How Does A Snowflake Answer The Question:"What Is An Assault Weapon" ??

[RetiredGySgt]

And the NRA actively promoted murderers?

They actively obstruct efforts to stop them. Same thing in my book.

No they do not.

There are laws already on the books that could have prevented the shooting in Florida, so the failure to protect those kids fall on LEO and the FBI and not the NRA!

If the government fails to do it job do you believe more laws will get them to do it!?!

I'm not saying it is ALL the big old bad NRA's fault. That's a stupid argument. They are to blame, however, for getting in the way of legislation that might have helped.

That is like saying the ACLU is to blame for getting in the way of legislation reinstating slavery.

The NRA is exercising the exact same rights as all of the other National Advocacy groups.

You are essentially saying that I want to take away a right from a segment of the population and the NRA is stopping me from doing that so they are responsible for the deaths because I am right.

The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT right.

The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT right

Notice the HUGE drop in support for Banning?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No my Ruger Mini 14 has a detachable magazine

Then it's not simply a "rach rifle" then, is it?

Tea that's all it is.

It's how the rifle is advertised and in fact most people buy it for the same reasons anyone on a ranch buys a .223 caliber rifle

Ruger® Mini-14® Ranch Rifle Autoloading Rifle Models

Great. ARs are advertised as "sporting rifles" as well. Anything that can accept a thirty round magazine is not simply a ranch tool.

Any practical purpose for a rifle can be accomplished with an internal magazine.

An AR is the exact same rifle as my ranch rifle except that it has plastic components

And it matters not if a rifle has a detachable magazine

Then WHY do mass shooters choose it over and over as the weapon of choice, and WHY are people so upset about this one insignificant model of gun coming off the shelves?

Same reason you're terrified of it: 'cause it looks scary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then that leaves out the AR 15 because it fires one of the smallest caliber bullets on the market

The AR is designed to make that little bullet gain speed x3 and do maximum damage at close range.

3 times more speed than what?
Another rifle of the same caliber?

ALL rifles are have higher muzzle velocities than handguns or shotguns and it's because of the longer barrel and the fact that the expanding gases are contained longer in that barrel. IOW it's physics

The 9mm handgun is generally regarded as an effective weapon; its bullet travels at1,200 feet per second and delivers a kinetic energy of 400 foot pounds. By comparison, the standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 foot pounds.Feb 15, 2018
Opinion | The Parkland shooter's AR-15 should never have been legal

OK Dory.

A handgun is not a rifle

The reason a rifle has a higher muzzle velocity is due to physics.

Why do you keep calling me Dory?

Because a gnat's lifespan is longer than your memory.

 

[bripat9643]

How Does A Snowflake Answer The Question:"What Is An Assault Weapon" ??

Why do you NaziCon retards keep asking the same stupid question? It has been clearly define previously as follows:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the Senate, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.

Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

The AR-15 was originally manufactured as a MILITARY weapon......Failing to interest our military into buying it, manufacturers turned their advertising on private ownership.......who buy the AR-15, supposedly, to protect themselves from the same military that rejected the weapon in the first place.........lol

The Ar 15 is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle that fires a 5.56 mm round

Just like my 5.56 mm rifle with a wood stock

There is no difference between my "ranch" rifle and the AR 15 "assault" rifle. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

The 5.56 NATO round has been criticized for being under powered and it is compared to rounds used by the military in the past. Hell most people with more than one rifle have rifles that are far more powerful than the AR 15. I have 3 rifles that make the Ar 15 look like a bb gun.

The reason the AR 15 is so popular is not because it is the most deadly it is because it is light, accurate and easy to fire. That is all

And I understand the accessories can be modified without taking it to a gun shop (not that I want to scare the leftists into wetting their frillies).

Of course they can. You can use a 3d printer to make a 30 round magazine with ease.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, as a fact of law.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambred in an intermediate round.

I guess you missed where democrats tried to pass a bill outlawing ALL semi automatic rifles with a detachable magazine?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the millions of rifles that are already out there just what happens to them exactly?

A well maintained firearm has a lifespan of many many decades

Buy back. As an example, there are just under 2 million ARs. Pay above retail for turn in. Let's say $2k. That would be the best $4b ever spent. Do the same w/handguns. Even illegal ones. Maybe those kids on the street would find it more lucrative to turn them in rather than use them or sell them on. It would also kill the black market trade.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

And what does registration do? I have actual news pieces on registration where law enforcement states it does not stop crime, it does not help solve crime.......it wastes time, money and resources that the police can actually use to stop actual criminals...

The only thing registration is good for is eventual confiscation....Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago, and now Oregon.......all examples of registration leading to confiscation.....

The owner is responsible for it. If it's used in a crime, they've got some splainin' to do as they'd be liable for it's safety.

So if someone steals my car I need to explain why?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault weapon'. In generic terms, an assault weapon is a weapon that includes a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity ammunition magazine. There are distinct guns designed for sporting purposes. Among these are hunting rifles (bolt and lever action), pump action shot guns designed to hunt water fowl or shoot clay pigeons, and pistols and revolvers designed for target shooting and self defense.

Assault weapons, on the other hand, have design characteristics more akin to combat weapons. Characteristics that do not necessarily augment their use in sporting activities.

You wanted a definition, you got one.

Now, I know your reputation. You will no doubt respond with a smiley emoticon denoting you think this post is funny. If you want to discuss the merits and virtues of the weapons I described as 'assault weapons', fine. But if all you seek are posts you can ridicule as poorly framed, inarticulate or just plain silly, you might find that some opinions that differ from your own still have merit.

Actually the definition of an Assault weapon is that it is equipped with a selector switch to allow Burst or automatic fire and those are already HEAVILY regulated.

And that’s why the AR doesn’t have that switch. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a weapon of war decide to kill people. Just because you remove that one option. The gun nerds always trying to misinform people.

Using your logic you will want all rifles since at one time or another they were ALL used for war.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Using your logic you will want all rifles since at one time or another they were ALL used for war.

Except the AR15 (never used in war), which completely fucks up their argument.

 

[rightwinger]

I just saw the footage on Fox News as I was coming home. A reporter was sent to some anti-gun March, must of been a very blue state. He is asking a few of the young female protesters if they knew what an assault weapon is. But as expected, they had no clue!
They may as well answered, the real hard question like this.
So like, uh, what is an assault weapon? Uh, like, isn't that like a gun that shoots a lot of bullets?
Or maybe answer it like this?,,,uh,,like,,uhm,,uh?,,,so like, what's an assault weapon? Uh, is that like a gun made from salt?

I’ve got the answer

Instead of trying to name this gun or that gun......

Just define an assault rifle as anything capable of firing above a certain rate

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Just define an assault rifle as anything capable of firing above a certain rate

So, if a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) shoos under the proscribed limit, I...I... can has one?

It's an automatic that shoots really slow. Same with a .50 cal machine gun.

 

[rightwinger]

Just define an assault rifle as anything capable of firing above a certain rate

So, if a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) shoos under the proscribed limit, I...I... can has one?

It's an automatic that shoots really slow. Same with a .50 cal machine gun.

What is the current legal status of those weapons?

Can I buy a BAR at Walmart?

 

[hadit]

You'll have to ask the snowflakes at the nRA who made their convention a gun-free zone for safety. From their own gullible followers.

The snow drifts in the hall were 8 feet deep.

Did they do that or did the venue do it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is the current legal status of those weapons?

Can I buy a BAR at Walmart?

Well, they are no longer in production, but you can buy it. Under current law, you have to pay a tax, get a stamp, and other restrictions, but it is legal. What I was asking is if the gun fires slow, but fires multiple times with one pull of the trigger, ist that okay?

The point is that as fast as I can pull the trigger an a handgun is as fast as it will shoot. The rate of fire is only relevant to full-autos. I was just trying to understand your proposal. I may agree with you if I understand it correctly.

 

[2aguy]

You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.

It is NOT the guns. It is the people.

It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.

There are 600 million guns and over 17 million people now carry guns for self defense....

Americans use those guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminal attack.

Criminals, murdering other criminals killed 11,004 people in 2016....can you tell which number is bigger.....?

The problem is that democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail....and those repeat gun offenders who can't buy, own or carry guns go on to murder other criminals and some innocent people....

It isn't American gun culture....it is American, democrat crime policies......

Your numbers are wildly inflated. Perhaps a link?

Sure....the 1,500,000 incidents of gun self defense by Americans each year comes from the bill clinton Department of Justice......they hired 2 rabidly anti gun researchers in order to help push their gun control study, they also wanted to defeat the study that had been released by Dr. Gary Kleck...so they developed their own study, put it into action....and came up with that number.....and that is only one out of all of these....

So the numbers show that Americans use their guns to stop crime more than criminals released from prison by democrats commit crime...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Thank you.

600 million guns?

Yep....

What If I Told You That There Were 600 MILLION Guns In The U.S.?

WeaponsMan, a gun blog created and manned by a former Special Forces soldier and his peers, makes a compelling argument that the commonly bantered-about estimate of 300 million guns in the United States may potentially be 100 million to 360 million too low.

The numbers are all over the place, and many of them seem to recursively refer to one another, not exactly building confidence in the rigor of their development. But they seem to cluster around a Narrative-friendly 300 million. But what if that number is wrong?

We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. You may wonder how we came to that number, so buckle up (and cringe, if you’re a math-phobe, although it never gets too theoretical): unlike most of the academics and reporters we linked above, we’re going to use publicly available data, and show our work.

What if we told you that one ATF computer system logged, by serial number, 252,000,000 unique firearms, and represented only those firearms manufactured, imported or sold by a relatively small number of the nation’s tens of thousands of Federal Firearms Licensees?

 

[2aguy]

The owner is responsible for it. If it's used in a crime, they've got some splainin' to do as they'd be liable for it's safety.

Don't we already have this?


Every time I have purchased a gun, I had to fill out a bunch of forms that are kept by big brother. Registration?

I would have lots of splainin' to do if I sold it to another and it was used in a crime, right?

Just what the fuck is it that you guys want?

I don't know. You tell me. How does any authority know who owns what and what belongs to whom?

\They don't need to.......cops don't use registration to find shooters.....they look for motive and known associates...since criminals take the gun with them or toss it in a lake....

To find the owner and determine how it came to be in possession of the shooter. If the owner was negligent, then they should be criminally liable. If they illegally transferred possession of the gun, then they are also criminally liable. This is why we need registration and universal background checks. There should be no gun in circulation that is not tied to an owner. Otherwise who is responsible?

Sorry....Canada already tried this ...and it failed miserably ....

Also, do you realize that felons do not have to register their illegal guns as determined by the Supreme Court?

So the very people who would be registered to the actual crime guns don't have to register those crime guns........that make sense to you?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.

 

[2aguy]

The owner is responsible for it. If it's used in a crime, they've got some splainin' to do as they'd be liable for it's safety.

Don't we already have this?


Every time I have purchased a gun, I had to fill out a bunch of forms that are kept by big brother. Registration?

I would have lots of splainin' to do if I sold it to another and it was used in a crime, right?

Just what the fuck is it that you guys want?

I don't know. You tell me. How does any authority know who owns what and what belongs to whom?

\They don't need to.......cops don't use registration to find shooters.....they look for motive and known associates...since criminals take the gun with them or toss it in a lake....

To find the owner and determine how it came to be in possession of the shooter. If the owner was negligent, then they should be criminally liable. If they illegally transferred possession of the gun, then they are also criminally liable. This is why we need registration and universal background checks. There should be no gun in circulation that is not tied to an owner. Otherwise who is responsible?

Who is responsible...the one who used the gun for a crime...not the one who had the gun stolen......

And we can already find out where the criminal got the gun when we catch the criminal with the gun..that isn't the problem..the problem is that most of the time the person giving the gun to the felon is the baby momma, his grandmother, sister or mother.......who will then state the gang or criminal threatened them in order to make them buy the gun........prosecutors do not prosecute baby momma straw buyers.....

Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[2aguy]

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

Too bad. There is no need to register a rifle.

If you dopes were smart, you would willingly offer some concessions to avoid overreach.

Moron.....all the gun owners have done is give in to concessions.......you anti gun extremists don't see concessions as end points, they are just one more item on your list on the way to confiscation........

And nothing you want actually stops criminals or mass shooters...which your leadership knows....you simply want to get to registration, so that you know who has the guns.....

I want registration to track the movement of guns and to hold the owner responsible for it's safety. If a gun turns up at a crime scene in CA and is registered in MN, then the owner has some questions to answer. If people were held to account for the safety of their guns, and background checks as well as a transfer of registration were required, there really couldn't be a black market without someone being accountable.

Nope....sorry..... gun registration = gun confiscation..... this is a fact. Everywhere guns are registered they end up getting confiscated.....we know this from actual experience....

And we don't need to register guns to catch criminals or gun traffickers.....normal, everyday police techniques do this.....they catch the criminal, and get him to roll over on who gave him the gun.......no need to register law abiding gun owners who did nothing wrong...........

If you steal the gun, then the original owner being registered doesn't give you anything....how many times do you guys have to be told this before it sinks in?

 

[2aguy]

You'll have to ask the snowflakes at the nRA who made their convention a gun-free zone for safety. From their own gullible followers.

The snow drifts in the hall were 8 feet deep.

Did they do that or did the venue do it?

The NRA convention was not a gun free zone, they allowed carrying guns.....that is an anti gun lie they keep pushing...

Is The NRA Really Banning Guns At Its Convention?

The National Rifle Association, which supports Second Amendment rights, is holding its annual convention in Nashville, Tenn., this weekend. So it came as a surprise to see headlines that said the expected 80,000 people attending the gun-rights group's convention will not be allowed to carry their firearms.

The truth, as it turns out, is more complicated.

As Blake Farmer of member station WPLN in Nashville tells our Newscast unit, one of the venues is enforcing its ban on guns. Here's more:

"t's not unusual for meeting sites to restrict guns. In Nashville, those with carry permits are allowed in the convention hall, but not across the street in Bridgestone Arena, where the nightly concerts are held."

And, as Blake notes, display firearms on the exhibit floor at the NRA convention will have their firing pins removed — which is typical for such shows.

Bob Owens, editor of BearingArms.com, a gun-rights website, writes:

"The National Rifle Association holds an annual meeting every year in a different host city, and requires that attendees follow the federal, state, and local laws applicable in that city, like every major convention of every significant national group, ever.

"This year in Tennessee, that means that attendees can indeed carry firearms in the Music City Center with the proper license in accordance with Tennessee law. Bridgestone Arena prohibits the possession of firearms, and always has. Attendees to the concerts held there are not allowed to carry weapons according to these pre-existing laws."

 

[Old Rocks]

I just saw the footage on Fox News as I was coming home. A reporter was sent to some anti-gun March, must of been a very blue state. He is asking a few of the young female protesters if they knew what an assault weapon is. But as expected, they had no clue!
They may as well answered, the real hard question like this.
So like, uh, what is an assault weapon? Uh, like, isn't that like a gun that shoots a lot of bullets?
Or maybe answer it like this?,,,uh,,like,,uhm,,uh?,,,so like, what's an assault weapon? Uh, is that like a gun made from salt?

Look, filth, why don't you ask the 17 students at Parkland, the 21 in the church in Texas, and the 58 in Vegas? Or you might ask to over 500 that were wounded but are still alive, bet they can define it for you. Elections coming up, and there are going to be some results that you freaks are not going to like.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Look, filth, why don't you ask the 17 students at Parkland, the 21 in the church in Texas, and the 58 in Vegas? Or you might ask to over 500 that were wounded but are still alive, bet they can define it for you. Elections coming up, and there are going to be some results that you freaks are not going to like.

Those elected better mind what they do, because there may be some results THEY don't like.