Ban assault weapons now! Ban them now! Once and for all."

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Virtually the whole civilised world would define it as a rifled gun, designed for (or styled after) military use, capable of firing large amounts of ammunition, either in repeated single shots or bursts, at typical battle ranges of up to 300 metres or so. It is usually designed to be as light and "handy" as possible, so as to make it easier to use on a modern battlefield. That often sacrifices some range and "stopping power", and sometimes accuracy.

 

It has no real use in sporting, target shooting or hunting. It is quite simply designed to kill the maximum possible number of people in battle. It is a military weapon, not a toy, a tool for settling grudges, a valid part of any political activity, or a substitute for any psychological or anatomical inadequacies.

 

I hope that explains what an assault rifle is, and perhaps may go some way towards helping understand what it is intended for.

Well, they are not designed for military use.  Styled for?  In other words, scary looking. Single shots? Just like myriad other firearms.  Bursts? Generally not allowed- as others have said, far less than 1% of weapons have this capability.  Use on the battlefield? Again, not civilian weapons. 

 

As for the utility value, that is entirely up to the owner. Who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their legally acquired property?

 

If you truly want to have an impact on crime, start with the criminal not the tool.

[Hanaguma]

39 minutes ago, James105 said:

That sounds like a good argument to ban semi-automatic handguns as well then.    Why stop at AR15s and their equivalents since handguns are equally effective at killing kids?  After all, America has proven that the second amendment rights are not breached by not allowing the purchase of fully automatic rifles, so why not extend that to semi-automatic killing machines also?   You could still purchase a hunting rifle if you wanted to go hunting, and one of those little single shot girls guns would suffice for self defence.   Obviously this will not be sufficient to stop a rogue government that has tanks, fighter planes, missiles and warships at it's disposal, but then neither is an AR-15.   

Best of luck with that.  You are talking about more than half the guns in America.  

[Jingthing]

Mission Impossible. 

The gun nuts have the power and they  always have an excuse.

[Hanaguma]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Mission Impossible. 

The gun nuts have the power and they  always have an excuse.

Yeah, that pesky Constitution thingy... if only there was a way to amend it so that you could get the gun laws changed the way you like... that would be cool!

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yeah, that pesky Constitution thingy... if only there was a way to amend it so that you could get the gun laws changed the way you like... that would be cool!

It takes time to amend laws but if you don't start, then it will never happen. First step, the title of this OP

Ban assault weapons now

[Hanaguma]

20 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It takes time to amend laws but if you don't start, then it will never happen. First step, the title of this OP

Ban assault weapons now

Yeah, cause it worked so well the first time. And in Australia too.  Or not.  

 

How about instead changing laws that don't require Constitutional amending? For example, an automatic 10 year non-negotiable addition to any crime that involves a firearm.  Same for theft of a weapon or possession of an unregistered one. 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yeah, cause it worked so well the first time. And in Australia too.  Or not.  

 

How about instead changing laws that don't require Constitutional amending? For example, an automatic 10 year non-negotiable addition to any crime that involves a firearm.  Same for theft of a weapon or possession of an unregistered one. 

How about doing something that addresses the problem of assault weapons causing more deaths when used in mass shootings? Although hand guns are the most common, when assault rifles are used more deaths occur.

 

Mass Shootings Involving Assault Weapons Kill More People Than Other Weapons

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=576E306C-5FD4-4144-A28A-2C034628D888

 

More mass shooters are using semi-automatic rifles – often bought legally

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/07/12/mass-shootings-weapons-legal-what-to-know/7814081001/

 

An analysis of public mass shootings resulting in four or more deaths found that more than 85% of such fatalities were caused by assault rifles.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/

 

The Second Amendment Does Not Protect Assault Weapons

https://www.halunenlaw.com/the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-assault-weapons/

[Jingthing]

The founders never intended for their militia provision to lead to the river of blood of Americans we have now.

[Chomper Higgot]

Make it simple.

 

Ban all rifles that aren’t manual bolt action.

 

Removing any spacious arguments around what is an ‘assault rifle’ while at the same time giving gun nuts a more wholesome form of ‘wrist exercise’ than their usual.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[KhunLA]

7 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

A bullet that can be used with the AR-15

Only an idiot would use the 300 BO vs 5.56 round.

Cost about 30% more, and is less accurate.

 

Only plus, has more kick to it, which nobody needs.

 

300 Blackout ... "The bullet drops about 3 inches at 100 yards, 8 inches at 200 yards, 2 feet at 300 yards, 4.5 feet at 400 yards, and 9 feet at 500 yards."

 

5.56 ... "The 5.56 will shoot within 6 inches at 300 yard's with a 55 grain bullet'

 

.223 Remington will go up, about 2" @ 100m

and be spot on @ 200m

 

Which do you want to hunt with ?  For home defense, doesn't matter, though I wouldn't use a long rifle for (in) home defense anyway.  That's silly.

Edited February 9, 2023 by KhunLA

[James105]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

First off, do you know what is the difference between a fully automatic and a semi automatic.  A full automatic is essentially a machine gun.  A semi automatic requires one pull of the trigger for each shell expended.  

 

What you are suggesting is exactly the slippery slope that gun owners fear.  Today it is Assault Rifles, next all semi-automatic rifles, when the perpetrator is then moves on to pump action then of course those have to go to, then the perpetrator moves to lever action then of course ban those too.  

You've used a lot of words there to avoid answering the question I posed which was:

 

"If the requirements to get an automatic rifle are not in breach of second amendment rights, why can the exact same rules for fully automatics (strict requirements, cost etc) not be applied to semi-automatics as well? "

 

Since the ability to purchase a firearm is oft cited by the gun lobby as a second amendment right, and the fact that fully automatic weapons are subject to additional stricter checks (which I am sure is not specified in a constitution written before such weapons were invented), how would making the same checks for semi-auto the same as for full auto be against any second amendment rights?  

 

If it is not against 2nd amendment, and you can still purchase some kind of gun to kill other humans and animals what would be the problem with that?  Admittedly it would be more difficult to carry out a massacre due to the need to do something each time in between shots other than squeezing the trigger, but that would only affect the lunatics who want to carry out mass shootings.   So unless your requirement was to kill lots of defenceless kids in a short amount of time a non automatic gun would be sufficient, would it not?  

[Longwood50]

Just now, James105 said:

If the requirements to get an automatic rifle are not in breach of second amendment rights, why can the exact same rules for fully automatics (strict requirements, cost etc) not be applied to semi-automatics as well? 

No I answered it.  I said this is exactly the slipperly slope that gun owners say will happen.  Essentially what you are advocating is not "rules" it is a near ban on those guns through making their acquisition nearly impossible.  There are rules for automatic weapons and very few people possess them.  So really that is what you are advocating.  Though there is not a legitimate sporting or hunting purpose for an automatic rifle, that is not true of a semi-automatic.  I also pointed out that even now there are stringent rules and background checks to purchase a gun.  I asked, what else other than those requirements are you proposing? 

The person is has no criminal record, no drug use, no past offenses for family violence, no protection orders etc.  On what basis would you deny them a semi-automatic rifle?  The consitution says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

at what point does burdensome regulation and arbitrary  basis for receiving a purchase permit cross the line and enter into infringe.  Certainly if you effectively stop the vast majority of people from ever being able to legally acquire a semi-automatic rifle it is de facto infringement of their rights.  Again, you are barking up the wrong tree.  We are not worried about people who obey laws to fill up mountains of paperwork that serve no useful purpose.  The one to worry about is the person who does not follow the law and any law is one they will break. What you are really talking about is following laws that make it so burdensome and expensive that the vast majority of people will be unwilling or unable to purchase a semi-automatic rifle.   Those sir, do have legitimate sporting and hunting use.  I shot competitively for years and a semi-automatic was my choice of both rifle and shotgun. 

[James105]

1 minute ago, Longwood50 said:

No I answered it.  I said this is exactly the slipperly slope that gun owners say will happen.  Essentially what you are advocating is not "rules" it is a near ban on those guns through making their acquisition nearly impossible.  There are rules for automatic weapons and very few people possess them.  So really that is what you are advocating.  Though there is not a legitimate sporting or hunting purpose for an automatic rifle, that is not true of a semi-automatic.  I also pointed out that even now there are stringent rules and background checks to purchase a gun.  I asked, what else other than those requirements are you proposing? 

The person is has no criminal record, no drug use, no past offenses for family violence, no protection orders etc.  On what basis would you deny them a semi-automatic rifle?  The consitution says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

at what point does burdensome regulation and arbitrary  basis for receiving a purchase permit cross the line and enter into infringe.  Certainly if you effectively stop the vast majority of people from ever being able to legally acquire a semi-automatic rifle it is de facto infringement of their rights.  Again, you are barking up the wrong tree.  We are not worried about people who obey laws to fill up mountains of paperwork that serve no useful purpose.  The one to worry about is the person who does not follow the law and any law is one they will break. What you are really talking about is following laws that make it so burdensome and expensive that the vast majority of people will be unwilling or unable to purchase a semi-automatic rifle.   Those sir, do have legitimate sporting and hunting use.  I shot competitively for years and a semi-automatic was my choice of both rifle and shotgun. 

Again, lots of words, but it seems you agree with me that if the strict requirements for a fully-auto is not against 2nd amendment, then neither will strict requirements for semi-auto.   You still have the right to bear arms (as per the constitution), and even without semi-automatic arms, they will be arms that can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly than a musket which was what arms referred to when this amendment was written.   

 

Or perhaps you are advocating that the 2nd amendment be amended to better reflect the arms in use today and specify which guns need the strictest checks and which ones don't?

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, James105 said:

Again, lots of words, but it seems you agree with me that if the strict requirements for a fully-auto is not against 2nd amendment, then neither will strict requirements for semi-auto.   You still have the right to bear arms (as per the constitution), and even without semi-automatic arms, they will be arms that can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly than a musket which was what arms referred to when this amendment was written.   

 

Or perhaps you are advocating that the 2nd amendment be amended to better reflect the arms in use today and specify which guns need the strictest checks and which ones don't?

There are more than enough laws already for firearms.

 

1 loopholes need to be closed:

... private sales need to go through FLL dealer.  Still not done in some states.

 

... along with mandatory life sentence, selling or possessing an illegal firearm.

... better enforcement & longer sentence on all firearm violation & convictions.   Close the revolving prison door.

 

People will still fall through the crack, but most on record as being an Awhole, are and will be stopped from getting one legally, as most are now.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

There are more than enough laws already for firearms.

 

1 loopholes need to be closed:

... private sales need to go through FLL dealer.  Still not done in some states.

 

... along with mandatory life sentence, selling or possessing an illegal firearm.

... better enforcement & longer sentence on all firearm violation & convictions.   Close the revolving prison door.

 

People will still fall through the crack, but most on record as being an Awhole, are and will be stopped from getting one legally, as most are now.

Yet in states with tighter gun controls there are less gun related deaths. Seems stricter gun control works.

 

https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

[Longwood50]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Or perhaps you are advocating that the 2nd amendment be amended to better reflect the arms in use today and specify which guns need the strictest checks and which ones don't?

No you are putting words in my mouth.  The restrictions on fully automatics are not suitable for semi-automatics.  They are so onerous as to make possession of one near impossible and extremely expensive.  That is just a gun ban by a different name. 

 

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.  Continuing to post large amounts of text without a link and far exceeding the 3 sentence limit will result in a suspension.  

 

[Credo]

And now the Court has made it easier for those involved in domestic violence to keep their guns.  A less than brilliant move.

 

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the government can't stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/02/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-domestic-violence-gun-law-00081053

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

No you are putting words in my mouth.  The restrictions on fully automatics are not suitable for semi-automatics.  They are so onerous as to make possession of one near impossible and extremely expensive.  That is just a gun ban by a different name. 

 

Gee I donno as a young man I modified my 22 semi auto to fire full auto not so hard to do also stupid and highly illegal (rightfully so) imo it’s simple ban all semi and full automatic long guns you can hunt and or target shoot with bolt action just fine leave semi auto hand guns alone they do have a valid place in home defense.when the first amendment was written a single shot muzzle loaded rifle was state of the art that obviously is no longer the case.to me a ban on semi/ full auto long guns and kits makes perfect sense let’s stop the slaughter.to me arguing what is or isn’t an assault rifle is a moot point and rather stupid 

[KhunLA]

43 minutes ago, Tug said:

Gee I donno as a young man I modified my 22 semi auto to fire full auto not so hard to do also stupid and highly illegal (rightfully so) imo it’s simple ban all semi and full automatic long guns you can hunt and or target shoot with bolt action just fine leave semi auto hand guns alone they do have a valid place in home defense.when the first amendment was written a single shot muzzle loaded rifle was state of the art that obviously is no longer the case.to me a ban on semi/ full auto long guns and kits makes perfect sense let’s stop the slaughter.to me arguing what is or isn’t an assault rifle is a moot point and rather stupid 

You wake up in the middle of the night, hear people downstairs rummaging.   So you grab your bolt action 22 that has a 5 round clip.

 

Sneak down, hit the lights, and now have two Glocks pointed at you with 15 round mags.

 

Well done ????

Edited February 9, 2023 by KhunLA

[Tug]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

You wake up in the middle of the night, hear people downstairs rummaging.   So you grab your bolt action 22 that has a 5 round clip.

 

Sneak down, hit the lights, and now have two Glocks pointed at you with 15 round mags.

 

Well done ????

Naaaa I would use my Glock or shotgun what I wouldent use is a LONG gun in the middle of the night in the dark indoors up close,kinda stupid imo that’s my point semi auto long guns don’t make sense for home protection they do make sense for offense that’s a no no

[KhunLA]

38 minutes ago, Tug said:

Naaaa I would use my Glock or shotgun what I wouldent use is a LONG gun in the middle of the night in the dark indoors up close,kinda stupid imo that’s my point semi auto long guns don’t make sense for home protection they do make sense for offense that’s a no no

Well in that case, your Glock will probably be restricted to same amount as a revolver, as why would you need more, so, 6 or 5 rounds vs 30, 32 if pre chambered, and that's if they don't have extended factory clips of 33 rounds each.

 

It's very simple ... IF the govt has their way, you'll NEVER have the same fire power as the criminals.

 

Let that sink in ... take as much time as you need.

 

Consider those restricting you, politicians, will have their armed security.  Same with the elite, celebrities, all pushing to restrict your rights, but having armed security.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by KhunLA

[still kicking]

On 2/8/2023 at 10:38 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s an excuse.

 

Clinton’s ban on assault weapons reduced mass killings during the period it was in place.

It wasn’t a perfect solution but it saved lives.

 

Banning assault rifles, and those seen carrying them are immediately identifiable as breaking the law and a threat.

 

 

 

Well just look at Australia they are banned most guns after the massacre many years ago and it works so what is wrong with America.  

[Tug]

12 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Well just look at Australia they are banned most guns after the massacre many years ago and it works so what is wrong with America.  

See the post above yours ahhh well ya can’t fix ……..

[KhunLA]

33 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Well just look at Australia they are banned most guns after the massacre many years ago and it works so what is wrong with America.  

Poor comparison.  Australia being an island, and much easier to control illegal guns.  The reality of it, guns aren't the problem, people are.  People say Australia banned guns ... not really.

 

Here's some more fun facts for you:

... With population of only 25 million in Australia

... "New University of Sydney figures on gun ownership in Australia:

Australian civilians now own more than 3.5 million registered firearms, an average of four for each licensed gun owner."

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html

 

Compared to USA, with 335 million population:

... "Of the 393 million firearms in the U.S., only 6.06 million of them are registered."

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita

Edited February 9, 2023 by KhunLA

[KhunLA]

Another fun fact, about 700+/- a year, guns (maybe) were used to protect people and their loved ones,   Not including all the crimes and possible homicides that were stopped because of gun owners, without killing the criminal.

 

Apparently come in handy every now & then ... 

 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

 

[Bkk Brian]

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Well in that case, your Glock will probably be restricted to same amount as a revolver, as why would you need more, so, 6 or 5 rounds vs 30, 32 if pre chambered, and that's if they don't have extended factory clips of 33 rounds each.

 

It's very simple ... IF the govt has their way, you'll NEVER have the same fire power as the criminals.

 

Let that sink in ... take as much time as you need.

 

Consider those restricting you, politicians, will have their armed security.  Same with the elite, celebrities, all pushing to restrict your rights, but having armed security.

 

 

It's very simple ... IF the govt has their way, you'll NEVER have the same fire power as the criminals.

Let that sink in ... take as much time as you need.

 

Sounds like paranoia setting in, either that or scare mongering as a poster boy for the arm dealers and NRA