what does the term ASSAULT mean when applied to firearms

[marke]

I’m not seeing any rationale that answers my very direct question. All the rest of your word salad is just smoke screen.

Journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...

Good logic and excellent reasoning is laid out for the taking to those willing to climb the hill of common sense and respect for God to obtain it.

 

[ataraxia]

Your first sentence makes no sense. A semi automatic assault weapon is an oxymoron.

According to what definition? This is what I find:

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.

Assault weapon - Wikipedia

 

[TurtleDude]

I’d like to hear the argument for this accessory being available to citizens.


View attachment 67261413

You will ask that of 40 round mags, 30 round mags, 20 round mags, then 10 round mags.

The issue is not why people should be able to own them (maybe one out of a million is mis- used) but why not.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh cording to what definition? This is what I find:

which is dishonest and flies in the face of why the term was properly used in the first place

 

[ataraxia]

Try to use a little common sense. Nobody is arguing that Americans have a right to keep bazookas or battle-ready tanks in their backyards. Just pistols and rifles which Americans have had for decades without alarm until the modern leftist snowflakes started graduating from colleges packed with anti-American professors preaching socialism and civil disobedience, or joining churches which preach 'Goddamn America unless you are a black in charge.'

No one is asking for a ban on pistols.

 

[marke]

um well - I think it goes something like this:

one day there will come the day of Armageddon and the good christian God fearing people will rise up against the atheist communist heathens who run our government and the battle will take to the streets in a savage and bloody war for control of this nation. So the forces of rebellion will need to match the government with every weapon and this is among them.



I think that is their excuse and claim. It conveniently forgets the fact of airplanes and bombs and drones and missiles and tanks and all manner of firepower the government has that makes your little AR15 or AK47 and extended magazine look like a childs toy by comparison.

If the government goes to war against you they will squash your sorry puny ass like a bug on a windshield and all the right wing wet dreams about soldier and cops turning against the government will do you no good.

Those who learn from history know there are important steps which must be taken to protect free people from being overpowered by savage barbarians intent on destroying civilization for the purpose of moving in to take advantage and control of the remains.

 

[ataraxia]

He had twelve weapons he had brought to his room over many hours.

So how does that change the definition of what they are? These were all semi automatic rifles.

If you have 12 cars or one car, there are still cars. The number does not change what they are.

 

[ataraxia]

Those who learn from history know there are important steps which must be taken to protect free people from being overpowered by savage barbarians intent on destroying civilization for the purpose of moving in to take advantage and control of the remains.

So why do you want to ban fully automatic weapons? Are you a savage barbarian intent on destroying civilization?

 

[TurtleDude]

So how does that change the definition of what they are? These were all semi automatic rifles.

If you have 12 cars or one car, there are still cars. The number does not change what they are.

so what? calling them assault weapons is dishonest and designed to inflame the passions of the stupid

 

[TurtleDude]

So why do you want to ban fully automatic weapons? Are you a savage barbarian intent on destroying civilization?

I don't, there is no reason to. That ban was only designed to derail a pro firearms owners' bill in 1986.

 

[ataraxia]

so what? calling them assault weapons is dishonest and designed to inflame the passions of the stupid

Call them whatever you want. They need to go.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't, there is no reason to. That ban was only designed to derail a pro firearms owners' bill in 1986.

In that post, I was not talking to you.

 

[marke]

He was not using full auto weapons. They were all these same semiautomatic “assault” weapons being talked about now.

He was using altered weapons. Go ahead, make it illegal to alter weapons like that. I think there are areas in the US where those bans already exist.

Besides, why wouldn’t banning full auto weapons be unconstitutional?

It is common sense to disallow civilians from owning rockets, tanks, bazookas, and submachine guns currently used by the military but not generally by civilians. It should not be necessary to have to define the limits of gun ownership but since so many modern leftists want distinctions made then all Americans should agree that we should ban weapons that have not traditionally been owned and used by millions of Americans for decades without much ado until now.

Paranoia. Most of the regulations being asked for are the same ones being asked for by the majority of the membership of the NRA.

Those regulations which are sensible and do not leave room for leftists to pervert their intent should be agreed to by all Americans.

This “slippery slope” argument you bring up was created by the gun manufacturers in the NRA because these assault weapons are their biggest moneymakers.

That is stupid leftist propaganda. Contrary to dummass leftist lying propaganda, Americans do not get marching orders from the NRA or look to the NRA for guidance about guns. The NRA must look to Americans for support, not the other stupid way around.

 

[TurtleDude]

In that post, I was not talking to you.

That isn't how things work here. I have to shoot a pistol match. be back later

 

[TurtleDude]

Call them whatever you want. They need to go.

So you want to ban all semi autos

Or only those that can accept a magazine

or ones that look scary

or ones that have certain features

Do tell and I will take a look at it in a few hours

 

[ataraxia]

so what? calling them assault weapons is dishonest and designed to inflame the passions of the stupid

You don’t even want to ban full auto machine guns. I assure you that inflames even the passions of the not so stupid.

Your positions are fanatical and fringe at best.

 

[ataraxia]

So you want to ban all semi autos

Or only those that can accept a magazine

or ones that look scary

or ones that have certain features

Do tell and I will take a look at it in a few hours

The band we had in the 1990s was fine.

 

[Common Sense 1]

I’m not seeing any rationale that answers my very direct question. All the rest of your word salad is just smoke screen.

Journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...

So you know what I posted is true! Banning the "accessory" won't make us any safer.
The problem with your request is no matter the answer it won't be acceptable to the gun banners!
This is just a slilly game to play.

 

[haymarket]

Those who learn from history know there are important steps which must be taken to protect free people from being overpowered by savage barbarians intent on destroying civilization for the purpose of moving in to take advantage and control of the remains.

What does any of that have to do with my post that you pretended to be replying to?

 

[Common Sense 1]

The band we had in the 1990s was fine.

No it was not. Again it did nothing to make anyone safer. Why do you think it
expired after 10 years?

 

[marke]

No one is asking for a ban on pistols.

Which seems kind of silly considering the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in America are the result of handgun violence. But maybe that is what then lefties are really after even though they are starting with dishonest hype about rifles.

 

[marke]

So how does that change the definition of what they are? These were all semi automatic rifles.

If you have 12 cars or one car, there are still cars. The number does not change what they are.

We should simplify the discussion by asking two pertinent questions:

1. How many decades have Americans owned and used long guns of the type the leftists now want abolished?

2. How long have leftists been advocating that these guns be removed from the hands of civilians? Why was there no outcry about these guns before now?

 

[Irredentist]

Which seems kind of silly considering the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in America are the result of handgun violence. But maybe that is what then lefties are really after even though they are starting with dishonest hype about rifles.

The "lefties" would prefer a society free of guns entirely I'm sure. Who can blame them? Do we not all desire to live in peace? But likewise there is wisdom in being armed and prepared for danger. But should everyone carry weapons at all times? Only certain people? Certain places? These are the important questions that we have still not answered.

 

[WCH]

Perfect example of the Left's knowledge of weapons.

 

[marke]

So why do you want to ban fully automatic weapons? Are you a savage barbarian intent on destroying civilization?

All I saying is that we should allow leftists gun bans which will not infringe greatly on the traditional liberties which Americans have enjoyed for decades or more. Compromises like that should calm the heated emotions and pointless demands down some.

Are you aware that maybe 80% of all fatalities leftists attribute to right wing extremism over the last 3 decades occurred within a matter of months after the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted by Congress?