Assault weapons ban? Yes

[M14 Shooter]

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"?

I am a member of a well regulated militia, it's called the unorganized militia. Most Americans are a member of the unorganized militia.

Unorganized by definition can not mean well regulated.

Irrevevant.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

News for you - and, this really IS news, becaise I know you do not know this:

Assault rifles are always machineguns, regardless of what size magazine they have.

You are completely unaware of how this fact renders your argument inert.

 

[52ndStreet]

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.

The AR-15 , and AK 47 assault rifles do serve a viable purpose, and there is a need for
these kinds of rifles. The government has no right to ban ownership of these types of weapons, and or high capacity ammo magazines.

In times of civil unrest, or social chaos, an assault rifle with a high capacity ammo magazine would be able to protect a person, and his family and property from gangs of
looters, and or groups of people seeking to invade your property, or coming to
take your food and water.

A seven round clip will serve no purpose what so ever if 15 or 20 people are coming into
your property or home.

A 30 round, or 100 round drum, would be able to effectively fend off many intruders.
You don't have to be a hunter to need an assault rifle. You could just be an average citizen
seeking to be able to defend yourself, your family, and property in case of any type of social unrest, or anarchey.

So I do not accept the argument that these assault rifles, or high capacity ammo magazines are not needed. They are needed,
and required to protect property and life in times of social chaos.

The terrorists already have their fully automatic AK 47 assault rifles, I feel American
should have our fully automatic AR 15's , with out any bans or restrictions.

 

[dnsmith35]

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"?

It is amazing what some people will say out of ignorance of the US Code or their understanding of the 2nd amendment.


10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[52ndStreet]

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"?

It is amazing what some people will say out of ignorance of the US Code or their understanding of the 2nd amendment.


10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Baning assault rifles, and high capacity ammo magazines will negate my ability to form and maintain a States militia.
This would be unconstitutional and illegal.
Any assault weapons, or high capacity ammo magazine ban enacted by any State, in the United States, should be or , is illegal

 

[dnsmith35]

I spent 27 years in the US Army, and was assigned different firearms during different periods of service. I have had an M-1 rifle which was semi-automatic 5 round capacity internal magazine. And M-1A1 Carbine with automatic selector with an external 20 or 30 round magazine. We would tape the magazines back to back such that with a single push of the button the magazine would come out and we would turn it over and reinsert. Training accomplished this in less than 3 seconds. An M-14 semi auto with a 10 or 15 round magazine which could be swapped out in less than 3 seconds. An M-16 semi auto with a 20 round magazine which was even easier to swap out and with practice 2 seconds was enough. On my last assignment I had an M-1911 semi auto pistol and an M-16A2. Magazine swap was easy in 2 seconds and the pistol was good to hold off advance from an opponent while changing magazines on the rifle.

From the Carbine on in 1967, I was capable of doing what was done in Connecticut without ever touching a real Assault rifle, though some of them had that mode of auto or burst fire, even in semi auto mode there was high capacity. As a retiree I have my hunting weapons: Remington 7400 Carbine 30-06, Browning Auto-5 12 ga with rifled barrel, Browning Auto-5 20 ga bird barrel, Lefever double barrel 12 ga 26 in bird barrel and 32 in goose barrel, a 9mm Lugar and a Colt Woodsman 22 cal pistol. For self defense I leave my twice barreled shutzgun in the corner, loaded and ready for bear. It is a much better defense weapon than a rifle or a pistol.

The point is, banning assault rifles will accomplish nothing.

Rifles are used very seldom in homicides and assault rifles only a very small % of those. So what the gun control nuts want to do is ban an entire class of firearms which are involved in firearm violence less than 10 times a year. Wow, you nuts are saving a lot of people, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How long does it take to change a magazine in a rifle?

Longer than it takes to shoot 20 rounds.

You have absolutely -no- idea what you're talking about.

I love it when people who are utterly ignorant about a subjeect try to argue a position on that subject. Please, keep up the good work.

The sword of ignorance cuts both ways.

Yes, the OP has no idea what he’s talking about.

But there are many Second Amendment advocates who are exhibiting their ignorance of the political and legal process, to the detriment of Second Amendment rights.

 

[blackhawk]

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.

There are two problems with the assault weapons ban.
1-The first one put in place in 1994 did little to reduce gun violence.
2-The majority of gun crime is done with handguns not assault weapons so this ban would do nothing to address the real problem.

 

[wihosa]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon (quibble with the term if you want to, I'm using it to denote any weapon that can be fitted with a with a large capacity magazine)? It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.
It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia because they have a gun, well regulated would include training, testing, licensing, reviewing of all weapons owners as well as registration of all weapons. Unless you were in the armed forces its unlikely you have ever had any formal firearms training. And by the way, who do you think the framers had in mind to do the regulating? Let me guess, self regulating right? Kind of like the banks self regulated us into the Great Recession.

Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution is because Madison, Jefferson and others didn't think that the United States should have a standing army. They were afraid it would lead to military adventurism, a la our foolish and so very costly invasion of Iraq. Any of you "originalists" ever make any complaint about that abridgment of the Constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon

Legally, functionaly and practically, they are altogether different.
Only the ignorant/dishonest tries to make a connection between the two.

It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.

This falls under "functionally" and practically" as noted above,
"Assault weapons" fire no faster than a revolver.

It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

This is another lie, or abject ignorance, as the SCotUS has upheld no such ban.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia....
Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution ...

More ignorance/dishonesty.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Your posts do nothing other than enhance the obersation that those who argue for more gun control either know nothing about the subject or have no issue with lying to push an agenda.

 

[Bigfoot]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon (quibble with the term if you want to, I'm using it to denote any weapon that can be fitted with a with a large capacity magazine)? It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.
It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia because they have a gun, well regulated would include training, testing, licensing, reviewing of all weapons owners as well as registration of all weapons. Unless you were in the armed forces its unlikely you have ever had any formal firearms training. And by the way, who do you think the framers had in mind to do the regulating? Let me guess, self regulating right? Kind of like the banks self regulated us into the Great Recession.

Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution is because Madison, Jefferson and others didn't think that the United States should have a standing army. They were afraid it would lead to military adventurism, a la our foolish and so very costly invasion of Iraq. Any of you "originalists" ever make any complaint about that abridgment of the Constitution?

This post is so wrong on many levels and they have all been explained to you several times. Why keep posting this obvious bullshit..oh an agenda, never mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon (quibble with the term if you want to, I'm using it to denote any weapon that can be fitted with a with a large capacity magazine)? It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.
It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia because they have a gun, well regulated would include training, testing, licensing, reviewing of all weapons owners as well as registration of all weapons. Unless you were in the armed forces its unlikely you have ever had any formal firearms training. And by the way, who do you think the framers had in mind to do the regulating? Let me guess, self regulating right? Kind of like the banks self regulated us into the Great Recession.

Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution is because Madison, Jefferson and others didn't think that the United States should have a standing army. They were afraid it would lead to military adventurism, a la our foolish and so very costly invasion of Iraq. Any of you "originalists" ever make any complaint about that abridgment of the Constitution?

This post is so wrong on many levels and they have all been explained to you several times. Why keep posting this obvious bullshit..oh an agenda, never mind.

Like all useful idiots, his masters' agenda is more important to him than knowledge and honesty.

 

[wihosa]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon (quibble with the term if you want to, I'm using it to denote any weapon that can be fitted with a with a large capacity magazine)? It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.
It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia because they have a gun, well regulated would include training, testing, licensing, reviewing of all weapons owners as well as registration of all weapons. Unless you were in the armed forces its unlikely you have ever had any formal firearms training. And by the way, who do you think the framers had in mind to do the regulating? Let me guess, self regulating right? Kind of like the banks self regulated us into the Great Recession.

Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution is because Madison, Jefferson and others didn't think that the United States should have a standing army. They were afraid it would lead to military adventurism, a la our foolish and so very costly invasion of Iraq. Any of you "originalists" ever make any complaint about that abridgment of the Constitution?

This post is so wrong on many levels and they have all been explained to you several times. Why keep posting this obvious bullshit..oh an agenda, never mind.

What is bullshit is your refusal to admit that one of the features and really the most important feature that distinguishes a machine gun from one that is not is its large capacity magazine. Yes machine guns are "mounted" and sub machine guns are hand held but without a large capacity magazine they would simply be automatic weapons. An automatic weapon with a ten round clip is not really any more dangerous than a semi auto with a ten round clip. It's the size of the mag that makes the difference. Weapons designed to accept large capacity magazines should not be in the hands of civilians.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is bullshit is your refusal to admit that one of the features and really the most important feature that distinguishes a machine gun from one that is not is its large capacity magazine.

No. The distinguishing characteristic is the capcity to fire full-auto.

Like all useful idiots, your masters' agenda is more important to you than knowledge and honesty.

 

[dnsmith35]

It takes more than a large capacity magazine to make it an assault weapon. It also takes more than semi-automatic to make it an assault weapon. Many look a likes have been called assault weapons erroneously. The most important tell is the mode of fire; either burst of 3 or full automatic are required to be a true assault weapon.

The issue of the magazine is separate and should be addressed separately. But even so, banning large capacity magazines does little to make the shooter less lethal as anyone with a little experience can use smaller capacity mags to do as much or more damage than one with a large magazine. According to the State Police in Connecticut, the shooter at the school changed magazines 3 times. He obviously did the change fast enough to prevent anyone from stopping him.

That said, I have no problem with large capacity magazines being banned. I don't need one and haven't since my last combat tour in the Army. Even then shooting many times without changing mags was more a convenience than a need. A shooter can hit more targets shooting one aimed shot at a time than rapid fire burst or full auto.

When ever I read about some gun control freak wanting to ban assault weapons I have to laugh at the ignorance behind his interest.

And when I hear of gun control freaks whining about militias not existing unless the people are trained I laugh again at their ignorance and just refer them to the US Code 10 Para 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (This latter militia consists of warm bodies of the proper age who will be trained by professionals as needed or OJT if required)

 

[wihosa]

It takes more than a large capacity magazine to make it an assault weapon. It also takes more than semi-automatic to make it an assault weapon. Many look a likes have been called assault weapons erroneously. The most important tell is the mode of fire; either burst of 3 or full automatic are required to be a true assault weapon.

The issue of the magazine is separate and should be addressed separately. But even so, banning large capacity magazines does little to make the shooter less lethal as anyone with a little experience can use smaller capacity mags to do as much or more damage than one with a large magazine. According to the State Police in Connecticut, the shooter at the school changed magazines 3 times. He obviously did the change fast enough to prevent anyone from stopping him.

That said, I have no problem with large capacity magazines being banned. I don't need one and haven't since my last combat tour in the Army. Even then shooting many times without changing mags was more a convenience than a need. A shooter can hit more targets shooting one aimed shot at a time than rapid fire burst or full auto.

When ever I read about some gun control freak wanting to ban assault weapons I have to laugh at the ignorance behind his interest.

And when I hear of gun control freaks whining about militias not existing unless the people are trained I laugh again at their ignorance and just refer them to the US Code 10 Para 311.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (This latter militia consists of warm bodies of the proper age who will be trained by professionals as needed or OJT if required)

Again, stop getting bogged down by the definition of an assault weapon, it's the amount of rounds available to be fired without stopping. Call the gun what you like. But ban weapons which accept large capacity mags and ban the magazines. It's Constitutional and common sense.
And for all you who are going to say so what, you could just carry extra 10 round clips, well don't forget that in the Gabby Giffords shooting the gunman was only stopped when he had to reload.

 

[wihosa]

What is bullshit is your refusal to admit that one of the features and really the most important feature that distinguishes a machine gun from one that is not is its large capacity magazine.

No. The distinguishing characteristic is the capcity to fire full-auto.

Like all useful idiots, your masters' agenda is more important to you than knowledge and honesty.

A machine gun with only one round in it wouldn't be much of a machine would it? A hundred round magazine in a semi auto could be emptied in a minute, it's the uninterrupted fire that makes them similar.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is bullshit is your refusal to admit that one of the features and really the most important feature that distinguishes a machine gun from one that is not is its large capacity magazine.

No. The distinguishing characteristic is the capcity to fire full-auto.
Like all useful idiots, your masters' agenda is more important to you than knowledge and honesty.

A machine gun with only one round in it wouldn't be much of a machine would it? A hundred round magazine in a semi auto could be emptied in a minute, it's the uninterrupted fire that makes them similar.

Like all useful idiots, your masters' agenda is more important to you than knowledge and honesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But ban weapons which accept large capacity mags and ban the magazines. It's Constitutional and common sense.

You can neither show that any such ban is constitutional, nor that there is any sense to it.

 

[Bigfoot]

So not one of you supposed experts can see the equivalence between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon (quibble with the term if you want to, I'm using it to denote any weapon that can be fitted with a with a large capacity magazine)? It's about the uninterrupted stream of fire.
It was this devastating firepower that led the Supreme Court to allow the banning of such weapons of mass destruction for civilian ownership.

As for those who think they are part of a well regulated militia because they have a gun, well regulated would include training, testing, licensing, reviewing of all weapons owners as well as registration of all weapons. Unless you were in the armed forces its unlikely you have ever had any formal firearms training. And by the way, who do you think the framers had in mind to do the regulating? Let me guess, self regulating right? Kind of like the banks self regulated us into the Great Recession.

Finally, the reason that well regulated militias are mentioned in the Constitution is because Madison, Jefferson and others didn't think that the United States should have a standing army. They were afraid it would lead to military adventurism, a la our foolish and so very costly invasion of Iraq. Any of you "originalists" ever make any complaint about that abridgment of the Constitution?

This post is so wrong on many levels and they have all been explained to you several times. Why keep posting this obvious bullshit..oh an agenda, never mind.

What is bullshit is your refusal to admit that one of the features and really the most important feature that distinguishes a machine gun from one that is not is its large capacity magazine. Yes machine guns are "mounted" and sub machine guns are hand held but without a large capacity magazine they would simply be automatic weapons. An automatic weapon with a ten round clip is not really any more dangerous than a semi auto with a ten round clip. It's the size of the mag that makes the difference. Weapons designed to accept large capacity magazines should not be in the hands of civilians.

You are ignorant and full of bullshit. You do not know what you are talking about.