Assault weapons ban? Yes

[OKTexas]

There's a well reasoned argument!

Your demonstrated ignorance deserves no more.

That's all you got? Ah the proclamations of the weak minded.

It's very clear that you have no experience with fully automatic weapons, if you had you would be aware that no simi-auto has the same functionality. That makes you the very definition of ignorant.

 

[wihosa]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting...that is where the OP jumps the tracks.

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

You are aware that at the time of the founding of this country and the writing of the Constitution, every weapon was a military weapon and every weapon was used to assault the British, aren't you?

And as far as a large magazine being the same as a machine gun.... What the hell are you smoking. You need to put it down and stop using it before it warps the last two working brain cells you have.

At the time that the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional to ban civilians from machine guns the yield of machine guns was about 100 rounds per minute, about the same as a modern semi-automatic weapon WITH a 100 round magazine.

BTW you are aware that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution it would take an entire battalion to equal the fire power of a modern assault weapon. Allowing these weapons in the town square doesn't seem to jibe with insuring the domestic tranquility as Madison wrote into the Constitution.

 

[Missourian]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting...that is where the OP jumps the tracks.

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Yes, it is. A militia is a type of military unit.

And a semi automatic rifle is nothing like a machine gun.

I've qualified with both, have you shot either, because you sound like a total Dumbass when you spread that kind of manure.

An semi automatic rifle functions EXACTLY like a semi automatic pistol...there is no difference whatsoever.

I have a 9 shot .22 revolver that fires at exactly the same rate and speed as my AR...one round per trigger pull.

 

[wihosa]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting...that is where the OP jumps the tracks.

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Yes, it is. A militia is a type of military unit.

And a semi automatic rifle is nothing like a machine gun.

I've qualified with both, have you shot either, because you sound like a total Dumbass when you spread that kind of manure.

An semi automatic rifle functions EXACTLY like a semi automatic pistol...there is no difference whatsoever.

I have a 9 shot .22 revolver that fires at exactly the same rate and speed as my AR...one round per trigger pull.

All right, now try to pay attention. You are right but with a 100round clip you can squeeze off 100rounds a minute. That's about the same yield as a machine gun when the Supreme Court ruled that is was Constitutional to ban machin guns from civilian ownership. A modern assault weapon with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of a machine gun.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting...that is where the OP jumps the tracks.

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Yes, it is. A militia is a type of military unit.

And a semi automatic rifle is nothing like a machine gun.

I've qualified with both, have you shot either, because you sound like a total Dumbass when you spread that kind of manure.

An semi automatic rifle functions EXACTLY like a semi automatic pistol...there is no difference whatsoever.

I have a 9 shot .22 revolver that fires at exactly the same rate and speed as my AR...one round per trigger pull.

Is that the old High Standard .22 Revolver? I had one for years until my younger brother shot some yellow jackets through it and cracked the cylinder. Never could find a replacement.

 

[wihosa]

Your demonstrated ignorance deserves no more.

That's all you got? Ah the proclamations of the weak minded.

It's very clear that you have no experience with fully automatic weapons, if you had you would be aware that no simi-auto has the same functionality. That makes you the very definition of ignorant.

Do you know what functional equivalent means? I know that a modern fully automatic weapon exceeds the yield of a modern semi auto, but the point is that a modern semi auto is the same as the machine guns that were available at the time that the Supreme Court ruled that automatics could be banned from civilian ownership.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

This would indeed be part of an outline of those supporting an AWB in court. And an AWB would indeed be Constitutional until such time as a court ruled otherwise, which would likely be the case.

Rifles account for a very small percentage of overall gun crime and violence. And AR 15s and similar weapons represent an even smaller percentage. Consequently the state can not document that a ban would have the desired effect of reducing gun violence, and absent a compelling governmental interest a court would have no other choice than to invalidate such a ban.

AR 15s and the like also meet the criterion of being ‘weapons in common use,’ since an overwhelming number of Americans own these rifles, their possession would clearly fall under Second Amendment protection.

 

[OriginalShroom]

That's all you got? Ah the proclamations of the weak minded.

It's very clear that you have no experience with fully automatic weapons, if you had you would be aware that no simi-auto has the same functionality. That makes you the very definition of ignorant.

Do you know what functional equivalent means? I know that a modern fully automatic weapon exceeds the yield of a modern semi auto, but the point is that a modern semi auto is the same as the machine guns that were available at the time that the Supreme Court ruled that automatics could be banned from civilian ownership.

I would love to see you back up your claim.

 

[Missourian]

...what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?

Defense...coyotes...feral hogs...protecting his/her family, neighbors, strangers...targets...

Now we know what is in the mind of the NRA...paranoia. Guns will not give you courage.

What does that mean?

A gun does not give you courage?

How many times do you see the president out and about without the secret service and their guns to protect him...those guns seem to give him courage.

 

[dnsmith35]

Anti gun nuts are just that.

 

[OKTexas]

That's all you got? Ah the proclamations of the weak minded.

It's very clear that you have no experience with fully automatic weapons, if you had you would be aware that no simi-auto has the same functionality. That makes you the very definition of ignorant.

Do you know what functional equivalent means? I know that a modern fully automatic weapon exceeds the yield of a modern semi auto, but the point is that a modern semi auto is the same as the machine guns that were available at the time that the Supreme Court ruled that automatics could be banned from civilian ownership.

You are aware that the supreme court never banned civilians from owning machine guns, right. There are thousand of them legally in civilian hands right now. You keep typing and keep proving my point.

 

[wihosa]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

This would indeed be part of an outline of those supporting an AWB in court. And an AWB would indeed be Constitutional until such time as a court ruled otherwise, which would likely be the case.

Rifles account for a very small percentage of overall gun crime and violence. And AR 15s and similar weapons represent an even smaller percentage. Consequently the state can not document that a ban would have the desired effect of reducing gun violence, and absent a compelling governmental interest a court would have no other choice than to invalidate such a ban.

AR 15s and the like also meet the criterion of being ‘weapons in common use,’ since an overwhelming number of Americans own these rifles, their possession would clearly fall under Second Amendment protection.

Pure speculation on your part to assume the SC would not uphold an AWB, especially in light of the fact that as I keep saying a modern semi auto with a 100magazine is the functional equivalent of the machine guns that were available at the time the SC upheld the ban of fully auto weapons.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Just to enlighten you..

The Original Thompson Submachine gun in 1934 could fire at the rate 1,500 bullets per minute. That was later throttled back to 879 rounds per minute to allow for some accuracy.

I do not know of a single person who can physically squeeze the trigger of any semi-automatic 879 time let alone 1,500 times in 60 seconds.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting...that is where the OP jumps the tracks.

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Actually, it is very much about civilians having military weapons. What do you think "a well-regulated militia" means? Whose responsibility is it to regulate the militia when it gets out of hand. the government's?

Please.

 

[Darkwind]

Assault weapons ban. No.

 

[wihosa]

Defense...coyotes...feral hogs...protecting his/her family, neighbors, strangers...targets...

Now we know what is in the mind of the NRA...paranoia. Guns will not give you courage.

What does that mean?

A gun does not give you courage?

How many times do you see the president out and about without the secret service and their guns to protect him...those guns seem to give him courage.

Cowards cling tightest to their guns. I've raised four children in the Los Angeles area. I've never had a firearm for protection. Anyone trying to sneak into my house will have to deal with my aluminum T-ball bat.

 

[Missourian]

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Yes, it is. A militia is a type of military unit.

And a semi automatic rifle is nothing like a machine gun.

I've qualified with both, have you shot either, because you sound like a total Dumbass when you spread that kind of manure.

An semi automatic rifle functions EXACTLY like a semi automatic pistol...there is no difference whatsoever.

I have a 9 shot .22 revolver that fires at exactly the same rate and speed as my AR...one round per trigger pull.

All right, now try to pay attention. You are right but with a 100round clip you can squeeze off 100rounds a minute. That's about the same yield as a machine gun when the Supreme Court ruled that is was Constitutional to ban machin guns from civilian ownership. A modern assault weapon with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of a machine gun.

Honestly, I don't think you could...I've never seen a C-mag function properly...that is why the military abandon them.

Ban them...I'm not opposed.

I'd compromise with you.

20 round magazines...that's three more than the largest standard pistol magazine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We always hear that assault weapons are no different functionally from semi-automatic hunting rifles. But there is a difference and that is the large capacity magazine. These magazines are not made to fit hunting rifles,they are for assault rifles.
Assault rifles fitted with large capacity magazines are the functional equivalent of machine guns which the Supreme Court has already ruled may be banned for ownership by civilians.
Finally, there is the mentality that is engendered by the use of such weapons. While the hunter imagines himself bringing down a nice duck or pheasant when sighting down the barrel of his hunting rifle, what is it that the owner of an assault weapon sees in his minds eye?
Bring back the assault weapons ban, it's Constitutional and common sense.

magazine capacity has nothing to do with functionality of a firearm that makes it an assault weapon.

And dumb ass the Supreme court has already ruled that the only firearms protected by the second amendment are the very firearms you want to see banned.

 

[Darkwind]

That's all you got? Ah the proclamations of the weak minded.

It's very clear that you have no experience with fully automatic weapons, if you had you would be aware that no simi-auto has the same functionality. That makes you the very definition of ignorant.

Do you know what functional equivalent means? I know that a modern fully automatic weapon exceeds the yield of a modern semi auto, but the point is that a modern semi auto is the same as the machine guns that were available at the time that the Supreme Court ruled that automatics could be banned from civilian ownership.

I am beginning to think that you do not understand the meaning of the phrase "Functional Equivalent".

The only functional equivalence between a machine gun of the 1930's and today's semi-automatic weapons is that they manage to produce one round fired at any one single time.

The automatic weapon of a Thompson machine gun is capable of producing a continuous stream of rounds until the magazine is empty; with the single pull of the trigger.

A semi-automatic rifle requires the trigger to be pulled for each round to be fired. It is nearly impossible for a lay person to pull a trigger at the same speed as a fully automatic weapon. There is nothing functionally equivalent about them.

When using the phrase "functionally equivalent," you are describing an object that is different from another object, but can perform the same functions. For example, a soda machine that can make change for dollar bills is functionally equivalent to a change machine that is designed to make change for dollar bills. Two functionally equivalent things don't necessarily need to be tangible. Ideas and methods can also be functionally equivalent. Two philosophical schools that see the world in different ways but come to the same conclusion could be described as functionally equivalent.

Read more: What Is Functionally Equivalent? | eHow.com What Is Functionally Equivalent? | eHow.com
​

Perhaps you should withhold judgement on the understanding of others until you are certain of your own understanding.

 

[wihosa]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting...that is where the OP jumps the tracks.

It's also not about civilians having military weapons. Assault rifles with large capacity magazines are the equivalent of machine guns.

Actually, it is very much about civilians having military weapons. What do you think "a well-regulated militia" means? Whose responsibility is it to regulate the militia when it gets out of hand. the government's?

Please.

We have a well regulated militia and unless you are in the National Guard you are not part of it. In what way are you "wellregulated"?