What is the gummint’s definition of an assault weapon? Does it jibe with yours? Why or why not should people have them?
The government’s definition involves semi-automatic rifles of various calibers that have the ‘scary looking’ features of flash suppressors, folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and a couple of other things.
Since none of the criteria on the list makes these firearms any more dangerous than any other rifle, and since they are so rarely (before the ban also) used in crimes, I see no reason for such a ban to exist.
I figure if you want to own a Colt Bushmaster AR-15 to keep your ranch prairie dog free or just because you like to shoot it at the range, go right ahead. Since there is no good, quantifiable, reason to deny people their right to own them, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide a reason the government should ‘allow’ it.
Since their definition is technically meaningless, it doesn’t ‘jibe’ with me at all.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Colt Bushmaster AR-15
[QUOTE]
Aren’t Colt and Bushmaster two different companies?
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o
They call them semi-automatic assault weapons. A true assault weapon is a rifle or carbine of an intermediate calibre that has burst and/or full auto capability and semi-auto capability.
People should have them because it is an inherent, inalienable right of human beings to be armed. Contrary to what the NRA, the Republican Party, and most other right wingers think. And definitely contrary to what the Democratic Party, anti-civil rights groups like HCI, and most leftwingers advocate.
Well, a slight variant of that particular rifle was used by the Washington Snipers recently. Cite.
Why doesn’t the government define these things by their capabilities, rather than their physical attributes? Say, a weapon’s ability to fire more than x bullets per minute in semi-automatic mode, regardless of any bayonet lugs etc. Or just ban semi-automatics perhaps. I’m sure many would resist such a notion, but at least it’s more consistent.
I’m afraid I don’t follow…for some reason, I thought the NRA was quite in favour of the right to bear arms.
True Lampchops. The Beltway snipper’s gun was simular, but so is a Mini-14. Just the Mini-14 is a lot less scary looking.
Personally, the AWB is just plain stupid. They went after features and not capabilities. If you are going to ban something, at least make a correct effort to do so.
For some people to bear some arms in some instances. It’s better than the anti-civil right movements of the anti-gun groups on the Left, but it ain’t perfect. But more is better than less or none, so I do support them.
How about a limit on the rate of energy delivery? You can have your semi-automatic pea shooter to wave at the kids and stroke your fragile ego. You can have a shotgun or a bolt action rifle for actual hunting or home defense. But you can’t have a high RoF large caliber rifle. Either skip the entire show and get a penis enlargement, or learn to hit a target without tearing up the countryside.
(Bolding mine.)
Well said. Why the goverment felt the need to reduce citizens access to bayonet lugs is simply beyond comprehension. Has anyone every been ‘murdered’ in a domestic bayonet charge? Or the whole thing about 22mm muzzle devices that could be used to launch rifle grenades. When the heck has that ever been a concern?
The provisions of the AWB are utter stupidity, enacted so that some folks can feel better about themselves.
All semi automatics can only fire as many bullets in a time period as many times as you pull and release the trigger in succession.
Maybe we should ban people with faster fingers? (like pianists and guitar players). :rolleyes:
I think three rounds per second is a good rough estimate, and that’s wild firing, if you’re aiming carefully you are lucky to get off one shot per second.
Ted Kennedy (John Kerry’s best buddy) sent me a flyer in which he claimed semi-autos could fire 12 rounds per second. We better watch out for his fingers…
Funny, all hese attempts to ridicule gun people by saying that guns are substitute penises. Makes me laugh.
Freud said that fear of guns was rooted in inadequate sexuality.
Freud has been discredited for decades.
Guns are for cowards, btw. I’m just saying…
Snakespirit, of course you’re correct. How about x many bullets /minute when in automatic mode then? I was under the impression that most semi-automatics had both semi- and full-auto modes.
They don’t. Most full-auto firearms are select fire, and can be fired in full- or semi-automatic mode.
A semi-automatic discharges one shot per trigger pull.
They could have done a lot more damage with a scoped Remington 700 bolt action in .308. The Bushmaster was far from the ideal weapon, considering their “mission”.
Yes, that is one of the lies that the Brady Bunch, and Feinstein, Kennedy and their friends are spreading, and you are proof that their lies are taking root in fertile minds. It’s not your fault; they work hard to spread these lies.
Fully-automatic weapons are not generally available. Haven’t been since 1933.
There are exceptions for the military and police, and there are some other ways to get them (a special license that most people just can’t get), but they are for all intents and purposes generally unavailable.
In essence, full-auto weapons are already banned. Most full-auto weapons have semi-auto modes, but not the other way around.
Actually, a better, more accurate term for what we call semi-autos would be “autoloader,” meaning that after a shot is fired, another bullet is loaded automatically, without further action from the shooter. That term was used frequently about 20-30 years ago, but fell into disuse.
For people that want to stop the gun-grabber’s slanted rhetoric, it would be a good term to adopt again.
Ironic that you would use the phrases “gun-grabber” and “slanted rhetoric” in the same sentence.
And the gun=penis argument holds as much water as Freud’s discredited theories. It’s just a way for inadequate people to try to create embarassment. It’s kinda like calling someone a fag, and people who do either are reprehensible.
Guns are for cowards? Cowards are afraid of guns. Cowards want to take guns away from everyone else so they can feel more secure. Gun-grabbers are the cowards.
Cowards use lies, derogatory implications and subterfuge to get their way.
“12 slugs in a cops body faster than you can say national Rifle Association”
“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.”
“Assault weapons spray fire, turning our streets into battlegrounds.”
“Issuing concealed carry permits will turn our cities into the wild west.”
Cowards are the ones that want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
I don’t own guns myself, but I’m not such a coward that I’m afraid of people who do own them.