Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.
The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.
The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.
The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.
Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.
Mark
This is from the UK, but anyway.
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame
"
Eight in 10 teachers have had mental-health problems and workload is to blame"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape
"
Teacher's Violent Meltdown Caught on Tape"
It happens.
Probably no more than cops or soldiers.
Mark
I have no idea why you want to talk about disarming cops and soldiers.Why not just start a conversation about "straw men"?
Your argument is that "anyone" can snap. If a teacher can snap, so can a cop or a soldier, correct? And if its not correct, explain why it isn't?
Mark
Rant all you want about crazy cops and crazy soldiers. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting our kids and grand kids.
Of, course. Oddly enough, this teacher had not been trained in SWAT tactics. How odd.Since that is not gonna happen, being a realist, I would rather have an armed teacher with my kids.
Mark
I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.
In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.
Mark
One of those "heroic" teachers was just exposed as a coward who locked students in the hall to be shot down by a psyhco.
After hearing comments from teachers, they said he did the right thing according to his training.
Mark
Of, course. Oddly enough, this teacher had not been trained in SWAT tactics. How odd.I can understand that. rather than restrict weapons to anyone who can pass a background check (including private sales), you would rather trust a Latin teacher who you do not know to carry a gun in your child's school, not knowing if he is another Vegas type killer to be, or a 60 year old schoolmarm, just waiting for an accident to happen.
In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.
Mark
One of those "heroic" teachers was just exposed as a coward who locked students in the hall to be shot down by a psyhco.
After hearing comments from teachers, they said he did the right thing according to his training.
Mark
Maybe because he had no gun, he was trained to hide.
Mark
Of, course. Oddly enough, this teacher had not been trained in SWAT tactics. How odd.In these school shootings, we have seen heroic teachers throwing their bodies in front of bullets to protect these kids, so yes, I would want to give them the opportunity to sacrifice the shooters life instead of their own. The way you keep describing teachers, maybe we should close all the schools. You believe they are nuts, or mad.
Mark
One of those "heroic" teachers was just exposed as a coward who locked students in the hall to be shot down by a psyhco.
After hearing comments from teachers, they said he did the right thing according to his training.
Mark
Maybe because he had no gun, he was trained to hide.
Mark
Of course, if he had had a concealed 9 MM, he would have jumped out into the hall and had a showdown with a kid and his AR--16 with virtually no limit to his ammo....
Below is a link to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, the measure upheld as Constitutional in your OP.Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.
The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.
The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.
The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.
Below is a link to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, the measure upheld as Constitutional in your OP.Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.
The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.
The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.
The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.
In the measure you’ll find the definition of what constitutes an assault rifle, pistol, or shotgun in the state of Maryland.
Consequently, it’s perfectly appropriate to refer to a semi-automatic AR 15 as an assault rifle/weapon pursuant to Maryland law.
It’s understood that you object to the use of the term when referring to semi-automatic rifles because you believe it’s an effort on the part of those who support banning AR 15s to inflame the debate and make such weapons seem more dangerous than they actually are, thus swaying public opinion in favor of a ban.
That doesn’t change the fact that as a matter of law a semi-automatic AR 15 is indeed an assault rifle, and subject to the Maryland ban.
The states are at liberty to regulate firearms as they see fit consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, and that includes defining a class of firearms as they see fit, just as you’re at liberty to disagree with that definition, but that doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ to refer to a semi-automatic AR 15 as an assault rifle.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_427_sb0281E.pdf
Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.
The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.
The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.
The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.
I think you are the one who has to deal with it; I don't have that kind of evil, sorrow and darkness on my mind....the deaths of all those people are something I wan't to stop, not something I just say ho hum about."...and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires."
Yes I do, actually as is my Right as an American. Deal with it.
I don't believe a word of that. If it were true you would be trying to deal with the actual issues rather than trying to trying to blame an inanimate object. Try dealing with facts and reality instead of trying to claim some imaginary moral high ground.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that "assault" weapons are not sanctioned by the Second Amendment -- and I wonder what sort of convoluted reasoning was fumbled with to reach that absurd conclusion.
Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules
The very basis of this reasoning either ignores or brazenly denies the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment by asserting the Amendment does not apply to "weapons of war." Then what the hell does it apply to? These decrepit, incompetent sonsabitches have clearly invented spurious justification for brazenly pissing on the Constitution via such nonsensical pseudo-legal babble.
The Supreme Court must be called on by the NRA to review this brazenly biased, flagrantly ignorant, utterly disgraceful abuse of judicial power and reverse it.
Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.
The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.
The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.
The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.
I think you are the one who has to deal with it; I don't have that kind of evil, sorrow and darkness on my mind....the deaths of all those people are something I wan't to stop, not something I just say ho hum about."...and consider mass shootings just collateral damage to their personal desires."
Yes I do, actually as is my Right as an American. Deal with it.
I don't believe a word of that. If it were true you would be trying to deal with the actual issues rather than trying to trying to blame an inanimate object. Try dealing with facts and reality instead of trying to claim some imaginary moral high ground.
I have talked about the facts on here day in and day out. You've read them, apparently, either my ideas or others' who have the same perspective, so why you disingenuously try to pretend we are claiming an imagery moral high ground I don't know. You're the one not dealing with reality. In reality, allowing this situation to continue where we have one mass shooting after another, practically one every week it seems, and
in this society is evil. Downright evil. There is no need for a private citizen to have a military style automatic assault weapon. None.
The position that you should have them because it is your right is childish, deeply childish. That is what a child would say. ‘I have a right to do it, so I can do it no mater what the consequences.’ Damned childish.
As well, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee gun rights w/o any restrictions at all. The time is coming: things are going to change, and we will stop this insanity.
In the meantime, those who cling to the right for every Tom, Dick and Mary in this country to own assault weapons are responsible the deaths of those innocent people. Babies in first grade, kids in middle and high school, university kids, and innocent adults at the mall, fast food restaurant, concert, night club, or cinema. You are all responsible. Drenched in blood you are.
“Will all the water in the ocean wash this blood from my hands? No, instead my hands will stain the seas scarlet, turning the green waters red.” Macbeth
Well done.Untrue. Nasty. And exactly like claiming owning a fire extinguisher makes one responsible for deadly fires. Also shows your elitism.
But-since you brought the subject up-are you prepared to accept responsibility for the carnage resulting from the attempted theft of private property and denial of the Right of due process?
Thanks for your effort in calling attention to Maryland's abusive deception. I was not aware that any state had taken such audaciously official steps to promote a brazen lie. I suppose you're quite correct in saying the Maryland judiciary has a right to call a horse a cow, but I wonder how the citizens of that state would feel about it if they understood how they, as well as the rest of us, are being manipulated by legal con artists for the clear and ultimate purpose of infringing on our Constitutional protections.[...]
That doesn’t change the fact that as a matter of law a semi-automatic AR 15 is indeed an assault rifle, and subject to the Maryland ban.
The states are at liberty to regulate firearms as they see fit consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, and that includes defining a class of firearms as they see fit, just as you’re at liberty to disagree with that definition, but that doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ to refer to a semi-automatic AR 15 as an assault rifle.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_427_sb0281E.pdf
BS total bulshit. You guys are funny.Yes they do in fact the UK as twice as many rapes as does the USIt's not true. Look at stats for countries with strict gun laws. They do not have high crime.It's not a lie. It is a logical fact.Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.
If the U.S. government issued a ban on all civilian-owned firearms the law-abiding citizens would comply but the criminal element would not, thus leaving the law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals via the force of law.
While it's true that a percentage of ordinarily law-abiding citizens would ignore such a federal gun ban the actual number of those renegades would depend on the level of punishment associated with refusal to comply. The threat of a substantial prison sentence and a heavy fine would soften the resolve of the most committed "...my cold, dead fingers" adversary.
The only possible alternative to the compliant outcome of a gun ban, such as that which disarmed the civilian population of Australia, would be a full-scale armed rebellion. And the present-day American population is far to diverse, with far too few committed Second Amendment advocates, to bring off such an active resistance.
Sad, but it's true.
Twice as many assaults as the US
and 3 times more overall crimes per 1000 people
United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
By your own site:
The US has 138 percent more murders by firearms than the UK.
The US has 82% more overall crime than the UK.
Eveything on the list is far more in the US than in the UK.
Below is a link to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, the measure upheld as Constitutional in your OP.Okay. I will concede I was a bit eager in clothing my analogy. But the essential object remains the same, that object being what in fact an "assault weapon" is and is not. And while a lawmaking body can get away with saying a horse is a cow that doesn't make it so -- except in the minds of those who don't know the difference between the two.Not the courts but lawmaking bodies, state legislatures or the US Congress, they determine what an assault weapon is and legislate accordingly. You're confusing the two.
The word assault has valid presence and specific meaning in two entirely dissimilar contexts, a criminal context and a military context. The simple fact in this matter is the term assault weapon has no real place in the criminal context.
The word assault has specific meaning in the military context because it refers to a specific type of military operation, e.g. assault on an enemy position. The M-16 is an ideal "assault weapon" because of its small size, light weight, and selectable fully-automatic function.
The AR-15 is not suitable for assault in a military context because it is not capable of fully-automatic function. To say the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" in a criminal context is either outlandishly ignorant or brazenly deceptive.
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle that physically resembles our standard military assault weapon.
In the measure you’ll find the definition of what constitutes an assault rifle, pistol, or shotgun in the state of Maryland.
Consequently, it’s perfectly appropriate to refer to a semi-automatic AR 15 as an assault rifle/weapon pursuant to Maryland law.
It’s understood that you object to the use of the term when referring to semi-automatic rifles because you believe it’s an effort on the part of those who support banning AR 15s to inflame the debate and make such weapons seem more dangerous than they actually are, thus swaying public opinion in favor of a ban.
That doesn’t change the fact that as a matter of law a semi-automatic AR 15 is indeed an assault rifle, and subject to the Maryland ban.
The states are at liberty to regulate firearms as they see fit consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, and that includes defining a class of firearms as they see fit, just as you’re at liberty to disagree with that definition, but that doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ to refer to a semi-automatic AR 15 as an assault rifle.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_427_sb0281E.pdf
LOL You site shows that there is more crime in the US. You apparently can't read, The US is a very violent, crimed filled nation.BS total bulshit. You guys are funny.Yes they do in fact the UK as twice as many rapes as does the USIt's not true. Look at stats for countries with strict gun laws. They do not have high crime.It's not a lie. It is a logical fact.Countries with strict gun laws have low crime and low gun crime and death. It is not the case that when guns are banned, only criminals have them: that's a lie.
If the U.S. government issued a ban on all civilian-owned firearms the law-abiding citizens would comply but the criminal element would not, thus leaving the law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals via the force of law.
While it's true that a percentage of ordinarily law-abiding citizens would ignore such a federal gun ban the actual number of those renegades would depend on the level of punishment associated with refusal to comply. The threat of a substantial prison sentence and a heavy fine would soften the resolve of the most committed "...my cold, dead fingers" adversary.
The only possible alternative to the compliant outcome of a gun ban, such as that which disarmed the civilian population of Australia, would be a full-scale armed rebellion. And the present-day American population is far to diverse, with far too few committed Second Amendment advocates, to bring off such an active resistance.
Sad, but it's true.
Twice as many assaults as the US
and 3 times more overall crimes per 1000 people
United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
By your own site:
The US has 138 percent more murders by firearms than the UK.
The US has 82% more overall crime than the UK.
Eveything on the list is far more in the US than in the UK.
Then prove it.
Come up with the stats and refute the source I used
and overall crime is a count of the total number of crimes
Look at the crime per 1000 people figure because that is the crime RATE
you are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a crime in the UK
twice as likely to be raped and twice as likely to be assualted
Now why don't you go and learn what per capita means and get back to me
Countries Compared by Crime > Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
I would much rather live in Europe than the US. Very much rather. And I do. In Spain, which has very, very low crime and very, very strict gun laws.Where would you rather live?LOL You site shows that there is more crime in the US. You apparently can't read, The US is a very violent, crimed filled nation.
I would much rather live in Europe than the US. Very much rather. And I do. In Spain, which has very, very low crime and very, very strict gun laws.Where would you rather live?LOL You site shows that there is more crime in the US. You apparently can't read, The US is a very violent, crimed filled nation.
And please don't tell me I have no right to care about or discuss the US. I am a citizen whose family has been in the US for many generations, all of European ancestry. I was born in and lived in the US for over 50 years. There are over 9 million US citizens living and working overseas: we all have the right to vote and to care about, take an interest in, and have an opinion of the US, as much as any other US citizen.
