Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal backs banning assault weapons

[JustTheFacts]

"Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages."

So until it's defined how you can ban it?

For purposes of THIS discussion, assault weapon has already been defined.


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.


now certainly we can debate if those definitions are correct, but we can't debate whether the term has been defined or not. It's right there in black and white.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the old cosmetic definitions

Because a flash suppressor and pistol grip make it easy to kill higher numbers of people

The old definition was bullshit, and to re-use it again is bullshit

What the fuck are you even talking about? Did you read where I wrote that I am opposed to banning ANYTHING? That doesn't negate the fact that assault weapon has already been defined.

And read again where I further said yes we can debate whether the definition is correct or not, but obviously it exists.

God stupid people just kill me.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Oh look... another mindless thread on gun control.

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal backed banning assault weapons on Tuesday, saying guns like the M4 and M16 belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets.

1: So what?
2: How many legally owned M16 and M4s have been used in a crime?
3: How will the sales of M16s and M4s will affected by an 'assault weapon' ban?

And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

So what?
So does the Remington M700 and a zillion other rifles.
MOST rifles shoot heavier bullets that do a LOT more damage than .223/5.56x45

He added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.

So what?

I'm assuming that you're military or ex military and so understand that the .223 round , due to its particular tumbling motion is a scary fucking round. I'd rather be shot with two .22 rounds than a single .223.

Not that has shit to do with banning anything, just a point that needs made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heller was directed at the STATES, not the federal government. and the overriding conclusion is that states cannot outright ban weapons that are seen as common to use by civillians. A semi auto rifle is not a crew serviced weapon, it is an "arm" and thus protected by the 2nd amendment.

That opinion can easily be interpreted to be binding on the federal government as well. Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities.

semi autos are in "common use" and thus are protected. Large capacity magazines are in "common use" and are thus protected.

It is imposible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' are not among the very best examples of the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd.

The very best examples, BTW, would be the M16/M4.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm assuming that you're military or ex military and so understand that the .223 round , due to its particular tumbling motion is a scary fucking round. I'd rather be shot with two .22 rounds than a single .223.

Standard load 44 magnum rounds have about the same muzzle energy as .223/5.56x45
If .223/5.56x45 scares you, the thought of a .300 Weatherby magnum must cause you to pass out.

 

[JustTheFacts]

That opinion can easily be interpreted to be binding on the federal government as well. Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities.

semi autos are in "common use" and thus are protected. Large capacity magazines are in "common use" and are thus protected.

It is imposible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' are not among the very best examples of the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd.

The very best examples, BTW, would be the M16/M4.

I believe we need a new amendent which specifically says you can not outright keep an American from owning any single person weapon platform unless , and then list the various reasons we all obviously agree a person shouldn't be allowed to own so much as a BB gun for.

The 2nd is just too damned murky, we need clearer protection, one that no one can argue with. one that gives no reason whatsoever why a person might need such gun, just that they have the right to it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I'm assuming that you're military or ex military and so understand that the .223 round , due to its particular tumbling motion is a scary fucking round. I'd rather be shot with two .22 rounds than a single .223.

Standard load 44 magnum rounds have about the same muzzle energy as .223/5.56x45
If .223/5.56x45 scares you, the thought of a .300 Weatherby magnum must cause you to pass out.

Okay, perhaps fear was't the right word. More like respect. And muzzle velocity isn't everything. All things being equal you have a better chance of surviving a through and through from a .44 than you do from a spiraling .223.

Of course the .223 has its own limitations , namely its size, but for what it does it is quite effective, and certainly a deadlier round than a standard .22; which is all I was saying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has been able convincingly to dispute "Heller 1(F) opens the door for expansion of the right of Congress to limit certain weapon types and magazine capacities." Not even half convincingly.

 

[DiamondDave]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

Magazine is not responsible for fire rate..

/end thread

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe we need a new amendent which specifically says you can not outright keep an American from owning any single person weapon platform unless , and then list the various reasons we all obviously agree a person shouldn't be allowed to own so much as a BB gun for.

The 2nd is just too damned murky, we need clearer protection, one that no one can argue with. one that gives no reason whatsoever why a person might need such gun, just that they have the right to it.

All of the amendments are murky.

The clearest and most approrpriate means of evaluating a restrictionon the 2nd is to apply the jusripridence from the 1st, specifically the concept of prior restraint and that rights may be limited only when they (wrongly) cause harm to others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

 

[DiamondDave]

For purposes of THIS discussion, assault weapon has already been defined.


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.


now certainly we can debate if those definitions are correct, but we can't debate whether the term has been defined or not. It's right there in black and white.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the old cosmetic definitions

Because a flash suppressor and pistol grip make it easy to kill higher numbers of people

The old definition was bullshit, and to re-use it again is bullshit

What the fuck are you even talking about? Did you read where I wrote that I am opposed to banning ANYTHING? That doesn't negate the fact that assault weapon has already been defined.

And read again where I further said yes we can debate whether the definition is correct or not, but obviously it exists.

God stupid people just kill me.

What I said is the old definition is bullshit, and to use it again is bullshit

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

Magazine is not responsible for fire rate../end thread

Yes, you have added nothing of worth for you points and only destroyed them, DiamondDave.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

Magazine is not responsible for fire rate../end thread

Yes, you have added nothing of worth for you points and only destroyed them, DiamondDave.

Jake knows as much about firearms as he does about the Heller decision

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, perhaps fear was't the right word. More like respect. And muzzle velocity isn't everything. All things being equal you have a better chance of surviving a through and through from a .44 than you do from a spiraling .223.

You don't use the right .44M rounds.

I'm sure you know that you WANT the bullet to stop in the body so that it transfers all of its energy -- all thngs being equal, I'd rather take a thru/thru from a .223 over a .429" 240gr Golden Saber that stops in my body.

Of course the .223 has its own limitations , namely its size, but for what it does it is quite effective, and certainly a deadlier round than a standard .22; which is all I was saying.

All true.

 

[DiamondDave]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."

The answer is "yes".

Magazine is not responsible for fire rate../end thread

Yes, you have added nothing of worth for you points and only destroyed them, DiamondDave.

I have added, of course, that the question and premise are nothing more than bullshit

But then again, you as a sow, love to wallow in shit

 

[M14 Shooter]

Magazine is not responsible for fire rate../end thread

Yes, you have added nothing of worth for you points and only destroyed them, DiamondDave.

I have added, of course, that the question and premise are nothing more than bullshit

But then again, you as a sow, love to wallow in shit

Jake's posts are best read thru the ignore filter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are an oink yourself, DD.

What will happen is this: nothing until some so terrible happens that the American people rise up and storm the Congress demanding action.

 

[Synthaholic]

I caught McChrystal on Morning Joe this morning. I hope some people who oppose any gun sense in this country will consider the words of a soldier.

Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action' - YouTube

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal backed banning assault weapons on Tuesday, saying guns like the M4 and M16 belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets.

”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

He added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

Read more: Stanley McChrystal backs gun restrictions - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government"
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

He must hate America!

 

[DiamondDave]

You are an oink yourself, DD.

What will happen is this: nothing until some so terrible happens that the American people rise up and storm the Congress demanding action.

You can demand action all you want.. and you can punish the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.... you cannot take away non-military grade weaponry (hand held firearms) from the law abiding populace

And you indeed know NOTHING about what weapons do

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question is "do we ban weapons that are configured so when fixed with a large magazine capacity deliver an incredibly high rate of fire."\
The answer is "yes".

Magazine is not responsible for fire rate..
/end thread

Absolutely true.
ROF is determined by the design of the action, not the capacity of the magazine.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I believe we need a new amendent which specifically says you can not outright keep an American from owning any single person weapon platform unless , and then list the various reasons we all obviously agree a person shouldn't be allowed to own so much as a BB gun for.

The 2nd is just too damned murky, we need clearer protection, one that no one can argue with. one that gives no reason whatsoever why a person might need such gun, just that they have the right to it.

All of the amendments are murky.

The clearest and most approrpriate means of evaluating a restrictionon the 2nd is to apply the jusripridence from the 1st, specifically the concept of prior restraint and that rights may be limited only when they (wrongly) cause harm to others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

no, not all amendments are murky. People may try to make all amendments murky but only the 2nd manages that on its own.

for example , does the first give any sort of half assed attempt to explain why we should have freedom of religion? Freedom of speech?

I mean , my argument is we don't need to have a reason to own guns. Meanwhile gun haters are demanding that we give valid reasons for wanting to and gun owners are desperately trying to justify said ownership.

If the whole phrase about the militia wasn't included and the 2nd simply read

"The American people have a right to own single person weapons platforms and said right can NOT be taken away unless
"

then list those reasons

and what would these gun grabbers have to argue about?

I mean think man............

The founding fathers were far from perfect and the 2nd was far from their best work.


The ironic part is the fathers themselves understood that they're work wasn't perfect and would need some work as time progressed, that is why they included a process for doing so. Truly the amendment process was the most brilliant thing they did.

This adamant refusal by so many to look outside their own preconstructed box is going to destroy this country man.