What the Right Wing Media Won't Tell You About Assault Weapons

[sangha]

Because without the full automatic option the pistol grip confers no advantage.:shoot

Why does the military purchase semi-auto with pistol grips if they confer no advantage on a semi-auto rifle?

 

[haymarket]

Haymarket, when you make such charges about the gun lobby etc its hard for us to take seriously your claim that you actually support our rights. Rather we see you as interpreting the second amendment in a discredited and narrow way that does not protect the rights of individuals at all

YOur posts, and your "likes" have demonstrate a rather severe hostility towards gun rights as exercised by citizens.

That is up to you and matters not at all to me. I think it takes a great deal of guts to come into these gun threads totally dominated by you and others and say anything in opposition to that thinking. As such, I think guts should be rewarded with a LIKE from time to time.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why does the military purchase semi-auto with pistol grips if they confer no advantage on a semi-auto rifle?

The military does not purchase semi-auto. All military assault rifles have full auto capability.:shoot

 

[haymarket]

Nice diversion-the fact is you have adopted a narrow and non-sensible definition of infringe in order to justify all the nefarious schemes the party you support attempts to impose on the rest of us

we can argue about the meaning of words forever. And I have been happy to do it. But once that is done we still have a real obbvious reality that goes against the gun lobby and their claims of incremental INFRINGEMENTS against the Second Amendment.

IF I AM CORRECT: the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot deny the people that right. Which arms the people may have, the steps necessary to acquire one, the legal forms that must be met regarding access to owning and bearing is then a matter of public policy before the duly elected government of the people.

IF YOU ARE CORRECT: the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted, hindered, controlled, regulated, limited or contravened in all or in even part in any way shape or form otherwise it constitutes the right to be INFRINGED an a violation of the Constitution.

No court has ever taken that position. On the other hand, many judges and courts have agreed that the law can indeed placed limits and controls and restrictions on guns.

So how do you get around that reality that supports my interpretation of the word INFRINGED?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why does the military purchase semi-auto with pistol grips if they confer no advantage on a semi-auto rifle?

Its easier to make rifles with such grips with modern thermoplastic resins. Its easier to fire the rifle in awkward positions. many of the rifles that scare people like you are using mainly military subcontractor parts which is why they are cheaper than similar weapons that have no military contracts. AR 15s are cheaper than say Microtech rifles because there is not an economy of scale working for the micro tech

 

[sangha]

that's not a rifle.

Nice dodge, but I didn't say it was a rifle

I'll try again. Why does anyone need a pistol grip on their rifle in order to hold a rifle this way?

 

[TurtleDude]

we can argue about the meaning of words forever. And I have been happy to do it. But once that is done we still have a real obbvious reality that goes against the gun lobby and their claims of incremental INFRINGEMENTS against the Second Amendment.

IF I AM CORRECT: the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot deny the people that right. Which arms the people may have, the steps necessary to acquire one, the legal forms that must be met regarding access to owning and bearing is then a matter of public policy before the duly elected government of the people.

IF YOU ARE CORRECT: the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted, hindered, controlled, regulated, limited or contravened in all or in even part in any way shape or form otherwise it constitutes the right to be INFRINGED an a violation of the Constitution.

No court has ever taken that position. On the other hand, many judges and courts have agreed that the law can indeed placed limits and controls and restrictions on guns.

So how do you get around that reality that supports my interpretation of the word INFRINGED?

I don't believe federal restrictions on say machine guns etc is proper. They have given themselves that power during the FDR administration But I do not believe that was proper.

You can scream about the courts all you want. I agree the USSC has allowed unconstitutional actions by the federal government to take place in MANY areas. current justices have stated they are unwilling to overturn unconstitutional expansions on almost a reliance argument

but the fact is, federal restrictions on keeping possessing or bearing arms is unconstitutional under the intent of the founders TWO TIMES OVER

first it violates the second and second it violates the tenth

 

[sangha]

still waiting on that Constitutional authority for universal background checks Sangha.... and no, you have not answered.. so don't respond with that again.

*yawn*

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

 

[Thrilla]

Every Court and every judge who has ever upheld what you folks on the extreme right call any encroachment or infringement has accepted by interpretation that such questions of detail are a matter of public policy by the duly elected representatives of the people as long as the right is able to be exercised.

you'll have to provide substantiation to that claim.

 

[Thrilla]

*yawn*

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

there are already background checks on commercial sales of firearms..... we are talking about universal background check, which include private sales


keep trying.. who knows, you might get lucky.

 

[haymarket]

I don't believe federal restrictions on say machine guns etc is proper.

YOu have a right to believe anything you want to believe simply because you chose to believe it.

but the fact is, federal restrictions on keeping possessing or bearing arms is unconstitutional under the intent of the founders TWO TIMES OVER

Your self imposed belief and the opinion which stems from it is totally and completely irrelevant regarding the law and the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

[sangha]

What the hell difference does it make if it has a butt or not?

You think somehow the shotgun in the picture is more conducive to mass murder because it doesn't have a butt? I don't follow please explain.

If anything not having a butt will make it harder to control and less accurate

Didn't say anything about a butt, but I noticed that you can't answer my question, now can you?

Why does the military purchase sem-auto rifles with pistol grips if the pistols grips serve no purpose besides aesthetics?

I've been told, by at least one deluded person repeating the lie that pistol grips serve no purpose, that the pistol grips purpose is for the shooter to get a better hold on the weapon. That doesn't make sense if the rifle is fired in the position that the shooter in my picture has assumed.

The other dodge I've heard is that the pistol grip only provides a better grip when it is used by the military. It seems that there's a delusion that civilians are not able to grip a pistol grip the same way a servicemember can. :screwy

The third dodge I heard was the pistol grips do not provide a better grip if the rifle is a semi-automatic. The pistol grip only seems to "work" if the rifle is fully automatic :lamo

 

[haymarket]

you'll have to provide substantiation to that claim.

Are you questioning that Courts have upheld restrictions and regulations on guns?

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Post-Heller-Summary-9.1.12.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

 

[AlabamaPaul]

*yawn*

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

Why did you highlight this portion of the decision? Commercial and interstate sales are already regulated and purchasers subject to background checks. Applying this to universal BGC's would then expand this to private transactions as well, which is the main bone of contention...

 

[TurtleDude]

Didn't say anything about a butt, but I noticed that you can't answer my question, now can you?

Why does the military purchase sem-auto rifles with pistol grips if the pistols grips serve no purpose besides aesthetics?

I've been told, but at least one deluded person repeating the lie that pistol grips serve no purpose, that the pistol grips purpose is for the shooter to get a better hold on the weapon. That doesn't make sense if the rifle is fired in the position that the shooter in my picture has assumed.

The other dodge I've heard is that the pistol grip only provides a better grip when it is used by the military. It seems that there's a delusion that civilians are not able to grip a pistol grip the same way a servicemember can. :screwy

The third dodge I heard was the pistol grips do not provide a better grip if the rifle is a semi-automatic. The pistol grip only seems to "work" if the rifle is fully automatic :lamo

why are you fixating on another silly diversion. pistol grips have some use such as firing the weapon one handed (the technique is to tuck the butt under your armpit) that is far easier with a pistol grip and useful if you are trying to open a door, or carry a small child.

they also are useful for shooting the rifle from a seated position or prone position using a bipod or resting the weapon on cover such as a log or a brick wall etc

 

[sangha]

The military does not purchase semi-auto. All military assault rifles have full auto capability.:shoot

Tell me all about the full auto capability of the M16A2 rifle which does not have full auto capability, if you can

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A notch for the middle finger was added to the pistol grip,

Sounds like it had a pistol grip

The action was also modified, replacing the fully automatic setting with a three-round burst setting.[11] When using a fully automatic weapon, inexperienced troops often hold down the trigger and "spray" when under fire. The U.S. Army concluded that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy and firepower

Doesn't sound like it's fully automatic

I wonder if you think the military designed it to be nothing more than aesthetically pleasing

 

[sangha]

Its easier to make rifles with such grips with modern thermoplastic resins. Its easier to fire the rifle in awkward positions. many of the rifles that scare people like you are using mainly military subcontractor parts which is why they are cheaper than similar weapons that have no military contracts. AR 15s are cheaper than say Microtech rifles because there is not an economy of scale working for the micro tech

So you do agree with me that the pistol grips do serve a functional purpose, and are not just a matter or aesthetics

Thank you

 

[sangha]

there are already background checks on commercial sales of firearms..... we are talking about universal background check, which include private sales


keep trying.. who knows, you might get lucky.

private sales are a commercial activity

 

[TurtleDude]

YOu have a right to believe anything you want to believe simply because you chose to believe it.




Your self imposed belief and the opinion which stems from it is totally and completely irrelevant regarding the law and the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Yes the statist authority position-and interesting position of yours given how many times you have complained about the ruling in "Citizens United".

and I note I do not recall you ever explaining how the commerce clause was properly intended to allow those infringements that you clearly support

 

[TurtleDude]

private sales are a commercial activity

Not among the several states. Read Lopez some time. Under FEDERAL LAW private citizens CANNOT sell across state lines to other private citizens

PERIOD

 

[sangha]

why are you fixating on another silly diversion. pistol grips have some use such as firing the weapon one handed (the technique is to tuck the butt under your armpit) that is far easier with a pistol grip and useful if you are trying to open a door, or carry a small child.

they also are useful for shooting the rifle from a seated position or prone position using a bipod or resting the weapon on cover such as a log or a brick wall etc

I was just refuting the claim, by a rightwinger, that pistol grips provide no useful purpose. Certainly you would want your compatriots on the right to stop displaying their ignorance of weaponry by making such deluded claims about the functionality of pistol grips, wouldn't you?

 

[TurtleDude]

I was just refuting the claim, by a rightwinger, that pistol grips provide no useful purpose. Certainly you would want your compatriots on the right to stop displaying their ignorance of weaponry by making such deluded claims about the functionality of pistol grips, wouldn't you?

actually I am too busy slapping around the anti gun idiocy that the liberals and progressives spew here to correct alleged mistakes by pro gunners. These pro gunners are essentially right on the overall issue while the gun restrictionists are wrong

the real issue is why are turds like Schumer and Feinstein trying to make pistol grips a characteristic that deserves causing the weapon to be banned. It has nothing to do with making the weapon more useful for criminals. Rather Feinstein and the other thugs are trying to use the fear military weapons instill among the cowardly and the hateful to extrapolate to semi auto military styled firearms

 

[Jack Hays]

Tell me all about the full auto capability of the M16A2 rifle which does not have full auto capability, if you can

M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sounds like it had a pistol grip



Doesn't sound like it's fully automatic

I wonder if you think the military designed it to be nothing more than aesthetically pleasing

Your ignorance is on display. The weapon always included the fully automatic option.

The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military version of the AR-15 rifle. The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire.:shoot

 

[sangha]

Your ignorance is on display. The weapon always included the fully automatic option.

The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military version of the AR-15 rifle. The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire.:shoot

The M16A2 rifle.

Do you really believe that the M-16 and M16A2 are the exact same things?

I suggest you listen to your ally on this issue, and read TurtleDudes explanation of why pistol grips are useful on any rifle, regardless of its action

 

[haymarket]

Yes the statist authority position-and interesting position of yours given how many times you have complained about the ruling in "Citizens United".

Are you under the belief that a citizen must agree with 100% of Court decisions at all times and cannot disagree with a single one?