Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
- Thread starter veni vidi vici
- Start date
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2975651
Now define assault rifle.
Merriam-Webster
Main Entry:
assault weapon
Function:
noun
Date:
1973
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms ; especially : assault rifle
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2975731
Merriam-Webster
Main Entry:
assault weapon
Function:
noun
Date:
1973
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms ; especially : assault rifle
Not the official definition. It is very specific.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2975734
Not the official definition. It is very specific.
What is the official definition and by who's standard?
http:///forum/post/2975734
Not the official definition. It is very specific.
What is the official definition and by who's standard?
veni vidi vici
Active Member
I misread your question
Merriam-Webster
Assault Rifle
Function:
noun
Date:
1972
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
Merriam-Webster
Assault Rifle
Function:
noun
Date:
1972
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
scsinet
Active Member
I wonder Bionic finally threw in the towel?
Oh well. If he did, this has been a fun thread. 344 posts on a passionate topic and it didn't get closed. I'm proud of us!
Does anyone want to volunteer as the gun-control advocate and take over for Bionic? Veni? Bang? Stdreb?
not it.
Oh well. If he did, this has been a fun thread. 344 posts on a passionate topic and it didn't get closed. I'm proud of us!
Does anyone want to volunteer as the gun-control advocate and take over for Bionic? Veni? Bang? Stdreb?
not it.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2975735
What is the official definition and by who's standard?
The original definition based on the prototype AR the Sturmgewehr 43/44. NOT the political definition which is broader than my backside.
I'll even take the US Army definition
http:///forum/post/2975735
What is the official definition and by who's standard?
The original definition based on the prototype AR the Sturmgewehr 43/44. NOT the political definition which is broader than my backside.
I'll even take the US Army definition
wattsupdoc
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
I don't see any reason for free access to weapons that should only be in the hands of law enforcement and the military. A handgun, or shotgun will bring 'em down just as well if someone nasty breaks into your house.
It is intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our own MILITARY if need be. Just like our forefathers defended themselves from the Brittish.
I don't see any reason for free access to weapons that should only be in the hands of law enforcement and the military. A handgun, or shotgun will bring 'em down just as well if someone nasty breaks into your house.
It is intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our own MILITARY if need be. Just like our forefathers defended themselves from the Brittish.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2975773
It is intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our own MILITARY if need be. Just like our forefathers defended themselves from the Brittish.
Yes, the "reset button" on the Constitution.
You are correct, many citizen soldiers had as good if not better muskets than the Red Coats.
I still have my ancester's powderhorn with 4 notches in it. Family lore has it the notches are Red Coats killed by my ancestor as a soldier in the Continental Army.
http:///forum/post/2975773
It is intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our own MILITARY if need be. Just like our forefathers defended themselves from the Brittish.
Yes, the "reset button" on the Constitution.
You are correct, many citizen soldiers had as good if not better muskets than the Red Coats.
I still have my ancester's powderhorn with 4 notches in it. Family lore has it the notches are Red Coats killed by my ancestor as a soldier in the Continental Army.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2975747
I wonder Bionic finally threw in the towel?
Oh well. If he did, this has been a fun thread. 344 posts on a passionate topic and it didn't get closed. I'm proud of us!
Does anyone want to volunteer as the gun-control advocate and take over for Bionic? Veni? Bang? Stdreb?
not it.
Not I
http:///forum/post/2975747
I wonder Bionic finally threw in the towel?
Oh well. If he did, this has been a fun thread. 344 posts on a passionate topic and it didn't get closed. I'm proud of us!
Does anyone want to volunteer as the gun-control advocate and take over for Bionic? Veni? Bang? Stdreb?
not it.
Not I
acrylics
Member
Official definition I cannot say, but do know that it must be select-fire which means it has to at least fire in the full-auto or burst mode and usually safe-semi-burst/FA. IIRC it must also shoot rifle cartridges or else it is a sub-machine gun like an Uzi or MP5 though Colt did make carbines that shot 9mm. I've just never seen a factory FA 9mm from Colt though I'm sure they made some.
Close?
Close?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2975559
I was actually thinking this is Obama....Developing some logic to push the ban through....Likely this is how he's running his office...
Because you are unappropriately supporting something that takes away our rights!
Can you not see that?
UM, you would at least then have a leg to stand on.
When I was growing up in Dallas, I knew a few gang bangers. Most of the firearms they had were junk. Broken handles, beat up old pieces of crap. All of them were stolen. No-one wanted a gun they couldn't pop and toss. They like their drug money, so they didn't want to spend much on them. The .22 LR semi auto was a favorite because it could pop of quite a few rounds, was quite and CHEAP. However most "bangers" carried small handguns they could conceal easy. These are the weapons you see in day to day crimes. NOT AK-47's, SKS's Uzi's and Tec-9's. Those are for the elite criminals. If I LEGALLY buy a weapon for $1000.00 do you think I'm going to sell it for $100.00? No0t many bangers want to pay much more than that for a gun.
I have no idea what direct impingement means. But I wonder why you would bother to "give a hint" and not just prove you know something about it? I don't believe you have ever fired a fire arm in your life. Have you Barry?
You see Barry, The problem is you have not given one logical statement as to why this ban should be put into place. There is no logical reason for it. In fact all the propaganda you have submitted would support something along the lines of a ban on handguns. You post links to sad situations that most likely involve stolen beat up handguns or EVEN HOME MADE PIPE guns(criminals make these, they would make them even if there were none to buy anywhere on the planet.) Then try to point to some other countries problems and say we are to blame. The whole time never pointing to one situation where the type of weapon on the chopping block is actually being used. That's like saying oranges kill people. We should ban them. When in fact it was apples that were to blame. Then saying yeah but it was a fruit and I don't see why anyone would like an orange anyways... This is why I still say you are delusional Barry.
I'd love to know which Barry you are referencing. I must admit, when it comes to gun issues, you are the leader of the pack. I wish you'd get off the comparison of "if we ban a particular kind of gun because it's supposedly dangerous, why not ban apples, sticks, rocks, cars, etc." The argument actually names no logical sense. I've given you plenty of valid reasons and points to ban these kind of weapons, you just refuse to agree or accept them. AGAIN, not matter what proof I could show, you'd dispel it and say it's garbage. You grab all these supposed relative statistics from where, THE INTERNET. How many NRA supported sites can contrive any numbers they want? Go find the gun opponent sites, and they'll have their own numbers.
Get off the 'take away my rights' kick as well. If you don't own one of the guns (which I doubt you do), it doesn't affect you. There is no way in any sense of the imagination that there would ever be a total ban on guns in general. They would NEVER be able to take your shotgun, your bolt action rifle, your revolver, or even a magazine-style pistol that could potentially be catagorized as an assault weapon. That because We The People would never allow it. You've seen an isolated case of it in DC, and look what happened. IT GOT REVERSED. Now that the precedent has been set, won't ever happen again anywhere in the states.
Have you ever owned a gun? You and Darth deserve one another. He apparently 'joined the bandwagon' simply to put his two cents in because he loves to jump on the minority opinion. He asked me a technical question about the operation of a semi-automatic rifle, and he probably got the two fancy words off some gun lover site or wikipedia.
How many AR-15's have you broken down? Why don't you list all the major parts of an AR-15, and their relative purpose regarding the operation of the firearm. I would bet you can't (unless of course you look it up like Darth). Anyone with a some bucks can buy a gun and claim they know something about them. You and Darth apparently want to argue for the sake of arguing. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
http:///forum/post/2975559
I was actually thinking this is Obama....Developing some logic to push the ban through....Likely this is how he's running his office...
Because you are unappropriately supporting something that takes away our rights!
UM, you would at least then have a leg to stand on.
When I was growing up in Dallas, I knew a few gang bangers. Most of the firearms they had were junk. Broken handles, beat up old pieces of crap. All of them were stolen. No-one wanted a gun they couldn't pop and toss. They like their drug money, so they didn't want to spend much on them. The .22 LR semi auto was a favorite because it could pop of quite a few rounds, was quite and CHEAP. However most "bangers" carried small handguns they could conceal easy. These are the weapons you see in day to day crimes. NOT AK-47's, SKS's Uzi's and Tec-9's. Those are for the elite criminals. If I LEGALLY buy a weapon for $1000.00 do you think I'm going to sell it for $100.00? No0t many bangers want to pay much more than that for a gun.
I have no idea what direct impingement means. But I wonder why you would bother to "give a hint" and not just prove you know something about it? I don't believe you have ever fired a fire arm in your life. Have you Barry?
You see Barry, The problem is you have not given one logical statement as to why this ban should be put into place. There is no logical reason for it. In fact all the propaganda you have submitted would support something along the lines of a ban on handguns. You post links to sad situations that most likely involve stolen beat up handguns or EVEN HOME MADE PIPE guns(criminals make these, they would make them even if there were none to buy anywhere on the planet.) Then try to point to some other countries problems and say we are to blame. The whole time never pointing to one situation where the type of weapon on the chopping block is actually being used. That's like saying oranges kill people. We should ban them. When in fact it was apples that were to blame. Then saying yeah but it was a fruit and I don't see why anyone would like an orange anyways... This is why I still say you are delusional Barry.
I'd love to know which Barry you are referencing. I must admit, when it comes to gun issues, you are the leader of the pack. I wish you'd get off the comparison of "if we ban a particular kind of gun because it's supposedly dangerous, why not ban apples, sticks, rocks, cars, etc." The argument actually names no logical sense. I've given you plenty of valid reasons and points to ban these kind of weapons, you just refuse to agree or accept them. AGAIN, not matter what proof I could show, you'd dispel it and say it's garbage. You grab all these supposed relative statistics from where, THE INTERNET. How many NRA supported sites can contrive any numbers they want? Go find the gun opponent sites, and they'll have their own numbers.
Get off the 'take away my rights' kick as well. If you don't own one of the guns (which I doubt you do), it doesn't affect you. There is no way in any sense of the imagination that there would ever be a total ban on guns in general. They would NEVER be able to take your shotgun, your bolt action rifle, your revolver, or even a magazine-style pistol that could potentially be catagorized as an assault weapon. That because We The People would never allow it. You've seen an isolated case of it in DC, and look what happened. IT GOT REVERSED. Now that the precedent has been set, won't ever happen again anywhere in the states.
Have you ever owned a gun? You and Darth deserve one another. He apparently 'joined the bandwagon' simply to put his two cents in because he loves to jump on the minority opinion. He asked me a technical question about the operation of a semi-automatic rifle, and he probably got the two fancy words off some gun lover site or wikipedia.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2975747
I wonder Bionic finally threw in the towel?
Oh well. If he did, this has been a fun thread. 344 posts on a passionate topic and it didn't get closed. I'm proud of us!
Does anyone want to volunteer as the gun-control advocate and take over for Bionic? Veni? Bang? Stdreb?
not it.
Come on SCSI, I'd never let these detractors get to me. Sorry that I have a life other than hanging around an internet forum 24 X 7.
http:///forum/post/2975747
I wonder Bionic finally threw in the towel?
Oh well. If he did, this has been a fun thread. 344 posts on a passionate topic and it didn't get closed. I'm proud of us!
Does anyone want to volunteer as the gun-control advocate and take over for Bionic? Veni? Bang? Stdreb?
not it.
Come on SCSI, I'd never let these detractors get to me. Sorry that I have a life other than hanging around an internet forum 24 X 7.
wattsupdoc
Active Member
No I don't own a AW not at all.I never claimed I did. In fact that statement shows exactly how you don't understand the ban. It WOULD AFFECT ME, my son, my grand kids when they come my great grand kids etc etc....BECAUSE I WOULDNT NOR WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY ONE IF THEY WANTED TO. It doesn't matter if I own one or not, but if I WANTED to buy one it would....
I will list my current firearms if you like.
1. 12 gauge Remington 870 pump DU gun. Modified choke I believe it is.
2. 20 gauge Stevens I believe pump.
3. Rossi .22/410 combo
4. Charles Daley, 22-250 Synthetic stock, cheap glass, (400 yard pencil sharpener
5. Marlin CS? 30/30 Scoped forget what the glass is.
6. Marlin .22 semi auto Scoped
7.Beretta 92? or 96? or something 9mm FS 2 15 round mags and 2 10 round mags.
Antique Russian 7.62 Shoulder breaker right there...poor Russian troops.
Man lookin at that I'm thinkin' I'm gun poor right now...Better do something about that.
BTW, tell me that handguns are not effected by the ban again. Why then were my 2 15 round mags considered illegal? WHY?
Last but not least, where exactly did you post anything at all that was a definitive answer to anyone's questions referring to how this ban had any justification. Double talk is all I saw, side stepping, rhetoric is all you can put out there.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2975922
No I don't own a AW not at all.I never claimed I did. In fact that statement shows exactly how you don't understand the ban. It WOULD AFFECT ME, my son, my grand kids when they come my great grand kids etc etc....BECAUSE I WOULDNT NOR WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY ONE IF THEY WANTED TO. It doesn't matter if I own one or not, but if I WANTED to buy one it would....
I will list my current firearms if you like.
1. 12 gauge Remington 870 pump DU gun. Modified choke I believe it is.
2. 20 gauge Stevens I believe pump.
3. Rossi .22/410 combo
4. Charles Daley, 22-250 Synthetic stock, cheap glass, (400 yard pencil sharpener
5. Marlin CS? 30/30 Scoped forget what the glass is.
6. Marlin .22 semi auto Scoped
7.Beretta 92? or 96? or something 9mm FS 2 15 round mags and 2 10 round mags.
Antique Russian 7.62 Shoulder breaker right there...poor Russian troops.
Man lookin at that I'm thinkin' I'm gun poor right now...Better do something about that.
BTW, tell me that handguns are not effected by the ban again. Why then were my 2 15 round mags considered illegal? WHY?
Last but not least, where exactly did you post anything at all that was a definitive answer to anyone's questions referring to how this ban had any justification. Double talk is all I saw, side stepping, rhetoric is all you can put out there.
I want to by a thermonuclear device. Why can't I buy that? I want to buy dynamite, grenades, nitro glycerine. I imagine I could obtain these devices if I provided the proper documentation. Same thing could happen with these assault weapons. Like I said towards the beginning of this thread. You want one of these so bad? Make it a requirement to shoot several bullets out of the gun before purchase. Put pictures of the fired bullets in a national database. If your gun is traced back to ANY crime by comparing the bullet at the crime scene, to your bullet in the database, you get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law based on the crime whether it was you or anyone else that used your weapon for that crime. You and your future generations can still buy these weapons, you just better make darn sure it doesn't leave your possession unless you want it to (selling it legally to someone else). But of course that means there's CONDITIONS to the purchase of these guns. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Exactly what right from the Constitution does that infringe?
You bet I believe in abortions and gay marriages. It's called EQUAL RIGHTS and A RIGHT TO DECIDE ON YOUR OWN. You want your guns, gays want to have legal rights and women want the right to choose what they can or can't do to their body, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, what's the difference?
Nice little armory you have there. Based on your selections, you appear to be a hunter and like to plink cans and other small targets in your backyard. 9mm for the house and the little woman to use. I would guess 97% of the gun owners in this country have pretty much the same types of guns as you. The other 3% are the ones who purchase the exotic and other non-standard weapons (i.e Assault Weapons). Out of the approximately 97% who buy the traditional guns, probably less than 10% of those would have any interest in purchasing said exotic and non-standard guns. So exactly how many people would actually be affected by this ban? Now I'm sure journey or the other statistitions on this forum will want exact and factual numbers. So Doc, I'm leaving that task up to you.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2975884
Have you ever owned a gun? You and Darth deserve one another. He apparently 'joined the bandwagon' simply to put his two cents in because he loves to jump on the minority opinion. He asked me a technical question about the operation of a semi-automatic rifle, and he probably got the two fancy words off some gun lover site or wikipedia.
How many AR-15's have you broken down? Why don't you list all the major parts of an AR-15, and their relative purpose regarding the operation of the firearm. I would bet you can't (unless of course you look it up like Darth). Anyone with a some bucks can buy a gun and claim they know something about them. You and Darth apparently want to argue for the sake of arguing. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
I love how you assume I look things up. But whatever. I am not the one claiming to know the ins and outs of assault weapons..With that said.....I didn't say I never owned a gun. Grew up on a farm, had a military family...shot more guns by 12 than most people do their entire lives. I owned a .38 snub revolver and a colt .45 semi-automatic. Then I had kids and made the decision I wouldn't ever feel comfortable with the guns in the house with the kids as well. My personal choice and preference....atleast until they get older. Someday I would like to purchase a few assault rifles when they get older (the youngest is 5 now) and teach them the same way my father taught me. But I feel I need to wait 5 more years at minimum.
But just because I do not own one of these weapons does not mean I can not have an opinion and weigh in on them. Saying I can't have an opinion on this is like me saying you can't have an opinion on gay marriage, since you are not gay and don't live the gay lifestyle.....dumb.
I know the basic principals on how guns work and need to be cleaned....can I list every part in an AR-15...no.....but then again, I am not the one claiming to be the gun expert.....like you are.
http:///forum/post/2975884
Have you ever owned a gun? You and Darth deserve one another. He apparently 'joined the bandwagon' simply to put his two cents in because he loves to jump on the minority opinion. He asked me a technical question about the operation of a semi-automatic rifle, and he probably got the two fancy words off some gun lover site or wikipedia.
I love how you assume I look things up. But whatever. I am not the one claiming to know the ins and outs of assault weapons..With that said.....I didn't say I never owned a gun. Grew up on a farm, had a military family...shot more guns by 12 than most people do their entire lives. I owned a .38 snub revolver and a colt .45 semi-automatic. Then I had kids and made the decision I wouldn't ever feel comfortable with the guns in the house with the kids as well. My personal choice and preference....atleast until they get older. Someday I would like to purchase a few assault rifles when they get older (the youngest is 5 now) and teach them the same way my father taught me. But I feel I need to wait 5 more years at minimum.
But just because I do not own one of these weapons does not mean I can not have an opinion and weigh in on them. Saying I can't have an opinion on this is like me saying you can't have an opinion on gay marriage, since you are not gay and don't live the gay lifestyle.....dumb.
I know the basic principals on how guns work and need to be cleaned....can I list every part in an AR-15...no.....but then again, I am not the one claiming to be the gun expert.....like you are.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976088
I want to by a thermonuclear device. Why can't I buy that?
Because a Thermonuclear device can not be used for self-defense nor can you hunt with it. Unless of course, you bought the submarine or the plane to fire it.
That and the fact it would cost you around 5-10 billion to purchase.....I am sure you have that lying around.
http:///forum/post/2976088
I want to by a thermonuclear device. Why can't I buy that?
Because a Thermonuclear device can not be used for self-defense nor can you hunt with it. Unless of course, you bought the submarine or the plane to fire it.
That and the fact it would cost you around 5-10 billion to purchase.....I am sure you have that lying around.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2976102
can I list every part in an AR-15...no
I can.
http:///forum/post/2976102
can I list every part in an AR-15...no
I can.
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976088
You bet I believe in abortions and gay marriages. It's called EQUAL RIGHTS and A RIGHT TO DECIDE ON YOUR OWN. You want your guns, gays want to have legal rights and women want the right to choose what they can or can't do to their body, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, what's the difference?
I actually agree with you on this. I don't believe in gov't intervention at all in the way people lead their lives. Leave my guns alone and I'll leave you to live your life as choose, but I do firmly expect the same of you.
How is it you see gov't intervention with regard to my guns but not to the above. IMO either you are for freedom and liberty or you are not.
I, Sir, will fight to the death to protect *our* liberties, please lay off the means with which to do so. Fair enough?
http:///forum/post/2976088
You bet I believe in abortions and gay marriages. It's called EQUAL RIGHTS and A RIGHT TO DECIDE ON YOUR OWN. You want your guns, gays want to have legal rights and women want the right to choose what they can or can't do to their body, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, what's the difference?
I actually agree with you on this. I don't believe in gov't intervention at all in the way people lead their lives. Leave my guns alone and I'll leave you to live your life as choose, but I do firmly expect the same of you.
How is it you see gov't intervention with regard to my guns but not to the above. IMO either you are for freedom and liberty or you are not.
I, Sir, will fight to the death to protect *our* liberties, please lay off the means with which to do so. Fair enough?
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976088
Nice little armory you have there. Based on your selections, you appear to be a hunter and like to plink cans and other small targets in your backyard. 9mm for the house and the little woman to use. I would guess 97% of the gun owners in this country have pretty much the same types of guns as you. The other 3% are the ones who purchase the exotic and other non-standard weapons (i.e Assault Weapons). Out of the approximately 97% who buy the traditional guns, probably less than 10% of those would have any interest in purchasing said exotic and non-standard guns. So exactly how many people would actually be affected by this ban? Now I'm sure journey or the other statistitions on this forum will want exact and factual numbers. So Doc, I'm leaving that task up to you.
The political definition of "assault rifle" can include firearms like the WWII era M-1 Carbine. 10's of thousand who own that evil weapon. It even fires a pistol type cartridge. The M-1 Carbine would be considered by most a "standard" gun owned for its historic and collection value.
To answer your question most gun owners would be affected based on the political definition of "assault rifle".
As to abortion and gay marriage, which ammendment gives these "rights"? Given the preamble to the Declaration of Independance, ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) you should throw out abortion, maybe consider gay marriage, but you mention both, and our founding documents do not support abortion.
http:///forum/post/2976088
Nice little armory you have there. Based on your selections, you appear to be a hunter and like to plink cans and other small targets in your backyard. 9mm for the house and the little woman to use. I would guess 97% of the gun owners in this country have pretty much the same types of guns as you. The other 3% are the ones who purchase the exotic and other non-standard weapons (i.e Assault Weapons). Out of the approximately 97% who buy the traditional guns, probably less than 10% of those would have any interest in purchasing said exotic and non-standard guns. So exactly how many people would actually be affected by this ban? Now I'm sure journey or the other statistitions on this forum will want exact and factual numbers. So Doc, I'm leaving that task up to you.
The political definition of "assault rifle" can include firearms like the WWII era M-1 Carbine. 10's of thousand who own that evil weapon. It even fires a pistol type cartridge. The M-1 Carbine would be considered by most a "standard" gun owned for its historic and collection value.
To answer your question most gun owners would be affected based on the political definition of "assault rifle".
As to abortion and gay marriage, which ammendment gives these "rights"? Given the preamble to the Declaration of Independance, ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) you should throw out abortion, maybe consider gay marriage, but you mention both, and our founding documents do not support abortion.