Question for the supporters of the proposed 2013 'assault weapon' ban

[M14 Shooter]

The bill for the proposed 2013 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included one 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 proposed ban explain with specificity how any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that is unacceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

Can any of the supporters of this proposed ban explain with specificity how the removal of all of these accessories create a rifle that is acceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

 

[Underhill]

I'm against the ban.

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The only one I can see that may be at all useful for law enforcement is the ban on folding stocks. They make the gun easier to hide under a coat.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The bill for the proposed 2013 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included one 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 proposed ban explain with specificity how any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that is unacceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

Can any of the supporters of this proposed ban explain with specificity how the removal of all of these accessories create a rifle that is acceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

Sheesh M14, you left out the most dangerous accessory of them all.. the deadly

SHOULDER THING THAT GOES UP!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The inclusion of the listed accessories determines which rifles are acceptabe and which are not, thus creating the distinction between the two. Do you agree that there's no rational basis for banning one set of rifles but not the other?

 

[legaleagle_45]

I'm against the ban.

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The only one I can see that may be at all useful for law enforcement is the ban on folding stocks. They make the gun easier to hide under a coat.

When folded the overall length of the weapon must still comply with the NFA of 1934. Thus, weapon could have a fixed length equivalent to the size of the "assault weapon" with stock folded and be perfectly legal.

These are not assault rifles, they are assault weapons. There is a distinction. Assault weapons are used as hunting rifles. Assault rifles are fully automatic or select fire rifles of intermediate power and are strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934

 

[Underhill]

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The inclusion of the listed accessories determines which rifles are acceptabe and which are not, thus creating the distinction between the two. Do you agree that there's no rational basis for banning one set of rifles but not the other?

I wouldn't go that far. But I think the distinction is small enough not to matter a whole lot.

But they are there. The ability to throw a 30 round clip on them for one.

I just don't think the distinctions make all that much difference. I also think the whole thing is pointless with the number of pistols out there. Pistols are where it's at when it comes to crime. No question about that. Banning assault rifles/weapons or whatever the fuck people want to call them will have virtually no impact on anything.

I am okay with more regulation of firearms. But bans don't accomplish much of anything. This country already has too many guns for a ban to be at all effective. It's like trying to plug a damn after the town was washed away. What's the point?

 

[beagle9]

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The inclusion of the listed accessories determines which rifles are acceptabe and which are not, thus creating the distinction between the two. Do you agree that there's no rational basis for banning one set of rifles but not the other?

The only distinction that should be made in all of this, is finding out exactly who it is that are taking ownership of these weapons or how they got their hands on one, and for what reasons are they acquiring them for or using them for ? The weapons themselves are no threat at all to other people, unless they end up (as would any weapon) in the hands of a bad person, then it matters not about what type of weapon it is at all, but as to how the weapon will be used by the bad person who is using it for bad purposes.

The democrats are the worst to have in power in this nation, because they aren't using a full deck when they think, and the damage they cause is unbelievable while in office or once they get out of office, because it lingers on for decades afterwards. The pubs sold their offices out, even though they try to have some ethics and morals about themselves in their personal lives for them and their families, yet when they step into their offices it seems that all bets are off, and they can do some damage to the nation also in so many ways. It's funny how no one seems to wonder though, about what their actions cause for their future generations in this nation, even their children or grandchildren when they sell themselves out like they do. Trust anyone these days in government? Ha, we might as well be trusting Jeffery Dalmer to babysit our children when we go off to work, it's probably that bad anymore. Trust Colleges to teach our children ? Might as well throw them to the wolves before they are old enough to get fed to the lions, as this is about what that situation entails these days. All that money people spend, and the trust that goes along with it as well, just to find out later that your child has been brainwashed into being someone that you never would have guessed they could have become, but yet they did. They don't become these things on their own, they are taught them, and are influenced to become what they become, thus there goes the society into the direction it has went, so now we must take everyone's freedoms because of what has been done right beneath our noses, and no one had the wisdom to stop it before it got to this point ?

 

[oldfart]

The only distinction that should be made in all of this, is finding out exactly who it is that are taking ownership of these weapons or how they got their hands on one, and for what reasons are they acquiring them for or using them for ? The weapons themselves are no threat at all to other people, unless they end up (as would any weapon) in the hands of a bad person, then it matters not about what type of weapon it is at all, but as to how the weapon will be used by the bad person who is using it for bad purposes.

Personally I got the impression from the start that the "assault weapons" portion of the bill was in there for two purposes. First, it gave proponents a record vote where everyone would have to show which side of the gun control debate they were on. Second, since the issue was likely to fail, it would allow some lawmakers to vote against an assault weapons ban and then vote for universal background checks and limits on magazine capacity.

In a more perfect world, we could get more passed in the way of reasonable gun regulation; in a perfect world, we wouldn't need that regulation.

 

[Politico]

Can any of the supporters of this proposed ban explain with specificity how the removal of all of these accessories create a rifle that is acceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

Since few of them have actually held or shot a gun much less served their country, no they can't.

 

[The Rabbi]

But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.

The inclusion of the listed accessories determines which rifles are acceptabe and which are not, thus creating the distinction between the two. Do you agree that there's no rational basis for banning one set of rifles but not the other?

The only distinction that should be made in all of this, is finding out exactly who it is that are taking ownership of these weapons or how they got their hands on one, and for what reasons are they acquiring them for or using them for ? The weapons themselves are no threat at all to other people, unless they end up (as would any weapon) in the hands of a bad person, then it matters not about what type of weapon it is at all, but as to how the weapon will be used by the bad person who is using it for bad purposes.

I suppose you could query criminals as to who they are and why they want those guns. But that seems sort of pointless. Equally pointless with why legal people need or want one, since they arent going to commit crimes with them.
So overall it is pointless to do anything more than we do now. Except prosecute criminals who commit crimes. Which we dont do much of.

 

[beagle9]

I suppose you could query criminals as to who they are and why they want those guns. But that seems sort of pointless.

Why is this pointless ? The fact that we have had the problems we have had in the past, and do still have currently, is because the law hasn't been up held or we have been way to soft of crime, now whose fault was that ? We know whose fault it has been, but they have become powerful somehow in this nation, in which is the peoples fault whom were not like this, and it was all because they (the ones who were in power), were focused more on the money, and also on the world of the clique in which they had surrounded themselves with. In this thinking or actions, they let the whole nation crumble right before their greedy little eyes. They figured they were insulated from all that has come to past now, but now they know different as their freedoms and liberties are at great risk all because of what they had done or ignored in the past. I hope they are happy for what they have done, because it affects us all in a bad way now. Now all we can do is sit back and watch the mayhem they have caused us in this nation continue, and it was all because they sold themselves out to the lowest bidders in the end. Remember that always!

Equally pointless is with why legal people need or want one, since they arent going to commit crimes with them.

Kidding me right ? I mean do you think before speaking maybe, because guns aren't used just for crime purposes only, and the way that a man decides it best to defend his life, property and family, is no ones business but his own, and as long as he is a legal, honorable, decent, law abiding citizen in which there are millions like this in this nation, we should always seek to empower them, and to build them up always, and to always respect their wishes in all that they do or do contribute to this fine nation of ours, but for the government to seek to dis-arm them all now, and this in any way, shape, form or another, is simply an act of treason against the United States and it's constitution, in which it has sworn to up hold and protect after being made leader of this country be it by party or by President.

So overall it is pointless to do anything more than we do now. Except prosecute criminals who commit crimes. Which we dont do much of.

Yes we must get tougher on crimes, but the libs won't allow that, and guess what they are in power right now, and you know why they don't want to get tougher on crime ? It's because the lib family is so riddled with crime and statistics on crime, that they fear they will lose numbers big time, otherwise if crime was punished more severely than what it has been to date, then they would diminish in power big time as far as their numbers go. Until this nation gets better on crime, while preserving the founding's of this nation and it's principles, then we are done as a nation, and it's as simple as that. The libs are like an over protective mother, swearing that no matter what little Johnny is doing or has done that is wrong, well it isn't wrong in her eyes (even though she knows better), but she has got to protect him no matter what, so it has to be everyone else that is wrong, before her little Johnny is the one to be wrong. We are living in a society full of over protective mothers now, who will take up for Johnny no matter what little Johnny is doing wrong, so wrong ends up winning the day. Then we have the pub family doing wrong as adults (hiding it from little Johnny), until little Johnny gets big enough to find out, and then when he does, he rebels big time on them or he joins them and does the wrong that they do, otherwise carrying on the family tradition, so yes it just might be that what is the point after all really? I guess we will sit back and wait for the asteroid to do it's work maybe, as that will finally teach them all and end it all.

 

[The Rabbi]

I suppose you could query criminals as to who they are and why they want those guns. But that seems sort of pointless.

Why is this pointless ? The fact that we have had the problems we have had in the past, and do still have currently, is because the law hasn't been up held or we have been way to soft of crime, now whose fault was that ? We know whose fault it has been, but they have become powerful somehow in this nation, in which is the peoples fault whom were not like this, and it was all because they (the ones who were in power), were focused more on the money, and also on the world of the clique in which they had surrounded themselves with. In this thinking or actions, they let the whole nation crumble right before their greedy little eyes. They figured they were insulated from all that has come to past now, but now they know different as their freedoms and liberties are at great risk all because of what they had done or ignored in the past. I hope they are happy for what they have done, because it affects us all in a bad way now. Now all we can do is sit back and watch the mayhem they have caused us in this nation continue, and it was all because they sold themselves out to the lowest bidders in the end. Remember that always!

I am curious as to who this "they" are that have become powerful somehow and have caused such great calamities.

 

[beagle9]

I suppose you could query criminals as to who they are and why they want those guns. But that seems sort of pointless.

Why is this pointless ? The fact that we have had the problems we have had in the past, and do still have currently, is because the law hasn't been up held or we have been way to soft of crime, now whose fault was that ? We know whose fault it has been, but they have become powerful somehow in this nation, in which is the peoples fault whom were not like this, and it was all because they (the ones who were in power), were focused more on the money, and also on the world of the clique in which they had surrounded themselves with. In this thinking or actions, they let the whole nation crumble right before their greedy little eyes. They figured they were insulated from all that has come to past now, but now they know different as their freedoms and liberties are at great risk all because of what they had done or ignored in the past. I hope they are happy for what they have done, because it affects us all in a bad way now. Now all we can do is sit back and watch the mayhem they have caused us in this nation continue, and it was all because they sold themselves out to the lowest bidders in the end. Remember that always!

I am curious as to who this "they" are that have become powerful somehow and have caused such great calamities.

They are those who are immoral and sinful in their daily lives without conscious of, and then they try and make everyone else believe that it is A-ok to live and be in this way anymore. There are many who have been busy doing the right things like working and raising their families whom figured that the government they elected would always represent them and their constitution always, but now they should know better than that, but it could be to late for those people now, as this thing has gotten ridiculous upon who is figured to be the enemy of this nation anymore, and who is not. Just look at how these blogs or social networks read, and then tell me you can't see the war of words that is going on in this nation between both sides now, and also on the talk radio or news networks there is the same stuff happening. We could be doomed as a nation if not careful, especially now that the Godless are gaining more and more strength over the Godly anymore, so keep a sharp eye out on the future, and adhere to the signs when reading them, as they will be as plain as the nose upon your face in order to see them and to read them, unless you live in denial like so many others do these days. Just my opinion is all, but could have some rational and reasoning behind it all, as I like to always look at the bigger picture involved or the lead up to all events that happen and why they end up happening.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The silence from the supporters of the ban speaks volumes.

 

[racewright]

My take is that the present regiem is testing the waters for the 2014 election. The last time the libs screamed about gun control the following election hurt them. They are trying to see if that additude is going to come alive in the next election and maybe hurt them again.

Notice that when Obama was campaining before the last election gun control was hidden in the closet---this is in part what cost Al Gore the election in the past.

Question for all: Does gun control become a up front topic when goverments get greedy and over Tax the people. Ala Cypress---(ya never gonna get my guns)

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats should hang onto the gun control issue it's a winner.

Poll: Support for stricter gun control wanes - CBS News

Soon after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced an assault weapons ban would not be part of a gun control bill, a new CBS News poll shows support for stricter gun control laws overall has dropped since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats should hang onto the gun control issue it's a winner.

Poll: Support for stricter gun control wanes - CBS News

Soon after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced an assault weapons ban would not be part of a gun control bill, a new CBS News poll shows support for stricter gun control laws overall has dropped since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

It's pretty clear that Reid, etc, had those poll numbers -before- they dropped the proposed AWB, and dropped it -because- of those numbers.

Typical of liberals, putting partisan political power over "the right thing to do".

 

[wjmacguffin]

The bill for the proposed 2013 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included one 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 proposed ban explain with specificity how any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that is unacceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

Can any of the supporters of this proposed ban explain with specificity how the removal of all of these accessories create a rifle that is acceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

I can't speak for all my liberal friends, but here's my two cents.

-Folding or telescoping stock: As described above, it makes the weapon easier to hide and therefore easier to use in crime. Removing it decreases that chance.

-Pistol grip: Not sure, unless they mean a forward grip. In that case, it must make it harder to keep on the target while firing fast and free. I don't see a problem with this per se, but I'm guessing it makes it easier for the gunman to kill. Personally, I don't see a reason for this part of the ban.

-Bayonet mount: Seriously, someone needs a bayonet for hunting? A knife won't suffice? I see this ban as stopping an aspect clearly designed for killing humans in close quarters. A ban would make that scenario harder.

-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one: This hides the flash from firing a weapon. While that could be useful in hunting, it's also useful for snipers or anyone wanting to fire a weapon at people and remain hidden from police. Removing this would remove that scenario.

-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades: You really need someone to tell you why people having rifles that fire grenades is bad? I'm no pacifist and I can support the 2nd Amendment, but grenades are generally illegal for a good reason. Therefore, a ban on something that fires grenades is likewise for a good reason. It makes the chances of someone using grenades much lower.

There, how's that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The bill for the proposed 2013 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included one 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 proposed ban explain with specificity how any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that is unacceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

Can any of the supporters of this proposed ban explain with specificity how the removal of all of these accessories create a rifle that is acceptable for ownership/posession by the general public?

I can't speak for all my liberal friends, but here's my two cents.
-Folding or telescoping stock: As described above, it makes the weapon easier to hide and therefore easier to use in crime. Removing it decreases that chance.

Regardless of the stock, there is a federally mandated minimum length for any rifle.

-Pistol grip: Not sure, unless they mean a forward grip.

They do not. They mean the grip for the had that operates the trigger.

-Bayonet mount: Seriously, someone needs a bayonet for hunting? A knife won't suffice? I see this ban as stopping an aspect clearly designed for killing humans in close quarters. A ban would make that scenario harder.

You have to be kidding - how many people have been killed over the last 50 years w/a mounted bayonet? Three?

-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one: This hides the flash from firing a weapon.

It hides the flash from the shooter so as to not blind him in the dark. Muzzle flash is virtually undetectable at ramges past 150yds w/ or w/o a suppressor.

-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades: You really need someone to tell you why people having rifles that fire grenades is bad

You have to be kidding - how many people have been killed over the last 50 years w/a rifle grenade? One?

There, how's that?

I think it goes a long way to show how the basis for deciding which guns are OK to ban and which ones are not is patently silly, especially given that the semi-automatic and detachable magazne features of the rifle are unaffected by these things.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Regardless of the stock, there is a federally mandated minimum length for any rifle.

Then I'm not sure what the issue is, to be honest.

They do not. They mean the grip for the had that operates the trigger.

I must admit that my ignorance of things gun-related means I really cannot answer this question. I have no idea how a grip affects a rifle.

You have to be kidding - how many people have been killed over the last 50 years w/a mounted bayonet? Three?

You have to be kidding - how many people have been killed over the last 50 years w/a rifle grenade? One?

Then what's the point of having them? Why not ban them since they are dangerous but has no effect on proper use of a rifle?

It hides the flash from the shooter so as to not blind him in the dark. Muzzle flash is virtually undetectable at ramges past 150yds w/ or w/o a suppressor.

If that's true, then it's probably unecessary.

I think it goes a long way to show how the basis for deciding which guns are OK to ban and which ones are not is patently silly, especially given that the semi-automatic and detachable magazne features of the rifle are unaffected by these things.

I don't think the IDEA of deciding which guns to ban and which to allow is silly. At the least, it's a well-intentioned idea that cannot be enforced in the real world. At the best, though, it can save lives while not unnecessarily intruding on 2nd Amendment rights.

As with porn, it's hard to define "assault weapon" for legal purposes. Most people don't want the average citizen having a military grade weapon whose sole purpose is to kill humans. Yet most people also want guns to be legal. So where is the dividing line? I don't know if the list from the OP is correct or not, but as I said, that's mostly because I don't have much expertise in weapons.