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.
`The well regulated militia today is the NG.
All citizens were armed back then, not all citizens were part of the militia.
All able bodied men were to have an arm at their home in case of war against another state, the French, the Brits or the Indians.
Yes and women and children and older men had firearms and knew how to use them.
The right of the people not just the militias.
All citizens were armed back then, not all citizens were part of the militia.
All able bodied men were to have an arm at their home in case of war against another state, the French, the Brits or the Indians.
Yes and women and children and older men had firearms and knew how to use them.
The right of the people not just the militias.
We live in a different world today, would you agree? We do not live without electricity, telephone, or even autos.
We call 911. They didn't have 911 in those days.
All citizens were armed back then, not all citizens were part of the militia.
All able bodied men were to have an arm at their home in case of war against another state, the French, the Brits or the Indians.
Yes and women and children and older men had firearms and knew how to use them.
The right of the people not just the militias.
We live in a different world today, would you agree? We do not live without electricity, telephone, or even autos.
We call 911. They didn't have 911 in those days.
All citizens were armed back then, not all citizens were part of the militia.
All able bodied men were to have an arm at their home in case of war against another state, the French, the Brits or the Indians.
Yes and women and children and older men had firearms and knew how to use them.
The right of the people not just the militias.
We live in a different world today, would you agree? We do not live without electricity, telephone, or even autos.
We call 911. They didn't have 911 in those days.
Then take it to the Supreme Court that has ruled the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.
We had assault weapons back then, so the basic principal for the reason is the same.
People need to educate themselves on the Puckle gun and the Lorenzoni pistol.
All citizens were armed back then, not all citizens were part of the militia.
All able bodied men were to have an arm at their home in case of war against another state, the French, the Brits or the Indians.
Yes and women and children and older men had firearms and knew how to use them.
The right of the people not just the militias.
We live in a different world today, would you agree? We do not live without electricity, telephone, or even autos.
We call 911. They didn't have 911 in those days.
they didn't have telephones, either
Your statement implies eventual confiscation. A ban on further sale, trade, importation, manufacture and distribution simply stops the flow of such weapons.What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.
To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:
The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.
The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.
And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.
If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?
Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.
Remember, no law I said a panacea. Speed limit laws have not eliminated speeding. Laws prohibiting fraud or perjury have not, God knows, stopped tho 9se crimes. But laws have been proven to slow the incidence of crime.
Your statement implies eventual confiscation. A ban on further sale, trade, importation, manufacture and distribution simply stops the flow of such weapons.What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.
To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:
The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.
The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.
And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.
If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?
Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.
Remember, no law I said a panacea. Speed limit laws have not eliminated speeding. Laws prohibiting fraud or perjury have not, God knows, stopped tho 9se crimes. But laws have been proven to slow the incidence of crime.
How many mass shootings have there been using semiautomatic rifles?...four?...five? Newtown, Aurora, Las Vegas, this one, and I think I'm missing one.
There are approximately six million AR15 type firearms legally owned in the U.S.
Those six or ten or twenty individuals who want to kill people...they are going to find a way, just like those terrorists who used the truck as a weapon, or the gas attack on the subway or the Columbine shooters who had propane tank bombs.
Just take a look on the internet:
Hell...give me a 10 lbs bag of flour and 10 minutes, and I can demolish your house.
Point being...banning a weapon that 99.99992% of legal owner are using legally and responsibly is not only not a pancea... will solve nothing. The next mass killer will just use something else.
Your statement implies eventual confiscation. A ban on further sale, trade, importation, manufacture and distribution simply stops the flow of such weapons.What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.
To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:
The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.
The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.
And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.
If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?
Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.
Remember, no law I said a panacea. Speed limit laws have not eliminated speeding. Laws prohibiting fraud or perjury have not, God knows, stopped those crimes. But laws have been proven to slow the incidence of crime.
How many mass shootings have there been using semiautomatic rifles?...four?...five? Newtown, Aurora, Las Vegas, this one, and I think I'm missing one.
There are approximately six million AR15 type firearms legally owned in the U.S.
Those six or ten or twenty individuals who want to kill people...they are going to find a way, just like those terrorists who used the truck as a weapon, or the gas attack on the subway or the Columbine shooters who had propane tank bombs.
Just take a look on the internet:
Hell...all purpose flour is an explosive.
Point being...banning a weapon the 99.9999999996% of legal owner are using legally and responsibly in not only not a pancea... will solve nothing. The next mass killer will just use something else.
Your statement implies eventual confiscation. A ban on further sale, trade, importation, manufacture and distribution simply stops the flow of such weapons.What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.
If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?
Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.
Remember, no law I said a panacea. Speed limit laws have not eliminated speeding. Laws prohibiting fraud or perjury have not, God knows, stopped tho 9se crimes. But laws have been proven to slow the incidence of crime.
How many mass shootings have there been using semiautomatic rifles?...four?...five? Newtown, Aurora, Las Vegas, this one, and I think I'm missing one.
There are approximately six million AR15 type firearms legally owned in the U.S.
Those six or ten or twenty individuals who want to kill people...they are going to find a way, just like those terrorists who used the truck as a weapon, or the gas attack on the subway or the Columbine shooters who had propane tank bombs.
Just take a look on the internet:
Hell...give me a 10 lbs bag of flour and 10 minutes, and I can demolish your house.
Point being...banning a weapon that 99.99992% of legal owner are using legally and responsibly is not only not a pancea... will solve nothing. The next mass killer will just use something else.
It's worth a try! To paraphrase U2: Wednesday, Bloody Wednesday, How long, how long must we sing this song, how long, how lo-o-o-ong...?
Your statement implies eventual confiscation. A ban on further sale, trade, importation, manufacture and distribution simply stops the flow of such weapons.What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.
If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?
Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.
Remember, no law I said a panacea. Speed limit laws have not eliminated speeding. Laws prohibiting fraud or perjury have not, God knows, stopped those crimes. But laws have been proven to slow the incidence of crime.
How many mass shootings have there been using semiautomatic rifles?...four?...five? Newtown, Aurora, Las Vegas, this one, and I think I'm missing one.
There are approximately six million AR15 type firearms legally owned in the U.S.
Those six or ten or twenty individuals who want to kill people...they are going to find a way, just like those terrorists who used the truck as a weapon, or the gas attack on the subway or the Columbine shooters who had propane tank bombs.
Just take a look on the internet:
Hell...all purpose flour is an explosive.
Point being...banning a weapon the 99.9999999996% of legal owner are using legally and responsibly in not only not a pancea... will solve nothing. The next mass killer will just use something else.
gay club in Florida
Semiautomatic pistols were used to kill the students at Virginia Tech. So I propose that all such pistols have to have a magazine that cannot be changed in under at least a minute. That would give the victims time to take the crazy down. As for the war guns, any semi-auto with a large clip can fire very rapidly, therefore limit the number of shells that a clip for a Browning hunting rifle can hold to five. And simply make a class 3 license neccessary to have a gun such as an AR 15 off your property. With a term in the Federal Pen should you be caught with said gun without a license.The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.
To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:
The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.
The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.
And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller. That's the reason the 1994 ban was a cosmetic, not a platform ban. It was a workaround.
Interesting idea though.
Stupid bastard, if someone attacks me with one of those, I have a chance of taking him down. If he comes at me with an AR or AK, no chance at all. And none of those can kill from 400 yards.These have all been used as assault weapons......
3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home
Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'
Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN
Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...
Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel
This thread was asking what an assault weapon is. I provided some examples showing how it can be anything used to harm or kill people.Stupid bastard, if someone attacks me with one of those, I have a chance of taking him down. If he comes at me with an AR or AK, no chance at all. And none of those can kill from 400 yards.These have all been used as assault weapons......
3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home
Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'
Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN
Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...
Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel
Semiautomatic pistols were used to kill the students at Virginia Tech. So I propose that all such pistols have to have a magazine that cannot be changed in under at least a minute. That would give the victims time to take the crazy down. As for the war guns, any semi-auto with a large clip can fire very rapidly, therefore limit the number of shells that a clip for a Browning hunting rifle can hold to five. And simply make a class 3 license neccessary to have a gun such as an AR 15 off your property. With a term in the Federal Pen should you be caught with said gun without a license.The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.
To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:
The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.
The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.
And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller. That's the reason the 1994 ban was a cosmetic, not a platform ban. It was a workaround.
Interesting idea though.
Semiautomatic pistols were used to kill the students at Virginia Tech. So I propose that all such pistols have to have a magazine that cannot be changed in under at least a minute. That would give the victims time to take the crazy down. As for the war guns, any semi-auto with a large clip can fire very rapidly, therefore limit the number of shells that a clip for a Browning hunting rifle can hold to five. And simply make a class 3 license neccessary to have a gun such as an AR 15 off your property. With a term in the Federal Pen should you be caught with said gun without a license.The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.
To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:
The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.
The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.
And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.
Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.
Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller. That's the reason the 1994 ban was a cosmetic, not a platform ban. It was a workaround.
Interesting idea though.
I just don't see how that helps. If someone has the intention to kill people, they just bring more guns. Magazines are only proprietary where they fit in the receiver. Anyone with any mechanical ability could cut four or five and with a little experimentation make a magazine any size they wanted.
Lastly. Unless police find a way to x-ray every car, person and bag...a law isn't going to stop a mass shooter from taking a gun anywhere...it's just another "gun free zone" law.
you forgot these deadly weapons that kill more people annually than to all rifles (even those black scary one) combinedThese have all been used as assault weapons......
3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home
Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'
Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN
Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...
Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel
