For those that support banning 'assault weapns'

[M14 Shooter]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

 

[Desperado]

Because looks are more important than performance.
The cosmetic items you list make the gun look scary
Common sense has left the building when it comes to guns now.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And no one hunts with scary guns, so they really shouldn't have them.

I'm thinking someplace overrun with liberal bloodsuckers like Chick-ah-goh might just make a perfect target-rich environment.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hollywood loves scary guns.

"Say hello to my little friend...."

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Assault weapons" is a propaganda term. There is no such thing.

 

[saveliberty]

Well Mr. Shooter, they go bang really fast and my they have these really hot metal things flying out of them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why do you bother asking real questions, the grabbers are not being objective and are not using either their brains or common sense. Hell the fact that less then 500 murders in a year are committed with ANY rifle, much less an "assault" rifle escapes their pea brains.


And what I really love are the toadies that pretend to support the second demanding we acquiesce to more controls.

The Supreme Court is clear. Military style weapons are what the 2nd protects. And it is an Individual right absent any membership in any type of Militia.

They want to ban military type weapons? They need an amendment since case law and the facts and Constitution forbid it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well Mr. Shooter, they go bang really fast and my they have these really hot metal things flying out of them.

If this is the fullest extent of your response, it is very clear you do not understand the questions put to you.

 

[MaryL]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

…and what evidence does the government have in support of such a measure?

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

YES. Absolutely. Now more than ever in recent history.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

As you know, I personally believe the 2nd actually and literally means the USG can't impose ANY limits. And I believe we need a new amendment which makes some limits okay. Not ALL limits of course, but some.

I'll take a shot at your question though

folding or telescoping stock? Makes a semi automatic rifle much easier to conceal of course. Which makes it easier for these peckerwoods to sneak them into places.

pistol grip - who the hell knows

Bayonet mount - well shit if you need an explanation for this one.......

Flash suppressor - makes it easier for a shooter to conceal his position.

Muzzle device - again, obvious.

Not suggesting I agree with the definition, but they do have legitimate reasons

 

[racewright]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

We need firearms now more than ever--do you not know that last month more fire arms were sold legally than any other month on record and why because the people of this country have less trust in its leaders than ever before.

There is no need to even talk about gun regulations they just do not work--so one believes the goverment trying to take them away and saying we do not want your sporting guns only serves the point that they want more goverment and once they have all the people fooled and not just the liberals then (might still be another 100 years) tryanny will show it true colors.
Happens all the time as history has showed, first more govermewnt prommises and regulations then gun control ,next gun confucation,then tryanny...So what stage do you think we are in.
People like you willing to surrender the constitution are what we call....


Defend from all enemys both foreign and DOMESTIC. Guess what one you are.

 

[JustTheFacts]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

Do you need your first amendment rights? I mean it's pretty clear that a lot of people in this country are misusing theirs, so we should take yours.

 

[racewright]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

As you know, I personally believe the 2nd actually and literally means the USG can't impose ANY limits. And I believe we need a new amendment which makes some limits okay. Not ALL limits of course, but some.

I'll take a shot at your question though

folding or telescoping stock? Makes a semi automatic rifle much easier to conceal of course. Which makes it easier for these peckerwoods to sneak them into places.

pistol grip - who the hell knows

Bayonet mount - well shit if you need an explanation for this one.......

Flash suppressor - makes it easier for a shooter to conceal his position.

Muzzle device - again, obvious.

Not suggesting I agree with the definition, but they do have legitimate reasons

Hey wait a minuite I got it lets make it illegal to shoot humans with assault weapons--even better how about illegal to shoot anyone with a gun. Yea thats it make a new law that will help wowheeew glad I thought of it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

As you know, I personally believe the 2nd actually and literally means the USG can't impose ANY limits. And I believe we need a new amendment which makes some limits okay. Not ALL limits of course, but some.

I'll take a shot at your question though

folding or telescoping stock? Makes a semi automatic rifle much easier to conceal of course. Which makes it easier for these peckerwoods to sneak them into places.

pistol grip - who the hell knows

Bayonet mount - well shit if you need an explanation for this one.......

Flash suppressor - makes it easier for a shooter to conceal his position.

Muzzle device - again, obvious.

Not suggesting I agree with the definition, but they do have legitimate reasons

Folding stocks are also popular here with bush pilots and are considered a necessary tool in their survival kit.

Pistol grips are popular with some shooting sports enthusiasts. One of the best skeet shooters I've ever know consistently scored 25 using a Beneilli equipped with a pistol grip.

Bayonet mount? For those interested in authenticity in their collector's items, I guess.

Flash suppressors are great for low light shooting conditions. They are different from other "muzzle devices" such as muzzle brakes or recoil compensators, which make large caliber hunting rifles much more comfortable and accurate.

All those items have legitimate reasons for existing and being installed on different types of firearms, depending on their use.

 

[MaryL]

I have never owned a gun. I don't idealize guns. I don't need nor want a gun, nor do I feel it makes our country freer or more civilized. I understand people here disagree, but I am seeing how much harm firearms really do VS the benefits they may provide. Other than theoretical rhetorical rigmarole, guns in this country are a deficit. All I am saying is that we need to reexamine our obsession with guns as unhealthy and treat it as such.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

As you know, I personally believe the 2nd actually and literally means the USG can't impose ANY limits. And I believe we need a new amendment which makes some limits okay. Not ALL limits of course, but some.

I'll take a shot at your question though

folding or telescoping stock? Makes a semi automatic rifle much easier to conceal of course. Which makes it easier for these peckerwoods to sneak them into places.

pistol grip - who the hell knows

Bayonet mount - well shit if you need an explanation for this one.......

Flash suppressor - makes it easier for a shooter to conceal his position.

Muzzle device - again, obvious.

Not suggesting I agree with the definition, but they do have legitimate reasons

Folding stocks are also popular here with bush pilots and are considered a necessary tool in their survival kit.

Pistol grips are popular with some shooting sports enthusiasts. One of the best skeet shooters I've ever know consistently scored 25 using a Beneilli equipped with a pistol grip.

Bayonet mount? For those interested in authenticity in their collector's items, I guess.

Flash suppressors are great for low light shooting conditions. They are different from other "muzzle devices" such as muzzle brakes or recoil compensators, which make large caliber hunting rifles much more comfortable and accurate.

All those items have legitimate reasons for existing and being installed on different types of firearms, depending on their use.

I never argued that they didn't have legitimate uses. I just gave reasons why they might not be.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I have never owned a gun. I don't idealize guns. I don't need nor want a gun, nor do I feel it makes our country freer or more civilized. I understand people here disagree, but I am seeing how much harm firearms really do VS the benefits they may provide. Other than theoretical rhetorical rigmarole, guns in this country are a deficit. All I am saying is that we need to reexamine our obsession with guns as unhealthy and treat it as such.

just as it is with all hobbies, not everyone who is into guns has an obsession. I myself own 57 different guns, rarely even shoot anymore. but all my guns have sentimental value to me and I wouldn't give any of them up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Let's take the lucrative gun industry and hand it over to organized crime like we did with alcohol in the 30s.