Assault Weapons are not real

[dekiion]

What doesn't cease to amaze me, is how you guys always think how these people have no knowledge, just because they've coined a label for a group of weapons and you don't like the term.

No. While that is part of it, it's because they pretty consistently outright lie about the facts, demonstrate time and time again they don't know the first thing about firearms, inflate statistics by including suicides with homicide numbers when talking about "gun crime", and all too often resort to over the top, emotional and hyperbolic claims and statements and logical fallacy after logical fallacy all while calling their ideas "common sense" and claiming they have overwhelming popular support, and at the same time characterizing ANYONE who dares to even mildly disagree with them a "PURE EVIL SPAWN OF SATAN INCARNATE" themselves.

Jesus, we just had a guy who was a radical Islamist, registered Democrat, known homophobe who passed MULTIPLE checks and screenings and got his guns legally, to where NONE of even what's being discussed now would have stopped him, and ya know what the NY Times (the so-called paper of record) had to say? It's those darn Republicans and the NRA. Yup, the white, Christian conservative gun lovers, it's they who bear the blame. Not, say... ISIS for helping radicalize this guy. Or the guy himself, who clearly had a host of issues and outright claimed he was doing it for ISIS and Islam. But there's no uncalled for demonization going on, oh no. That's CLEARLY an argument put forth by the Times that is entirely rational and will do wonders to advance any discussion on ACTUAL actions to address things, rather than poisoning the discussion. I'm sure EVERYONE feels that nobody is trying to "grab anyone's guns" and that all the proposals and claims are being argued in good faith, based on pure fact. SMDH.

[TITAN308]

Which is exactly why the debate is what it is. If the guy in the gay bar used a knife to kill 50 and injure 50 more...we'd be talking about knives.

Sorry, should clarify, I personally don't agree with regulating an entire nation based on the actions of the few.

Technology will always present these problems. Getting rid of technology because less than .001% of the population seems rather crude.

[lordsphinx]

Let’s look at these things individually though:

Rifles:

a pistol grip

This doesn’t make a rifle more deadly; it’s purely asthetic.

a folding or telescoping stock

This doesn’t make a rifle more deadly; it’s purely asthetic. Yes, it makes it easier to transport, but not by a lot.

a flash suppressor or threaded barrel

Suppressors themselves require a special license, and the threaded barrel does nothing on it’s own.

a bayonet mount

Again, a bayonet is illegal on its own. The mount does nothing

a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher

Seriously? These require a special license as well.

Pistols:

a magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

Outside the pistol grip or in a magazine holder on your belt is effectually the same thing

a threaded barrel

See suppressor above

a barrel shroud

This does nothing to make a pistol more deadly, it’s purely asthetics

an unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more

Read: Big scary gun. The weight of a gun is irrelevant to its effectiveness in shooting things

Shotguns:

a rotating cylinder

These have been illegal for a long time

a pistol grip

See rifle pistol grip

a folding or telescoping stock

See rifle folding stock

a detachable magazine, or a fixed magazine that can hold more than five rounds.

This is the only one on the list I agree with.

[Machismo]

2nd amendment doesn't say anything about high capacity magazines.

- - - Updated - - -



Which is exactly why the debate is what it is. If the guy in the gay bar used a knife to kill 50 and injure 50 more...we'd be talking about knives.

I think that the basic fact that the AR-15 is pretty much the official weapon of The Mass Shooting Olympic Games makes it worth at least talking about.

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about flags or the internet, either.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sorry, should clarify, I personally don't agree with regulating an entire nation based on the actions of the few.

Technology will always present these problems. Getting rid of technology because less than .001% of the population seems rather crude.

That line of argument can be used for all sorts of things.

I should have a tank. The government has no right to prevent me from owning one.

[Stormdash]

2nd amendment doesn't say anything about high capacity magazines.

The 1st Amendment doesn't specify the internet, but it is protected. The 4th Amendment doesn't mentiom thermal imaging, but still requires a warrant. Forget for a second pedant over whether that proves the "living constitution" concept or describes originalism (what the Framers would have said about it), and focus on the fact that when changes in technology interact with the text of the Constitution, it is individual liberty that gets the benefit of the doubt.

Magazine limits don't likely satisfy constitutional scrutiny if challenged both for their overbreadth and the fact that they have little discernible impact on crime.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about flags or the internet, either.

The 1st Amendment doesn't specify the internet, but it is protected. The 4th Amendment doesn't mentiom thermal imaging, but still requires a warrant. Forget for a second pedant over whether that proves the "living constitution" concept or describes originalism (what the Framers would have said about it), and focus on the fact that when changes in technology interact with the text of the Constitution, it is individual liberty that gets the benefit of the doubt.

Ah, so you are making the argument that the amendments are subject to review and interpretation as the times and technology change. Well, I can certainly agree with that. Thanks.

[Alvito]

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

Turns out it is a legal definition under the DOJ. So it actually exists as a legal term and 7 states use the term in laws.

SShhhhh fact and real info have no place here.

[Cheerbleeder]

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

Turns out it is a legal definition under the DOJ. So it actually exists as a legal term and 7 states use the term in laws.

The term Assault Weapons wasn't even in the gun lexicon until 1986. They literally had to make up the term in order to pass their political agenda. They eventually did and within 10 years. The department of defense and fbi concluded their study on bans, and there was no difference in crime. The term is literally made up and when ever I see someone identify them as "AW" I laugh hard because I know they dont know shit about guns.

[Stormdash]

Ah, so you are making the argument that the amendments are subject to review and interpretation as the times and technology change. Well, I can certainly agree with that. Thanks.

... and where technology outruns the literal text, it is individual liberty that expands to fill that space, not government power? Do you understand that is basically how this works?

[TITAN308]

That line of argument can be used for all sorts of things.

I should have a tank. The government has no right to prevent me from owning one.

You can own a tank.

You can even legally buy armored APC's like the police use.

Now, finding a company willing to sell you one without .gov credentials or being a rich elite is a different story.

Edit: You can also buy fighter jets legally.

[Mihalik]

Every argument brought up by gun fans is absurd and profoundly idiotic.

High capacity magazines, loaded with intermediate cartridge rounds in a long barrel semi automatic rifle is designed to kill a lot of things fast. They are controllable, have a high rate of fire with very low reload times.

They are not designed for hunting. If you need 20+ rounds to kill a deer, you need to learn to shoot, or you should have used a rifle that actually chambers a full rifle cartridge.

I can see the sporting and hobby purposes, but arguing semantics is stupid. An AR15 or Sig XCM is not a hunting rifle, nor is a self defense tool (unless your seriously expect facing a zombie horde). It's a big fun murdering tool.

[TITAN308]

Every argument brought up by gun fans is absurd and profoundly idiotic.

I didn't bother with the rest since you want to deal in absolutes.

So I absolutely think in an ironic twist you are the very same thing you are calling out.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

... and where technology outruns the literal text, it is individual liberty that expands to fill that space, not government power? Do you understand that is basically how this works?

I understand that, in the absence of an official review, that is how it works. You do understand though that amendments can be reviewed, reinterpreted, rewritten, and even occasionally complete undone thought, correct? That is the essence of what a living document is...adaptable.

[Themius]

Let's be real here, the AR-15 isn't a big gun.



The AR-15 has been sold to civilians since 1963, he had 34 years between then and his death to voice concerns over that if he wanted to, and never did... During those 34 years he continued to work for and with companies that produced and sold AR-15 rifles (and other civilian variants of military firearms, like the Knight's Armament SR-25) to civilians... If he had a problem with it, he sure didn't show it, and thus I don't believe for a second that he actually did.

He intended it for military use, that doesn't mean he suddenly doesn't want the money from civilians buying it.

[TITAN308]

He intended it for military use, that doesn't mean he suddenly doesn't want the money from civilians buying it.

So his kids claim. Do you have any further proof beyond hearsay?

Isn't that what you guys normally do in threads? Beat each other over the head for shit like this?

[Schattenlied]

He intended it for military use, that doesn't mean he suddenly doesn't want the money from civilians buying it.

Yes, he did intend for the original design to be used for the military, he specifically invented the rifle to win a military contract, but that doesn't mean he specifically didn't want it available to civilians as well... Not to mention that original rifle is not what is sold to civilians, because that original rifle was full auto... These AR-15s are not...

That being said, you can still buy a full auto M16 these days, if you can find someone willing to sell their pre-ban rifle(must have been registered with BATF prior to may 1986) and have ~$25,000 to burn.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Isn't that what you guys normally do in threads? Beat each other over the head for shit like this?

Interesting how you seem to hold yourself above the rest of us when you engage in the same discussions.

[iceberg265]

really getting tired of hearing informed idiots shouting to ban assault weapons. Or assault style weapons. Assault Weapon is neither a class nor a type of gun. Assault Rifle is an automatic Rifle used by militarys and has been banned in the US since the early 80s, and has not been used in any of the recent mass shootings. Media and politicians throwing "Assault" Or "Military style" in front of rifle or weapon for shock value is beyond retarded and anyone who knows even an ounce of anything about guns just rolls their eyes when they hear politicians exclaim they want to ban the sale of Assault weapons.

So can we please for fucks sake stop describing guns as Assault Weapons, or "Military Style AR15". Everytime i hear someone on the news say those they lose all credibility with me.

Congrats on arguing about semantics instead of substance.

[TITAN308]

Interesting how you seem to hold yourself above the rest of us when you engage in the same discussions.

I wasn't aware I've said anything in this thread that was not touted as strictly opinion.

As a matter of fact I am very careful when I can remember on MMO-C to preface a lot of what I say with "Personally" or "In my opinion".

Maybe he is giving an opinion, if so, then I retract my statement, however, he has claimed it multiple times and it comes off as fact.