Assault Weapons are not real

[Machismo]

I think it can work by reducing supply over a long period. Not immediately. But if you make the guns illegal to produce and import into the country, the market will shift from buying new ones to used ones that cost a bit more because those aren't illegal. This shuts down manufacturing. That means, again over a very long period, that the supply of these guns will gradually be reduced and buying a gun won't be a common right of passage for young white rednecks.

It'll take an extremely long time. Everyone alive right now is basically fucked as far as gun control goes, but we can make things better for those many years from now.

It won't really shut down manufacturing. The current supply is already very high, and will last a long time. On top of that, 3-D printing/milling will be able to take over. The people who own lots of guns will be able to sell some and make a shit ton of money, and others will go into business making their own. Instead of a couple dozen gun manufacturers, you will have thousands, most of whom have a disdain for the government, and won't help them out in any fashion.

Prohibition does not work.

[Matchles]

You may not like the classification, you may think it is pointless. But as has been pointed out numerous times on here it has a legal definition so therefore it exists. /thread.

[Schattenlied]

It said in the interview that Army manual say semi-auto is more accurate. As many stated you can still put many rounds into the air by simply pulling your trigger finger.

The point is they made it seem like he wa saying it was just as bad as a full auto M16.

Basically they are saying Hunting bullets are designed to go through the target

That is literally the opposite of what they said...

"hunting bullets that give up all of their energy in the target body instead of passing through with minimum wound effect with most of the energy still in the bullet and wasted."

key part bolded for your convenience... Also "5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet."

while military bullets are designed to tumble or inflict more injury

Nope, it's still far, far less effective than a hollow point or soft point bullet, the tumble effect was simply the next best thing.

Plus in military they design rounds to wound people. Tending to wounded people tie up more resources and are more beneficial in the scheme of things to the military. I really don't think mass killers worry too much about wounding or killing. I guess they want to kill the most.

By that logic 5.56 isn't an effective killing cartridge, they should buy soft point 7.62x39 and use AK/SKS/Mini-30 pattern rifles.

He did not say he approved of selling of AR-15s just did not realize would be sold to civilians 57 years ago. Honestly he is not really clear.

Uhh... "doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR15s sell on the civilian market."... I don't see it getting more clear than that...

But that was not asked in the interview link. Asked the question; "In fact the gun is functioning exactly the way the military model is in semi-automatic." Jim Sullivan said "Its the same".

And what he meant by that is: it's the same when the military version is semi-auto, where it can be interpreted without the rest of his statement as "the civilian version on semi-auto is the same as a full auto M16", which is precisely why he clarified that afterwards, in the part that HBO cut out of the interview.

[TITAN308]

There's also a 100% reasonable case to be made that according to the second amendment you don't. The amendment references "Well regulated militia". The "Well regulated militias" of the 18th century long ago evolved into the National Guard. So it's equally possible that you could interpret the second amendment to say that "You're allowed to have weapons if you're in the National Guard."

SCOTUS has already ruled on this, your opinion is irrelevant on the matter.

[Machismo]

There's also a 100% reasonable case to be made that according to the second amendment you don't. The amendment references "Well regulated militia". The "Well regulated militias" of the 18th century long ago evolved into the National Guard. So it's equally possible that you could interpret the second amendment to say that "You're allowed to have weapons if you're in the National Guard."

Of course, that would also include any anti-government militia, as well as armed religious groups, or even families who opted to own guns. Heck, it could even be a single person.

[Hemak]

My body is an assault weapon. I guess they're gonna ban me too.

[TITAN308]

The decisions of SCOTUS are not immutable. Get 5 justices who agree with me, and suddenly my opinion is the law of the land.

Get back to me when you get to that point and we can talk. Until then your opinion on the matter is still irrelevant.

[McFuu]

Okay this about ammuntion. Basically they are saying Hunting bullets are designed to go through the target, while military bullets are designed to tumble or inflict more injury. Okay, I agree but that is light argument when you are still using it as a mass killing weapon.

Plus in military they design rounds to wound people. Tending to wounded people tie up more resources and are more beneficial in the scheme of things to the military. I really don't think mass killers worry too much about wounding or killing. I guess they want to kill the most..

He is saying hunting ammunition is more deadly. Hunting ammunition can be hollow points which expand in the body and do considerable damage. Military ammunition isn't allowed to be hollow point, so when designing the M16 they settled on a round thats ballistics allow it to be accurate when traveling through the air, but when it goes into something that isn't the air it tumbles over (front and back switch sides) and breaks apart, doing more damage. As graphic as that sounds, it's still not as effective as a hollow point round.

The military shoots to kill. We don't maim or wound on purpose. That whole shoot to wound horsecrap is all Hollywood.

[Deleted]

It's a stupid term. Semi automatic rifles aren't what enables mass shooters. Psychopathic tendencies and high capacity magazines are.




Just sayin'.

[McFuu]

There's also a 100% reasonable case to be made that according to the second amendment you don't. The amendment references "Well regulated militia". The "Well regulated militias" of the 18th century long ago evolved into the National Guard. So it's equally possible that you could interpret the second amendment to say that "You're allowed to have weapons if you're in the National Guard."

This would be true, except Congress has changed the definition of National Guard, the national guard we have today functions more akin to the Continental Army of the Revolutionary War. Which would not have fallen under the term militia. The National Guard falls under both Federal and State, but if the Federal side wants it, it gets it, regardless of what the state's governor wants to do with them.

[Schattenlied]

Psychopathic tendencies

The psychopathic tendencies are what needs to be focused on before anything else, in my opinion.

[TITAN308]

Might be closer than you think. The last big decision was 5-4 in favor of more gun rights, and one of those 5 justices was Scalia, who's likely going to be replaced by a judge nominated by the anti-gun Hillary Clinton.

You're pretending this stuff can't be changed because it currently favors your view.

"In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'" - Justice Breyer, writing a dissent on behalf of three of the justices.

"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms." - Justice Stevens, the 4th dissenting judge.

So in 2010, 4 of the justices seemed to disagree with a broad interpretation of the amendment, and 5 agreed. Today the decision would likely be 4-4 because Sotomayer's anti-gun, replacing Stevens, and an anti-gun democrat gets to choose who the 9th justice is.

I repeat, get back to me when the time comes.

[Matchles]

Get back to me when you get to that point and we can talk. Until then your opinion on the matter is still irrelevant.

There are already 4 that agree. And a good chance Garland or any Clinton appointee would make 5. It isn't a clearly safe decision by any means.

[TITAN308]

There are already 4 that agree. And a good chance Garland or any Clinton appointee would make 5. It isn't a clearly safe decision by any means.

That doesn't really change what I am asking. Until said point, what some people on an internet forum think is irrelevant.

Currently, as it has been ruled, their opinion on the matter is also flat wrong.

[petej0]

I didn't say they couldn't use guns. I'm also not trying to decide what someone needs. I'm asking them why they need it. Are you actually this illiterate or just trolling?

Why do you care why they need it? Maybe they just like them. Maybe they like them because it is similar to what they used in the military and they are comfortable with it.

Maybe you are the one trolling, asking the "NEED" for someone to own something that is legal to purchase.

[Paranoid Android]

There are already 4 that agree. And a good chance Garland or any Clinton appointee would make 5. It isn't a clearly safe decision by any means.

That is when people will say SCOTUS is too proactive and will hate then hate SCOTUS.

[Hemak]

A guy that shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, just bought two and killed 50 people.
And you guys sit and fight over the definiton of a word....

Why shouldn't he have been able to buy a gun? He was under FBI suspicion twice, but the FBI deemed they didn't have enough evidence to do anything. Whether this was a failing in the FBI or an actual lack of evidence idk. Why should a persons fundamental rights be infringed with no evidence?

If you want to argue safety over freedom fine, but I disagree with you.

[petej0]

Which is why it's hugely relevant. The judge is likely to be debated next year and this year's elections can impact it. So not sure why that guy thinks my opinion is irrelevant (except to the extent that any one person's opinion on anything isn't very relevant, my state's gonna vote Democrats in regardless).

There are a lot of liberals who own firearms as well. It wont be as easy as you think it would be.

[Ghâzh]

I didn't say they couldn't use guns. I'm also not trying to decide what someone needs. I'm asking them why they need it. Are you actually this illiterate or just trolling?

It doesn't matter if anyone actually needs an army styled rifle when it's basically no different from a hunting rifle when the killing potential is considered.

[Mistame]

So you would be fine if they say semi-automatic weapons? Doesn't make a difference though as the AR-15 is just the civilian form of the M-16.

The differences between an AR-15 and a similar caliber rifle are largely cosmetic. There is no functional difference, outside of (maybe) magazine size.

A law defining something is actually the meaning. Also the DOJ defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic weapon.

No. The DOJ deems some semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons" based on specific features. Most modern firearms are semi-automatic.