Assault weapons remain legal and easy to purchase in US

[Stargeezr]

When he 2nd amendment was written, the USA was a very different country, and then

there may have been a reason to have this law. The NRA in the USA knows how to

feed on the paranoia and keep the population from ever changing anything to do

with guns of any kind in the USA. I really doubt that much will change in America

until the attitude of the Government and the citizens change, and that does not

seem likely. This latest tragedy was not too surprising, only sad to see.

Is it only me, or does it seem that most of the latest conflicts are happening

with Muslims involved? Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Africa.

I am confused about why so many refugees from that part of the world are

fleeing not only to neighbouring countries, but also across the ocean. Why are even

the young men of these areas fleeing, instead of fighting for their countries?

Geezer

[AYJAYDEE]

When he 2nd amendment was written, the USA was a very different country, and then

there may have been a reason to have this law. The NRA in the USA knows how to

feed on the paranoia and keep the population from ever changing anything to do

with guns of any kind in the USA. I really doubt that much will change in America

until the attitude of the Government and the citizens change, and that does not

seem likely. This latest tragedy was not too surprising, only sad to see.

Is it only me, or does it seem that most of the latest conflicts are happening

with Muslims involved? Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Africa.

I am confused about why so many refugees from that part of the world are

fleeing not only to neighbouring countries, but also across the ocean. Why are even

the young men of these areas fleeing, instead of fighting for their countries?

Geezer

why are they fleeing? have you seen pictures of the devastation? have you noticed how many different factions are involved, so many that there can be no winners in these fights, just anarchy? the fact that america and russia are both fighting a proxy war here that doesnt depend on what is right or wrong for the actual country?

[manarak]

Misleading headline on this article. Semi-Automatic rifles cannot be labeled as "assault weapons".

[Johpa]

PS, I doubt HRC cares about taking away your guns. She's just once again pandering to the electorate (yeah, no surprise there). As long as Clinton, Inc. is raking in the bucks, you can play minuteman all day long.

As long as the top 10% of the top 1% are raking in the really big bucks, especially that lucrative 32% of tax revenue going to non-productive purposes, they will continue to allow Clinton Inc to represent one side of the social divide that keeps that masses from uniting against the political-economy created by that elite group. Clinton Inc is allowed to rake in the bucks as long as they support the much more powerful elite that functions as the shadow government, the people who insure that the never-ending wars shall continue. Rest assured that in her heart of hearts, the wife of Bubba Clinton cares not a whit about taking your guns away, only that you do not unite with the other half over economic issues. You are all being both divided and conquered according to plan. If the mentally ill did not engage in these slaughters unilaterally rest assured that such events would be created to insure continued disunity among the masses.

[Johpa]

Misleading headline on this article. Semi-Automatic rifles cannot be labeled as "assault weapons".

And pray tell why is that? To state that an AR-15 is not a military style assault rife is simply wrong and wrong-headed. The difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a full-auto M4 is negligible. Both can accept the larger 30-round mags. The only difference is the full-auto feature, a feature that, at lest when I was in the military carrying an old school M-16, was really only used to lay down suppressive fire. For the vast majority of my military days, apart from a very few tactical exercises involving suppressive fire, if the sergeant heard your weapon on full auto you could be assured of being assigned to fire watch for several nights in a row.

All this emphasis on semantics is a useless, puerile distraction. Many of us are so effin unimpressed by those who wish to display that they have more technical knowledge regarding firearms that others. The semantics do not change the conversation.

[mopar71]

Misleading headline on this article. Semi-Automatic rifles cannot be labeled as "assault weapons".

And pray tell why is that? To state that an AR-15 is not a military style assault rife is simply wrong and wrong-headed. The difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a full-auto M4 is negligible. Both can accept the larger 30-round mags. The only difference is the full-auto feature, a feature that, at lest when I was in the military carrying an old school M-16, was really only used to lay down suppressive fire. For the vast majority of my military days, apart from a very few tactical exercises involving suppressive fire, if the sergeant heard your weapon on full auto you could be assured of being assigned to fire watch for several nights in a row.

All this emphasis on semantics is a useless, puerile distraction. Many of us are so effin unimpressed by those who wish to display that they have more technical knowledge regarding firearms that others. The semantics do not change the conversation.

Semantics most certainly do change the conversation. If you are talking about banning something, that will require a law written and the words used are very important. Phrases like "assault weapons" are useless without clear definitions.

[mopar71]

When he 2nd amendment was written, the USA was a very different country, and then

there may have been a reason to have this law. The NRA in the USA knows how to

feed on the paranoia and keep the population from ever changing anything to do

with guns of any kind in the USA.

If you think people like guns because of paranoia you would be mistaken.

The 2nd Amendment is more about protection from government tyranny. recent history is full of examples of dictators disarming the people. Twenty years ago I would have thought that impossible in the USA. After the past 8 years it is a definite possibility. After decades of controlling the media and educational institutions the left has warped a large percentage of the populations' way of thinking. Radical college students today are acting more and more like the fascists of 90 years ago. Soon they will grow up. The USA as we know if is probably doomed and a lot of other countries will go down with it.

That may sound like paranoia, but if it is,it has nothing to do with the IRA and a lot to do with far left Democrats.

[hawker9000]

This shooter was licensed by the State of Florida and employed by a security company. Gun bans would have had absolutely no effect on this individual's access to weapons. None. What WOULD have had some effect are comments by his co-workers that he was unhinged and unstable, his Taliban-supporter dad's insistence that he was just a wonderful son notwithstanding, had the employer simply listened and reacted responsibly. But the co-worker comments were dismissed by the security company for fear of being found to be "anti-Muslim".

9/11, Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, the underwear bomber, Charlie Hebdo, "home-grown" radicals, ISIS recruits from throughout the west, etc., etc., etc., and now Orlando... How much of this has to keep happening before we get it?

youre never going to get it

'Never going to get your vacuous jabbering, true...

[AYJAYDEE]

When he 2nd amendment was written, the USA was a very different country, and then

there may have been a reason to have this law. The NRA in the USA knows how to

feed on the paranoia and keep the population from ever changing anything to do

with guns of any kind in the USA.

If you think people like guns because of paranoia you would be mistaken.

The 2nd Amendment is more about protection from government tyranny. recent history is full of examples of dictators disarming the people. Twenty years ago I would have thought that impossible in the USA. After the past 8 years it is a definite possibility. After decades of controlling the media and educational institutions the left has warped a large percentage of the populations' way of thinking. Radical college students today are acting more and more like the fascists of 90 years ago. Soon they will grow up. The USA as we know if is probably doomed and a lot of other countries will go down with it.

That may sound like paranoia, but if it is,it has nothing to do with the IRA and a lot to do with far left Democrats.

Lol! the only folks acting like fascists are the conservatives screaming about removing the rights of certain citizens based on religion and political beliefs.

[mopar71]

[manarak]

Misleading headline on this article. Semi-Automatic rifles cannot be labeled as "assault weapons".

And pray tell why is that? To state that an AR-15 is not a military style assault rife is simply wrong and wrong-headed. The difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a full-auto M4 is negligible. Both can accept the larger 30-round mags. The only difference is the full-auto feature, a feature that, at lest when I was in the military carrying an old school M-16, was really only used to lay down suppressive fire. For the vast majority of my military days, apart from a very few tactical exercises involving suppressive fire, if the sergeant heard your weapon on full auto you could be assured of being assigned to fire watch for several nights in a row.

All this emphasis on semantics is a useless, puerile distraction. Many of us are so effin unimpressed by those who wish to display that they have more technical knowledge regarding firearms that others. The semantics do not change the conversation.

assault weapon, personal defense weapon, "military style", etc. is just bla bla.

a law limiting the weapons' kinetic energy, fire rates and reload mechanisms would be much more useful than all the bla bla.

[MaxYakov]

It didn't take long for progressives to try and pass off the largest mass shooting of civilians in U.S history as a gun control issue in spite of the murderer swearing allegiance to ISIS and shouting out religious justification for his murders whilst carrying them out.

Had he drove a car into a group of people whilst shouting Allahu Akbar would it be considered a road safety issue? Would progressives sagely point out the number of road deaths due to vehicular jihad was tiny compared to the total?

You could enact the most draconian gun laws and still have a giant jihad problem and this cynical diversion could not be better designed to take the spotlight away from where it really needs shining.

Even the whackiest (or most insidiously sinister) liberals would not refer to a vehicle that had been used as a deadly weapon as an "assault car". The main "assault" that is occurring by calling semi-automatic carbines "assault rifles" is an attempted one on our intelligence.

Semi-automatic pistols with large count clips are never called "assault pistols", are they?

Edited June 14, 2016 by MaxYakov

[KarenBravo]

About a hundred years too late to try gun control in the USA. Over 300 million guns live there.

Mass shootings will continue and the proposed remedy will be the same as always. More citizens with guns.

Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world shakes it's head.

[mopar71]

Hillary and others want to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban...

The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Stupid Idea Pushed By Stupid People

..., it’s important to define what the previous federal ban covered and how it defined an “assault weapon.” The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

That’s it. Not one of those cosmetic features has anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

[NeverSure]

From the OP:

"Mateen wielded an AR-15, the most popular rifle sold in the United States according to the National Rifle Association. Manufactured by companies such as Colt and Bushmaster, it's the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military and many armies around the globe."

1. The gun wasn't an AR-15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. CBS News

2. Neither gun is an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is the civilian version of a real assault rifle - the M16. In the instant case the Sig is neither an AR or an assault rifle.

3. It is NOT used by any military because it doesn't have the capability in many ways.

4. Journalists should be required by their employers to know at least some damn thing about guns before they write bogus articles.

5. It's so easy to blame a gun rather than Islamic extremism. This guy was a Muslim. He called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS before he started shooting. He was on the FBI watch list and had even been questioned but the PC bastards didn't do anything with him. He cleared a background check to buy guns that he never should have cleared.

6. It was illegal for any civilian to carry a gun into the bar (any bar in Florida) so the law abiding citizens were unarmed. Of course criminals don't obey laws now do they. The patrons were defenseless.

The focus always turns to guns instead of to the ballooning Muslim extremism in The West.

Cheers.

Edited June 14, 2016 by NeverSure

[alanrchase]

From the OP:

"Mateen wielded an AR-15, the most popular rifle sold in the United States according to the National Rifle Association. Manufactured by companies such as Colt and Bushmaster, it's the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military and many armies around the globe."

1. The gun wasn't an AR-15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. CBS News

2. Neither gun is an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is the civilian version of a real assault rifle - the M16. In the instant case the Sig is neither an AR or an assault rifle.

3. It is NOT used by any military because it doesn't have the capability in many ways.

4. Journalists should be required by their employers to know at least some damn thing about guns before they write bogus articles.

5. It's so easy to blame a gun rather than Islamic extremism. This guy was a Muslim. He called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS before he started shooting. He was on the FBI watch list and had even been questioned but the PC bastards didn't do anything with him. He cleared a background check to buy guns that he never should have cleared.

6. It was illegal for any civilian to carry a gun into the bar (any bar in Florida) so the law abiding citizens were unarmed. Of course criminals don't obey laws now do they. The patrons were defenseless.

The focus always turns to guns instead of to the ballooning Muslim extremism in The West.

Cheers.

"The Sig Sauer MCX was developed for use by American special forces......"

[simple1]

Misleading headline on this article. Semi-Automatic rifles cannot be labeled as "assault weapons".

And pray tell why is that? To state that an AR-15 is not a military style assault rife is simply wrong and wrong-headed. The difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a full-auto M4 is negligible. Both can accept the larger 30-round mags. The only difference is the full-auto feature, a feature that, at lest when I was in the military carrying an old school M-16, was really only used to lay down suppressive fire. For the vast majority of my military days, apart from a very few tactical exercises involving suppressive fire, if the sergeant heard your weapon on full auto you could be assured of being assigned to fire watch for several nights in a row.

All this emphasis on semantics is a useless, puerile distraction. Many of us are so effin unimpressed by those who wish to display that they have more technical knowledge regarding firearms that others. The semantics do not change the conversation.

Semantics most certainly do change the conversation. If you are talking about banning something, that will require a law written and the words used are very important. Phrases like "assault weapons" are useless without clear definitions.

Laws have been enacted by various States that provide clear definitions of assault weapons, including in some cases assault pistols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

From the outside looking in it comes across to me that the US is tearing itself apart by the activities of primarily right wing partisans with their constant deeply divisive & poisonous commentary. Trump's very recent comments regards Obama are to me the quintessence of the Ugly Right.

[Johpa]

Semantics most certainly do change the conversation.[/b] If you are talking about banning something, that will require a law written and the words used are very important. Phrases like "assault weapons" are useless without clear definitions.

Oh I agree that at the level of legal code semantics are important and in legal code everything is usually described and defined in tedious detail. As one with a CDL, I am only too familiar with legal code that describes absolutely everything imaginable, in interminable subparagraphs, in mind numbing detail. And there will need to be some thought put into banning assault rifles, but it will have nothing to do with being fully automatic as fully automatic rifles are already banned from sale to the public.

[vogie]

Next we have to make rental trucks,ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel illegal. That'll show those would be Oklahoma City bombers.

Don't forget Kinder chocolate.

[NeverSure]

From the OP:

"Mateen wielded an AR-15, the most popular rifle sold in the United States according to the National Rifle Association. Manufactured by companies such as Colt and Bushmaster, it's the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military and many armies around the globe."

1. The gun wasn't an AR-15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. CBS News

2. Neither gun is an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is the civilian version of a real assault rifle - the M16. In the instant case the Sig is neither an AR or an assault rifle.

3. It is NOT used by any military because it doesn't have the capability in many ways.

4. Journalists should be required by their employers to know at least some damn thing about guns before they write bogus articles.

5. It's so easy to blame a gun rather than Islamic extremism. This guy was a Muslim. He called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS before he started shooting. He was on the FBI watch list and had even been questioned but the PC bastards didn't do anything with him. He cleared a background check to buy guns that he never should have cleared.

6. It was illegal for any civilian to carry a gun into the bar (any bar in Florida) so the law abiding citizens were unarmed. Of course criminals don't obey laws now do they. The patrons were defenseless.

The focus always turns to guns instead of to the ballooning Muslim extremism in The West.

Cheers.

"The Sig Sauer MCX was developed for use by American special forces......"

Not available to the general public - illegal. This is a dumbed down version for civilian sale. Specifically it's not fully automatic nor does it have the properly lined barrel, etc.

Assault rifles are already illegal to sell anywhere in the US to civilians without first getting a federal license which is expensive and difficult. That's after you find an existing privately owned one because no more are allowed to enter the general population. That makes them rare. Start with a clean record and US$30,000 in your pocket before you even think about hunting for such a scarce assault rifle. That would include something as routine as an M16.

Cheers.

[smutcakes]

Can someone explain in very simplistic terms if i am correct:

1) The USA has a very high prevelance of gun crime compared to other Westernized countries?

2) The USA has comparatively lax gun ownership and control laws?

Surely those two things are very much connected, and restricting the sale of firearms would at least be worth a try in bringing down the prevalence of gun crime.

If it is not the lax gun laws, what is it that causes such high prevelance of gun crime?

[Jdiddy]

This guy was a security guard so would of had easy access regardless of any restrictions

I bet right now there is ammo and semi auto ridle shortages in US gun shops, happens everytime after a mass shooting, the country gets paranoid about possible new restrictions and becomes even more heavily armed

[bassman]

Can someone explain in very simplistic terms if i am correct:

1) The USA has a very high prevelance of gun crime compared to other Westernized countries?

2) The USA has comparatively lax gun ownership and control laws?

Surely those two things are very much connected, and restricting the sale of firearms would at least be worth a try in bringing down the prevalence of gun crime.

If it is not the lax gun laws, what is it that causes such high prevelance of gun crime?

"If it is not the lax gun laws, what is it that causes such high prevelance of gun crime?"

CRIMINALS????

[Johnniey]

Yes...gun private gun ownership is legal in the United States...so what news is this hysterical AP reporter trying to report?

Because it is a pathetic state of affairs. Do you actually agree with it?

What an embarrassment to be a Yank, allowing these idiots to rule your country.

[mopar71]

It didn't take long for progressives to try and pass off the largest mass shooting of civilians in U.S history as a gun control issue in spite of the murderer swearing allegiance to ISIS and shouting out religious justification for his murders whilst carrying them out.

Had he drove a car into a group of people whilst shouting Allahu Akbar would it be considered a road safety issue? Would progressives sagely point out the number of road deaths due to vehicular jihad was tiny compared to the total?

You could enact the most draconian gun laws and still have a giant jihad problem and this cynical diversion could not be better designed to take the spotlight away from where it really needs shining.

Even the whackiest (or most insidiously sinister) liberals would not refer to a vehicle that had been used as a deadly weapon as an "assault car". The main "assault" that is occurring by calling semi-automatic carbines "assault rifles" is an attempted one on our intelligence.

Semi-automatic pistols with large count clips are never called "assault pistols", are they?

I would think anything that could be used as a weapon could be defined as an assault weapon. Isn't that what weapons are for...assaulting someone else?

[mopar71]

Can someone explain in very simplistic terms if i am correct:

1) The USA has a very high prevelance of gun crime compared to other Westernized countries?

2) The USA has comparatively lax gun ownership and control laws?

Surely those two things are very much connected, and restricting the sale of firearms would at least be worth a try in bringing down the prevalence of gun crime.

If it is not the lax gun laws, what is it that causes such high prevelance of gun crime?

Not enforcing laws already on the books is the main cause.

Chiraq (the nickname given to Chicago because of the violence) has strict gun laws yet fatal shootings are quite common. Adding more gun laws will do absolutely nothing.

Another factor is, well, race. Blacks make up about 10% of the population but are responsible for the majority of all shootings (which are mainly black-on-black). Fix our inner cities and gun crime will plummet.

[spidermike007]

I realize how unpopular and offensive my position is to the gun lovers of the world, but I consider the NRA to be an enemy of the state. They are single handedly responsible for thousands of civilian deaths each year. I realize the more simple among them will make arguments like "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Of course that is an inane motto dreamed up by one of the very highly paid PR firms this murder inc. organization hires, to justify it's blind allegiance to the anything goes motto, when it comes to the acquisition of weapons.

I am not against people being able to arm themselves. But, where does an AK-47, or other fully automatic, military style assault rifles come into this, such as the AR-15 style of rifle used in Orlando, Aurora, San Bernardino, and Newtown?

I just do not get it. It makes sense that if you make it easy for madmen to get guns, they will be used to kill people. So, why not control guns more tightly than current policy permits?

Despite California’s relatively tough gun laws, it is not difficult to legally buy semiautomatic rifles that critics call assault weapons but are marketed by gun makers as “modern sporting rifles.” C.D. Michel, a Long Beach lawyer who has brought numerous legal challenges against gun ownership restrictions, said that “none of these laws have proven to be effective.”

​The automatic weapons used in the San Bernardino massacre were legally obtained:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

When Omar Mateen embarked on his deadly rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday, he carried the same weapon used in some of the worst mass murders of recent times.

The AR-15, a popular military-style rifle, was used by Adam Lanza when he slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, in 2012. AR-15s were also used in the killings at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater that same year, as well as last year's ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks at a San Bernardino, Calif., government building.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/13/481877159/the-rifle-used-in-orlando-is-lightweight-easy-to-use-and-oh-so-deadly

Edited June 15, 2016 by spidermike007

[AYJAYDEE]

I realize how unpopular and offensive my position is to the gun lovers of the world, but I consider the NRA to be an enemy of the state. They are single handedly responsible for thousands of civilian deaths each year. I realize the more simple among them will make arguments like "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Of course that is an inane motto dreamed up by one of the very highly paid PR firms this murder inc. organization hires, to justify it's blind allegiance to the anything goes motto, when it comes to the acquisition of weapons.

I am not against people being able to arm themselves. But, where does an AK-47, or other fully automatic, military style assault rifles come into this, such as the AR-15 style of rifle used in Orlando, Aurora, San Bernardino, and Newtown?

I just do not get it. It makes sense that if you make it easy for madmen to get guns, they will be used to kill people. So, why not control guns more tightly than current policy permits?

Despite California’s relatively tough gun laws, it is not difficult to legally buy semiautomatic rifles that critics call assault weapons but are marketed by gun makers as “modern sporting rifles.” C.D. Michel, a Long Beach lawyer who has brought numerous legal challenges against gun ownership restrictions, said that “none of these laws have proven to be effective.”

​The automatic weapons used in the San Bernardino massacre were legally obtained:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

When Omar Mateen embarked on his deadly rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday, he carried the same weapon used in some of the worst mass murders of recent times.

The AR-15, a popular military-style rifle, was used by Adam Lanza when he slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, in 2012. AR-15s were also used in the killings at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater that same year, as well as last year's ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks at a San Bernardino, Calif., government building.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/13/481877159/the-rifle-used-in-orlando-is-lightweight-easy-to-use-and-oh-so-deadly

orlando and san bernadino weapon were automatic weapons??

Edited June 15, 2016 by AYJAYDEE

[mopar71]

[manarak]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-shop-owner-orlando-nightclub-shooter-omar-mateen-passed-background-check/

Mateen had a concealed carry permit from the state of Florida, Milton reported.

end of debate, the US system trusted the guy.