Biden calls for ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines

[TurtleDude]

The 2A was written only to address the arms held by state militias. Nothing else.

utter bullshit that has no support in

1) the legal scholars of the time the bill of rights was written
2) the founders' views and papers
3) the supreme court-at any time
4) current legal scholars
5) current supreme court cases
6) the entire foundation upon which the constitution and the bill of rights is based
7) the context surrounding the creation of the new nation

gun banners just make up alternative interpretations of the Second Amendment based on "how do we make our schemes pass constitutional muster? we merely pretend the second amendment allows them

 

[CLAX1911]

Do you really think people outside of TX hate those who live there? We did let you into the Union.

People weren't this insane during that time. There wasn't a sinking corpse of the media doing everything they can to clutch onto the few reasons they have.

 

[CLAX1911]

The same thing can be done without a bump stock. Why are you so worried about them? They're illegal now, despite they weren't even a problem warranting a ban.

Followers are taught to hate magic stocks because they don't know any better.

I had a cousin that was afraid of pecans in the husk because my uncle told him they suck blood.

 

[natman]

The 2A was written only to address the arms held by state militias. Nothing else.

More nonsense. There's a detailed explanation why this is wrong here. You can start ignoring it at your convenience. Oh, wait, it's post #102 in this thread and it was a reply to you, so you've already ignored it.
I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

 

[nvflash]

The 2A was written only to address the arms held by state militias. Nothing else.

But you seem to misunderstand who makes up the militia, the people.

That's why their right shall not be infringed.

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency

Civil population, I.E. the people.

If the right of the people to keep and bear arms were suppressed, the power to raise a militia would be so egregiously harmed that the 2nd would have no effect.

 

[lwf]

Approx 10,000 gun related homicides

400+ mass shootings.

Approximately 40,000 gun-related injuries or deaths against 40 million guns legally purchased in a year is exactly 0.1%. So 99.9%+ of firearms in the US have never and will never harm a single person. Agreed?

 

[Rich2018]

the vast majority of illegal gun homicides are committed by people who already are banned from owning guns

So what ?
The guns they have were almost all legal at one point.

you're lying about gun owners. there were plenty of gun owners who opposed slavery. Like the volunteers from NY, PA and Ohio who were a backbone of the union army[/qyoute]

You're lying about what I said

I never said that there were gun owners who didn't oppose slavery

Reading comprehension fail.

 

[Rich2018]

Approximately 40,000 gun-related injuries or deaths against 40 million guns legally purchased in a year is exactly 0.1%. So 99.9%+ of firearms in the US have never and will never harm a single person. Agreed?

No, the figure of 40,000 is the annual gun related deaths.

 

[lwf]

No, the figure of 40,000 is the annual gun related deaths.

You're right, I misspoke. Allow me to restate: 99.9%+ of firearms in the United States will never be used kill anyone or to commit suicide.

 

[Rich2018]

You're right, I misspoke. Allow me to restate: 99.9%+ of firearms in the United States will never be used kill anyone or to commit suicide.

Do you know the joke about the hot air balloon that lands in a tree....the balloonist cries out to a passer by "excuse me, but where are we?"

The passer-by says "You're in a hot air balloon and stuck up a tree"

The balloonist says "You must be an accountant"

The passer by says "Actually I am, how did you know"

To which the balloonist says "Because what you say is 100% accurate, but totally and utterly useless".


You're an accountant aren't you ?

 

[JacksinPA]

There were no assault weapons around in the 18th C. Assault weapon is a much more recent & modern definition.

In WWII, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) could be classified as an assault rifle.

 

[Rich2018]

In WWII, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) could be classified as an assault rifle.

No it couldn't

1. In WWII, the issue BAR was not select fire
2. It fired a full power, and not intermediate round.

 

[beerftw]

Everyone seems to forget at the time the amendment was written muskets and muzzle loading rifles were assault weapons so it was for assault weapons.

I wonder why people picking shoes what amendments have expiration dates and which ones don't.

People do forget that the musket was used mostly by armies due to cost, while rifles were preferred by militias as they had a longer range and could handle ambush tactics behind cover better.

But the musket was cheap, and a properly trained soldier could pull off 4-7 shots per minute, which in volley fire meant a lot of lead flying down range make accuracy a moot point. The musket and even rifled musket remained in favor until the civil war ended, repeaters existed before this country was founded, and repeating cartridge guns existed before the civil war started, yet single shot muzzloaders remained standard issue through the civil war.

Civilians often got the better tech than the military, as the military was never looking for the most bleeding edge, but rather the most practical. If it cost 7 dollars per rifle in 1777 and 3 dollars per musket, and the musket could fire faster being smooth bore they would use muskets. If it cost 120 bucks for a lorenzoni style repeater they would definately use muskets, as the cost to make one was extreme, and the labor to produce one exceeded the cost to train multiple soldiers and arm them with cheaper muskets.

So you are indeed correct the musket was the assault rifle of the day, it was the medium rifle that was the most practical, most versatile, and also cheap enough to produce in masses for a standard army.

 

[beerftw]

In WWII, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) could be classified as an assault rifle.

The bar was not an assault rifle, it was fairly heavy, fired a long action round not an intermediate round, and lacked select fire.

The modern definition of assault rifle comes from the stg-44 which was copied and modified by the soviets to make the ak-47. Where the modern assault rifle differed from machine guns was the ability to select fire, which means it could be used both as a machine gun and as a standard infantry rifle meaning versatility, they usually had medium accuracy and used an intermediate round, which was not as powerful as standard rifle rounds but still lethal and fully effective for infantry use, and the smaller size meant more ammunition could be carried for the same amount of weight.

 

[Rich2018]

People do forget that the musket was used mostly by armies due to cost, while rifles were preferred by militias as they had a longer range and could handle ambush tactics behind cover better.

Armies weren't skeptical of rifles because of the cost, it was a perceived lower rate of fire and increased maintenance

The British experience in the Revolutionary War led to a re-think and dedicated rifle regiments were formed by the time of the Napoleonic Wars

...but the musket was cheap, and a properly trained soldier could pull off 4-7 shots per minute...

SEVEN shots a minute !
Please point me to where you read that

So you are indeed correct the musket was the assault rifle of the day, it was the medium rifle that was the most practical, most versatile, and also cheap enough to produce in masses for a standard army.

The musket was not the assault rifle of the day, unless you mean it was the most commonly issued firearm.

 

[TurtleDude]

In WWII, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) could be classified as an assault rifle.

wrong again

It is a full sized rifle
It fires a battle rifle cartridge-not an intermediate cartridge
It did not have select fire capabilities but rather was fully automatic only

 

[TurtleDude]

No it couldn't

1. In WWII, the issue BAR was not select fire
2. It fired a full power, and not intermediate round.

yep, you are correct here. it was too heavy to serve as a standard issue infantry main weapon as well

 

[beerftw]

Armies weren't skeptical of rifles because of the cost, it was a perceived lower rate of fire and increased maintenance

The British experience in the Revolutionary War led to a re-think and dedicated rifle regiments were formed by the time of the Napoleonic Wars



SEVEN shots a minute !
Please point me to where you read that




The musket was not the assault rifle of the day, unless you mean it was the most commonly issued firearm.

Rate of fire was already mentioned you seemed to cherry pick there, and yes rifles were much more expensive to produce, rofling had to be had cut which was a very time consuming task, and rifles had to be more of a tight fit than muskets as without a very tight fit the rifling did no good, while with muskets using extra wadding was enough to seal the round as there was no need to grip rifling.

Fyi the british had dedicated rifle users then, just not in enough numbers, rifle squads existed in various militaries going back to the 1500's, where the musket users fired in volley and the rifle squads shot from a much greater distance to exploit accuracy over firepower.

Fyi this video is three shots in 46 seconds, the fastest shooters of those days would not even use the ramrod or wiping stick and instead would drop in the powder then the ball then slam the buttstock on the ground then fire.


Fyi keep in mind the british military standard then was 4, that was not extremely skilled that was what the average soldier was expected, a skilled musket user could fire even faster than that.

 

[Rich2018]

yep, you are correct here. it was too heavy to serve as a standard issue infantry main weapon as well

True, the US military (really the US Army) tried to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand with one gun - the M-14

It was a failure.

 

[Rich2018]

Rate of fire was already mentioned you seemed to cherry pick there, and yes rifles were much more expensive to produce...

Not so much that the British army didn't abandon smooth barreled muskets for rifles after the Napoleonic Wars

Fyi the british had dedicated rifle users then, just not in enough numbers...

I'm sure there were a few, the army also had breech loader too
But after the Revolutionary War, Britain raised whole regiments of riflemen.

Fyi this video is three shots in 46 seconds...

3 in 46 seconds huh ?
So what happened to your claim of SEVEN shots a minute ?

Fyi keep in mind the british military standard then was 4, that was not extremely skilled that was what the average soldier was expected, a skilled musket user could fire even faster than that.

Really, please produce your evidence.

 

[TurtleDude]

True, the US military (really the US Army) tried to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand with one gun - the M-14

It was a failure.

there was an M15 too BTW

the inspiration for the M14 apparently was when a NCO assigned to a tank, who was a bit of a machinist and gunsmith rigged a MI Garand to use the 20 round magazine of the BAR.

 

[beerftw]

Not so much that the British army didn't abandon smooth barreled muskets for rifles after the Napoleonic Wars



I'm sure there were a few, the army also had breech loader too
But after the Revolutionary War, Britain raised whole regiments of riflemen.



3 in 46 seconds huh ?
So what happened to your claim of SEVEN shots a minute ?




Really, please produce your evidence.

The british army kept them, however the british army had used rifle squads going back to and before the seven years war often using german rifles. During the american revolution britain had rifle squads as well, they were used in smaller numbers, german soldiers and american militia were more fond of rifle squads than britain at the time yet they still had them.

# shots in 46 seconds shows a slow loader, if it had been a minute he would have barely met the british standard, even wiki on the brown bess mentions 3-6 shots per minute depending on the user, which means seven shots was not unheard of as expert shots could avoid using the wiping stick to increase lead down range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess

You might want to actually look up british history more, when an american can point it out more than you can there is a problem.

 

[RF667799]

wrong again

It is a full sized rifle
It fires a battle rifle cartridge-not an intermediate cartridge
It did not have select fire capabilities but rather was fully automatic only

For some reason I'm thinking the BAR as designed and used in WW1 and for some time between the wars did have semiautomatic fire capability. It was later that the fire control mechanism was redesigned to provide two rates of auto fire.

 

[TurtleDude]

For some reason I'm thinking the BAR as designed and used in WW1 and for some time between the wars did have semiautomatic fire capability. It was later that the fire control mechanism was redesigned to provide two rates of auto fire.

I shot one years ago-I think it arrived just as the war was ending in 1918 or was fielded right afterwards. It had a slow rate of fire and good riflemen could fire one or two shots. I also have seen a Madsen (Danish IIRC) copy in 8mm that had two triggers-one was semi, one was full

 

[RF667799]

I shot one years ago-I think it arrived just as the war was ending in 1918 or was fielded right afterwards. It had a slow rate of fire and good riflemen could fire one or two shots. I also have seen a Madsen (Danish IIRC) copy in 8mm that had two triggers-one was semi, one was full

I went and looked at Wiki. They have that the original M1918 was used late in WW1 and was select fire. The later M1918A2 was adopted 1938 and had a selector that provided two rates of auto fire and no semi. It also had a limiter of some sort to reduce the ROF overall. Rich was correct that would have likely been the variant used in WW2.