= new reply since forum marked as read
...which is that is really about taking a swipe at the type of people that buy AR-15s and AK-47s. You have your standard boilerplate view of who buys them, you don't like them, their political views, or their "armed rebellion" fantasies, so you want to diminish them.
The combined homicides of people that used AR-15s and AK-47s is a couple of hundred a year. There is no real criminal threat from those guns, and you know it. But you are so terrified of "potential", or at least using other peoples fears of "potential", that you're letting that override good sense.
Barrels get hot after a few shots. "Rapid fire" is not required; there is a LOT of friction heat generated when you shove a bullet down a barrel with an interference fit of up to 0.008". At up to 3,000 feet per second, mind you.
And since a rifle by definition is a two-handed firearm, whether or not there is a barrel shroud the shooter's weak hand will be gripping a piece of wood or plastic or metal that is insulating his hand from the heat of the barrel.
Look at a Ruger Mini-14, for example. When it's being shot (and being a semi-automatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine, it can be shot rapidly for long periods of time), the shooter's weak hand is on the insulating forward grip.
I mean, really is what you're doing is forcing people to always carry their guns in the "ready to fire" position, even when they're hot.
So your argument is invalid.
And listen to yourself... you're actively advocating for a consumer product to NOT have a heat shield over a part that gets hot from normal use.
And yes, pistol grips let shooters get a more comfortable grip on the gun. I personally don't like them, but that's me. But here's a surprise for you, perhaps... the rounds that AR-15s and AK-47s fire are relatively light on the recoil. There's no effective difference in firing are between the two, at least that I can tell.
Exhibit A:
Jump ahead to 0:40, and you'll see a guy with a regular, non-pistol-gripped SKS that fires the same cartridge as the AK-47. He rapid-fires the entire 10-round magazine in not more than 3 seconds.
Exhibit B:
This guy has an SKS with the tactical treatment; adjustable buttstock and a protruding pistol grip, and a 20 round magazine. He fires 10 rounds in also not more than 3 seconds.
And again... you're advocating for shooters to have LESS GRIP on a gun while they are shooting it. Is this improving gun safety???
Here's the problem. What soldiers want on the battlefield on their rifles is also perfectly reasonable to want on a regular rifle. Good ergonomics, non-slip grips, good placement of controls, protection from burns, protection from muzzle flash, low-glare and water-resistant finish, easily adjustable buttstock for comfort...
None of these features are in any way unreasonable for ANY rifle of ANY operating mechanism to have. Who wants a rifle with hard-to-use controls, sharp edges that cut or abrade flesh, and a rust-prone, glaring finish?
Are you of the opinion that if Fuckwad's AR-15 in Newtown didn't have a protruding pistol grip or a forward handguard that completely encircled the barrel and effectively acted as a heat shield, the body count would have been lower?
Is this your contention? That if Fuckwad had used the non-assault-weapon Mini-14 I pictured above, that 25 or fewer people at the school would have been killed?
The magazine issue is separate from the other, fixed features of a gun.
Because of Newtown and other instances of mass murder, assault weapons have to be banned. Obama will doubtless say so tonight in his speech.
Now, either you want to ban assault weapons because you think it will prevent or reduce future slaughters, or you are cynically using the blood of innocents and cries of "do something!" to generate positive publicity and the appearance of doing something, or you want to wage a culture war against people that own guns and enjoy doing so.
Of course, waging a war on pistol grips and hand guards (excuse me, barrel shrouds) will not have any effect on lethality. Sorry. Fuckwad had 3 to 5 minutes to wage uninterrupted slaughter. He could have done that with a .38 revolver and a box of ammo.
You say that by banning certain popular guns the potential for mass slaughter will not be diminished. So then, sequitur, you are concomittantly saying that by banning assault rifles there would be an 'increase in the potential for mass slaughter'? well you do get no effect as a choice, but a tenuous one.
.. the potential for mass killings & woundings will indeed be diminished.
No, if banning will not reduce the potential, then the potential will remain steady. Why? Because you can pretty much pick up any gun, walk into someplace full of people, and kill 5 of them pretty quickly. (5 or more is generally considered "mass murder"
. Bolt action rifle. Lever action rifle. Revolver. Pistol. Whatever.
this is a worst case scenario, which should be disregarded as in most cases the worst case scenario does not apply. Within the margin of error & it's confidence level, the assault rifle will cause more damage than the shotguns 'worst case scenarios' which you envision, in perhaps 90% of the time. A two shot shotgun I don't believe you anyway.
The worst-case scenario (what Cheney called "The 1% Doctrine" is the oft-stated reason for things like assault-weapon bans and magazine-capacity limits. I've actually seen people say on DU that the frequent reloading gives more chances for the shooter to be tackled or something.
Now, it is true that people tend to run and hide when shots begin ringing out. So having a magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle would probably be more useful for that intended, evil purpose. But, as I've stated before elsewhere on DU, despite the profusion of semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles the past 20 years, the ongoing 30-year trend for handguns to have larger double-stack magazines in lieu of single-stack magazines, better ammunition, and more tactical accessories, murder, attempted murder, robbery, rape, and assault rates have halved in since 1990. Potential went up, but actual usage went down.
.. utterly specious; the rapid fire of the assault rifle makes the heat shield necessary because the rapid fire makes the barrel get hotter as in 'military battlefield' use, thus the qualifier in the awb bill; the aim is not to burn gun owners little fingers, but to denote that when a heat shield is deemed necessary, rapid battlefield fire is the reason.
You mean, like shooting a 30-round magazine in one minute at the shooting range? That makes an AR quite warm, thank you very much. And again, if the part gets hot during normal use, why not put a heat shield on it? Why is this prohibition needed at all, much less FEDERAL LAW?
Because it's a war on appearance, a chance to give the appearance of doing something without actually doing anything. And trust me, the people waging war on barrel shrouds will send lots of fundraising letters expecting financial reward for banning them... or trying to, at least.
Proves little, that an adept shooter with his gun, can do it - not all killers are adept & things get hairy when they start the dirty deed; does not pertain to everyone & actually only a few - thus the ban would have an effect on some killers who are not expert killers. Which is all the legislation strives for.
You only take extreme examples & show that since a few guys can get by, anyone can - non sequitur.
If not all killers are adept, then the real issue is not whether the gun has a protruding pistol grip (or, god forbid, a quick-adjusting stock or a barrel shroud), but the ability of the shooter. An inept shooter will have problems regardless of whether the gun has a protruding pistol grip or not; likewise a competent shooter will not have problems regardless of type of pistol grip.
And again, what your side is apparently hoping for is that during a mass shooting, not having a pistol grip will somehow save lives or something. This is entirely incomprehensible to me. If you're not going to attack the core operating mechanism (semi automatic) and/or the way it feeds (from a detachable magazine), then you're not striving to do anything to lower the firing rate of the gun. And instead you're squabbling over cosmetic features in a desperate attempt to look productive and proactive and "taking on the NRA".
of a militia. That is often referred to as the 'collective right' interpretation.
Its demise may be greatly exaggerated! 
{re: "thoroughly put to bed"}
they were and what they are.
I think the point to argue, if any, the only point not clear - is what was meant by "the right to keep and bear arms".
And we both know those arguments too!
Heller has decided of course, but it doesn't make yapping about it all any less interesting. In fact, I would love to clearly with a 100% certainty be able to make up my own mind!
Because the anti-rights position asserts that the 2nd Amendment literally has no meaning whatsoever! 
Deal with it...
