Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[WinterBorn]

Or, why do gun lovers oppose a mandatory back ground check at every gun sale to stem the tide of criminals getting guns?

There is already a mandatory background check with every sale by a gun dealer. People selling their personal firearms is the only exception. And when Bubba decides to sell his gun, I don't want him to have access to the system without some checks on what he does with the info.

What could be wrong with the results coming back as a simple red or green light?

What could be wrong with keeping violent offenders in jail?

 

[Nosmo King]

Except, as I have pointed out, they have a use as a hunting gun. They have become even more popular with those who hunt feral hogs. As one who has hunted this "poor man's grizzly", I can see why more rounds is appealing.

Lots of feral hogs at Cabrini Green?

Lots of legal semi-auto rifle sales at Cabrini Green?

I know there are millions of feral swine all over the southern states.

Feral Pigs Going Hog-Wild in US | LiveScience
"The wild hogs can now be found in three-fourths of U.S. states — and their populations are growing in many areas — and are estimated to cause $1.5 billion in damages each year, the Associated Press reports. There are currently more than 5 million wild hogs in the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

I personally hunt them with a lever action rifle in 45-70Govt or a revolver in .44 Magnum. But many, many people cannot cope with the recoil of those weapons.

So for the sake of a few hunters, we must accept the cost of gun violence? Is there an equivocation more incredulous? WE must accept shootings on our streets, our campuses, our theaters, churches and temples because some folks can't handle the recoil when they hunt feral hogs? When does the reality of guns and gun violence start to make an impact?

 

[WinterBorn]

there is no use for a semi-automatic weapon other than causing the deaths of human beings as rapidly as possible.

This is either abject ignorance or brutal dishonesty.
Thank you for helping to prove the premise than anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Why were such weapons designed?

For the same reason virtually all firearms were designed.

My lever action 45-70 is a copy of a military firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

there is no use for a semi-automatic weapon other than causing the deaths of human beings as rapidly as possible.

This is either abject ignorance or brutal dishonesty.
Thank you for helping to prove the premise than anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Why were such weapons designed?

As you brought up the issue of their USE, the reason for their design is irrelevant.

Your statement that there is no other use for semiautomatic firearm remains ignorant and/or dishonest; there's nothing you can do to show otherwise.

Thank you for continuing to help prove the premise than anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Please keep up the good work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is either abject ignorance or brutal dishonesty.
Thank you for helping to prove the premise than anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Why were such weapons designed?

For the same reason virtually all firearms were designed.
My lever action 45-70 is a copy of a military firearm.

My M1903A3 IS a military firearm.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is already a mandatory background check with every sale by a gun dealer. People selling their personal firearms is the only exception. And when Bubba decides to sell his gun, I don't want him to have access to the system without some checks on what he does with the info.

What could be wrong with the results coming back as a simple red or green light?

What could be wrong with keeping violent offenders in jail?

Do you want to build more jails and pay for the security, the upkeep, the daily expenses? Are sentencing guidelines too lax? Do we have a jail population in balance with our free population?

 

[Nosmo King]

Would the gangbangers be limited to what is for sale on WalMart's shelves? Or would they buy guns from the black market and have what they wanted?

Many drivebys and gang shootings involved fully automatic weapons. Those have, for all practical purposes, been banned since 1935. And yet, they are still available on the street.

So why haven't we gone after them at the source: the gun manufacturer? Why have we ignored that source of guns? Could it be that their lobby group is too powerful to reason with?

It could be that the current administration is using guns made by the same manufacturers to make deals with criminals south of our border.

It could be that the guns in question are not made in the US at all. I'm not sure how many submachineguns are manufactured in the US. But the most common (like the Uzi, HK, and the fully automatic AKs) are not manufactured here.

A responsible ban would prohibit imports too. While that would certainly not stop every gun from being shot on our streets, it would slow the flow of guns to a trickle.

 

[WinterBorn]

Lots of feral hogs at Cabrini Green?

Lots of legal semi-auto rifle sales at Cabrini Green?

I know there are millions of feral swine all over the southern states.

Feral Pigs Going Hog-Wild in US | LiveScience
"The wild hogs can now be found in three-fourths of U.S. states — and their populations are growing in many areas — and are estimated to cause $1.5 billion in damages each year, the Associated Press reports. There are currently more than 5 million wild hogs in the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

I personally hunt them with a lever action rifle in 45-70Govt or a revolver in .44 Magnum. But many, many people cannot cope with the recoil of those weapons.

So for the sake of a few hunters, we must accept the cost of gun violence? Is there an equivocation more incredulous? WE must accept shootings on our streets, our campuses, our theaters, churches and temples because some folks can't handle the recoil when they hunt feral hogs? When does the reality of guns and gun violence start to make an impact?

Want a better reason to leave the laws as they are?

from: Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
"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."


"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard.""[19]
[19] Paper: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | Northwestern University School of Law



"* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year."[20]
[20] Paper: "Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals... [Violence Vict. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI


"* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""[22]
[21] & [22] Book: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).



So privately owned firearms are used far more often to stop crimes than they are to commit them.

 

[WinterBorn]

What could be wrong with the results coming back as a simple red or green light?

What could be wrong with keeping violent offenders in jail?

Do you want to build more jails and pay for the security, the upkeep, the daily expenses? Are sentencing guidelines too lax? Do we have a jail population in balance with our free population?

If you will notice I specifically said "violent offenders". If the nonviolent drug related sentences were commuted and different means of punishment were used, there would be plenty of space.

Our prison population is so far out of balance because we insist that someone selling marijuana should serve 10 years in prison. The madatory sentencing laws should be revoked and the sentences commuted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A responsible ban would prohibit imports too. While that would certainly not stop every gun from being shot on our streets, it would slow the flow of guns to a trickle.

There is no sound basis for any such ban, and no such ban would pass constitutional muster.
You argue form nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, and you help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only arge as you do.

 

[WinterBorn]

So why haven't we gone after them at the source: the gun manufacturer? Why have we ignored that source of guns? Could it be that their lobby group is too powerful to reason with?

It could be that the current administration is using guns made by the same manufacturers to make deals with criminals south of our border.

It could be that the guns in question are not made in the US at all. I'm not sure how many submachineguns are manufactured in the US. But the most common (like the Uzi, HK, and the fully automatic AKs) are not manufactured here.

A responsible ban would prohibit imports too. While that would certainly not stop every gun from being shot on our streets, it would slow the flow of guns to a trickle.

A trickle? Has heroin, cocaine and marijuana smuggling slowed to a trickle? And for the space required, a gun would bring a much higher price than many drugs.

We have been totally unable to stop the flow of illegal drugs or illegal immigrants. But you think we would slow the flow of illegal guns to a trickle?? Really?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Questions to ask yourself:
Did you support the AWB?
Do you support its re-enactment?
If "yes" to one or both of the above:
Why do you not answer the questions in the OP?

 

[MrMax]

A responsible ban would prohibit imports too. While that would certainly not stop every gun from being shot on our streets, it would slow the flow of guns to a trickle.

There is no sound basis for any such ban, and no such ban would pass constitutional muster.
You argue form nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, and you help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only arge as you do.

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

 

[WinterBorn]

A responsible ban would prohibit imports too. While that would certainly not stop every gun from being shot on our streets, it would slow the flow of guns to a trickle.

There is no sound basis for any such ban, and no such ban would pass constitutional muster.
You argue form nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, and you help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only arge as you do.

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

Since we are not discussing civilian ownership of any of those weapons, it seems you have gone off track.

Put simply, the ban on firearms based on cosmetic details is ridiculous.

And even more importantly, the ban on a type of firearm that is used in less than 3% of the gun related murders in the US seems to be a nonworking bandaid on a miniscule problem. And since Americans use firearms to stop hundreds of thousands of crimes every year, and since the criminals do not follow the laws banning weapons, it is actually counterproductive.

 

[MrMax]

There is no sound basis for any such ban, and no such ban would pass constitutional muster.
You argue form nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, and you help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only arge as you do.

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

Since we are not discussing civilian ownership of any of those weapons, it seems you have gone off track.

Put simply, the ban on firearms based on cosmetic details is ridiculous.

And even more importantly, the ban on a type of firearm that is used in less than 3% of the gun related murders in the US seems to be a nonworking bandaid on a miniscule problem. And since Americans use firearms to stop hundreds of thousands of crimes every year, and since the criminals do not follow the laws banning weapons, it is actually counterproductive.

I'm just saying that any kind of weapons ban has tons of precedent. Any use of the 2nd Amendment argument against any ban is therefore a sham.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A responsible ban would prohibit imports too. While that would certainly not stop every gun from being shot on our streets, it would slow the flow of guns to a trickle.

There is no sound basis for any such ban, and no such ban would pass constitutional muster.
You argue form nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, and you help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only arge as you do.

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

Allow me to help you with your ignorance.

None of the weapons you mention, above, are 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.
Therefore, the fact that we cannot own them sets no precedent whatsoever in regard to the constitutionality of a ban an all semi-automatic weapons.

There you go. Glad I could help.

Now, how about taking a stab at the questions asked in the OP?

 

[WinterBorn]

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

Since we are not discussing civilian ownership of any of those weapons, it seems you have gone off track.

Put simply, the ban on firearms based on cosmetic details is ridiculous.

And even more importantly, the ban on a type of firearm that is used in less than 3% of the gun related murders in the US seems to be a nonworking bandaid on a miniscule problem. And since Americans use firearms to stop hundreds of thousands of crimes every year, and since the criminals do not follow the laws banning weapons, it is actually counterproductive.

I'm just saying that any kind of weapons ban has tons of precedent. Any use of the 2nd Amendment argument against any ban is therefore a sham.

Not even close. The 2nd Amendment was added for a specific purpose.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is no sound basis for any such ban, and no such ban would pass constitutional muster.
You argue form nothing other than emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, and you help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only arge as you do.

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

Allow me to help you with your ignorance.

None of the weapons you mention, above, are 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.
Therefore, the fact that we cannot own them sets no precedent whatsoever in regard to the constitutionality of a ban an all semi-automatic weapons.

There you go. Glad I could help.

Now, how about taking a stab at the questions asked in the OP?

the second amendment says "arms". The founders could never imagine the hellish nature arms would take on as humans devised easier ways to wipe each other out. The argument made by many defenders of the second amendment is that citizens should have the ability to fight the federal government. Doing so, those defenders believe that they should be as well armed as that government.

If it is your I contention that the reasoning behind the amendment was citizen defense against their government, you should embrace private ownership of the most dangerous weapons of war. After all, you are defending weons of war when you defend the semi-automatic firing system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're already banned from owning nukes, cruise missiles, F-16s, mines... all kinds of arms, so such a ban actually has a lot of precedent.

Allow me to help you with your ignorance.

None of the weapons you mention, above, are 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.
Therefore, the fact that we cannot own them sets no precedent whatsoever in regard to the constitutionality of a ban an all semi-automatic weapons.

There you go. Glad I could help.

Now, how about taking a stab at the questions asked in the OP?

the second amendment says "arms".

Indeed -- and if you weren't so clearly and willfully ignorant of the jurisprudence surrounding the issue, you'd relize that the term has been defined - and it -doesn't- mean "any weapon you care to name".

According to the law:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” ... The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

F16s? Designjed specifically for military use.
Firearms? Not.

The founders could never imagine the hellish nature arms would take on...

Absolutely false. It is convenient for you to argue that these people, who had already witnessed a host of improvements in firearms technology, were incapable of imagining further progression; it is also inane and unsupportable.

Further, also according to the law:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Please, continue to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorace and/or dishonesty -- you've done nothing but, and there's no reason to stop now.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Lets make this "discussion" a little more simple.

IF I walk into my local gun store and ask the salesman to show me assault rifles, what weapon(s) would he take off the rack?

You got any pictures of THOSE weapons?

Pretend you are the salesman. I want an assault rifle from your store. What are you gonna sell me? What will it look like?

I need a better understanding of just what it is that YOU think is an assault rifle. Show pictures.

Any gun lover answer what the primary purpose of an AK47 is? At the time it was designed. And how it has been used. As an assault rifle the world over.

I just can't figure out why you gun lovers don't know what an assault rifle is.

Oh please. Yes, we know what you mean when you say "assault rifle". That does not change the fact that the actual definition of the term, as coined by the military, is that of a fully automatic rifle.

However, like many words, terms and phrases, the definition changes over time. The definition now includes the ridiculous notion that a semi-automatic rifle with a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor is an "assault rifle". But the exact same rifle without the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, is not. This is why the OP includes those two pics. And this is why one rifle, like the AR15 with the aforementioned flash suppressor and lug, are apparently so much more dangerous than those without those cosmetic features.

You know, because of all the drive-by bayonetings.

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Or are they not assault weapons because they are not fully auto?

Is that they ONLY difference between what I can walk in and buy and what the military has available? Full auto vs single shot?

How long does it take a competent gunsmith to convert a wannabe assault weapon to a fully automatic assault weapon?

Or are you gonna claim that converting to full auto is not possible? Can you convert, lets say a 30.06 rifle to a fully automatic assault rifle? How about my .22 single shot rifle? Can you convert an AK47? AR15?

Depends on the specific weapon. Early AR-15's, easy. (They used the same recievers as full-auto M-16's.) Later ones, need access to a machine shop. Some .22's, a toothpick.

Do you all know what an assault rifle IS? And isn't.

I know exactly what it is: it is a meaningless buzzword used by the ignorant, the stupid, and the evil.

Hey winterborn. You hunt deer with a bayonet? Then why you need a bayonet mount on your hunting rifle?

Anyone who shoots at night will understand why a flash suppressor might be nice!