor have ever hunted or owned a weapon have you? However, when you grow up you would like a Beemer over a Civic now wouldn't you?

[pickles]

Let me ask you this. What good purpose could an assault weapon serve that could NOT be served with an ordinary handgun?

Range.

Which, to me, is kind of the whole point. The mass killings could just as well be done w a handgun as an "assault weapon."

Short of outlawing handguns, and I don't think that's feasible, an "assault weapon" ban doesn't accomplish much.

[Grindelwald]

I guess that depends on where you live.

Not really. You can buy simple handguns anywhere.

[Grindelwald]

Range.

Which, to me, is kind of the whole point. The mass killings could just as well be done w a handgun as an "assault weapon."

Short of outlawing handguns, and I don't think that's feasible, an "assault weapon" ban doesn't accomplish much.

Assault weapons are for killing people. Period. They should be in the hands of officers and the military, not civilians for God's sake. You see my point? There is just no reason for civilians to have them.