Assault Weapons, related laws, legal strategies and efficacy

[Lutherf]

because those weapons are for crime fighting and waging war
not the endeavor of civilians

But if the crime exists even if the guns are banned for civilians then doesn't the threat still remain for those [now disarmed] civilians? If the ban "fixed" crime then the cops wouldn't need those weapons either, right

 

[Lutherf]

new, newsworthy, stories out about 3D printing of nonmetallic guns
firing pin (a nail, actually) is the only metal component, and likely insufficient to alert a metal detector

(already illegal, since regan)


The First 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Fired (VIDEO)

And what would you be firing with your newly printed, undetectable firearm? I mean the gun itself isn't particularly dangerous if there is no ammunition to shoot out of it.

Are you sure that you know how firearms work?

 

[blaxshep]

What if the person or people you are defending yourself from have illegal firearms with higher capacity? Hasn't the restrictions you suggest put the lawful individual at greater risk and thus negatively impacted their ability to defend themselves?

No you don't understand, if we ban these weapons for law abiding citizens that means the criminals can't get them either.

 

[Lutherf]

No you don't understand, if we ban these weapons for law abiding citizens that means the criminals can't get them either.

Great! Then the cops don't need them either.

 

[blaxshep]

Great! Then the cops don't need them either.

Of course the cops need them, haven't you seen Schindler's list?

 

[Jerry]

Were the people at the movies in Aurora or the kids at school in Newtown safer because firearms were banned in those areas?

Yes. The magic Gun-Free Zone force-field activated and psychically prevented any gun from entering or firing into school property that day. All the stories you've heard are part of massive cover-up by the GOP, who concocted Sandy Hook so as to sell record numbers of firearms nation wide. Like 9/11, the "victims" of Sand Hook were secreted away by the CIA and executed in Git'Mo so that they could never talk. This is all part of the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" Hillery spoke of when defending her husband years ago.

 

[blaxshep]

Run Jerry, the FBI is watching this forum!

 

[TurtleDude]

it's not the appearance but the functionality of the weapon that causes this concern
to shoot bambi, it's overkill
thus its lethality must have a more nefarious purpose

well that's just plain silly given that the guns were are talking about are the ones that our government leaders have decreed are the most suitable for our public servants to use for self defense against criminals.

WTF does bambi have to do with the second amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

share with us why machine guns are outlawed ... or, in reich speak, why do we infringe on the right to own a machine gun

FDR tried to ban machine guns to prove to the low brained masses that he was DOING SOMETHING about Al capone style gangsters

William The Turd Hughes and George Mitchell allowed the illegal Hughes amendment to "pass" in an effort of those two scumbag liberals to derail a pro gun bill

it had nothing to do about crime control

 

[TurtleDude]

then quit deraILING IT AND QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION'
why are machine guns prohibited to the public

It had nothing to do with crime control given that there had been ONLY ONE MURDER with legally owned machine guns in close to 50 years

 

[TurtleDude]

my personal opposition is to hand guns
auto weapons
semi auto with the capacity for more than 7 rounds
guns not detectable by metal detector
ammunition intended to cause massive injury
and i would want universal background checks
plus universal registration, which registration would include a ballistics sample from each fired weapon
but i would want the second amendment preserved such that every legal person could possess a long arm for personal protection, provided it was legally registered
and while we are talking gun control, i would also want a mental health care system devised for our public, because i believe it is those who need such help who are largely responsible for the misuse of guns

that sort of mentality is why patriots need to be well armed in case you actually are in a position to try to impose such mindless laws.

7 rounds

what a joke

if its good for cops to have 30 round guns than its good for us

 

[American]

Yes because whining about people talking about machine guns is not off topic right?

I guess I was hoping we could discuss the "assault weapons" issue. Sorry, just ignore that.

 

[Black Dog]

I guess I was hoping we could discuss the "assault weapons" issue. Sorry, just ignore that.

That was not the point. No one needs you to remind them about the thread. His nonsense about machine guns needed to be corrected to stop just that.

 

[TurtleDude]

yea, try that without a specially approved permit
tell us how it worked out

tell us, why did your beloved Dem leaders ban something that has no history of criminal misuse?

the Hughes amendment (which was a bitter sore loser POS's attempt to derail a bill he didn't like-he wanted NJ to be able to arrest people driving through his state with legally owned guns and the McClure-Volker Act prevented that sort of idiocy) was clearly not a crime control bill but nothing more than a disgusting attempt to slap legal gun owners.

IT proved to me and many others that the dems are more about harassing legal gun owners than stopping crime

 

[TurtleDude]

long arms with less than 8 bullets
shot guns - same ammo limit
you can still kill bambi and defend yourself with said weapons

Given your lack of expertise on gun issues, why does your opinion on how many rounds we have matter? You just are apparently kissing up to the Turd Cuomo
why should I have less bullets than most criminals and all cops?

 

[Jerry]

I guess I was hoping we could discuss the "assault weapons" issue. Sorry, just ignore that.

IMO the mods should make infractable rules on debating.

 

[American]

IMO the mods should make infractable rules on debating.

I guess I should have started a thread on machine guns, and justabubba would have been happy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

some of us recognize you do not require an 'assault' weapon to kill bambi
which then allows us to conclude its purpose is for a more nefarious purpose

That's because you believe the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. Wrong.

And that a gun that takes a round that isn't powerful enough for deer hunting is “too powerful” a gun to trust in the hands of civilians.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why "nefarious"? Is self defense a "nefarious" purpose?

It is to those on the far wrong.

 

[tech30528]

some of us recognize you do not require an 'assault' weapon to kill bambi
which then allows us to conclude its purpose is for a more nefarious purpose

And in doing so you completely miss the point. Protip: police and military do not practice by shooting at deer shaped targets. As unsavory as it may be for today's coddled society there are times where deadly force is required. If you do not have the stomach for it be thankful there are others who do. Disarming those who chose to defend themselves and others in the false hope that by trading millions of legally owned guns for the false hope that it will prevent a few criminals from committing crimes is dillusional and by now you should recognize that. It is a sideways step sold to the weak by a government who stands to gain considerable power by way of your stupidity even while proving they lack the ability to protect you. It's an amazing trick. It would be like me handing you a knife and convincing you to cut your own throat for your own good.

 

[jamesrage]

What is an assault weapon?
Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Truth About Assault Weapons
It's a semi-automatic weapon.

Who wants to ban semi-automatic weapons, and why?
Barack Obama social policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<< Obama
Josh Sugarmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<< a proponent for banning ALL weapons
VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Assault Weapons and Accessories in America <<< org run by Sugarmann
Stanford Law & Policy Review <<< legal approaches to banning or controlling weapons
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<< law passed under Clinton
David Kopel: Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown - WSJ.com <<< efficacy of AWB on crime

So the perception of the public and lawmakers has to be changed, so that ordinary guns like semi-automatic rifles and handguns, are considered dangerous when cosmetic changes are made to them. So what happens is we begin a discussion about something that appears to be different from the 2nd Amendment altogether. We discuss public safety in terms of these "evil" guns that could be used......I repeat could be used to kill many people. Given the information in the links, what is an assault weapon? It's a semi-automatic weapon. Why are these people trying to pass pointless laws; pointless from the standpoint of actually reducing crime significantly? All this under the radar of the 2nd Amendment advocates. Since crime won't be affected, then the banning itself must be the ultimate point.

Anti-2nd amendment loons work in baby steps.One of those baby steps is to deliberately confuse civilian firearms with miltiary firearms in order to make it easier to ban them.Then when that is successful they seek another baby step and then another and another.

 

[justabubba]

Anti-2nd amendment loons work in baby steps.One of those baby steps is to deliberately confuse civilian firearms with miltiary firearms in order to make it easier to ban them.Then when that is successful they seek another baby step and then another and another.

give us some examples of these successive baby steps

 

[Goshin]

give us some examples of these successive baby steps

We've seen it many times, in this nation, in specific states and cities, and in other nations.


First, "machine guns" (full auto weapons) are banned or severely restricted. Open carry is banned or restricted. Concealed carry is banned or restricted.

Registration is legislated. Next thing you know, you have to have a FOID renewed every five years for the privilege of keeping what you own... and since your guns are now registered you can't fudge, they'll come for you.

Then other kinds of firearms are banned or restricted... semi-autos, magazine capacity, handguns of certain sorts or all handguns... and since everything is registered, if it is banned you've now got to turn it in or they'll come for you...

Next thing you know, you're England and have to spend hundreds of dollars for licences and permissions to own a double-barrel shotty gun... and forget about anything more effective. Soon after that, self-defense becomes so restricted it is barely worth resisting criminals anymore...


We've seen variations on this theme in many nations, states and cities. California and New York come to mind, along with Chicago and DC...

 

[American]

We've seen it many times, in this nation, in specific states and cities, and in other nations.


First, "machine guns" (full auto weapons) are banned or severely restricted. Open carry is banned or restricted. Concealed carry is banned or restricted.

Registration is legislated. Next thing you know, you have to have a FOID renewed every five years for the privilege of keeping what you own... and since your guns are now registered you can't fudge, they'll come for you.

Then other kinds of firearms are banned or restricted... semi-autos, magazine capacity, handguns of certain sorts or all handguns... and since everything is registered, if it is banned you've now got to turn it in or they'll come for you...

Next thing you know, you're England and have to spend hundreds of dollars for licences and permissions to own a double-barrel shotty gun... and forget about anything more effective. Soon after that, self-defense becomes so restricted it is barely worth resisting criminals anymore...


We've seen variations on this theme in many nations, states and cities. California and New York come to mind, along with Chicago and DC...

Bubba isn't going to believe a word you say.