Assault weapons: Questions for those that would ban them

[M14 Shooter]

The 1994 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would have seen it continued, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

 

[G.T.]

Banning the bayonet mount seems a bit frivolous.

I don't think we need citizens to have grenade launchers, though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning the bayonet mount seems a bit frivolous.
I don't think we need citizens to have grenade launchers, though.

Not a grenade launcher, but muzzle device that allows it to fire rifle grenades.

 

[jillian]

The AWB was always stupidly written

 

[cutter]

Banning the bayonet mount seems a bit frivolous.

I don't think we need citizens to have grenade launchers, though.

If you collect WWII rifles there is already a bayonet and grenade launcher on some of them. The grenade launcher is great for launching tennis balls.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 2nd amendment did not list any exceptions.

I have lived around a lot of guns and nobody ever got shot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The AWB was always stupidly written

Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.

 

[G.T.]

I still feel the same. Citizens don't need these for protection, or for Game.

A rifle grenade is a grenade that uses a rifle-based launcher to permit a longer effective range than would be possible if the grenade was thrown by hand. The practice of projecting grenades with rifle-mounted launchers was first widely used during World War I and continues to the present, with the term "rifle grenade" now encompassing many different types of payloads including high explosive, fragmentation, and anti-tank warheads as well as concussion, smoke, incendiary, and flare missiles. Many armies have replaced rifle grenades with dedicated grenade launchers - often attached as an auxiliary weapon on a rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I still feel the same. Citizens don't need these for protection, or for Game.

Yes, I know what a rifle grenade is.

Exactly how many have you ever seen used by a member of the general public, for legal or or illegal purposes?
Exactly how many live rifle greades have you seen for legal sale?

Given that answer, how does the inclusion of such an item render an otherwise acceptable semi-auto rifle fed by a detachable magazine unacceptable for posession by the general public?

 

[G.T.]

I still feel the same. Citizens don't need these for protection, or for Game.

Yes, I know what a rifle grenade is.

Exactly how many have you ever seen used by a member of the general public, for legal or or illegal purposes?
Exactly how many live rifle greades have you seen for legal sale?

Given that answer, how does the inclusion of such an item render an otherwise acceptable semi-auto rifle fed by a detachable magazine unacceptable for posession by the general public?

I agree that it's inane, I'm just commenting on that aspect of what you posted and I just don't think citizens should have Grenade Launchers. Just an opinion on one aspect, not on the OP general.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Governments reason for banning strong weapons like assault weapons isn't public safety, it's if government screws up so bad that people have no choice that a revolution won't be possible.

 

[jillian]

The AWB was always stupidly written

Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.

You asked that supporters of the ban comment. I didn't support the ban.

You know what happens when you assume right?

But not to anyone's surprise, you made an incorrect assumption.

 

[editec]

The AWB was always stupidly written

Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.

In the contrary, she not only answered the question she even agreed with the original POV of the thread....the law IS stupidly written...which WAS the point of the original thread was it not?

You might consider abandoning your childish US v THEM presuppositions about what people you presume to be caracature liberals must have meant, and simple read the words they write for meaning.

You might just discover that people are a lot smarter (or at least lot less threatening to your POV) than you give them credit for.

 

[pinqy]

I agree that it's inane, I'm just commenting on that aspect of what you posted and I just don't think citizens should have Grenade Launchers.

An attachment for firing rifle grenades is not a grenade launcher. We're not talking an M203 or the like, we're talking a part of the barrel that would allow a rifle grenade to be used....but one would first have to have a rifle grenade. There are good reasons to ban the grenades, but none to ban rifles that have the capability.

 

[jillian]

In the contrary, she not only answered the question she even agreed with the original POV of the thread....the law IS stupidly written...which WAS the point of the original thread was it not?

You might consider abandoning your childish US v THEM presuppositions about what people you presume to be caracature liberals mist have meant, and simple read the words they write for meaning.

You might just discover that people are a lot smarter (or at lest lot less threatening to your POV) than you give them credit for.

bingo. But then he would actually have to read instead of just randomly tossing out insults.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The AWB was always stupidly written

Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.

You asked that supporters of the ban comment. I didn't support the ban.

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.

You know what happens when you assume, right?

You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

 

[jillian]

Governments reason for banning strong weapons like assault weapons isn't public safety, it's if government screws up so bad that people have no choice that a revolution won't be possible.

If guns were protected by the constitution to protect the right to rebellion, treason wouldn't be the only crime specified in the constitution.

 

[jillian]

Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.

You asked that supporters of the ban comment. I didn't support the ban.

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.

You know what happens when you assume, right?

You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

That wasn't an assumption. It was clear from your post which demanded a response to your o/p which addressed "supporters" of the ban.

Nice backtrack.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Governments reason for banning strong weapons like assault weapons isn't public safety, it's if government screws up so bad that people have no choice that a revolution won't be possible.

If guns were protected by the constitution to protect the right to rebellion, treason wouldn't be the only crime specified in the constitution.

1: He didnt say that they were
2: Treason is not the only crime specified in the constitution
3: Even if it were, non-sequitur

Anyone that passed high-school civics knows that treason, counterfeiting, and piracy/felonies on the high seas are all crimes specified by the Constitution.


Now, then, unless you're going to address the issue offered in the OP - which you cannot, since you did/do not support banning 'assault weapons' - why don't you take this opportunity to skulk away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You asked that supporters of the ban comment. I didn't support the ban.

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.

You know what happens when you assume, right?

You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

That wasn't an assumption.

Why don't you at least TRY to be relevant and tell us -why- you did not support the 1994 AWB?