Assault weapons

[OODA_Loop]

I can buy a short shotgun all day long.

$200 tax

and if it short enough and of proper configuration a $5 tax.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't see how the barrel length can transform it into a weapon of mass destruction.

It reduces the weapon to a single use: killing people. It cannot be used for hunting nor target shooting (both legitimate uses and worthy of protection). Remember, there's more to that 2nd amendment than "shall not be infringed".

You are right it includes the right to self defense, the right to community defense and the right to form and join a militia. Weapons provided by the citizenry. So yes a weapon who's sole purpose is to kill is in fact protected under the second amendment. Ohh and one can target shoot with one.

I understand your agenda here RGS, but honestly, do you think weapons of war ought to be in civilan hands?

The firepower I experienced when in the Navy in the 60's is far exceeded by everything the military has today. The small arms firepower we had aboard our DD far exceeded the weapons any member of an 18th century militiaman could bring to the table. The BAR would have amazed Washington and Cornwallis and probably scared the shit out of every man under arms.

 

[Oddball]

It reduces the weapon to a single use: killing people. It cannot be used for hunting nor target shooting (both legitimate uses and worthy of protection). Remember, there's more to that 2nd amendment than "shall not be infringed".

You are right it includes the right to self defense, the right to community defense and the right to form and join a militia. Weapons provided by the citizenry. So yes a weapon who's sole purpose is to kill is in fact protected under the second amendment. Ohh and one can target shoot with one.

I understand your agenda here RGS, but honestly, do you think weapons of war ought to be in civilan hands?

The firepower I experienced when in the Navy in the 60's is far exceeded by everything the military has today. The small arms firepower we had aboard our DD far exceeded the weapons any member of an 18th century militiaman could bring to the table. The BAR would have amazed Washington and Cornwallis and probably scared the shit out of every man under arms.

Nothing scarier to the tyrant than a citizenry that can shoot back with the same weapons that he has at his disposal.

Little wonder you want the hoi polloy to be as disarmed as possible.

 

[Politico]

You guys have got it all wrong. Michael Moore explained it on Piers Morgan the other night. Most guns are owned by white folks living in the sububrbs. And there is no reason for those people to have them.

 

[theHawk]

You guys have got it all wrong. Michael Moore explained it on Piers Morgan the other night. Most guns are owned by white folks living in the sububrbs. And there is no reason for those people to have them.

Oh that would be wonderful, ban weapons for middle class white people only! Only the poor and miniroities should get them!

 

[M14 Shooter]

US v Miller states that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd Amendment, it must be suitable for service in the militia, in common use at the time and part of the ordinary military equipment.

There may be NO better example of this than an AR15 w/ 20/30-rd USGI magazines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lots of talk of assault weapons yet no definition.

One of you people that wants to ban assault weapons care to define what they are?

A semi automatic firearm with a magazine holding 100 high velocity projectiles and little recoil.

So... My M1A w/ 20rd magazines -isn't- an 'assault weapon'?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A semi automatic firearm with a magazine holding 100 high velocity projectiles and little recoil. Imagine what General Washington might have done if he had these weapons and 100-round magazines.

That would be every semi automatic with detachable magazines. Further you have not defined the weapon you have defined the magazine. Once again if you want these weapons made illegal you will need an amendment to the Constitution since the Supreme Court has made rulings that clearly make them protected.

No I defined the weapon, high velocity, maximum damage to the target...

Well, that leaves out the AR-15

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can make a semi, into an auto.

How do -you- know?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So your opinion is that all weapons are actually the same, and simply do not need to be treated differently?

All classes of firearms are protected by the 2nd, and thus all are treated equally under the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its shorter?

Making it more accurate or concealable? And what's the virrtue of concealing a shot gun? It comes in handy when robbing a liquor store, but does little else.

The shorter barrel allows for the pellets to spread out quicker but lessens the effective range of the weapon. The Supreme Court got that one wrong, they were used extensively in the trench war fare of WW1.

The court got it right when it said it was not winthin judicial notice that cut-down shotguns weapons were of common use - that is, the defendant did not offer proof to that effect.

Clearly, had he, the decision would have been different.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't see how the barrel length can transform it into a weapon of mass destruction.

It reduces the weapon to a single use: killing people. It cannot be used for hunting nor target shooting (both legitimate uses and worthy of protection). Remember, there's more to that 2nd amendment than "shall not be infringed".

So what?

Killing people can be a useful thing, when they're trying to kill you.

The 2nd amendment revolves entirely around killing people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You’ll get many different definitions of an ‘assault weapon,’ including the opinion that there is no such thing in the civilian market.

But a semi-automatic rifle can not be an ‘assault weapon,’ regardless its configuration or magazine capacity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You’ll get many different definitions of an ‘assault weapon,’ including the opinion that there is no such thing in the civilian market.

But a semi-automatic rifle can not be an ‘assault weapon,’ regardless its configuration or magazine capacity.

Even if we agree that some version of a rifle is an "assault" weapon, that makes it PROTECTED under the second amendment. A semi automatic rifle with detachable magazine and large capacity magazine is EXACTLY the type of weapon that is protected. So the Courts have ruled on ore then one occasion.

 

[Mr. Jones]

A semi automatic firearm with a magazine holding 100 high velocity projectiles and little recoil. Imagine what General Washington might have done if he had these weapons and 100-round magazines.

That would be every semi automatic with detachable magazines. Further you have not defined the weapon you have defined the magazine. Once again if you want these weapons made illegal you will need an amendment to the Constitution since the Supreme Court has made rulings that clearly make them protected.

No I defined the weapon, high velocity, maximum damage to the target, little recoil, simply point and shot - 100 rounds in less than a minute. Or, if you prefer, eight rounds in less than 10 seconds. The perfect tool for the mass murderer.

No citizen needs such a weapon, especially one with such a high capacity magazine. I know some on the right have this fantasy of defending the homeland from the Federal Government. With the technology and fire power of our armed forces... good luck with that.

Better then having slingshots or air rifles. The possibility of citizens having to go up against sophisticated weaponry in the hands of their own whacked out Constitutionally challenged military, or worse the UN, is reason enough to allow such high powered defensive weapons in responsible citizens hands.
If you don't see the possibility of this happening, or the US recruiting UN forces to quell protests or mass uprising against their egregious Bill of Rights shredding "laws", then you aren't paying attention.

 

[Mr. Jones]

It reduces the weapon to a single use: killing people. It cannot be used for hunting nor target shooting (both legitimate uses and worthy of protection). Remember, there's more to that 2nd amendment than "shall not be infringed".

So what?

Killing people can be a useful thing, when they're trying to kill you.

The 2nd amendment revolves entirely around killing people.

More like protecting the republic from enemies foreign or domestic, and yes that would include killing people that are trying to kill you in the process..
How the hell anyone can have blind trust in this US government especially after having so many instances of egregious behavior towards the people is beyond belief.

 

[regent]

Conservatives usually want the Supreme Court to revert back to the founders original intention when interpreting the Constitution, maybe we should follow that and revert back to what arms were available when the Constitution was ratified?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Conservatives usually want the Supreme Court to revert back to the founders original intention when interpreting the Constitution, maybe we should follow that and revert back to what arms were available when the Constitution was ratified?

I bet you think this is original, meaningful and persuasive.

 

[Borillar]

Lots of talk of assault weapons yet no definition.

One of you people that wants to ban assault weapons care to define what they are?

Gunny, I always took "assault weapon" to mean one like those issued to our troops, capable of full automatic fire, like the M16, M14, or M4. I would not categorize a M1A or a AR15 as an assault weapon. Even though they look the part, they are not capable of full automatic fire. That said, I would leave these as well as semiautomatic weapons in the realm of military, law enforcement, or well regulated militia - not the general public.

 

[daveman]

How about an RPG? How about a flame thrower? Or a bazooka? An M-1 A-1 Abrams tank or a nuclear warhead? Some weapons belong in "well regulated militia(s)" and some belong in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Now, what type of weaponry meets the "Needs" of a law abiding citizen? Hunting, target shooting, home defense. Any of those activities 'need' something capable of firing more than 20 rounds before reloading?

IMO, guns are the type of weaponry that meets the needs of law abiding citzens.

Howitzers? Mortars? Anti-Aircraft guns? Sawed off shot guns? Where's the line between public safety and someone's desire to play Army?

Key Board Commandos and Mall Ninjas don't trump the safety of the general public.