You're an unhinged geriatric that lies and distorts reality on a daily basis. You're a much bigger concern for our society than gun owners that you so clearly hate.
Twitter locks McConnell campaign account over video of protesters hurling threats
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
You're an unhinged geriatric that lies and distorts reality on a daily basis. You're a much bigger concern for our society than gun owners that you so clearly hate.
It's probably just a freaky coincidence, but the gun owners I know don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt.
you love to argue semantics. why arent you using definitions for actual dictionaries? i wonder why? it wasnt oxford or websters that came up with that definition, it was politicians because it sounded scary.
again, why arent you using the actual dictionary to pull up the definition? your argument is weak.
showing your lack of knowledge on the constitution yet again. also it wasnt called the bill of needs...
Well I'll be damned, who knew assault rifles were protected?!?!?!?! Guess that Federal ban back in 1994 was unconstitutional, huh?
Personally, I'm still pissed that Bazookas are outlawed. Why in the hell doesn't the Second Amendment allow me to use mine for personal protection and hunting? That's like SO Unconstitutional, right guys?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault weapon
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
Happy now? By Webster's definition, an AR-15 is an assault weapon.
A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]
A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[30][31]
A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]
So basically, banning assault style weapons had no measurable effect in the US, but when lifted, homicides in Mexico increased. Not totally sure what to make of that other than it seems like there may be some dealers in our border states who were selling guns under the table.
So is a semi-automatic pistol. That's why the US Media shows the icon of an AR-15, even when it's a pistol. Unfortunately they've been doing it with revolvers and shotguns too.
And then there's statements like "assault rifle" and "military assault weapon," I believe the latter several people used here. This is an "assault rifle" aka "military assault weapon."
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II.[6][7][8] Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.[8]
I'm sorry, but 30-45rpm is not 500-800rpm.
Which is why I say ... why ban a 30kph electric go-cart because it looks like a 300kph supercar?
Wow UCFBS sure gets his panties in a wad when it looks to him like his Rambo toys might be taken away.
Dude, he asked me for the Webster's definition, I gave it to him. If you have a problem with it call Webster's.
And some semi-automatic pistols were banned under the assault rifle ban.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
- Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
- A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
1. How many gun owners do you know that hunt?
2. Do they all then use bolt, lever, or pump action exclusively?
This is such a stupid argument. Nobody is going to convince me the world is coming to an end if we ...GASP!!!...ban assault weapons. 
I know a lot of hunters and none of them use a lever or pump action. I'd say half of the deer hunters use a bolt action. One of my former employees used a .300 Weatherby with 165 grain bullets, which is 3 times larger than the what an AR15 uses, and yet nobody is trying to ban that gun. You could literally shoot through 4 people with that gun in a single shot but it doesn't have a pistol grip so it's a-ok. What a joke.
In other words, lots of pistols. And you want even more 'common sense' gun laws that will turn even more of the 50M+ of American households with guns into felony families?
Yep.
And an AR-15 can have 6mm+, which is often required by law for deer hunting -- and, ironically, more effective at killing humans** -- and the AR-10 or SR-25 compatible magwells which have 'battle rifle' compatible cartridges. Which is when people use the 'high power assault rifle' claim.
**NOTE: Some of the US Media have gotten some ER doctors and nurses to talk about how 'bad' the 5.56mm is at its small calibre and high velocity. Ironically at 6mm+, let alone 7.62mm+, instead of more truma patients to the ER like 5.56mm, they just get more dead ones. That's why everything will be illegal. 5.56 is 'inhumane' for killing humans, and 6+, let alone 7.62mm+, is powerful enough to kill, possibly goes through someone and hits another.
News flash! Since the 1870s, rifle rounds have been very high velocity, and nothing -- zilch -- has changed. That was the 'last invention,' which virtually doubled velocity, after almost everything else had been invented by 1820, within the lifetime of the Founders.
There's always a reason to ban something related to a firearm, no matter what.
Yeah, the mowing down innocents in churches, shopping malls, outdoor festivals, and schools always seem to push this banning nonsense, right UCFBS?
Last edited:
my bad, i meant to say assault rifle. i know youll understand since you love to play this game.
also, almost no modern guns like the ar15 can be set to automatic fire. that is extremely illegal and youll rot in a jail cell the rest of your life. almost no one actually owns a full auto rifle. lets not forget ucfbs's comment about pistols. there are several pistols that various armies here and abroad use with almost no difference between the ones sold to the armies and the ones sold to civilians. also i think its something like 3 or 4 times more people die from pistols than for rifles. why not go after the obvious problem?
As always, until the left stops with its anti-gun non-sense, we cannot have any debate. What the left should do is actually make this argument, of which would be viable ...
The left keeps trying to push this 'common sense' and 'make it a priviledge' argument, just like they do the press and religion -- especially back in 2009 when Obama had Democrats saying Fox News should not be allowed into the White House because it wasn't the press. The press is supposed to be self-regulating, just like a militia. That's the purpose of forcing assembly and membership, to hold one another accountable.
Why the left cannot make this argument is beyond me. It's one even I, a Libertarian, am very much open to. I honestly wish a state like Alabama, Georgia, Florida or Kentucky, maybe even one of the Carolinas, would make this move as a 'trial' of the solution, even if voluntarily. But the problem likely is, as always, the left would try to enact legislation to register guns ... instead of the militia men and women. Sigh, that's not what this is about.
Just like we don't register the instruments of journalists, or require them to have a permit to release an article to the public.
- How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago
https://theweek.com/articles/629815...on-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago
'So: If the whole point of the keeping and bearing of arms is to stock "well-regulated militias," why not mandate militia membership in order to own a gun?
...
Proper militias would be comprised of sane men and women who own guns and wish to comply with state law. (And that is key: Militias belong entirely to the states, who regulate them accordingly.) Militias might be formed voluntarily based on like-mindedness and geography. Never forgetting their purpose — the common defense — hunters in north Louisiana, for example, might form their own militia — which in practice would exist as a kind of society or association. State regulation of militias would seek to prevent the radicalization of any such group and thus suppress insurrectionists. Likewise, state laws and local governance from within a militia might find better luck in implementing piecemeal the gun reforms that confound federal legislatures.
Recall Hamilton's statement of fact that in order to be "well regulated," a militia should meet once or twice a year. This is key to a militia-based reform (as opposed to an arms-based one) and could easily be accomplished. Precedent exists for large groups of people to assemble for one or two days a year to fulfill a civic obligation, and local governments are quite good at making such assemblies happen, as anyone who has ever been called to jury duty can attest.
Because, as Hamilton writes, formal military training would entail "a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss," how might these militias spend their two days of annual assembly? How about using those days as opportunities for gun safety training. Why not bring the NRA to said meetings to conduct such training? Their political activities aside, the NRA is peerless with respect to teaching such classes. This also allows militia members to "feel each other out" and police one another, as all communities and associations are wont to do.'
The left keeps trying to push this 'common sense' and 'make it a priviledge' argument, just like they do the press and religion -- especially back in 2009 when Obama had Democrats saying Fox News should not be allowed into the White House because it wasn't the press. The press is supposed to be self-regulating, just like a militia. That's the purpose of forcing assembly and membership, to hold one another accountable.
Why the left cannot make this argument is beyond me. It's one even I, a Libertarian, am very much open to. I honestly wish a state like Alabama, Georgia, Florida or Kentucky, maybe even one of the Carolinas, would make this move as a 'trial' of the solution, even if voluntarily. But the problem likely is, as always, the left would try to enact legislation to register guns ... instead of the militia men and women. Sigh, that's not what this is about.
Just like we don't register the instruments of journalists, or require them to have a permit to release an article to the public.
You have to be kidding me. Y0u asked specifically for the Webster's definition, I gave it to you, but you are still trying to criticize me for doing exactly what you wanted me to do. You make no sense.
its called moving the goal posts. this is something you should be very familiar with since i see you do it all the time.
why not look up the definition of assault rifle.
Great find. I'm willing to bet that almost every rational gun owner would be willing to be a part of a militia as described. Quite honestly, do this and the problem is largely solved. We all want guns out of the hands of criminals but also want guns in the hands of people who are capable and willing to protect us as a society. Let the states decide what they want to do as far as the militia is concerned for each state and let them decide the punishment for those who choose to defer.
Huh? You accused me of not posting the Webster's definition for a reason, so then I posted it for you, like you wanted. Now you are a accusing me of moving the goal post? Do you know what irony means?
Why not stand on your own two feet and look it up your self. I did what you asked, and you still accuse me of playing games, because you aren't interested in actual conversation, you are just interested in trying to 1 up me for some odd reason. So if you want the definition then find it. YOu are a loser and I am done even trying to converse with you.
It's such a broad term I hate even looking up how people define it. To me, an assault rifle is one that has no application outside of military combat. So basically, pretty much just fully automatic guns. Even the .50 Cal has uses outside of military use although it's pretty limited.
What's funny to me is the way that the left tries to define "assault rifle". My brother in law has an AR15 that he uses for hunting small game. My dad has a .338 Lapua, the weapon of choice for snipers. They think the AR15 is too dangerous to own but the sniper rifle is a-ok because it doesn't have a pistol grip.
assault rifles has been a term that referred to fully automatic or machine guns for a very long time. the media created the term assault weapons back in the late 80s to describe anything that looked like scary.
He asked for the Webster's definition, I gave it to him, then because it didn't say what he thought it would say (why he couldn't look it up on his own is beyond me), he accuses me of moving the goal posts. This is nothing to do with "lefties" trying to define anything. I did exactly what he wanted me to do, he just didn't like the answer, so he is accusing me of playing games.
i lost track of how many times cubs moved the goal posts in that one shooting thread. i try to move it one time and he gets all bent out of shape. lol
I don't think a personal definition matters and I think we get way to hung up on wording. The reality, is anything used to assault someone could be considered an "assault weapon". A baseball bat's primary purpose is for use in a game, but obviously if someone was using one as a weapon to beat people, then technically he is using it as an assault weapon. I think for legal purposes it should be defined, and with regards to that I would just mostly stick to how the previous ban defined it, but maybe with some changes here and there.
Kind of a copout answer. So basically you are ok with me owning a sniper rifle that could take someone out from over a mile but not one that can't even drop a deer from 200 yards?
It isn't a copout answer. AR15's are pretty commonly used in assaults, so I don't see how we can't consider it an assault weapon, even if all aspects of the gun don't meet your definition. And yes, I get you could say the same thing about handguns, but I think there is more of a practical purpose to handguns. And no, I don't think you need a sniper rifle to take someone out from a mile away because there is not much of a practical purpose for it.
AR15s are used far more for hunting than for assaults. Also, that sniper rifle is not dissimilar to over a dozen guns that are more commonly used for deer hunting. It's just more expensive to shoot than what people typically use.
Do you understand firearms? Their design? The laws? Yes or no? If not, don't try to even enter the debate. This is why even people like me, who don't even own, get tired of the BS. Almost every firearm is illegal in some states, and others -- the state's not sure, and judges get confused too.
Because I educated myself a long time ago, and I'm glad I did so I was better equipped to support law enforcement and the military, as well as work with private militias for security, so I wasn't so ignorant as the US media constantly is, as well as most 'gun safety' fools.
You're using semantics and 'military' and other BS when it's really simple. We've had 150 years of smokeless powder, 200 years of cartridges and 250 years of self-loading weapons. Nothing has really changed except for the caliber went down, velocity went up, we maime more than kill now, but we get more cartridges in the same volume.
And no one is legally allowed to own fully automatic weapons -- the ones that shoot 500-800rpm, and not the semi-automatics that aren't really any faster than bolt action -- except a select few, none of those are used in crimes, and the overwhelming supermajority of guns are illegally acquired prior to use.
Hell, even Bernie Sanders was off looking like an @$$hat about 'closing loopholes' that don't exist. We all just want the f'ing existing laws enforced and the freak'n, heavily left-leaning 'public servants' to do their freak'n jobs, so the police, ATF, FBI, etc... can!
- Bernie Sanders Vows To Make Straw Purchases Illegal. Yes, Really
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/...vows-make-straw-purchases-illegal-yes-really/
What does this have to do with what I posted? Your posts are so random, and it is rather odd.
And I don't need, nor was I asking for your permission to enter a debate or asking your permission for anything else.
I am a part of the US media? What planet do you live on?
funny how now hes sticking to his personal view of the definition instead of the one thats been in the dictionary for 75 years
Yeah, I don't know what's up with people now wanting to ban the Remmington 700 because it's a 'military grade sniper rifle.' Did Lemon on CNN or Maddow on MSNBC say something about it recently? /me Googles ...
Look, we either do something about gun violence or we don't. That is where we are in society right now, and have been for years. We can argue the definition of an assault rifle until we are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact we have a gun problem that we either fix, or we simply acknowledge that dead kids and people are acceptable in this country. And this isn't directed just at you, this is a pretty common tactic, but one doesn't have to be an expert on guns to see that we have a gun problem. So bringing the conversation to that level is basically used to take the conversation away from the actual problem. Yes, we obviously need to define and specifity anything when writing laws so we know what is and isn't legal. No, we don't need to talk about the inner workings of a gun in every gun conversation anymore than we have to talk about the inner workings of cars when talking about drunk drivers. What we need to talk about is how to fix the problem.
I agree, let's start with ...
- Enforcing existing gun laws
- Prosecute people who lie on their forms
- Prosecute more straw purchasers
- Prosecute civil servants who fail to input data or check backgrounds -- I'm looking at you Florida and Ohio!
Every time a solution is put forth to improve the above, the left sacks it with new gun control, registration and other things, and it dies. It repeatedly happens. It gets old. I've read so many bills and it's all politicking.
"Oh, the Republicans vetoed universal background checks." Hey, did you read the part about the new assault weapons ban in it?!
Yes, and we've had 'gun free zones' and 'assault weapons bans' nationally. They've done nothing. In fact, we're now seeing, 15 years later, Clinton lying about how the assault weapon ban worked.
That's what happens in this country. In 2004, we knew it didn't do jack, the statistics showed that. But now, 15 years later? We've re-written the terms and other things to make it seem like it worked, even though it didn't.
No we don't. It's been defined for 75 years, 100 if you include the Federov. In fact, the biggest problem is that people are using 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' interchangeably to the point it screws up statistics.
The Assault Weapons Ban studies have seen people include pistols, both banned and not banned, and called them 'assault rifles.' No, they are 'assault weapons' which as a political definition, and even half didn't qualify. That's the problem.
Same thing with 'mass shootings.' The FBI has always defined it as 4 deaths within 24 hours, not including the shooter, but only until 2013. The definition was changed to 2 casualties including the shooter to raise the number of mass shootings reported, but eventually the FBI was chastized over changing the normal. But many others do what they want.
It's kinda a joke at this point, because people are putting up AR-15 silhouettes when anything other than a 7-cartridge 1911 is used, and even the 1911 is considered 'large caliber,' so some people accidentally call it an 'assault weapon' or evren an 'assault rifle.'
Then we have the mass shootings done with revolvers and shotguns that are reported as 'assault weapons' or 'assault rifles.' And now it seems 75% of Democrats want to ban the Remmington 700 as they can it a 'military grade sniper rifle.' Of course it is. Duh, all standard caliber, or larger, rifles are!
Kids die all over the place in the US. Guns aren't the problem, far from it. In fact, the only kids that die at high rates due to gun crime, and dominate the statistics, are gang-related. But we don't seem to care about them, only when the white kids die.
A pool in the home is 40x more likely to kill a kid than a gun. Many other things are an order of magnitude more to kill a kid. Even the corner of a desk or some other furnature in the home is more likely to kill a kid. But we only talk about guns. Why?
No one talks about the rate of accidents and suicides by gun per household actually with a gun! They just go, "See, more guns, more deaths!" Of course. But per household with an actual gun? Seriously, basic math here people.
But you have to have a modicum of firearm knowledge to write actual 'common sense gun control' based on the weapon and mechanisms. Otherwise we get f---tards saying "this is a military assault rifle/weapon," and those of us just laugh.
Just 10 years ago, no one confused assault rifle (technical definition of 75+ years) and assault weapon (1990s political definition). But that's no longer the case.
Just 35 years ago, the anti-plastic gun people were laughed out of the room. But that's no longer the case either.
The complete idiots are controlling the conversation and saying 'common sense gun control.' No, it's 'common idiot gun definition.' Just admit it, you want all of them banned and you're going to write 'common sense gun control' to ban virtually all weapons!
Every semi-automatic pistol is a 'military assault weapon/rifle'
Every bolt-action rifle is a 'military grade sniper weapon'
Even revolvers are self-loading, and the same as a semi-automatic pistol.
And those trained on bolt-action rifles can fire almost as fast as a semi-automatic rifle.
No, the actual problem is the 'common sense gun control' phrasing that outlaws all of the firearms I spoke of. A good 75% of Democrats want to ban the bolt-action Remmington 700. Why? Because the USMC, after issues with other options, too the civilian rifle and made it a military issue weapon. That's it.
But what if the laws are written so things are both legal and illegal? Even the ATF has great difficulty with many laws and advisements in many states, beyond federal law. Just speak to an ATF agent and they'll tell you.
If you mean background checks, yes, I agree. But you also can't be ignorant of the existing laws and say they don't exist or have loopholes, like Sanders and others are doing.
But using your own analogy ... what you're talking about is banning the type of car a drunk driver can drive. That's literally how stupid of an argument that is.
But if you mean what types of guns are legal or illegal, you can't be an idiot. You just cannot. You cannot define something that doesn't exist or isn't legal to own, and ban it. You may get 75-80% of Democrats who are gun illiterate to agree with you, and you may even get a Democratic politicians to heed his career suicide and finally agree with you, only to be caught on an errant mic saying your idiots and the laws won't change anything.
But it doesn't remove the fact that you're an idiot. You're a complete idiot and have no business defining anything. Even worse? There are special interest groups counting on you being an idiot, so they can get all guns banned. That's reality.
Education is the great equalizer. Stop arguing if you're ignorant of something. It makes you look like an idiot. Seriously.
Every person who was anti-gun that went and learned about firearms quickly realizes how bad it is. They aren't against gun control, they just quickly become against -- strongly against -- the 'common sense gun control' pushed by people who are taking advantage of the grossly ignorant. They realize the solution is to enforce existing laws.
The grossly ignorant are the ones arguing about banning the type of car a drunk driver can drive.
