Assault weapons

[RetiredGySgt]

Lots of talk of assault weapons yet no definition.

One of you people that wants to ban assault weapons care to define what they are?

 

[Article 15]

Ask governor Romney, a presidential candidate who has actually banned assault weapons.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Dat's dem dere scary ass guns whuts been doin all them a salts right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ask governor Romney, a presidential candidate who has actually banned assault weapons.

He isn't here. I want someone to define the term. Someone that thinks they should be banned would be good.

The reason I ask is because there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Even when the Fed banned them they did not have an actual description. Rather a list of weapon features that if any 3 were on the weapon suddenly it was an assault weapon. Stuff like detachable magazine, bayonet stud, flash suppressor or folding stock.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lots of talk of assault weapons yet no definition.

One of you people that wants to ban assault weapons care to define what they are?

A semi automatic firearm with a magazine holding 100 high velocity projectiles and little recoil. Imagine what General Washington might have done if he had these weapons and 100-round magazines.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lots of talk of assault weapons yet no definition.

One of you people that wants to ban assault weapons care to define what they are?

A semi automatic firearm with a magazine holding 100 high velocity projectiles and little recoil. Imagine what General Washington might have done if he had these weapons and 100-round magazines.

That would be every semi automatic with detachable magazines. Further you have not defined the weapon you have defined the magazine. Once again if you want these weapons made illegal you will need an amendment to the Constitution since the Supreme Court has made rulings that clearly make them protected.

 

[Article 15]

Ask governor Romney, a presidential candidate who has actually banned assault weapons.

He isn't here. I want someone to define the term. Someone that thinks they should be banned would be good.

The reason I ask is because there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Even when the Fed banned them they did not have an actual description. Rather a list of weapon features that if any 3 were on the weapon suddenly it was an assault weapon. Stuff like detachable magazine, bayonet stud, flash suppressor or folding stock.

According to Mitt Romney there is such thing as an assault weapon and he banned some of them. How many gun bans has Obama implemented?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lots of talk of assault weapons yet no definition.

One of you people that wants to ban assault weapons care to define what they are?

A semi automatic firearm with a magazine holding 100 high velocity projectiles and little recoil. Imagine what General Washington might have done if he had these weapons and 100-round magazines.

That would be every semi automatic with detachable magazines. Further you have not defined the weapon you have defined the magazine. Once again if you want these weapons made illegal you will need an amendment to the Constitution since the Supreme Court has made rulings that clearly make them protected.

No I defined the weapon, high velocity, maximum damage to the target, little recoil, simply point and shot - 100 rounds in less than a minute. Or, if you prefer, eight rounds in less than 10 seconds. The perfect tool for the mass murderer.

No citizen needs such a weapon, especially one with such a high capacity magazine. I know some on the right have this fantasy of defending the homeland from the Federal Government. With the technology and fire power of our armed forces... good luck with that.

 

[Moonglow]

You can make a semi, into an auto.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

So your opinion is that all weapons are actually the same, and simply do not need to be treated differently? Say you were teaching a child to shoot, would you give him a .22 rifle or an AR-15 with a 100-round mag? Under your logic, since both are just guns why should you have any reason to train said child on a .22 rifle instead of a AR-15?

They're both basically the same thing, according to you at least.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You can make a semi, into an auto.

Yet a semi fires fast enough and is easier to train on a target.

 

[theHawk]

A knife is an assault weapon.

 

[Oddball]

So your opinion is that all weapons are actually the same, and simply do not need to be treated differently? Say you were teaching a child to shoot, would you give him a .22 rifle or an AR-15 with a 100-round mag? Under your logic, since both are just guns why should you have any reason to train said child on a .22 rifle instead of a AR-15?

They're both basically the same thing, according to you at least.

Under your "logic" (for lack of a better term) we're to treat adults as children....Except, of course, for lolberal do-gooders, who are presumed to be the only adults anywhere.

 

[theHawk]

No citizen needs such a weapon, especially one with such a high capacity magazine. I know some on the right have this fantasy of defending the homeland from the Federal Government. With the technology and fire power of our armed forces... good luck with that.

How about the ability to defend yourself, your family and your home from a home invasion?

The second amendment is mainly for self defense, not just defense against our own government.

Also, if small arms never stand a chance against a superior force with technology then why have we had such problems in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[theHawk]

So your opinion is that all weapons are actually the same, and simply do not need to be treated differently? Say you were teaching a child to shoot, would you give him a .22 rifle or an AR-15 with a 100-round mag? Under your logic, since both are just guns why should you have any reason to train said child on a .22 rifle instead of a AR-15?

They're both basically the same thing, according to you at least.

No he is saying why isn't a .22 rifle considered an "assault weapon" since it be used to kill someone?

 

[theHawk]

Looks like the Hussein will be going after AKs:

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

Obama takes on gun violence in New Orleans speech – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

How about in the hands of law abiding citizens Mr. President? Or are they all counted as "criminals"?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like the Hussein will be going after AKs:

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

Obama takes on gun violence in New Orleans speech – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

How about in the hands of law abiding citizens Mr. President? Or are they all counted as "criminals"?

Your last three posts are senseless.

Many times the gun owner's set argues that simply brandishing a firearm prevents crime XXX times a day. Of course there is very little evidence to prove such an assertion, but the point is, if true, any weapon can be used as a deterrent.

An assault weapon is one where the energy expanded by the first round is used to chamber the next round and the next. Allowing the weapon to fire as fast as the finger can pull the trigger. With a large magazine such a weapon can fire dozens of missiles as fast as the shooter curl their finger.

An assault weapon has very little recoil, allowing even a novice shooter the ability to train the weapon on targets with ease.

Obama cannot set aside the Second Amendment or make a a gun control law. He can advocate for such a law but only the congress can create legislation. Nice try though, the Gays, Guns, God and Tax arguments are all you people on the far right have; in time even the people fooled all of the time will wake up.

 

[theHawk]

Looks like the Hussein will be going after AKs:

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

Obama takes on gun violence in New Orleans speech – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

How about in the hands of law abiding citizens Mr. President? Or are they all counted as "criminals"?

Your last three posts are senseless.

Many times the gun owner's set argues that simply brandishing a firearm prevents crime XXX times a day. Of course there is very little evidence to prove such an assertion, but the point is, if true, any weapon can be used as a deterrent.

An assault weapon is one where the energy expanded by the first round is used to chamber the next round and the next. Allowing the weapon to fire as fast as the finger can pull the trigger. With a large magazine such a weapon can fire dozens of missiles as fast as the shooter curl their finger.

An assault weapon has very little recoil, allowing even a novice shooter the ability to train the weapon on targets with ease.

Obama cannot set aside the Second Amendment or make a a gun control law. He can advocate for such a law but only the congress can create legislation. Nice try though, the Gays, Guns, God and Tax arguments are all you people on the far right have; in time even the people fooled all of the time will wake up.

I'll take that to mean you can't refute anything I have posted so far.

"An assault weapon has very little recoil". So if a machine gun has huge recoil, its not an assault weapon? Yea, that makes a lot of sense....

Also, if you think an 80 year old woman can deter a thug with a knife just as effectively as with a firearm, then you truely are beyond reasoning.

There is no reason to believe Obama wouldn't pass a law that violates the Constitution, he already has. Yes, I know he can't do it on his own, never said otherwise. But if can't get any laws passed then why is he even running for another four years?

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Looks like the Hussein will be going after AKs:



Obama takes on gun violence in New Orleans speech – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

How about in the hands of law abiding citizens Mr. President? Or are they all counted as "criminals"?

Your last three posts are senseless.

Many times the gun owner's set argues that simply brandishing a firearm prevents crime XXX times a day. Of course there is very little evidence to prove such an assertion, but the point is, if true, any weapon can be used as a deterrent.

An assault weapon is one where the energy expanded by the first round is used to chamber the next round and the next. Allowing the weapon to fire as fast as the finger can pull the trigger. With a large magazine such a weapon can fire dozens of missiles as fast as the shooter curl their finger.

An assault weapon has very little recoil, allowing even a novice shooter the ability to train the weapon on targets with ease.

Obama cannot set aside the Second Amendment or make a a gun control law. He can advocate for such a law but only the congress can create legislation. Nice try though, the Gays, Guns, God and Tax arguments are all you people on the far right have; in time even the people fooled all of the time will wake up.

I'll take that to mean you can't refute anything I have posted so far.

"An assault weapon has very little recoil". So if a machine gun has huge recoil, its not an assault weapon? Yea, that makes a lot of sense....

Also, if you think an 80 year old woman can deter a thug with a knife just as effectively as with a firearm, then you truely are beyond reasoning.

There is no reason to believe Obama wouldn't pass a law that violates the Constitution, he already has. Yes, I know he can't do it on his own, never said otherwise. But if can't get any laws passed then why is he even running for another four years?

"An assault weapon has very little recoil". So if a machine gun has huge recoil, its not an assault weapon? Yea, that makes a lot of sense....

HE JUST EXPLAINED THAT.

the energy expanded by the first round is used to chamber the next round and the next. Allowing the weapon to fire as fast as the finger can pull the trigger.

Is that how a machine gun operates? No

 

[Nosmo King]

Looks like the Hussein will be going after AKs:

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

Obama takes on gun violence in New Orleans speech – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

How about in the hands of law abiding citizens Mr. President? Or are they all counted as "criminals"?

How about an RPG? How about a flame thrower? Or a bazooka? An M-1 A-1 Abrams tank or a nuclear warhead? Some weapons belong in "well regulated militia(s)" and some belong in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Now, what type of weaponry meets the "Needs" of a law abiding citizen? Hunting, target shooting, home defense. Any of those activities 'need' something capable of firing more than 20 rounds before reloading?