What is an "assault rifle," he asked sarcastically.

[Mortos]

When, inevitably, some gun collector snarkily asks me to tell them what an "assault rifle" is, I like to respond with this:

An assault rifle is a weapon that cowards use in the commission of mass murder to kill the most human beings possible, in the shortest time possible. An assault rifle is a weapon that killed 17 high school students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in unders 6 minutes, it is a weapon that killed 20 elementary school children and 6 teachers in Newtown in under 5 minutes. An assault rifle is a weapon that killed 49 people and wounded 58 at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, most were killed or wounded in the first 7 minutes. Assault rifles are weapons that killed 16 people and wounded 22 in under 3 minutes at a San Bernardino Christmas party. Assault rifles with a still legally obtainable bumpstock ($250 online) are weapons that killed 58 people and wounded 851 in under 10 minutes at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas

An assault rifle is a weapon of war, slightly modified for civilian use that has the capability of putting enough firepower in the hands of physically and mentally weak people to give them a capability they otherwise would not have; the ability to kill and wound dozens or even hundreds of people in a few minutes.

It is a weapon amazingly similar to the rifle I carried in the US Army, except mine had a 20 round magazine instead of 30, 50, or 100, and could fire automatic 3 round bursts, the civilian model can be legally modified to fire fully automatic 100 round drum magazines. It fires the exact same high velocity round as my military issued rifle, designed to tumble upon impact with human flesh causing the maximum tissue damage and lethality possible. It is weapons like the AR (ArmarLite Rifle), which was designed specifically for military infantryman to be able to carry more ammunition into war. It is any weapon that has the capability of firing multiple .223 or 5.56 (bullets designed for weapons of war during Vietnam) rounds at an extremely high velocity, with minimal reloading, for the primary purpose of killing human beings quickly and by those with nominal firearms training, proficiency or precision. They are for sale to anyone over 18 who can pass a simple background check, in a dozen stores near you. They are available most weekends in gunshow parking lots or from people on the internet with no background check at all. They are legally available to mentally ill people and subjects on the terrorist watch list. They are the preferred weapon of mass shooters who use them more frequently and with more lethal efficiency, every year since the assault weapons ban, staunchly opposed by the NRA, was allowed to lapse by a Republican President and Congress on September 13th, 2004.

An assault rifle is the weapon of choice of mass murderers who want to slay as many defenseless men, women, and children as possible.

Any more questions?

[Phoenix61]

1. I could have used that last night

Thanks for posting.

[Mortos]

6. Last night is when I was posed the question, again

and I pondered on it a bit and came up with this. Use it freely. I am tired of good people being bullied in this debate.

[duhneece]

98. Me. Too

Over a few canyons from where I live I can hear rapid fire now as it is an unofficial firing range. We will persist

[marble falls]

2. I'm saving this for future discussions here in Marble Falls.

[Miigwech]

7. Are you talking about Marble Falls, TX?

Horseshoe Bay?

[marble falls]

19. Marble Falls, Tx

[efhmc]

67. Pretty sure there is only one Marble Falls just as there is only one Lampasas.

nt

[marble falls]

128. There's a couple of Marble Falls, only one Lampasas

[efhmc]

162. Well only one Marble Falls in this neck of the woods.

When ever I order on line, after I spell Lampasas and say the zip, I say only one in the US, pretty sure.

[marble falls]

163. I drive through Lampasas about monthly when I go to Temple VA....

any chance you know Donnie Price?

[efhmc]

172. No, sorry.

[marble falls]

186. Good people, both him and his sister. Local musician, stole Pootie's statue from Pootie's bar...

after he died and they sold the bar. Good story I'll tell you about if you make it down 281 sometime passing thru Marble Falls.

[marble falls]

226. here's some Donnie Price for you....

This one was recorded here in Marble Falls at the theatre next to the R-Bar:

[efhmc]

229. Thanks.

Ronnie Witcher who is a Democrat runs the local radio station. I'll ask him about him.

[marble falls]

230. Donnie's just a good all around decent human being.

[Hoyt]

3. Excellent. It is also weapon of choice of 3%ers, oathkeepers, militia groups, racists, white wingers

bent on taking over the government, intimidators, dads introducing their kids into the gun culture, people with self-esteem issues, white wingers afraid they will become a minority and be treated as they treated minorities, and perhaps worse. These weapons are what has fulled the gun market in recent decades.


3%ers in Charlottesville:





Veterans Against Gun Violence

[Aristus]

10. Ever notice that you never see these clowns with one-shot, bolt-action deer rifles?

n/t

[RainCaster]

17. That is my rifle of choice, and I won't have anything to do with the NRA

Nutty Russian Armory

[Hoyt]

49. Hopefully, you will no longer have that choice before long.

[Aristus]

142. If a mighty, mighty deer hunter can't work the action of a hunting rifle

in just a couple of seconds, he should probably re-visit his rifle training.

And, you know, re-think the concept of him being a mighty, mighty deer hunter...

[Aristus]

147. I'm fine with a five-round magazine.

A manual bolt-action is rapid enough to go deer hunting with. But not so rapid that a gun-crazy can take out 17 kids with impunity.

[Aristus]

151. And then they banned gun sales through the mail.

Not quite sure what you're driving at.

One guy with one rifle killed one guy.

So let's not keep weapons of mass murder away from potential murderers?

[Aristus]

253. Or we could go BOTH ways!

Jesus! What is it with people who focus only on mental health issues, and not keeping the guns out of the hands of potential mass-murderers?

Oswald got off three shots in ten seconds. With a modern semi-automatic rifle, it's possible to get as many as thirty shots off in ten seconds. Anything that slows down the rate of fire available to a gun-crazy is a good thing. It's an easy concept to understand. (Well, for most people, I guess... )

[Aristus]

286. You know as well as I do that semi-auto weapons with high-capacity magazines

are not for those concerned about marksmanship. They're for people who want to fire indiscriminately, and kill and maim as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.

You know that.

[Straw Man]

296. Apparently you don't know very well.

You know as well as I do that semi-auto weapons with high-capacity magazines

are not for those concerned about marksmanship. They're for people who want to fire indiscriminately, and kill and maim as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.

Have you heard of the Camp Perry National Matches? They're kind of like the World Series of target shooting in the US. You can read about it here:

http://thecmp.org/competitions/cmp-national-matches/

Here's a Google image search on "camp perry national match rifle." Tell me what you see.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1369&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=Hyy7WvSsJoK7ggeco5xY&q=camp+perry+national+match+rifle

[paleotn]

43. Not one with an IQ above 75.

[Larrybanal]

57. low iQ

but really high body mass...they are all fat clowns

[padfun]

131. That picture shows a group of armed militia showing an enemy flag.

I always get peeved when a group will wave either a Nazi flag or the stars and bars. Both were the enemy of this nation and both killed many Americans.

If they want to wave those flags, they should do it in another country, not this one.

[aikoaiko]

4. I think the data show that handguns are still the preferred weapon of school shooters.

And almost every basic gun design was created for "weapons of war".

A definition that doesn't distinguish anything is not a useful definition.

[Mortos]

8. Come on

This is a dodge from my point. Gun lovers don't ask people to define handguns, they ask them to define assault weapons in order to obfuscate and confuse the arguments of people who aren't that familiar with guns.

[aikoaiko]

9. Not a dodge. The AWB you tote covers semiauto rifles, shotguns, & handguns in certain configurations

Most AWBs are bad legislation because they try to distinguish between evil "assault weapons" and non-evil firearms.

It's difficult to do and that why definitions matter.

CT had an AWB in place and the Lanza rifle was a legally owned AR15 because it met the definition of a non-assault weapon.

We saw how well that worked out.

The thing that distinguishes evil "assault weapons" from non-evil firearms is the detachable magazine that could be any size. Its not the grip, the barrel shroud, or the bayonet lug. Banning any firearm with a detachable magazine would be a nightmare politically because most handguns and rifles sold today use them.

[shanny]

15. So because gunners insist on writing watered-down laws that allow too many loopholes

we should just give up the whole idea? The law in question "worked out" just as planned.

[aikoaiko]

16. Not quite. The latest AWB after Sandy Hook was defeated by changing the grip for $35

A bill that was unadulterated anti-gun.

Again, the problem is trying to distinguish between evil assault weapons and nonevil firearms and it is difficult to do without including firearms that are used by many people including hunters, rec shooters, and people interested in self-defense.

If you include those firearms, AWB bills will fail to become law.

[Tumbulu]

22. Well I am tired of stupid enthusiasts

Demanding anything. Just get rid of them all if you they are going to be this way.

Why should anyone’s pleasure put my life at risk anymore.

I’ve had it with pleasure seekers of all kinds. Big orange porn king case study #1!

[aikoaiko]

37. Oooh, pleasure seeking. So evil.

Go for it. Ask your legislators to ban and confiscate all firearms. You'll stay busy for a long time.

[paleotn]

41. Aussies said precisely the same thing....

Seems someone loves their firearms more than the lives of innocent children. Interesting. Also says quite a bit about your feelings of inadequacy.

[mr_lebowski]

59. Look, I'm no big gun fan, don't know a ton about them but s/he appears to be correct ...

You cannot define, for the purposes of an actual law, a 'banned weapon' using (many) of the sort of descriptions that are in the OP. 'It's weapon of choice of mass-murderers' is meaningless afa writing a law goes. Laws just aren't written that way. You have to define actual physical characteristics, and the only ones being given in the OP is the type of rounds fired, and the fact that the magazines are big. There's a suggestion these guns can be legally modified to fully automatic 100 round magazines ... but I don't believe that's true. I mean the feeding mechanism of the magazine is automatic but if you make your AR-15 'full-auto', you're breaking the law in every state I believe.

Aiko is right that the OP is not descriptive enough for making a law with ... and if used to construct a ban, would pull in so many weapons that there's no hope of it passing. Yet, when the humpers ask 'define, legally, the weapon(s) to be banned', that is what they're asking for, and they're right to do so. Cause we're asking for a law.

[NickB79]

87. Aussies paid gun owners compensation

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2018, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

For a few hundred thousand guns. It's ironic that a nation founded by convicts actually had very low gun ownership rates.

America has 300 MILLION guns. At $500 each on average, that's quite the bill to pay.

[TwistOneUp]

114. Yes, $150bbn

Which is about 10% of the last "budget bill."

I'm a gun owner, but enough IS enough. Japan made it life in prison if you are caught on the street - committing a crime or not - with a gun. So now, machetes are common.

Australia bought all the guns - now bullies have a field day.

I do not know what the answer is. As long as people go nuts when AWB or any gun laws are discussed, we know that we have a pronlem. When peeps can't talk about things calmly, that's a pretty strong indicator of dysfunction; i.e., that something is fscked up somewhere.

Perhaps Canada is the answer. Certainly some peeps need psychiatric therapy. Walking down the streets in fatigues while brandishing AR-15s is not helping. But then one expects right-wingers doing nonsensical things when one talks about "Don't mess with us" Texas...

[Tumbulu]

113. When your pleasure

equals my maiming or death it sure is.

If the gun nuts don't stop all this obfuscation all weapons will be banned in the US within 5 years.

That's your choice.

Gun nuts have foolishly thought ( backed by propaganda) that they can hang on to this idiocy by bullying the rest of us. Those days are over.

Either the entire industry works cooperatively to regulate responsibly these firearms ( as the automotive industry does), or the sane public will shut the whole thing down.

Play these stupid obfuscating games here or anywhere at your risk.

[aikoaiko]

121. I'm confident all firearms won't be banned within the US in 5 years

Sadly, even if the NRA and all gun owners capitulated to all demands now, gun controllers would just come for more.

Not too long ago there were total handgun bans, long-range rifles bans, and small and cheap handgun bans proposed in congress. The current situation is a reaction to all those efforts.

[EX500rider]

133. "If the gun nuts don't stop this obfuscation all weapons will be banned in the US within 5 years"

Since is in the Bill Of Rights you will need:

Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

Good luck getting 38 States to sign off on that.

[Tumbulu]

154. You will see, that remains the choice of the gun nuts

Either get with the program and help design sensible regulations, or the imaginary right will be taken away.

You can pretend all you want, but the public is done with gun nuts.

Anyone not working sincerely on solving the problem, who is still defending this ridiculous imaginary right to be a militia of one, is setting themselves up for the utter end of that so called right.

Times up.

[hack89]

165. Pass some laws first

Then come threaten gun owners. Right now you don't have shit.

[Tumbulu]

167. Dream on and watch

It will utterly depend on people working together on this.

The result of sticking with the current level of obfuscation is clear.

[hack89]

168. I have been watching for over 20 years

Since the first AWB. All I have seen is a steady liberalization of gun laws. Things have not changed that much. If big demonstrations meant anything abortion would have been illegal decades ago.

[EX500rider]

169. "or the imaginary right will be taken away."

Pretty sure my rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are not imaginary and has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The "collective rights" model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

The Supreme Court's primary Second Amendment cases include United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases

[Tumbulu]

174. Just dream on. No need for you to worry

about a thing

[EX500rider]

214. One of us needs to dream on, that I agree with.

[LanternWaste]

211. Pretty sure all laws and rights are by their very nature, imaginary

Pretty sure all laws and rights are by their very nature, imaginary-- existing no where but our own imaginations, like religion.

No doubt, we often allow that magic thinking to confound us to such a point that we often pretend borders, laws, politics and economics are reality. But if you allow critical thought a priority, you'll realize they're not.

[EX500rider]

215. No, all those things are not imaginary..

....feel free to try and cross those "imaginary" country borders like they don't exist and you will be in for a rude awakening.

[weissmam]

129. Trump was the 1st one to suggest it

[HopeAgain]

29. insincere

You admitted owning an AR in another thread.

[aikoaiko]

32. Yeah, I'm been transparent about my firearms.

What does that have to do with criticizing various permutations of Assault Weapon Ban legislation?

[Canoe52]

192. Ban them all, but put in a provision to send all ex gun owners thoughts and prayers cards.

[aikoaiko]

193. That's funny.

[paleotn]

39. horse shit.....

RATE OF FIRE How many fucking rounds a weapon can put down range in a set period of time. Your comment about "rec shooters", hunters and statistically challenged, frightened little things (self defense nuts) is nothing but an NRA contrived dodge. A canard for self centered sociopaths to hide behind. I've hunted since the age of 14 and you do not need the rates of fire produced by semi-auto rifles or pistols. I'll make it simple for you....you get bolt, you get lever, you get pump, you get revolver and you have to state a valid reason for such. Feelings of male inadequacy IS NOT a valid reason.

Were done with canards and bullshit arguments. We're fucking done. DONE! You want to live in a gun loving society, may I suggest Somalia. God damn, some people are like fucking stumps.

[snort]

101. Perfect

[EX500rider]

134. "I'll make it simple for you....

......you get bolt, you get lever, you get pump, you get revolver and you have to state a valid reason for such. "

You mean as soon as you get laws past to make that happen. Which I highly doubt, semi-auto firearms have been pretty much the standard for 100 years.

and you have to state a valid reason for such
Pretty sure Constitutionally protected rights don't require "valid reasons".

[paleotn]

150. And so were Browning BAR's

and Thompson sub-machine guns at one point...until society deemed them a threat and tightly restricted them.

As for the 2nd amendment, it's and AMENDMENT. It can be modified or repealed entirely.

As one who seems to think the blood of innocent people is just the price we have to pay for your fetish, I wonder how you sleep at night.

[EX500rider]

152. "As one who seems to think the blood of innocent people is just the price we have to pay...

....for your fetish, I wonder how you sleep at night."
Since you don't know me you have no idea what fetishes I may have or not have.

I could say the same about many things that kill a lot more people then firearms.

Do you have Draino under the sink?
Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 47,478

Do you have a car?
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 37,757

Do you own a ladder?
Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 33,381

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

How do you sleep at night? Or do you find that argument as stupid as I do?

As for the 2nd amendment, it's and AMENDMENT. It can be modified or repealed entirely
It sure can, good luck with that.

[Tumbulu]

155. The constitution gives the rights for states to keep militias

Not individuals to act as state militias of one.

I second the invitation for all those who want their firearms to relocate to Somalia.

[EX500rider]

159. The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of the people.

That's why it's called the Bill of Rights.

If the 1st Amendment was worded:

A well regulated Press, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech, shall not be infringed.

Would only the press have free speech or the people?

Also even if you could abolish the 2nd, 44 States have a RKBA in their Constitutions also.

[Tumbulu]

160. Dream on, times up

Either the gun nuts start cooperating by advocating real and meaningfulness systems of regulations, or they will lose what they have imagined to date is their right to them.

I'm not going to keep arguing this, just watch, you will see.

[aikoaiko]

195. Rate of fire for all semi-autos are pretty much the same. Reloading magazines slows them down.

I don't think my comment about recreational and hunting shootings is a canard. The current AWB proposal attempts to appease recreational, competitive, and hunting shooter.

For example, the current AWB proposal bans the Ruger Mini-14 which fires the same round as an AR15 and uses detachable magazines IF it has a folding stock and pistol grip, but its fine a dandy in its regular configuration.

Same rate of fire regardless of stock or grip.

[AllyCat]

47. The gun humpers show up at every turn to obfuscate the discussion

You love guns more than life and that is why our attempts to save our lives fall short. Try viagra. It is a lot safer for the rest of us.

[aikoaiko]

48. we can have both if you're willing to compromise.

[Downtown Hound]

71. It's the gun nuts that aren't willing to compromise.

Until very recently they freaked out over banning bump stocks, raising the legal age to buy guns, and increased background checks. Many of them are still freaking out over these.

Don't accuse anybody of being unwilling to compromise until you start being honest about the fact that it's the pro-gun people that have ALWAYS been unwilling to compromise, not the other way around.

[Tumbulu]

110. Absolutely!

[aikoaiko]

282. I don't consider gun bans to be compromises.

[Downtown Hound]

325. Whatever. Don't even for one minute act like the problem is

is that gun control advocates won't compromise. gun nutters have fought tooth and nail against even the smallest of restrictions, and behind the scenes re continuing to chip away at even more restrictions already in place.

[aikoaiko]

331. compromising means giving as well as getting

One of my complaints about those who seek gun restrictions is that they never paired a restriction with a liberty.

But then again, the pro-RKBA side never offered anything either as they won more liberty for gun owners. The pro-RKBA side had the numbers for the last 15 years or so. It could be different in 2018 or 2020.

[Downtown Hound]

338. Sorry, kids are dying

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2018, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

You're going to need to accept some restrictions, and that's just a fact. You should care more about youth dying instead of making it a condition that you get something for giving something. What you get is children living. That should be enough. Get over yourself.

[AllyCat]

130. Assault weapons AND dead kids? I think we

already have that.

[mentalslavery]

23. Nope...the lower receiver is the only part legally considered a gun....

this is the most important fact about AR's, and like types, that most people don't understand about "guns".

These "Hitler" weapons (research the history) are "convertibles", meaning that you can do whatever you like to them to maximize tactical capabilities.

The most effective legislation will address the components...as well as banning the lower receiver.

Just about everything you are is saying is wrong....its strange to see so many BS claims in one post.

[aikoaiko]

34. I understand the lower is the only part regulated as a firearm, but that has never been

a part of AWB legislation. I'm discussing actual legislation and you're talking about hypothetical legislation that hasn't and doesn't exist. You are free, however, to talk about the merits of legislation that doesn't exist.

What did I say that was wrong, exactly?

[mentalslavery]

51. you are not up on the debate...all of the things that I have said are part of current legislation

and proposed legislation. The lower has already been banned...its only since the W era that the ban was lifted. Thusly it is not hypothetical, and returning to the assault weapons ban (which would ban the lower), is debated in many forums, including this one.

You should look into what has happened after that ban was lifted if you don't already know. The lower is currently regulated in many ways. States are banning the components as we speak...so what exactly are you talking about?

None of what you said is true. You act like guns are guns...as if all guns do not have specific tactic capabilities.

If you knew anything about guns then you know they all have specific tactical capabilities. Thats why we have different guns.

There is such a thing as an assault weapon....look into the history, why it was created, and how it is used tactically!

[aikoaiko]

54. Please show me the federal law that banned the AR15 lower.

Show me and I will concede. Perhaps there is new legislation that addresses lowers specifically. I welcome your help in educating me.

But you should know I legally bought an AR15 lower during the Clinton AWB that was fully compatible with all AR parts before and after the ban.

[mentalslavery]

55. I just did dude, we had an national assault weapons band that sunsetted after W

got elected..Use the google machine

You get on here and talk trash and can't google? National Assault Weapons Ban.

What that meant was that could could not buy any of the things you can now! lower, bump, grips, etc...


Go do you research before you talky talky...

[aikoaiko]

62. You are factually incorrect. AR lowers were never banned.

Here is the text of the 1994 AWB.

TITLE XI--FIREARMS
SUBTITLE A--ASSAULT WEAPONS
Sec. 110101. Short title.
Sec. 110102. Restriction on manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.
Sec. 110103. Ban of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Sec. 110104. Study by Attorney General.
Sec. 110105. Effective date.
Sec. 110106. Appendix A to section 922 of title 18.
--------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the `Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act'.
SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION
OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture,
transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer
of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed
under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the
firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such
firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
`(B) any firearm that--
`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide
action;
`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(iii) is an antique firearm;
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable
magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5
rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be
construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No
firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A
so long as this subsection is in effect.
`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the
United States or a department or agency of the United States or
a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a
State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);
`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining
an on-site physical protection system and security organization
required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or
contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or
off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or
transportation of nuclear materials;
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from
service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise
prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault
weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such
retirement; or
`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a
semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or
licensed importer for the purposes of testing or
experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar
to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the
shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand
without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
(c) PENALTIES-
(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such
title is amended by striking `or (q) of section 922' and
inserting `(r), or (v) of section 922'.
(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG
TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended
in the first sentence by inserting `, or semiautomatic assault
weapon,' after `short-barreled shotgun,'.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS-
Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the
following: `The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon
manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall
clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'.
SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition
feeding device.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer
of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully
possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the
United States or a department or agency of the United States or
a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a
State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);
`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining
an on-site physical protection system and security organization
required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or
contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or
off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or
transportation of nuclear materials;
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from
service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise
prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity
ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the
agency upon such retirement; or
`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large
capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer
or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or
experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.
`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts
that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of
paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof
to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of
a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United
States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity
ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of
possession in paragraph (1).'.
(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE-
Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a
capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to
accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to
accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire
ammunition.'.
(c) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by section 110102(c)(1), is amended by striking
`or (v)' and inserting `(v), or (w)'.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device
manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall
be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device
was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this
subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by
regulation prescribe.'.
SEC. 110104. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the
effect of this subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle,
and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent
and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a
period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the
Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and
determinations made in the study under subsection (a).
SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years
after that date.
SEC. 110106. APPENDIX A TO SECTION 922 OF TITLE 18.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following appendix:
`APPENDIX A <<-BOLD>
CENTERFIRE RIFLES--AUTOLOADERS <<-BOLD>
CENTERFIRE RIFLES--LEVER & SLIDE <<-BOLD>
CENTERFIRE RIFLES--BOLT ACTION <<-BOLD>
CENTERFIRE RIFLES--SINGLE SHOT <<-BOLD>
DRILLINGS, COMBINATION GUNS, DOUBLE RIFLES <<-BOLD>
RIMFIRE RIFLES--AUTOLOADERS <<-BOLD>
RIMFIRE RIFLES--LEVER & SLIDE ACTION <<-BOLD>
RIMFIRE RIFLES--BOLT ACTIONS & SINGLE SHOTS <<-BOLD>
COMPETITION RIFLES--CENTERFIRE & RIMFIRE <<-BOLD>
SHOTGUNS--AUTOLOADERS <<-BOLD>
SHOTGUNS--SLIDE ACTIONS <<-BOLD>
SHOTGUNS--OVER/UNDERS <<-BOLD>
SHOTGUNS--SIDE BY SIDES <<-BOLD>
SHOTGUNS--BOLT ACTIONS & SINGLE SHOTS <<-BOLD>

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x87023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[mentalslavery]

66. you dont not know how to read legislation...section C...you figured otu the google tho!

[mentalslavery]

70. I love it .....the legislation literally says Colt AR and your like, it never banned AR lowers..WHAA

plus other subsections that first define...then BAN!!!

We are coming for your guns....expect us....

[aikoaiko]

73. You are still factually wrong about the 1994 banned AR lowers

You misread that the first section C

That section reads:

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture,
transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer
of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed
under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
(A)
(B)
(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable
magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition;

It's saying that the law does not apply to semi-auto rifles that don't accept detachable magazines and that is not the same as saying it bans semi-auto rifles that do.


What it does ban (concerning semi-auto rifles) is this:
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;

There is no mention of lowers.

If you can't accept the black letter of the law, I'll stop arguing because there is no way to resolve this conversation.

[aikoaiko]

78. rofl

[mentalslavery]

80. thought you were walkin way..

[aikoaiko]

86. Actually, I said I wouldn't argue. Laughing is another matter.

[Marengo]

173. You should have walked away before sputtering nonsense about lowers being banned in 94.

They were not. If they were, how would I have been able to buy a Colt Match Target, manufactured DURING the ban?

[NickB79]

90. I worked the gun counter at a sporting goods store in 2000. We sold AR's

You are incorrect.

Gun makers removed the banned features, like flash hiders and high capacity magazines, and sold them as semi-automatic sporting rifles.

[Sophia4]

91. Legislatures will study and review the guns that have been used in mass shootings

like Las Vegas and Parkland and others.

That kind of study has just been authorized.

Then, any gun that fits the profile of the guns used, any gizmo that provided the ammunition in those many, many random and deadly shootings, will be prohibited.

If the NRA and gun lovers don't like the new, healing laws, then it is their job to figure out how to stop the mechanized killings with guns through some means other than legislative prohibition.

If gun lovers and gun manufacturers cannot impose their own solution on themselves (and it appears that that is where we are), there will be more anti-gun sentiment, voting and legislation.

What people who like and maybe own guns forget is that the rest of the population, the vast majority of us, doesn't really care about guns at all. Most people find them boring, uninteresting.

It's the killing that people are tired of. It's the mourning, the funerals, the dead children and loved ones.

PARKLAND WAS THE LAST STRAW. The last intrusion. The last massacre. The last hate-filled show of deadly rage. The last. The final one. The end.

The guns themselves aren't important at all. That's why those of us who want an end to the killings could care less about the technical aspects of the guns themselves.

If the guns were not used to kill people, no one would care.

This is essentially a problem for gun owners. It is they who have been irresponsible about the damages that guns do.

So the deaths will now be stopped -- by the legislature.

And gun owners and manufacturers have no one to blame but themselves.

Democracy in action.

The killings are going to be stopped.

[Tumbulu]

156. Agree 100%!

[flamin lib]

42. You are absolutely right. So future legislation should be worded

to ban the sale or possession AF any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine.

Careful what you ask for, gunner, ya just might get it.

It happened in Australia.

[paleotn]

46. Precisely....

We have the numbers...we have the votes. They do not. They're a sub class or the right wing, and not a very large one at that. Our movement will continue to grow and before long, they will be pining away in their basements, longing for their long lost, cold steel penis extenders.

[EX500rider]

135. "We have the numbers...we have the votes. They do not."

In 2017, about 42 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession.
Sounds like a lot of voters to me.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

[paleotn]

149. Um no....

36% own a gun. 3% own a staggering 50% of all guns in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.c40604463262

That's not as many votes as you think. Oh, by the way. I'm part of that 36%. No semi-auto, since I don't need it. Haven't hunted in years, so they mainly collect dust. If it means American children don't have to fear being murdered at school, I'll give up my dust collectors. But that's not what's being called for. Universal background checks and a limit on firepower. That is all. I suppose the deaths of children mean little to people like you. Sad.

[Marengo]

175. Whats your valid reason for owning those firearms?

[mentalslavery]

74. hand guns and bolt action only...comin for your guns...

[Marengo]

177. Handguns are responsible for far greater numbers of gun deaths and injury than rifles of any type...

Seems odd you wouldn’t prioritize going for those.

[Kurt V.]

72. what about limiting the size of the magazine.?

Is that doable?

[aikoaiko]

76. Of course. Its probably the smartest thing that is doable.

[Kurt V.]

126. good. i know gun owners that support this

[USALiberal]

50. Arguing with aikoaiko is like arguing with the NRA. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

276. ANY Gun of any size or clip capability is an ASSAULT weapon, Guns are made for

ONLY one primary reason, to KILL.


Dump the "rifle" part too, screw that, what is an "assault weapon" is the question and you see my answer

[Hoyt]

13. Fine, let's do something about those too. Glad you brought it up.

[Tumbulu]

25. Yes!

👏👏👏👏

[aikoaiko]

35. I triple dog dare you.

[mentalslavery]

77. See, this is really what its all about..Aikoaiko is a perfect example...

these gunners are just bullies and thugs....they are criminals dressed as patriots...

I dare you to come after my guns.....

Really aikoaiko, wanna get more specific?......

The key board warrior!!!!

[snort]

106. My ignore list grows

and I'm a gun owner. These guys are just off the rails. I mean, I own a car, but I don't sleep in my garage. Fuck the fucking guns.

[Marengo]

176. In what way is Aikoaiko a criminal?

[shanny]

36. Amen!

[pnwmom]

61. Good,if true. The injuries are less lethal. But there is still the issue of

high capacity clips, which are designed for offensive gun use.

[aikoaiko]

64. Well, then lets talk about magazine size rather than firearms.

It is hard to claim that 30-round magazines are not useful for self-defense when civilian police use them in their rifles or 10+ mags in this pistols and they can only use their firearms defensively.

Having said that I'm willing to ban the manufacture of magazines over 20.

[SunSeeker]

92. Police use SWAT tanks too. That doesn't mean civilians should. nt

[aikoaiko]

95. Technically, civilians can have tanks. Not many people want them.

[SunSeeker]

104. No, it is illegal for a civilian to drive around in a SWAT tank.

For a number of reasons, not the least of which is it is illegal to impersonate a police officer.

And if you are talking about military tanks, no as well, unless there are substantial modifications that render it less tank, more Hummer. Civilians in some states can own decommissioned military tanks. The guns and firing control systems must be disabled. You cannot drive it on most public roads without special permits, and you'll need rubberized treads to avoid damaging the roadway.

Again, just because the police or military use something does not mean civilians should have it. But that is just the sort of outrageous justification the gun folks resort to for the unjustifiable: civilians having assault weapons.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making that argument.

[aikoaiko]

108. Yes, its true that they don't have all the parts and you can't drive them on roads typically,

...but they are still tanks. SWAT tanks are not particularly filled with advanced war systems. They are mostly armored vehicles that don't fire ordinances. But we're not talking about tanks these days. We're talking about firearms.

I think there is something to said for using ordinary civilian police as a standard for nonpolice civilian firearm possession. Again, I'm talking about rank and file beat cops who deal with the public on a daily basis. Both can use their firearms only for legal self-defense. Both encounter the same criminals. Although I will stipulate that police encounter dangerous criminals and use their weapons in self-defense more than nonpolice civilians.

[Adrahil]

206. Just to be clear...

You can own a fully operational tank, including the gun, and machine guns. You just need to go through the proper NFA process and pay tons of money. I know a guy who operates a fully operational Sherman tank. He only fire blanks form the gun, because each individual shell is considered an NFA "destructive device."

[SunSeeker]

218. Thanks for your concern about "clarity."

But if he can't fire real shells, it's not "fully operational." And it's definitely not street legal.

[Adrahil]

222. He CAN fire real shells. He doesn't. Different point entirely.

And no, you wouldn't drive it on the street, but who's talking about that.

My point is that a lot of things people assume are illegal, are not in fact.

But the NFA imposes some previous significant burden to getting the device. You can't just go down to the local Bubba's Gun Store and buy a tank gun and bring it home.

Same with machine guns.

IMHO, we need to put semi-auto rifles with a removable magazine on the NFA class III list.

And large cap magazines need to be considered destructive devices.

[SunSeeker]

223. It would be illegal to fire real Sherman tank shells.

He can't drive it off his property and it is not fully operational. What he has is a museum display piece.

[Adrahil]

225. wrong on all points..

It would be perfectly legal to shoot a live shell, and people do it. But those shells are EXPENSIVE. And they individually considered to be destructive devices. But some folks with way too much money have certainly done so.

His tank IS, in fact, fully operational. And he drives it off his property all the time (literally all the time... his property is too small). He trailers it to WWII reenactments, air shows, armored vehicle shows, etc. It also has an operational M2 .50 cal machine gun on the turret.

But again... the point: He had to jump through a LOT of hoops to get it.

Same is true for machine guns. You have to jump through some hoops and pay a lot of money.

And you almost never see them used to commit crimes. That's why I say we do the same for semi-auto rifles and high cap mags.

[SunSeeker]

227. It is not "perfectly legal" for a civilian to shoot a Sherman tank shell.

And he may trailer it to other locations, but he sure as fuck doesn't drive it on the street. Come on.

[Adrahil]

228. Yes, it IS legal to shoot the gun.

And people do it.

Just like it's legal to shoot a machine gun. Or a cannon.

And no one said he drives it on public streets. Did I ever suggest that? I think not. The tracks would tear the street up.

[SunSeeker]

233. An idiot doing stupid shit on Youtube doesn't prove it's legal.

The main gun on a Sherman tank amounts to a cannon. I know it is a popular subject of gun nut sites to misleadingly argue that it's legal to own a tank or a cannon to justify owning ARs.

First, at least in California,

12301. (a) The term "destructive device," as used in this chapter, shall include any of the following weapons:
(3) Any weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any ammunition therefor, other than a shotgun (smooth or rifled bore) conforming to the definition of a "destructive device" found in subsection (b) of Section 479.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, shotgun ammunition (single projectile or shot), antique rifle, or an antique cannon. For purposes of this section, the term "antique cannon" means any cannon manufactured before January 1, 1899, which has been rendered incapable of firing or for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade. The term "antique rifle" means a firearm conforming to the definition of an "antique firearm" in Section 479.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

So, as long as your cannon is non-functional and classified as an antique then yes. Otherwise, no. 

And if you get caught....

12303. Any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state, possesses any destructive device, other than fixed ammunition of a caliber greater than .60 caliber, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a public offense and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or in state prison, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by both such fine and imprisonment.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/pen/12301-12316.html

[Marengo]

238. The Shermans main gun is classified as a large bore destructive device under Title II, and most...

States permit possession with California and New York being the exceptions IIRC. Non-explosive ammunition for cannons is not considered as DD under Title II, at least as far as the last time I researched this.

[SunSeeker]

239. The "tanks are perfectly legal" talking point is demonstrably false.

Trying to rescue it with sophistry is just a waste of your time and my time.

Goodnight.

[Marengo]

251. You have made several demonstrably false statements in this discussion and have been corrected.

Here you double down and claim that’s sophistry to cover the obvious fact that you are misinformed on this topic. Odd and amusing.

[SunSeeker]

261. I have shown it is illegal, at least in California, the jurisdiction I am familiar with.

Odd that you would find that "amusing."

To each his own I guess.

[Marengo]

262. Nonsense, you added that qualifier AFTER you were proven wrong. You are not well informed on...

This subject.

[SunSeeker]

264. Wrong. The person I was responding to offered no qualifier, saying it was "perfectly legal."

That is demonstrably wrong. If it is not legal, at a minimum, in the most populous state in the union, then it is not "perfectly legal."

Project much?

[Marengo]

269. Rubbish, it is legal on a FEDERAL level, and in a majority of states. California code does not...

Extend beyond the border of California. In what possible way is the population of California relevant to this discussion? The answer of course is that it is not. In my current state of residence as well as the last it is legal to own an armored vehicle with a functioning large bore gun and to fire that gun in approved areas, I know as I’ve seen it in person. You are NOT well informed on this issue and are attempting to cover the obvious evidence of that.

[SunSeeker]

271. If it is not legal for the majority of the US population; it's not "perfectly legal."

And no one in this thread has offered any proof that fully operational tanks are "perfectly legal" in any state.

[Marengo]

274. I sincerely hope this is an intentional display of

Obtuseness. The alternative is rather frightening.

[EX500rider]

284. NY + Calif 59 million US pop 325 million....hardly a majority.

[SunSeeker]

285. Wow, the tag teaming continues. Obsessed much?

No one has proven it is legal in any state.

So are you going to insult me next? That appears to be the M.O.

[EX500rider]

287. Just pointing out your poor math skills.

[SunSeeker]

289. My math skills are good, EX500rider. Marengo cited only one unnamed state.

Marengo cited just one unnamed state of his "residence" where he claims fully operational tanks are legal. Even giving him the benefit of that doubt that such a state exists, one state does not a majority make.

And again, no one on this thread has proven fully operational tanks are "perfectly legal" in any state.

But you've completed your mission to insult me, accusing me of having "poor math skills." Ooooooh, burn. Right up there in the bullying hall of fame with Marengo's "you're obtuse" insult and the "you don't know what you're talking about" insult. You guys hit the bullying trifecta!

[oneshooter]

317. How about this place, in TEXAS.

https://www.drivetanks.com/tanks-tracks/?utm_medium=cpc

[Marengo]

326. Heres a link to list of NFA laws by state compiled by a Class 3 dealer. The LBDD column containes..

The information relevant to this discussion.

https://3gtactical.com/nfa/nfa-state-restrictions

[Marengo]

356. Have any comment on the info in post #326?

[Marengo]

327. Uh oh, looks like youre wrong again. Legal with a permit from the California DOJ, 12305(b).

[SunSeeker]

333. Marengo, it is you who is wrong. Again.

The section 12305 you reference is for a narrow, strictly controlled uses approved by CA DOJ, like movie shoots. Such a permit explicitly requires that DOJ approve the specific use, the location be inspected and each shell must be accounted for.

[Marengo]

334. LOL! You claimed it is illegal to possess a large bore destructive device in CA, turns out its not

With the proper permit issued by the CDOJ. In this game of semantics, you’ve been owned by your own citation.

[SunSeeker]

335. It is illegal, as you will find out if you try to do it.

You can't just shoot a tank cannon for shits and giggles, let alone tool around in a fully operational tank in CA You will end up in jail and/or fined. It is not "perfectly legal." You simply cannot compare what you are suggesting to, say, a CA DOJ approved and supervised movie shoot firing of a tank cannon.

[Marengo]

336. Sorry, but you are owned by your own citation. 12305(b) allows for possession by individuals

If the DOJ approves the application and issues the permit.

[SunSeeker]

337. Nope. Narrow, CADOJ approved uses of cannons hardly equate to it being "perfectly legal."

If your idea of "perfectly legal" is what someone has to go through to shoot a cannon in CA, then you wouldn't mind if that process was requured for firing a gun, right?

[Marengo]

339. Sorry, your own citation proves a process exists to allow individuals to apply for a permit to....

Possess a large bore destructive device. You claimed it is illegal, it is not if the permit is issued.

[SunSeeker]

340. That's like saying because a surgeon can cut someone open, it is "perfectly legal" to cut someone.

Sure, a process exists that makes it legal for a specific individual with an individual permit to slice someone open, but no one in their right mind would say that it is perfectly legal to cut someone.

[EX500rider]

343. I'd stop digging if I was you.

No one claimed you wouldn't have to jump thru hoops to own a tank with a working main gun but that fact is you can if you fill out the right forms and pay the fees.

[SunSeeker]

345. I'd stop making shit up if I were you.

It's not just a matter of filling out a form and paying fees. Firing a destructive device/cannon in California is illegal, that is the rule. Just like an individual cutting someone open is illegal.

Because firing a cannon is illegal, there are strict procedures a person/organization must follow to avoid arrest and fine in the few uses, like movie shoots, that the CA AG may approve, but you must obtain a CADOJ permit /approval for each firing, it must be supervised and you must account for every shell, as stated in 12305(b).

[Marengo]

355. You were making shit up in post 104, and when proven wrong you starting tossing out qualfiers...

That were not included in the discussion to that point. But muh California...turns out possession of a large bore destructive device IS legal with the proper permit, and collecting for its own purpose is a valid good cause for the issuance of a permit by the CDOJ.

[Marengo]

348. In other words, you were wrong. Did you intentionally fail to mention the statute provides...

For a permitting process in the hope no one would notice, or did you simply not know? It can only be one or rhe other.

[SunSeeker]

350. No, I cited the statute accurately. You wrongly said it was "perfectly legal."

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2018, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

That statute shows firing a cannon in CA is not "perfectly legal." It is illegal, and if a movie set or other unique situation occurs that requires firing a cannon, approval from CA DOJ must be obtained for that specific us and each shell must be accounted for.

[Marengo]

354. No, you are either uninformed or are being disingenuous. The good cause provision is not limited...

To theatrical use and does not preclude simple possession of a large bore destructive device. Chapter 7, section 4128(4) allows collecting for its own purpose as a good cause.

“(4)Possession for the purpose of maintaining a collection of destructive devices as defined Penal Code section 12301...”

[oneshooter]

316. I have one of these in my barn. Rebuilding the engine. Is this a "swat tank"?

[Kurt V.]

183. full disclosure. ..

when I say 'gun owners that I know' is actually 90% of my friends and family. my informal survey supports 3 rounds. no more. of course one's social environment dictates these things

[George II]

83. 17 people were killed in Parkland in 6 minutes, 26 people were killed in Sandy Hook....

....in less than 10 minutes.

Not a school shooting, but in Las Vegas 59 people were killed and more than 500 injured in only 9 minutes.

The preferred weapon in each case was an AR-15 or variation of that. By the way, the AR-15 was designed in the 1950s at the request of the US Army.

We can quibble on which weapon is "preferred", but assault weapons are used in most mass shootings.

[aikoaiko]

84. I agree that ARs have been used in massive and tragic massacres.

But I'm not sure "assault weapons" are used in most shootings.

[IMG][/IMG]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Perhaps, maybe, if you chop up the years in a different way.

[George II]

89. There are different ways to look at it - we can look at the number of incidents and weapons....

....as that chart does, and we can also look at the number of fatalities.

For example, maybe there are "more" incidents where handguns are used (as in the case in Maryland last week), but in many of those incidents only one or two people were killed. But in "fewer" incidents a huge number of people are killed.

Incidents with handguns can be ended quicker and with less fatalities than incidents with assault weapons.

[aikoaiko]

93. I agree there are different ways to look at it. Legitimate and illiminating ways.

You're right that it could be as you described, but its hard to find the data to understand.

And I'll mention something that a lot of people forget. The largest school shooting is still VATech and it was committed with two handguns; a 22lr pistol 10-round mags and a 9mm pistol with15-round mags.

All I'm trying to say is that its complicated and banning AR15s might not achieve what people think the bans would achieve.

[Humanist_Activist]

182. You are making an argument for the US to ban the sales and possession of semi-auto handguns. n/t

[aikoaiko]

185. Banning all semi-autos would be more consistent with what anti-gun violence want.

I don’t agree we should do that but that’s the truth.

I’m fact they really need to ban all repeaters like revolvers, pump actions, and lever actions if they really want to change the numbers on mass shootings.

[Humanist_Activist]

208. Not necessary, most gun deaths are due to semi-auto handguns, frankly I have little interest...

in banning shotguns and non-automatic rifles personally. Though they should still be subject to nationwide registration and tracking of purchases.

[MichMan]

102. Handguns are responsible for a multitude of killings every single day across the country

An AWB will have little to no impact on the vast majority of gun related homicides that occur every week in larger urban areas

[Demsrule86]

224. So let's stiffen the penalties for illegal carry...and make every single person who wants one

pass an FBI check. It is one thing to have a gun in the home but another thing to walk around with it like a cowboy or something.

[ManiacJoe]

241. The problem is not the penalty.

The problem is that the "illegal carry" is the first charge that gets thrown away in a plea bargain 99% of the time.

[Demsrule86]

252. Not in New York...make it a felony.

[Straw Man]

265. Felonies are plea-bargained away all the time.

Even in New York.

[Demsrule86]

272. Just because some won't get the max is no reason not have laws...people still murder but

we have murder laws. New York is way better than Chicago because they have the gun laws...Chicago has gun laws but people can still buy guns in the burbs, Indiana or Wisconsin. Guns need to be registered from manufacturer to destruction. Register them just like a car...people can get licenses for guns...and consider some sort of written test is appropriate and I don't know about a practical but we could think about it.

[Straw Man]

273. What?

Just because some won't get the max is no reason not have laws...people still murder but

we have murder laws.

Where did I say we shouldn't have laws? What I'd like to know is why violations of existing gun laws are being plea-bargained away while new laws are being demanded as essential for our safety. How is a new set of unenforced laws going to make us safer?

[Demsrule86]

297. Perhaps I sent this to the wrong person...but those who say a law won't work because some will

circumvent it as an reason not to have gun control laws...if this was sent in error and I will check ...sorry.

[Eliot Rosewater]

277. And I presume it was a standard hand gun that was emptied into that black man in Sacto

for the crime of holding a cell phone in his backyard, which almost never happens to white, people, weird that.

ALL guns will be gone if humanity survives long enough. If humanity survives and evolves, guns will be obsolete.

Evolution is maturity.

[ManiacJoe]

292. Assuming are you referring to the recent police shooting,

Yes, two handguns each using standard capacity magazines.

The police don't use extended capacity magazine as they are unreliable (cause lots of jams).

[Eliot Rosewater]

298. Right, so all guns are a problem

[forgotmylogin]

88. I don't know how to build a watch, but I know how to tell time.

It's a very common tactic among the gun-humpers to shut down and refuse to discuss anything by claiming their opponent does not have detailed knowledge of the intricacies of firearms. It's akin to falling back on criticizing the spelling and grammar instead of the content when you don't have a valid point.

The best retaliation is "okay, ban all guns then, who cares if it's "semi-action full-action partial-action diagonal action" whateverthefuck. It's a thing that allows someone to cause instant injury or death to another human being.

aikoaiko's whole desperate modus operandi is to shut down any argument about gun legislation.

[grantcart]

171. My watch says it's time to ban highly lethal weapons that

Have nothing to do with personal protection.

[forgotmylogin]

190. +1 (n/t)

[Straw Man]

266. If the goal ...

I don't know how to build a watch, but I know how to tell time.

... is to regulate watches according to how they function, "I know how to tell time" doesn't exactly get you a seat at the table.

[FakeNoose]

5. Yesterday I marched in Pittsburgh carrying this sign

[Hoyt]

14. Thank you. People who ought to know, say this --

[EX500rider]

136. That signs stats seem unlikely.

Rifles of all types, not just AR-15's kill around 350+- people of all ages a year on avg .....so a child every 17 seconds seems incorrect. Maybe they meant at one certain shooting that happened?

[Straw Man]

268. Wow.

So 1,855,058 children are killed with assault weapons every year? Or was your sign just incorrectly phrased?

[raccoon]

11. Great OP! nt

[ornotna]

12. They are weapons of war

K&R

[Paladin]

18. Nicely put.

We need to reclaim the discussion---and the vocabulary---from the pro-gunners. They've been in control of both for way too long.

[MustLoveBeagles]

20. I can't add anything more

You pretty much covered it.

[SCVDem]

21. Another feature of an assault rifle

would be the shorter barrel length compared to an M-14 or similar long rifle.

The weapon was designed for urban warfare where soldiers would be engaged in apartment buildings where the narrow hallways might be a negative for a full sized rifle. We also went from seeing the target to blindly shooting into a general direction.

You don't see snipers using an assault rifle.

I hated the damn thing with its constant jamming and inability to handle a little sand or dirt.

Don't get me started how fixing a bayonet to a toy rifle made sense.

If you have one then it should be kept in the same manner as our military.

KEEP IT IN THE ARMORY!

[mentalslavery]

30. AN ASSAULT RIFLE IS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO LAY LEAD...

its as simple as that. Look into the history of the gun folks. Hitler, more accurately his military development team, realized that his troops could advance in certain situations if the just sprayed lead....ya know "cover fire".

that is the point of the assault rifle as well as its defining figure. Its really simple.

Look into the history of the gun and how it is used in war!

[SCVDem]

120. Barrel length is an issue

Why are shotguns legal but sawed off are not.

I agree with rate of fire being important, but you could not handle the recoil of a 7.62 on full auto for more than short bursts.

The smaller round and a recoil supresser enable faster, more accurate rates of fire.

Legislation needs to be concise.

We do not disagree.

[hunter]

24. A quicker response is, "Fuck off. You know what we're talking about."

Gun fetishes are disgusting. They just want to talk about their guns."

[mentalslavery]

60. I personally like..."oh...ok...well if you don't know what one is then you won't miss it"

nt

[packman]

26. Good post -

Seems like gun nuts entire life is about guns, ammo, clips, etc., etc. Their focus in life IS the gun because somehow it fits into the fantasy narrative they have of themselves - dying for a cause making them super heroes. Anyone who owns such a weapon is a time-bomb ticking away.

[HopeAgain]

27. NRA trolls out in full force

People who align their arguments with Anton Scalia. Think about that.

[Cryptoad]

52. "NRA-Russian"

[Marengo]

178. You wouldnt align with Scalia on Texas v Johnson, Maryland v King, or Brown v EMA?

[Locrian]

28. great post

The .223 or 5.56 is a round invented purposely for war, to be as physically destructive wounding / killing - with wounding preferred to slow down and expose more resources into caring (or abandoning) the injured. It's a small cartridge - so they can carry / shoot more, etc.

It's a truly disgusting round (not that others aren't) but this one stands out.

[hack89]

166. No it was not

It was a popular varmit round before it was adopted by the military.

[EX500rider]

219. So outlawing a round that wounds while leaving available..

...more powerful rounds that kill makes sense to you somehow?

Personally I'd rather be wounded then killed if someone shot me.

[oasis]

31. Thank you. K and R

[lastlib]

33. An assault weapon is one that is pointed at me......

...or you....

[Johnny2X2X]

38. We can figure it out

When ever be gun nuts ask, “well which weapons need more regulation?” I respond with, we’ll have to get together and decide. We can decide all types of things in society need certain classifications, cars, TVs, lawn mowers, food, medicine. I think we can have an agency in charge of classifying guns, actually, we already do.

[MrModerate]

40. Unless you have memorized and can recite . . .

. . . the original part numbers of every piece of the subject firearm (in alphanumeric order), you clearly don't understand guns and aren't allowed to comment.

If you can't field-strip the weapon and reassemble it blindfold in under two minutes, you're not permitted to talk about guns.

If you can't tell us the life story of the weapon's original designer, then you're too ignorant to be listened to at all, and should probably just shut up.

That just about covers it, I think.

[FakeNoose]

53. LOL - what if your spouse is pointing one at you

I think you'd know it.

[William Seger]

44. Absolutely! We need a definition that includes these:

This innocent looking hunting or target rifle, the Ruger Mini-14, fires the same ammo as an AR-15, as fast as you can pull the trigger (including bump-fire), and it accepts 20- and 30-round magazines. And if you also want it to look nasty, you can accessorize:

https://ii.cheaperthandirt.com/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?FIF=/images/cheaperthandirt/source/rgr-428-013_1.tif&wid=575&cvt=jpeg

[ManiacJoe]

242. Same gun.

Just replace the pretty wood with ugly black plastic.

The problem with all the "assault weapon" definitions is that they deal with what the gun looks like, not what what the gun can do.

[Eliot Rosewater]

278. Until we evolve, i.e. grow up and stop needing these toys, we should allow the 2nd to be

enforced as written, this would allow any state to remove ALL guns to well regulated militias.


I dont want most cops to have guns either, once they are entirely removed to WELL regulated militias they wont need them

[Mountain Mule]

45. WOW! Thank you for that - may I quote you?

[Mortos]

58. Share and quote away

[Mountain Mule]

164. Thank you! I will!

[Stonepounder]

56. I freely admit that I am anti-gun.

Guns are not allowed in my home. I have a couple of kids who love to hunt. Fine, but they are not allowed to bring their guns into my home. I know very little about guns, save that I could probably figure out which end to point.

Now, having said all that. How about instead of arguing endlessly about what constitutes an 'assault weapon' and what modifications we need to ban, how about a law that:

1. bans the .233, 5.56, and any other ammunition designed to tumble upon impact. (I realize that this might require some fiddling with, since I suppose that some game hunters use this type of ammo.)

2. require that all civilian guns require some sort of cocking to load the next bullet into the chamber. All handguns would be single-action, long guns would be bolt, lever, pump, etc. No semi-automatic allowed.

Thoughts?

[Abnredleg]

109. All bullets yaw and break up on impact

That's just the nature of ballistics. Speaking in general term, singling out a particular caliber bullet won't work because there are literally hundreds of different caliber rounds, most of which can be fired in the AR, and all of which are equally deadly. We will have better luck, in my opinion, addressing the issue of magazines. Limiting the size and making them non-detachable might be an effective way of addressing the rate of fire.

[ManiacJoe]

248. According to wikipedia, approximately 1100 rounds.

Over a span of 10 minutes, but not continuously firing.

[ManiacJoe]

244. The problem is not the rate of fire either.

None of the modern non-automatic guns fire "quickly". And certainly none of them fire continuously for long amounts of time as none hold enough ammo to do that.

The main problems in all these mass shootings are (1) the shooter should not have had any gun what so ever, and (2) the shooter was left undisturbed for extended amounts of time so that he could fire lots of rounds at his leisure.

The problem has never been the tool (gun). The problem has always been the user (shooter).

[Stonepounder]

256. I have a question for you regarding your last statement.

The question is not meant to be snarky, sarcastic, or anything other than a serious question.

If the problem is not the tool but the user, why is the US the only country with this problem? Until the recent ascent of the Orange Shitgibbon we were seen as 'the Golden City on the Hill'. We were the place that the whole world looked to. Yet from the more brutal dictatorship to the most open and free Democracies, no other country in the world has these kind of mass shootings. What is it about the US that spawns these 'users' and what can we do to stop them?

[Straw Man]

270. Not presuming to answer for ManiacJoe, but I have my own ideas.

What is it about the US that spawns these 'users' and what can we do to stop them?

Lack of mental health resources, "winner take all" social values, stigmatization and bullying of non-conforming "losers," toxic racial, social, and political divides, immersion in consequence-free virtual reality, normalization of extreme narcissism and materialism ... I could go on.

Many modern societies suffer in some degree from some of these. We have all of them, and we have them on steroids. And yes, we have a "gun culture," but that is not the root of the problem. Insisting that it is merely opens the cultural divide even wider.

We never really were the "Golden City on the Hill." Maybe in the period immediately following the Second World War we offered that hope, but the reality was never that simple.

[Stonepounder]

275. Thank you for a perfectly reasonable response to the first part of my question.

And I agree with you pretty much. I'm old enough to remember when R's & D's worked together in Congress. Whichever party was in power tended to push in their own direction, so when Dem's were in power we moved somewhat to the left and when Repub's were in power we moved somewhat to the right, but R's & D's worked together and compromised together. Now we are 'whoever's in power get to do whatever they want and ignore the other party' which does indeed is 'normalization of the extreme'.

Now, for the second part of my question: What can we do about it?

As a life-long Democrat I would love to see a Blue Wave this fall. But, will a Democrat majority in the House as Senate be willing to try and work with the Repubs, or will the Repubs try and styme anything the Dems try and do? How to we move the country back to a country that can be all-inclusive, the large majority can get along with folks who don't totally agree with them? And what sort of changes do we need to make to somehow work toward keeping guns out of the hands of wackos who decide that the thing to do is shoot up a schoolfull of kids, or nightclubs full of patrons, or an audience at an open air concert? That seems to be the real question that we need to try and deal with.

[ManiacJoe]

293. Much of what we need is already in place.

We just need better use.

The NICS background checks work really well. Except some states don't report any the data they are supposed to report. Some states don't report all the data they are supposed to. Some federal departments don't report all the data they are supposed to. Some federal laws need to be updated to better address perceived conflicts, like the HIPAA laws.

The NICS system also need to be updated to allow private sellers to use it since the current fed laws prohibit private sellers from doing the background checks.

The mental health system of this country and the other parts of the social safety net also need work.

We need to do a lot of soul searching to see what has changed in the last 30 years in this country regarding the kids and young adults, because what has not changed are the guns.

[Eliot Rosewater]

279. No guns would be needed at all, well almost none, if we enforced the 2nd

as written and removed ALL guns to well regulated militias.

Some cops would need them but very very few.

[MaryMagdaline]

63. I have a new question for gun owners

I haven't had a chance to use it yet. When they talk about owning an AR15 or other weapon, I intend to ask, whom do you plan to shoot and when and where should I be when you shoot them? I mean, it's designed to kill. No one has a Porsche in the garage that they plan never to use.

[EX500rider]

68. I imagine most of them would say they plan to shoot it next time they go to the range or hunting.

[NickB79]

97. White, racist hillbillies, mostly

I'm not scared of minorities; my wife isn't white and her family loves me. I feel very comfortable around all races, which is strange to my family, who are terrified of anyone of a different race.

When I think of the type of person I'd have to shoot with any kind of gun in self defense, I see the gap-toothed, beer-bellied, white pricks that inhabit the rural county I live in who drive pickups flying Confederate flags. The ones who stare at my family and give us the evil eye.

[MaryMagdaline]

99. Me, too!

It is strange how I feel when I am in a rural white community. They look like me, but I fear them.

[MichMan]

157. Are you suggesting a Porsche should not be legal to own because it looks fast?

Even though a Porsche is capable of driving at high speeds, that doesn't mean that people that drive them frequently break traffic laws.

I have seen no indications that the owners drive them irresponsibility compared to other cars on the road

[MaryMagdaline]

161. No

[Eliot Rosewater]

280. Cars again?

I know she brought it up but her point makes sense.

[MaryMagdaline]

312. I'm sorry I even mentioned cars ... I see that used all the time now in arguments between pro-gun

and anti-gun people. I was trying to think of something that was tempting to use if someone owned one. I thought of a Porsche.

Let me go back to my cave.

[Adrahil]

207. Well, I do have a lot of swords...

That I never intend to cut up people with.

Your question assumes a lot.

[Sailor65x1]

232. Here's your chance to use it. I'll answer it

I own one, and the next time I use it on something other than paper will probably be the next time a group of coyotes menace the neighbor's animals, or more recently, her children.

No rifle comes onto target quite so fast or handles quite so well, and each time she sees her kids happily playing, my "Scary rifle" is partly to thank for it.

Not that I think you were looking for an actual answer, there's one for you anyway...

And I love your Porsche analogy. I have a Ninja in my garage that will do 200+. But guess what? Without a conscious choice on my part to break the law, it never goes that fast in public

[MaryMagdaline]

236. No, you've answered it. You would kill animals that are menacing children (or others)

The Porsche was actually a bad analogy because I wasn't suggesting that it was a danger/ never considered that/ just something nice that if you own one, you would want to use it.

[hack89]

300. I have owned AR-15s for decades without harming a single living thing

I didn't buy them to shoot people. I bought them so I could compete in target shooting.

[EX500rider]

65. Yes, I have a question..

"the civilian model can be legally modified to fire fully automatic"

What makes you think that?

Under federal law, private citizens are banned from owning machine guns made after 1986, and all fully automatic weapons must be registered with ATF.
Therefore the registry is closed and no new ones may be offered.

[Mortos]

137. Bump stocks

You can buy one online for $250 and they, for all intents and purposes, turn a semi auto into fully automatic and please don't insult my intelligence by saying it merely bumps the trigger faster but is still a semi auto gun.

The bumpstock increases the fire rate from 30 rounds in 10 seconds to 90 rounds in 10 seconds. A fully auto gun shoots about 97 rounds in 7 seconds.

[EX500rider]

141. Don't insult your intelligence by repeating the truth you already posted?

The "it merely bumps the trigger faster but is still a semi auto gun." That is true.

They also make it all most impossible to keep a gun on target, if someone ever tries to shoot me with a AR-15 I pray they use a bump stock.

[Fresh_Start]

69. They say we don't know enough about guns to regulate them

I say...

YOU don't know enough about the damage to people, families, and communities to have an opinion about regulating them

YOU don't know enough about the cost of the externalities to have an opinion about regulating them

YOU don't know enough about how to treat the damage repairing brains, limbs, and organs to have an opinion about regulating them

YOU don't know anything about how to heal the psyche of those how have faced gun violence to have a valid opinion about regulating them

Everything YOU know can be looked up on the internet in 30 seconds

Everything YOU don't know, you will never be able to comprehend

[erronis]

124. Excellent counterpoints. Make the owners know about the effects. To their family/friends/loved ones

If they have any of those.

Make them go through a six month awareness program before being able to put their hands on a single-shot 22. We do rigorous training for other juveniles that want to drive on our highways - along with videos of what happens when you do something wrong.

Finally, get rid of all those stand-your-ground crap from the NRA/repuglicans. Prosecute anyone who uses a firearm in an unsafe way the same as murder charges.

[Eliot Rosewater]

281. Why does anyone honestly own a gun outside of hunters and hunting rifles?

Self protection or wanna be a cowboy like Clint Eastwood.

Let's assume self protection. So if there were no guns, they wouldnt need them, right?


I know this kind of logic is hard for some but usually it is because the truth is they want the gun for fun, a hobby, kinda like a video game.

[BeyondGeography]

79. Great post...I like to ask them what they would prefer to be shot by

An AR-15 or a handgun?

[EX500rider]

258. Depends on the round.

I'd rather be shot with a AR-15 firing regular target rounds that will just drill a small hole thru you then a .45 firing hollow points.
Actually I'd prefer not to be shot at all.

[BeyondGeography]

260. Ill take the lower velocity handgun, Bob

https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/

“This is not really a property of the rifle itself. It’s a property of the ammunition. A handgun is typically firing a relatively heavy bullet that moves more slowly,” explained Somerset, who said the speed of a handgun’s bullet is “less than the speed of sound.”

“Rifle bullets are typically travelling faster than 2,000 feet per second. They’re supersonic,” he added.

Furthermore, while all rifle bullets have this capability, the ammunition used by the AR-15, a .223 Remington cartridge, travels at approximately 3,000 feet per second and causes a significant cavitation effect — where a bullet is travelling so fast that it sends shock waves through the body and severely damages or kills displaced tissue.

Somerset explains that people can die from bullets in one of two ways: when organs are directly hit as bullets pass through the body or through the cavitation effect.

“The cavitation effect from a handgun is typically not very severe. With rifles, the cavitation injuries can be very severe.” In addition, Somerset says that bullets from a .223 Remington “tend to tumble” through the body, which further worsens the cavitation effect.

Sher adds in her piece that she’s seen a handful of AR-15 wounds in her career, and said exit wounds from rifle bullets can reach the size of an orange.

[Sophia4]

81. What an "assault weapon" is depends on how Congress and legislatures define it when

they pass legislation that protect the public from mass murderers who use guns.

Congress and state legislatures are going to decide what responsible gun ownership means. Gun manufacturers and users will be able to have input only to the extent that they put the value of human life before the thrill and power of owning a gun.

[SunSeeker]

82. K & R

[Morris64]

94. 2A nt

[Hoyt]

105. -1000. It can be modified damn close. Besides in "legal" format, it's plenty lethal. Why else would

gunners find them so popular?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/heres-how-easy-it-is-to-make-an-ar-15-even-more-insanely-dangerous_us_59d53f85e4b0becae8022496


Why do gunners keep obfuscating on this topic?

[Hoyt]

112. Close enough. Go play a stickler with 2nd Amendment folks, they love that crud.

Why is it you guys will argue ad nauseam on an issue like this by being a stickler over what "automatic" means and whether 250 rounds a minute is enough for you, but totally ignore clear language and phrases in the 2nd Amendment?

[ManiacJoe]

249. The "why are they popular" is very easy to answer.

The AR-15 style rifles are:
- relatively short
- relatively lightweight
- weather-proof due to the ugly black plastic
- has light recoil due to the common small caliber, low-power ammo
- is easily customizable with accessories due to the modular design and standardized parts

[Hoyt]

254. Kills effectively, makes you feel powerful as one mass shooter put it, easy to conceal, etc., is

more like it ManiacJoe.

Why don't you guys give up these weapons voluntarily like "responsible" citizens.

[EX500rider]

259. "Why don't you guys give up these weapons voluntarily like "responsible" citizens."

Because responsible citizens aren't going to shoot anybody with theirs?
Do you want to give up your car or drinking every time a drunk driver kills someone or do you not feel responsible for other people whom you don't know actions?

[X_Digger]

288. He would want folks to give up their guns..

.. because it's a job hazard for those in his former profession..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[ManiacJoe]

294. One would think Hoyt would have learned by now.

Rifles are not easily concealed.

Objects do not make people feel powerful, unless you believe in magic talismans and the like.

I cannot speak to want you might think of as "reasonable" citizens.
However, as an actual reasonable (and responsible) citizen, I will happily and morally and legally keep my semi-auto carbines and all my other legal weapons, too. It is not the tool that is the problem; it is the bad user of the tool that is the problem.

[krispos42]

100. So another highly emotional plea painted with a broad brush

Designed to provoke an emotional response so that you can feel like you did something to help school safely.

Bravo.

8,000 people a year are killed with guns known to be handguns. The 2016 saw less than 350 killed with guns known to be rifles.

But go on, tell me how critical it is to stop AR-15s, which is a kind of rifle.

160 a week with handguns, 1 or 2 with AR-15s out of 7 per week with rifles.

[Hoyt]

107. Fine, semi-auto handguns should be restricted too. AR15s are the most popular guns among

domestic terrorists, haters, GOPers, intimidators, and worse. Restrict them, you shut down 75% if the gun industry, a laudable goal.

[krispos42]

117. So your primary goal is stigginit to people you don't like

Gotcha.

[samir.g]

231. ban all of the above

[Oneironaut]

103. Im sorry, but theres nothing more obnoxious in a debate than pedantry.

Just because you don’t know what what an AR-15 is, the caliber of bullet it uses, or how to field strip one blind-folded doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have an opinion on gun control.

We get it - you know the exact specs of guns, their exact history, and everything there to know about shooting them - that’s no reason to be a pedantic ass when someone less knowledgeable than you wants to restrict who can own what guns.

[Hoyt]

115. Exactly. Interview an ER doctor or EMT and let them describe what matters about these weapons.

[EX500rider]

116. If you want meaningful legislation on something you won't get there through ignorance of the subject

[Oneironaut]

119. Thats the thing, though. A basic knowledge is sufficient.

You do not need to know the muzzle velocity of a .223 round to take part in the gun control debate. That’s an example of malicious pedantry to try and silence gun control advocates.

[ManiacJoe]

295. Yes, a basic knowledge is sufficient in most cases.

Unfortunately, most people don't have that basic knowledge.

Even worse is that many of the ignorant people like to wallow in their ignorance and wear it like a badge. Then they get all offended when others attempt to educate them so that they can have an intelligent conversation.

[Hoyt]

122. Dont coddle gunners by trying to carve out some of their favorite lethal weapons. Just, ban

semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and fixed magazines with capacity more than 5. Every six months, update ban to include anything gun-humpers try to circumvent intent of law. Treat them like they deserve.

[EX500rider]

132. You work on that but I won't hold my breathe

[Nitram]

125. Excellent! I will shamelessly borrow from this in future discussions with gun nuts.

[jimmyzvoice]

127. Well written !

Mortos, are you the original author or did you get this from someone else? I would like to share this with others and want to be sure that I am giving proper credit.

[Mortos]

170. I am the original author

[Captain Stern]

138. Good post. Very well written.

However, as far as providing a usable definition of what an 'assault rifle' is, it does nothing.

Words are important, so it's important that they mean things. It's important that specific words mean the same things to everyone.

If I were to say I ate my dinner with a 'fork', we'd pretty much all know which utensil I was talking about. If I refer to a 'rifle' we all pretty much agree that means a long gun. If I someone says 'pistol' or 'handgun' we'd all pretty much agree that means a short gun.

But the terms 'assault weapon' or 'assault rifle' don't have commonly agreed upon definitions. That's why, in my opinion, it's ridiculous to spend a lot of time talking about banning them.....it pretty much guarantees that a lot of time will be wasted, with no result at all.

The focus should be more on a firearm's capabilities. If someone wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles, they should say that. If they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons, they should say that. If they want to limit magazine size, then they should say that. Those examples actually mean something specific that people can agree, or disagree, with.

When someone says we should ban 'assault rifles', most people have no idea what's specifically being talked about.

[cstanleytech]

153. "How about we ask all the people at Parkland that were killed what they think it means?"

would have been my response.

[Snackshack]

158. A gun...

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2018, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Is a gun, is a gun.

I don’t know that we are well served focusing on a type of weapon/firearm and getting that type of weapon banned. A .22 is every bit as deadly if not more so than a .45 because of the ballistics. IMO ammo and capacity at the very least is where the focus should be on restrictions and out right bans. No “grandfather clauses” for these either.

High velocity .223 / 5.56 / 7.56 rounds should be banned or reduced in power to match hand gun rounds. Reading the ME’s report on the Vegas shooting and the damage these rounds cause was horrifying. In some cases it was one bullet that ended up killing two people because of the power these rounds have.

Ammo capacity for all firearms should be limited to no more than 10 rounds. The shooter in Tucson had 32 rounds to shoot before he had to reload and that was when people took him down. Had he only had 10 rounds more people might still be alive.

Because of the Constitution we are never going to end gun violence 100%. But these two items would have a big impact on reducing the gun violence we see regularly. Also neither of these two items infringe on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms so that argument is made moot. It does not matter what a firearm looks like, what matters is what it can do. Getting rid of the ability for a single bullet to do so much damage as well as the ability for someone to shoot 100 / 150 / 200 rounds in minute or two would make an immediate difference.

[Straw Man]

179. And ammo ...

... is ammo is ammo.

High velocity .223 / 5.56 / 7.56 rounds should be banned or reduced in power to match hand gun rounds.

It isn't possible to hunt big game humanely with reduced-power handgun-type loads. Do you propose to ban that type of hunting, then?

[Snackshack]

199. No

Ammo for bolt action hunting rifles would not change. The high velocity ammo that a person can put 100-200 rounds into a magazine/clip/drum (whatever one wants to call it) is where my point was aimed.

[Straw Man]

210. You imagine a distinction where one does not exist.

Ammo for bolt action hunting rifles would not change. The high velocity ammo that a person can put 100-200 rounds into a magazine/clip/drum (whatever one wants to call it) is where my point was aimed.

There are numerous "bolt action hunting rifles" that take the .223 round, such as these:



Furthermore, high capacity magazines exist for traditional "hunting" calibers like .30-06:

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/700450

[Snackshack]

216. Everything

At one time did not exist...until it did. Not sure why “big game” hunter would hunt with .223 ammo but there are plenty of other options of high powered ammo to hunt with. I have several friends who deer/bear hunt whenever they can get picked and they would never use .223 or 5.56 so clearly the ability to hunt would not be in jeopardy if changes were made. As for high cap mags for .30-06 those should be limited to 10 rds also. Even though I have yet to read of a mass casualty event produced by a bolt action rifle...

[ManiacJoe]

240. Big game hunters do not use the .223 round.

The .223 round is a small caliber, weak-powered round. It is not capable of cleanly killing big game, which is why it is illegal to use it for that purpose.

Small game hunters use the .223 round, and they use it very effectively as such.

[Straw Man]

243. How cosmic.

Everything

At one time did not exist...until it did.

Umm ... OK. What does that have to do with the fact that there are plenty of bolt-action hunting rifles that take .223?

Not sure why “big game” hunter would hunt with .223 ammo but there are plenty of other options of high powered ammo to hunt with.

Right -- .223 is a varmint round, for gophers, prairie dogs, coyotes, that kind of thing. Using .30-06 for them would be gruesome overkill.

I have several friends who deer/bear hunt whenever they can get picked and they would never use .223 or 5.56 so clearly the ability to hunt would not be in jeopardy if changes were made.

No -- they would use .30-06 or .308, etc. -- which are much more powerful than .223 and for which there are also high-cap mags available.

As for high cap mags for .30-06 those should be limited to 10 rds also.

So are we banning .223 or not? Why would you allow ten rounds of a far more powerful cartridge while banning .223 outright?

Even though I have yet to read of a mass casualty event produced by a bolt action rifle...

What makes you think that .30-06 is limited to bolt-action rifles? Have you not heard of the M1 Garand?

And you've never heard of Charles Whitman? The Texas Tower Sniper? He killed 14 with a Remington 700 bolt action deer rifle in 1966. A different time and a different paradigm, but potentially as deadly now as it was then.

[Snackshack]

255. Before we go any further.

What do you offer as a solution? The two suggestions I make I think would have an impact. Obviously you don’t so instead of “this does not exist or that cannot be done or what about Charles Whitman” (really? Which you should read up on. He knew he was loosing his grip on reality.) Where do you plant a flag on actions/changes that could help or is your answer that we just continue the status quo and learn CPR?

[Straw Man]

263. Your suggestions were based on erroneous information.

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I matched them point for point with corrected information. My suggestion is that people who don't know the particulars of the hardware should refrain from offering hardware-based solutions. It's not my job to do your homework for you.

The answers, in my estimation, lie in a fundamental restructuring of society, including the education and healthcare systems. The single largest mass killing to date was done with a can of gasoline.

[Snackshack]

299. Aside from the notion.

That one must have a fluent understanding in the “particulars” of firearm hardware and applications. What type of “Fundamental restructuring of society” do you feel is needed or would suggest in order to eliminate or at least reduce the frequency of the mass causality events we see happening?

[Straw Man]

301. It's not a "notion."

You cannot make informed and effective policy based on erroneous information. That's a fact.

So aside from that, I refer you to this post that I made elsewhere in this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10420698

[Snackshack]

303. Having more

Mental health resources is he main thrust of your position on potential solutions?

[Straw Man]

307. That's part of it ...

... but certainly not the totally. There should have been medical and legal intervention on Nikolas Cruz long, long before he got to the point of murder.

[Snackshack]

309. I certainly agree with you.

On that point. Mental health is definitely an area where improvements need to be made. There were plenty of points for intervention that got missed in Nikolas Cruz’s timeline.

[Marengo]

180. Cho Seung-Hui managed to kill 32 people with handgun powered ammunition, more than the MSD...

Shooters 223/556 AR. What is 7.56?

[Snackshack]

196. 7.56 is another size round.

Like I said we are not going to get rid of all gun violence. The 2nd Amendment is not going to be repealed. A person can still have 5 magazines that hold 10 rounds each.

[Marengo]

198. Does this 7.56 have any other designation, a commercial name or the like?

[Snackshack]

201. Not that I am aware of.

[Marengo]

202. Did you by chance mean to type 7.62?

[Snackshack]

213. Yes.

I realize I transposed the numbers. Apologies.

[oneshooter]

318. Do you mean 7.65mm? That would be a .30 caliber.

Next question. Which .30 caliber cartridge are you speaking of? There are 20 or so different .30 caliber cartridges.

[ManiacJoe]

181. You meant "assault weapon" not assault rifle.

"Assault rifle" has a well understood and technical definition. That is not it.

"Assault weapon" is the artificial phrase that everyone likes to use. It has no real world definition outside of legislation. "Assault weapon" was chosen as the phrase because it purposely tricks people into thinking "assault rifle", which are never included in any of the artificial definitions of "assault weapon".

An AR-15 style rifle is not an assault rifle since it does not meet the definition of assault rifle. Depending on the definition of "assault weapon" used, the AR-15 style rifles are sometimes included as long as they meet the cosmetic definition of "assault weapon".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

184. I think he doesn't know what he meant, thus the thread

[Mortos]

191. I am a veteran

I was a cop. I know what these terms mean and I have fired and can field strip these weapons. Your tried and true tactic of arguing semantics isn't working anymore

But arguing about terminology has given us food for thought though, the problem is, it is the same reheated leftover slop that has been ladled out by the gun lobby for so long, it has turned rotten and spoiled and, for the first time in a long time, rational people are refusing to simply choke it down and concede. The ever shrinking cadre of gun worshippers will still lap it up and regurgitate it on command, though. So you still have that.

Have a nice day.

[Marengo]

194. What were your dates of service?

[Mortos]

197. Are you really going to question my experience and honesty?

What difference do my dates of service make to this discussion?

[Marengo]

200. As a veteran myself, Im always curious about other vets service eras, experiences, duty stations...

Etc. Why would you assume I was questioning your honesty?

[Mortos]

217. It is a common tactic of gun lovers

They question your expertise, they question your knowledge, they attempt to muddy the waters by talking about anything but the topic at hand.

I served from October 31st, 1992 to October 31st, 1998. I had no combat experience but plenty of training on the weapons of an infantryman.

[SunSeeker]

234. Thank you for your service, Mortos. And thank you for your posts here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

204. Have a nice day as well

Thanks for your service.

Since arguing over terminology has been so tremendously productive, I await eagerly the end result and progress to be attributed to the argument over whether to argue terminology.

If I was interested in that, I might have replied to your OP.

Carry on...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

257. What are the legitimate civilian uses of an AR-15 that can't be achieved...

....with a lower capacity weapon?

Thank you. I'll take my answer off the air.

[ManiacJoe]

291. There are no lower capacity rifles.

Any rifle that uses a detachable box magazine can use a magazine of any capacity.

The common magazine capacities for AR-15 style rifles are 5, 10, 20, 30. The 20 and 30 round mags are the most commonly used.
The 5 and 10 round mags are commonly used for hunting in the states that have magazine limits for hunting.
Yes, there are magazines that hold more than 30 rounds, but they are not common due to price and reliability problems.

[treestar]

187. If they want to have discussions on that

just tell them, well, then we'll have to ban all guns.

[IronLionZion]

188. We don't have to know, but our lawmakers better consult experts who know

because if they don't write the laws correctly, these assholes will easily exploit every loophole. A prime example is they ban automatics so people use bump stocks to simulate automatic fire.

[ManiacJoe]

220. Unfortunately, consulting the experts rarely ever happens.

Thus we end up with things like the failed 1994 "assault weapons" ban that banned nothing in the real world.

[IronLionZion]

221. I'm hoping our leaders have learned from those mistakes

and write better laws

[MicaelS]

189. I would add...

A weapon used by angry white males to kill lots of people as quickly as possible.

[Marengo]

205. Rizwan Farook and Omar Mateen were white?

[Amishman]

203. We should agree with them and say OK, let's talk about all semi autos

They have a point, the legal definition of an assault rifle is flimsy and cosmetic. I guess the topic should be all semi autos with detachable magazines.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

209. And as long as the "control" crowd is reaching that far...

...I suggest buying powerball tickets as well.

[SunSeeker]

235. For years, the "gunner" crowd insisted there was no passion for gun control.

They insisted that there is no groundswell of support for gun control; that all of the passion was on their side.

This weekend proved them wrong. That's why the NRA is shitting its pants and gunners are resorting to mocking shooting victims.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

237. I have never said that 'there was no passion for gun control'

I have said things like "control is a myth". The only real control exists either as self-control or in places like ADX Florence.

On the contrary, the NRA probably loves very passionate displays for control and a furor of political activity around it. After all, every time it seems like there may be a new law or a candidate perceived as RKBA hostile is elected or has a chance of winning, the guns just fly off the shelves, the fund raising for the ILA gets put in high gear and the NRA membership drives become more commonplace.

The post to which I was replying, was suggesting that all mag fed semi-autos need some additional heavy regulations like perhaps banning them all or requiring some onerous level of constitutionally offensive hurdles to obtain or maintain possession. I just don't see it happening. I do see a lot of interest, expression and activity. I do hope there is some progress overall that is brought about.

My concern is that without looking at the details and mechanics of what makes a handgun or long gun work the way it does, those with the passion will fail to agree or maybe just won't sufficiently articulate to their representatives what they want. I have close friends and basically an adopted adult daughter who hunt wild hogs. There is no better alternative for that than an AR-15.

I can see lots of interest. Maybe there's a majority of Americans looking for more in the way of useful gun laws. I think it would be a tremendous Democratic victory if a reasonable and enduring law(s) was passed. OTOH it would be tragic failure to have a measure pass and fail in court.

I've heard about some folks mocking the MSD students that are speaking on this topic. I can't help but admire them more for continuing to speak. I see speaking out for your principles basically like this: If you aren't being attacked, either your cause isn't important or you're on the wrong side.

I hope you won't take offense at anything I'm saying here. I used to be a Republican. I became a Democrat because Obama was a sort of a guiding light toward progress for me. I staring lurking here on DU before the 2012 election and I drew the conclusion that Democrats would be the instruments of all (or almost all) political progress for the here and now.

As far as gun laws are concerned, I suggest that having a clear, reasonable and attainable objective is the only way progress will happen. I read posts from a lot of folks that seem interested in punishing gun owners somehow, costing them money, taking their guns or whatever. I have a lot of my own ideas on some things but I see another AWB or similar law as a swamp of a mistake.

I am not one saying, "There is or was no passion for gun control." I'm just saying it looks in some places there is an unfortunate ration of passion to pipedream.

Thank you for your attention and have a good night.

[hack89]

302. This weekend will have proved absolutely nothing if it does not result in legislation.

notice the silence of Democratic leadership. You really think they are going to make gun control an issue going into the midterms?

[SunSeeker]

304. Your concern is duly noted. nt

[hack89]

305. Trust me, I am not concerned

Nothing will happen and I suspect you understand that.

[SunSeeker]

306. Something has already happened.

What you "suspect" is innacurate.

[hack89]

308. Doesn't mean things will change

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2018, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

want to wager that democratic leadership will ignore gun control in the coming months leading up to the election?

[SunSeeker]

310. Things have already changed, and leadership is not ignoring the issue.

They are bringing up the issue strategically, where it will do most good for the candidate:

Multiple Democratic political operatives said they will surgically deploy the issue in select competitive states and House districts, especially those wracked by mass shootings. If the battle for House control comes down to a handful of seats, that could make gun control a significant factor.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/01/guns-midterms-congress-republicans-democrats-430779

[hack89]

311. What I see happening is UBCs, tighter background checks and maybe magazine size limits

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2018, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

with registration and AWB out. Reasonable measures that let leadership say they are doing something without raising the temperature too high.

[SunSeeker]

313. LOL You went from "Nothing will happen" to "UBCs" & mag size limits.

If hack89 could make such progress in just one subthread, Congress can pass gun control!

[hack89]

314. They will throw you a bone while avoiding a big fight over gun control

if you are satisfied with that then I guess we are on the same page. I suspect that is not what you want.

[SunSeeker]

315. LOL. Man, the gunners are shitting their pants over the thought of an AWB.

[hack89]

319. There will be no AWB

And I think you are forgetting a minor detail - by its very nature a Federal AWB is not retroactive. If you have an AR-15 you get to keep it. Feinstein’s AWB would not take away my rifles. And my state routinely rejects AWBs. So no - no one is shitting their pants over one. Exactly the opposite - gun makers are praying that dems push hard on an AWB - they want the sales.

[SunSeeker]

320. You just said we would get "nothing." Then you said we'd get UBCs and mag limits.

You said Democratic leadership would ignore gun control.


So much for your predictions.

[hack89]

321. So put your cards on the table

Give me your prediction with a timeline. Do you think we will get an AWB? Yes or mo?

[SunSeeker]

322. This isn't a card game, hack.

And if I was good enough at predicting the future to give you a "timeline" on anything, I would be on the first flight to Vegas.

You're the one who claims to be able to predict the future, not me.

I can't say if or when we will have an AWB, but I think it is achievable.

[hack89]

323. Basic knowledge of history and politics makes prediction easy

Saying there will be no AWB is not a reach. The issue is whether Democratic leadership decide they have to respond. It is likely they decide to do the bare minimum or even nothing at all. They don't really care about gun control, just winning back the congress. And they will be polling like crazy to decide if this is an issue that impacts voter turnout.

[SunSeeker]

324. No one predicted these kids, hack.

And your predictions have already been proven wrong in just the span of this subthread.

[hack89]

328. Until legislation is passed, no predictions have been proven wrong

And as Bernie learned the hard way, youthful passion seldom translates into votes. In the battle of likely voters, the pro-gun side has a huge advantage simply because it is an older demographic.

[SunSeeker]

329. Florida already passed legislation no one predicted would pass.

And it was because of these kids. Now they're going national.

[hack89]

330. Minor legistation that does not take a single weapon of the street

and still allow the sell of semi-automatic weapons. Those are minor things that won't impact the vast majority of gun owners.

[SunSeeker]

332. By that criteria, an AWB similarly "won't impact the vast majority of gun owners."

About 5 million Americans own asssult rifles.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/owned-by-5-million-americans-ar-15-under-renewed-fire-after-orlando-massacre.html
An estimated 55 million Americans own guns. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/

The vast majority of gun owners (over 90%) do not own an assault weapon.

[hack89]

341. Except all gun owners hate gun bans

Because we don't trust you to end there. We know folks like you want more than that. Which is why we fight so hard.

[SunSeeker]

342. Wrong. 67% of Americans, including 53% of gun owners, favor an assault weapons ban.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

[hack89]

344. Unfortunately we don't have national referendums

Those numbers are within historic norms. History also tells us they will go down just like after Sandy Hook.

[SunSeeker]

346. History told us we'd never have millions of people take to the streets for gun control.

Maybe history is finally catching up with "historic norms."

[hack89]

347. Millions have marched against abortion

yet Roe v Wade is still around. Millions marched for an Equal Rights amendment yet we still don't have one.

[SunSeeker]

349. No, the March for Our Lives was much larger than any anti-abortion march.

Come on hack. Face it, things have changed.

[hack89]

351. Time will tell but somehow I doubt it.

I will concede that there will be some laws passed but it is hard to see how major legislation like an AWB or registration will pass.

The bottom line will always be the US Senate. That is where gun control laws go to die. That is why the size of marches becomes irrelevant. Tiny Wyoming has just as many votes in the Senate as California does. That is why popular sentiment is not so important. A Senator from a red pro-gun state doesn't care what the entire country wants. He doesn't care about national polls. He care only about what the people that vote for him want.

Democrats are trying to keep Senate seats in Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, North Dakota, Florida, Montana and Ohio. All pro-gun states. How do you think those Dem Senators are going to vote? Do you have any doubt that they will be vocally supporting the 2A and gun rights to neutralize any Republican attacks against them?

Look back at the gun debate post Sandy Hook. An AWB and registration died in the Senate. A Senate controlled by Democrats. Because Harry Reid wanted to protect incumbent Dem Senators in pro-gun states.

I understand that the marches are a big deal. But it doesn't change the political reality in Congress. Too much magical thinking going on. Reminds me a lot about the 2016 campaign and how so many were convinced that the size of Bernie's crowds were proof that he was going to win big.

[SunSeeker]

352. Of course you doubt it. You don't want to believe it's happening. nt

[hack89]

353. When an AWB and registration pass the US Congress

I will be more than willing to say you are right.

In the mean time we just have to wait. I do know that I will be shooting with my friends and family for the foreseeable future.

[better]

212. I still think the definition is important

because it will determine the impact any laws referencing it will have. The trick is to properly identify what makes a rifle an assault rifle, and the cold hard truth is that it's neither the appearance nor the caliber.

It's how much ammo it can hold and how quickly it can be reloaded.

Yes, an AR-15 can be made to fire at a rate similar to a fully automatic weapon, with or without modification, as can any semi-automatic. But firing at such a high rate actually becomes a serious liability to the usefulness of the weapon if its capacity is so limited as to mean that firing at such a rate means that you have to reload literally every second.

It is important to get this definition right, not only because are there in fact valid reasons for civilians to be allowed to own an AR-15 which will be used to foment opposition to any reforms, but because it is of vastly greater importance to do away with high-capacity rapidly replaceable magazines than it is to do away with any particular firearm design into which they can be loaded.

Ban the AR-15 and we will still have Ruger Mini-14's that have the same destructive potential.
Ban high capacity rapidly replaceable magazines, and we reduce the destructive potential of ALL weapons.

The argument is not that civilians should be allowed to own weapons capable of mowing down a classroom full of people in 5 seconds.
It's that we need to ban the thing that actually makes that possible, and that requires proper definition.

[Bucky]

267. "What is an assault rifle?" Response: "Describe the female reproductive system you want to regulate"

For that matter, explain how those tax cuts to billionaires actually create middle class jobs in America (or, "pay for themselves" through increased economic activity).

[garybeck]

358. KICKEDY KICK