Jump to content

Straight talk about "Assault Weapons"


Blaster

Recommended Posts

  • 3 years later...

I couldn't get the first line url ("... assault weapons ... " to open.

 

I'll be the first to tell ya. I don't understand this aspect about guns at all. I don't know what an assault weapon is or how it's different from other weapons etc. etc..

 

But the term itself, "assault weapon", man, this has to work against CC in IL. And yes it's my stupidity; but, I'll put myself up against ya so you can refine your arguments and I can learn something.

 

What is an Assault Weapon?

 

What is it used for?

 

And like the name suggests, I have to ask the question: Who is it that you want to assault that you need an assault weapon? (I think that name is a strike against what ever you would want, so this question is pretty important, fair?)

 

That should get us started: ) Have a good one.

 

Comment: I would have not touched 'assault weapon' without first having gained CC. That's my personal view on how to approach this. Bringing this up prior to obtaining CC seemingly would hurt the whole movement; but again, I really don't know the whole story here at all. Consequently, I'm putting this out for discussion and at the same time, I'm being honest about what I percieve in this area -- putting it on the table if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to tell ya. I don't understand this aspect about guns at all. I don't know what an assault weapon is or how it's different from other weapons etc. etc..

 

Smokey, now that the link has been fixed it might answer some of your questions better than I can.

 

In the most basic terms, an assualt weapon by definition must be selective fire or fully automatic.

These weapons have been heavily regulated and taxed {the liberal weapon of choice} since 1934.

What was actually banned by the 1994 "assault weapons" ban were firearms that looked scary but were functionally identical to most hunting rifles. The people who wrote the 1994 ban based the ban on cosmetics rather than functionality.

 

To make an anaogy, NASCAR racers are based upon regular production cars but have much more powerful engines and have wings and ground effects. They can reach 200 MPH which is illegal on any street in America.

 

So to stop people from speeding on the roads lets ban wings and ground effects from all production cars.

This accomplishes nothing because it's the mechanics, not the cosmetics, which make NASCAR vehicles so fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Yeah but I think Smokey888's question is why do you need assault weapons? You can't use them in hunting and we have this thing called the police so you needn't do any vigilante work...

Who says you can't use them for hunting? AR-15's (with 5 round mags) make great coyote guns, for example.

 

The Koreans in L.A. during the Rodney King riots didn't have the luxury of waiting for police--they saved their businesses and homes from being burned down by standing on the roofs, with so-called "assault weapons."

 

"Vigilante work" had nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, we cannot forget the first principle of rational discussion, which is to get the facts straight. There are divergent interpretational philosophies to invoke regarding the facts, but the facts themselves are not open for debate. They simply are what they are. And the fact is that the semiauto firearms in common and regular possession by regular people are not assault weapons.

 

They function completely differently than assault weapons, and thus they are classified as semi-automatic firearms.

 

If we are going to discuss assault weapons, then we are talking about select-fire and full-auto guns, which have been regulated by the National Firearms Act since 1934. It's a different discussion, entirely.

 

 

And as for common semiauto firearms such as an AR15, I have used them successfully for hunting many, many times. They are becoming a mainstream hunting rifle. Plus, (and far more importantly) they are very useful for lawful self-defense as well. Finally (and perhaps more important, still) is that they are the kind of rifle I would choose if militia action were ever necessary. I am part of the militia (in fact any of us that are able-bodied and not a criminal or mentally ill are in the militia). I am prepared and trained (thus well-regulated) and would be obligated to act in concert with my fellow citizens, and would be obligated to bring my own effective firearm. And that is precisely why these local bans on semi-auto firearms are unconstitutional. They violate the purpose and spirit of the militia clauses...as well as violate the substantive guarantee of the second amendment (the latter half).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, GF. I couldn't agree more.

 

More than anything, the media likes to use the phrase "assault weapon" whenever possible to sensationalize their stories. Most of the time, the term is inaccurately applied to the firearm being discussed.

 

Does my AR-15 look similar to the weapons used by the military? Sure it does, but functionally, it's completely different, which is what most of the people that buy into the media hype don't realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It also must not be forgotten that the term "assault weapon" (as opposed to assault rifle) was invented by Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (which advocates banning handguns). Here's an excerpt from what the VPC had to say about the effort to ban so-called "assault weapons":

 

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

 

In other words, they don't seek to educate the public about these firearms; to the contrary, they've intentionally exploited the public's lack of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well folks just one more thing I will add to this.

 

The reasoning or rationale behind the perpetuation of a falsehood is simply irreleant at the most basic level. It's simply incorrect to refer to a semiauto as an assault weapon. Period. Whether the reason for the origin and perpetuation of the falsehood is one of mere ignorance or one of sophisticated dishonesty for political gain, it matters not.

 

Facts are facts, and semiautos are not assault weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well folks just one more thing I will add to this.

 

The reasoning or rationale behind the perpetuation of a falsehood is simply irreleant at the most basic level. It's simply incorrect to refer to a semiauto as an assault weapon. Period. Whether the reason for the origin and perpetuation of the falsehood is one of mere ignorance or one of sophisticated dishonesty for political gain, it matters not.

 

Facts are facts, and semiautos are not assault weapons.

 

I agree that the rationale behind the dissemination of misinformation about these firearms is irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not they should be banned, but I do think it's useful to know just how much (or how little, in this case) to trust anything said by those advocating a ban.

 

It's always useful to know who the liars are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and we have this thing called the police...

 

As for this comment, I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion. If the police aren't able to get there in time, does it really matter what type of weapon you use to defend your family?

 

The police don't get there in time. If they did, there would have been 5 women walk out of Lane Bryant, all the students would have walked out of Cole Hall at NIU and none of us would have ever heard of Va Tech.

 

They investigate crimes, not prevent.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and we have this thing called the police...

 

As for this comment, I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion. If the police aren't able to get there in time, does it really matter what type of weapon you use to defend your family?

 

The police don't get there in time. If they did, there would have been 5 women walk out of Lane Bryant, all the students would have walked out of Cole Hall at NIU and none of us would have ever heard of Va Tech.

 

They investigate crimes, not prevent.

 

AB

 

Exactly! :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not weapons, they're firearms. More specifically, semi-auto sporter rifles.

Arguably the most popular, widely used sporter rifle in use today. Plinking, target competition, defense, hunting, law enforcement, and collecting are some of the uses this rifle is put to. With the technology it provides in being able to use several uppers on the same lower, it can be modified to do all these things well.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There are a few military assault rifles that are only semi-auto. It should make no difference what weapon you own. If you are a law abiding citizen it is a non issue. The 2nd amendment doesn't say right to keep and bear "some" arms. As far as I'm concerned, barring felons; law abiding responsible gun owners should be able to own whatever they want.

I realize this goal will never be obtained, but it is a goal none the less.

Anyway, this is America. Our laws have always been based on compromise and always will be, unfortunately we are now compromising over the bill of rights. That sends me a VERY disturbing message, it should be a wakeup call to all freedom loving Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
They're not weapons, they're firearms. More specifically, semi-auto sporter rifles.

They are Sport Utility Rifles.

 

 

I agree with that statement. That is just what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anyone preparing or engaged in a suit against the Federal Gov't in regards to the M-16/M-14/P90 etc. restrictions based on the Heller ruling specifying that

The District’s total ban

on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an

entire class of “arms†that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the

lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny

the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional

muster.

And since the AR, M1A, PS series of rifles are civilianized versions of their fully auto counterparts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the Penn & Teller show on "Gun Control" and if anyone wants to see it go to "Youtube.com" and go to Penn & Teller. It was a very good show and full of good information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Is there anyone preparing or engaged in a suit against the Federal Gov't in regards to the M-16/M-14/P90 etc. restrictions based on the Heller ruling specifying that

The District’s total ban

on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an

entire class of “arms†that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the

lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny

the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional

muster.

And since the AR, M1A, PS series of rifles are civilianized versions of their fully auto counterparts.

 

They are not civilllian versions. Do your homework. The m-16 was developed after the AR in fact it is the military version if u want to go that route

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that I can take this...

post-780-130896556141.jpg

A perfectly legal firearm...

And put this on it.

post-780-130896560757.jpg

And it is now no longer legal..

I changed nothing about the function of the gun but because it looks like an AR it is now "bad"

It is the same gun with a new stock, that is all.

Same .22 LR bullett, same 10 round mag.

(this is off of the Obama ban list

"Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine,

Sturm Ruger Mini-14,

AR-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 4 months later...
You are hearing about Conneticut all over the news, But there was a shooting in Alabama Where a civilian shot the active shooter after he shot two people. It doesn't matter what you are shooting...it depends if you can get "the drop" on your opponent first. I am urging All gun owners to join the NRA, ISRA and the USCCA. We are going to have a fight on our hands especially if they push gun control like they did Obamacare and Taxhikes. Stay vigilant and keep your Powder dry Folks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...