"Assault Weapons" Ban Bill Extended

ohio · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by N8
Its second only to the Freedom of Speech and we all know what happens whenever someone is censored in that area...

Bush buries any record of the censorship?

edit: besides the many backhanded retorts I could offer... we all know that this Freedom is limited, despite being the first amendment. It does not allow libel, and is subject to (overridden by) the violation of any other laws such as disturbing the peace, treason, conspiracy to commit *fill-in-the-blank*, etc.

We've also seen that Freedom of Assembly is not necessarily complete even when it ISN'T superceded by other laws, such as seen during Clinton and Bush rallies.

There are caveats, exemptions, rules, and qualifiers to ALL of our rights. This prevents them from impinging on the safety and freedom of others. What makes gun ownership different?

fluff · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by ohio
All the good stuff is over here.

Keep telling yourself that mate, leave Europe for us...

fluff · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by N8
Its my Constitutional Right to have a gun if I so desire.

And it's others' constitutional right to say you are wrong to want one...

:devil:

ummbikes · Mar 8, 2004

I was at a "Mens Advance" (a clever play on the time honored tradition of a Women's Retreat) this weekend.

One of the activities we did was go to a shooting range for target practice.

I rented a Sig-Sauer 9mm and my friend has the compact framed Glock 9mm, we set the pastor up with a Ruger 22 revolver and my doctor was shooting a Glock .45 cal.

My buddy, shot a uber-sick group at 50 yards with his glock, 10 rounds inside a 3" circle. I was lucky to stay in the 10" target circle at that distance...

I fired between 250-300 rounds through the Sig and the Glock nines, I was suprised to find I prefer the Glock. The Sig's trigger requires the shooter to release the trigger pressure fully before shooting another round. The Glock was more comfortable in my hand also, it had the pinky extension on the magazine and an extension on the grip.

There was a guy with an AR-15 who fired of atleast a thousand rounds. It looked like fun.

I was able to utilize the first and second ammendments at the same time, which is always cool.

Kihaji · Mar 8, 2004

Kihaji- Your definition is more lengthy and accurately describes the type of firearm, save the semi-auto vs. full-auto/select fire component(unless you're referring to the differences between the M16/AR15). I was not cutting and pasting one from a specific source. BTW, what is yours?

The definition I have is what most military and law enforcement agencies and bodies use as definition. The definition you gave, with pistol grips and other sort, is what Florida and a large amount of legistations have put forward. They are wrong. The basic crux of your argument is not that you disagree that people should not be able to own assault rifles, it is that you have the wrong definition of an assault rifle.

A rifle, or any weapon, should and is most commonly be defined by its balistic charachteristics and effective range, not its outside appearance. Stinger missles have a pistol grip, but I would hardly qualify them as assault rifles.

I never said 20-30 round mags were for hunting OR home defense. The 2nd amendment is not about either and you presumably are aware of that.

Box loaded is large magazines. This is of course up to interpretation and I believe that the language on this should be made clearer.

Again, why the red herring? Who said anything about subsonic rounds? 9mm FMJ ammo will penetrate drywall, to say nothing of law enforcement grade or +P.

Most home owned pistols are subsonic, the higher powered pistols are mostly special use. And yes, most will penetrate a single layer of drywall, its the other one that it wont. 99% of the houses in the US are double walled, whereas in other countries they are single walled.

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is spot on. Do you deny that it was included in the Bill of Rights for the purpose of enabling citizens the means of overthrowing a rogue or tyrannical regime? Come on...let's not be disingenuous. As for what would be termed Class IIIs or "destructive devices", there is a lengthy and expensive licensing process one may go through to get access to such things. I don't personally see a need, though. As far as tanks and howitzers, private citizens DO own those things if they are wealthy enough, undergo the FBI licensing procedure and pay the hefty tax stamp on them. Obviously, they are not permitted on the streets. There are several organizations that have marksmanship competitions with both .50BMGs AND cannons.

I don't deny that it is a reason, but it is not the primary reason. You must remember though, the greatest thing our founding fathers gave us is not the Bill of rights, but rather the ability to update the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment clearly needs to be rethought and reworded to be less ambiguous, problem is I don't think there is an objective person alive who can do it.

I have seen urban combat training at Quantico and have participated in some of the unit training there as modified for DOA civilians. Going into a hot hole first takes some nuts. I wouldn't want to do it.

Being a #1 is difficult, trust me. Thats why us #1 guys LOVE wall breaches.

As before, ,I am all for the right to bear arms, but there are limits. The general populous does not need a large amount of weaponry that is available today. Even though the founding fathers had the forsight to give us the right to bear arms, they had no forsight in seeing the destructive capability that those arms would achieve.

fluff · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by Kihaji
Even though the founding fathers had the forsight to give us the right to bear arms, they had no forsight in seeing the destructive capability that those arms would achieve.

I'd never looked at it like that before. Good point.

LordOpie · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
Just off your shore? Where are you?

Ever think it's kinda strange that the Germans didn't just hop over the 16 miles of English Channel to invade this country? After all our citizens aren't armed. I guess that's why we get invaded all the time, eh?

two words for that : "Tooth" and "Care"... oh yeah, I went there ! :devil:

fluff · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
two words for that : "Tooth" and "Care"... oh yeah, I went there ! :devil:

I heard, wasn't that just before the famous Big Mac & Donut shortage...?

nydave · Mar 8, 2004

Yo K. You obviously know about firearms and tactics....and are a Guardsman.

I too belong to the National Guard...NY.

I would much rather all my fellow law abiding Americans have the same kind of equipment I do....we all are on the same side.

The one fact you seem to like to omit is select fire. That IS the defining characteristic of an assault rifle.

llkoolkeg · Mar 8, 2004

Well, my blood pressure is back within normal parameters so maybe I'll go out this evening and pop off a few. Next to sex, it's one of the better stress releases I know of. Perhaps CDC in Atlanta should reconsider their view of guns. The use of firearms in the reduction of hypertension has probably not been fully explored to this point.

BurlyShirley · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by Kihaji

As before, ,I am all for the right to bear arms, but there are limits. The general populous does not need a large amount of weaponry that is available today. Even though the founding fathers had the forsight to give us the right to bear arms, they had no forsight in seeing the destructive capability that those arms would achieve.

Yes, there are limits and a line has already been drawn in the sand. I still fail to see how a weapon that is in fact less deadly is more of a danger for public use. I fail to see how banning the AR-15 will make the streets safer. Id rather get shot twice with an AR than once with a real hunting rifle.
While we're on AR's though, they are actually acceptable for some forms of hunting as well. They work well for varmints like prarie dogs, coyote and other animals...so its not like the gun can only be used to 'maim humans'.
And again, the "destructive capability" of an "assault weapon" line an AR-15 is not very great IMO. They're friggin pea shooters. This is about 'looks'...period.

llkoolkeg · Mar 8, 2004

And in the interest of letting off some steam from underneath our collective collars:

Kihaji · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yes, there are limits and a line has already been drawn in the sand. I still fail to see how a weapon that is in fact less deadly is more of a danger for public use.

There is no such thing as a "less deadly" weapon. You are either lethal or non-lethal. An assault rifle is lethal regardless of the round it fires (disregarding the obvious non-lethal designed rounds that are available). To somehow believe that a 5.56 round will somehow not kill you is absurd, when you get tapped in the chest you will die.

I fail to see how banning the AR-15 will make the streets safer. Id rather get shot twice with an AR than once with a real hunting rifle.

The rifle gives a false sense of security and power. In situations where the common individual would normally not return fire this weapon will give them the "nuts" to, injuring more than it saves. It is an offense based weapon, period, unlike a handgun which is defensive in nature.

You are right when you say it is about appearance, appearance is everything when it comes to show of power and the eventual use of that power.

While we're on AR's though, they are actually acceptable for some forms of hunting as well. They work well for varmints like prarie dogs, coyote and other animals...so its not like the gun can only be used to 'maim humans'.

And any .223 caliber hunting rifle will do just as well, you do not need a semi-automatic/3 round burst rifle with a 20 rnd magazine to hunt squirrels.

And again, the "destructive capability" of an "assault weapon" line an AR-15 is not very great IMO. They're friggin pea shooters. This is about 'looks'...period.

The destructive ability of a .223 hunting rifle is significantly less than that ofa 5.56 AR-15 when you add a larger magazine, controlled recoil, and a burst capabilty. But ultimately, a round to the chest is a round to the chest.

There is no reason for any general person in todays day and age to need the power and capabilities of an assault rifle.

Oh, and I am not a guardsman, I was regular army, stationed at Ft. Drum and am currently finishing my degree before I return as an officer.

BurlyShirley · Mar 8, 2004

There is no such thing as a "less deadly" weapon. You are either lethal or non-lethal. An assault rifle is lethal regardless of the round it fires (disregarding the obvious non-lethal designed rounds that are available). To somehow believe that a 5.56 round will somehow not kill you is absurd, when you get tapped in the chest you will die.

You're wrong. A .22 is much "less deadly" than a Howitzer. I didnt say a round wont kill me, Im saying its not "designed" to, unlike a hunting rifle.

The rifle gives a false sense of security and power. In situations where the common individual would normally not return fire this weapon will give them the "nuts" to, injuring more than it saves. It is an offense based weapon, period, unlike a handgun which is defensive in nature.

Please post some data to support this. This sounds like complete crap. If someone's going to be shooting at some people, I hightly doubt that if his weapon is "scary looking" its going to have much of an affect on that mindset.

You are right when you say it is about appearance, appearance is everything when it comes to show of power and the eventual use of that power.

Ok, good. Then your argument is over. Its all about appearance, right? What a stupid thing to make a law over.

And any .223 caliber hunting rifle will do just as well, you do not need a semi-automatic/3 round burst rifle with a 20 rnd magazine to hunt squirrels.

An AR-15 doesnt even have a 3 round burst genious (i can tell you should be an officer). Plenty of .22 cal guns come off the shelf that can hold up to 20 rounds, some in clips some in a little chamber under the barrel. You dont need an H2 to drive to work, but they sell them. Your argument is bunk.

But ultimately, a round to the chest is a round to the chest.

Hey, you said it buddy. That's what Im getting at all along. No new laws are needed here.

EDIT: I misspelled "genius" aaaaaaaaahahahhahaha :rolleyes:

RhinofromWA · Mar 8, 2004

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Cornell link

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Cornell Militia Link

So...........
Who here belongs to a Militia? Looks like able bodied men belonging to organized (or un organized) militias are the ones who have the right to bear arms.

Who here is ready to jump out of their log cabins throw on their 'coon hats and run after the nations enemy when asked to (that isn't already in the military)?

Just discussing the 2nd amendment with out the techno-gun bable.

RhinofromWA · Mar 8, 2004

Did find this.....
~~~~
The Founding fathers understood the need for the Government to have a standing army(Militia) to protect the nation from foreign enemies. They wanted the people protected from a standing Army. The Second Amendment is very CLEAR!!!!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No where does it say that the MILITIA has the right to be armed, that is rather redundant. It STATES the PEOPLE. I belive that in the whole document is about defining the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE and the LIMIT of Government.

In modern day language it would read: Because a standing army is necessary to keep the USA safe, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms in their OWN defense shall not be infrindged
~~~~

I could have missread it....

SO who is ready to overthrow the government? :rolleyes:

Kihaji · Mar 8, 2004

An AR-15 doesnt even have a 3 round burst genious (i can tell you should be an officer). Plenty of .22 cal guns come off the shelf that can hold up to 20 rounds, some in clips some in a little chamber under the barrel. You dont need an H2 to drive to work, but they sell them. Your argument is bunk.

I don't have firing experience with a civilian AR-15, only the military counterpart M-16/M4( I LOVE my M-4 btw). But from looking at expanded views of the trigger mechanisms, it would not be too much trouble to modify an AR-15 to 3rd burst. But that is moot, the point is you don't NEED 20 rounds in a magazine as a civilian. Every additional round in that magazine is an increase in power, and a civilian does not need the power of 20 rounds coming out of that rifle without a reload, ever.

Once again it comes down to the 2nd amendment needing to be updated. The founding fathers could not have imagined the power that the rifle would have today, nor could they have the ability to effectivly regulate that power properly, the language didn't exist. It does today.

We have the language today to effectively classify all weapons and classes of weapons. If I were in charge, which I am not, I would classify all weapons based on their caliber, muzzle velocity, effective rate of fire, barrel length, and round capacity. All these factors come into play on the relative power of any weapon system, and can be debated on individually as to whether a civilian has the need for a level of capability.

The current legislation is insufficient, not in that it is too restrictive, but in that it is too vague.

BurlyShirley · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by Kihaji
If I were in charge, which I am not, I would classify all weapons based on their caliber, muzzle velocity, effective rate of fire, barrel length, and round capacity. All these factors come into play on the relative power of any weapon system, and can be debated on individually as to whether a civilian has the need for a level of capability.

The only category that an "assault weapon" would be superior to a hunting rifle in any of those mentioned would be round capacity...and even that is debatable because many non-assault style weapons are capable of accepting clips of however many rounds you want to put in one. In effect, the legislation you want should limit the size of clips which are made available to the public.

LordOpie · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by N8
In your opinion anyhow....

touche!

However, why do you think a civilian needs that much firepower? Why would anyone need more than a dozen rounds in a clip? Be a man... bow hunt!

ohio · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by N8
Why does anyone need that much of anything..??? Bikes, cars, SUV's, pot, money, land, clothes, stero, multi-media, etc... It just depends on which wing of the aslyum you happend to occupy.

Take bikes for example... why does anyone need a bike that costs over $150? Be a man... walk!

spending an additional $2000 on my bike does not make it any more likely that it will kill anyone (but myself

). Now if I were to attach blades to the hubs and explosives to the bell, and sell it as an "assault" bike.... that probably wouldn't fly, even though I could try to use the 2nd amendment to protect it.

RhinofromWA · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by ohio
spending an additional $2000 on my bike does not make it any more likely that it will kill anyone (but myself). Now if I were to attach blades to the hubs and explosives to the bell, and sell it as an "assault" bike.... that probably wouldn't fly, even though I could try to use the 2nd amendment to protect it.

Ask dem hikers.....

they will tell you they have been near killed by them fancy bikes....and they would say "bikes are for paths"

Walking rulz.

fluff · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by N8
I guess if you get rid of all the guns etc... we'll become like the UK Nanny state then...

No, but you'd need to find a different penis substitute...:devil:

Kihaji · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by ohio
spending an additional $2000 on my bike does not make it any more likely that it will kill anyone (but myself). Now if I were to attach blades to the hubs and explosives to the bell, and sell it as an "assault" bike.... that probably wouldn't fly, even though I could try to use the 2nd amendment to protect it.

Where can I get me one of them bikes, that is sure to bring the chicks, and I bet it will be the last time some moron cuts me off commuting to school.

Jorvik · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by Kihaji
Most home owned pistols are subsonic, the higher powered pistols are mostly special use. And yes, most will penetrate a single layer of drywall, its the other one that it wont. 99% of the houses in the US are double walled, whereas in other countries they are single walled.

No to the "most home owned pistols are subsonic," cuz they ain't. The most popular 9mm Winchester JHP round goes something like 1300 FPS. That's supersonic. Despite the HP, that WILL go through two layers of drywall. I'm tempted to bust out the 92F and get some video of me firing it through two layers of drywall, just for kicks

Originally posted by Kihaji
There is no such thing as a "less deadly" weapon. You are either lethal or non-lethal.

Yup, there is no difference between a nuclear weapon and a .22. They're just as lethal.

And if anybody else refers to a magazine as a clip, I'm going to get angry.

If I'm going to kill somebody I wouldn't use an AR-15 either, especially if I'm a untrained criminal. I'd use a 12 guage turkey shotgun loaded with 00 buck or sabot rounds, depending on range. The rounds would be pretty much untraceable to the weapon, as you can't get ballistics done on the shot or the sabot. With 00 you've got a much better chance of hitting your target than with the BBs that an AR-15 does.

LordOpie · Mar 8, 2004

Originally posted by N8

That's a might big clip ya got there! :devil:

ummbikes · Mar 9, 2004

Originally posted by Jorvik

And if anybody else refers to a magazine as a clip, I'm going to get angry.

God forbid we blaspheme the terminology of the hand gun. :rolleyes:

fluff · Mar 9, 2004

Originally posted by Jorvik

And if anybody else refers to a magazine as a clip, I'm going to get angry.

Easy, Meat. Go to your happy place. Hug a tree?

fluff · Mar 9, 2004

Originally posted by N8
nessessarily....

Dude, you gotta quit drinking liquor in the morning. It'll kill you eventually.

llkoolkeg · Mar 9, 2004

Fluff, you should come over and visit sometime. You could bring a crate of crumpets and toss them up in the air for us to blast like clay pidgeons. Once your knees stopped knocking, you might even have a go with a gun yourself. It'd be interesting to see if one of my handcannons would knock you over onto your ass before or after the top strap caught you in the forehead.

nydave · Mar 9, 2004

Funny...I did that the other day and misspelled "heritiage".

Back to the original topic..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Amen. I rest my case.

fluff · Mar 9, 2004

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Fluff, you should come over and visit sometime. You could bring a crate of crumpets and toss them up in the air for us to blast like clay pidgeons. Once your knees stopped knocking, you might even have a go with a gun yourself. It'd be interesting to see if one of my handcannons would knock you over onto your ass before or after the top strap caught you in the forehead.

Did you read my posts?

If so you clearly missed the part about clay-pigeon shooting (though I typed skeet rather than clay-pigeon in a (clearly vain) attempt to help comprehension). Oh well.

llkoolkeg · Mar 9, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
Did you read my posts?

If so you clearly missed the part about clay-pigeon shooting (though I typed skeet rather than clay-pigeon in a (clearly vain) attempt to help comprehension). Oh well.

I did read 'em, but you're talking about shooting shotguns. I'm talking handguns...and big 'uns. You know...ones with long barrels that we Yanks use to overcompensate for our supposedly small penises. On that point, if our penises were so small and we didn't know well how to use them, why did our American boys get treated so well by your British lassies during WWII? Tommies didn't like it how our Joes got all your women with our fine American tobacco and (sic) small penises. It's a trend that carries through to the present day, as I can personally vouch having visited your little island for nine debaucherous days. :devil:

"Assault Weapons" Ban Bill Extended

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Don't mess with the Santas

Norman Einstein

Monkey Turbo

MOTHER HEN

Monkey Turbo

Chimp

Ranger LL

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Ranger LL

Norman Einstein

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Norman Einstein

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

MOTHER HEN

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

The Fresno Kid

Brevity R Us

Monkey Turbo

Norman Einstein

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Don't mess with the Santas

Monkey Turbo

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey Turbo

Ranger LL

Chimp

Monkey Turbo

Ranger LL