Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would propose that there is no legal definition of an assault weapon today. There was one from 1994 to 2004. Now it is a vernacular term for "BIG UGLY BLACK SEMI-AUTOMATIC". AR-15 is much easier to type and say. The weapon used today is very different from the original Armalite. It is totally wrong to call all these AR-15s, especially given only the USAF Security troops carried it, and they are defensive troops, and do no assault. Snipers use a much more accurate action, as do all real hunters. Anyone who needs a 10 round clip to take on a deer needs more time at the range.
But hey, can we allow people their colloquialism and stop defending Armalite? It is an indicator of their ignorance about guns, sure, but you already know that. Stop complaining every time someone misuses the vocabulary. Do what I do now, when someone misspells or misuses a term I just respond to what they are saying, underline their error and move on to respond to their ideas.
"Don't be a grammar NAZI"
A clear definition and understanding of the technicalities is essential to discussing any laws regarding a technical subject.
If you need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer go get glasses or do some target practice. You know exactly what features AR type weapons have and I'm not going to list them here because that's just a game and you know it. If you really don't know then look it up for yourself.
Who said anything about hunting (I don't partake) or 30 round mags. You stated ANY semi automatic firearm. And BS, what features does an AR have that any other multitude of mag fed semi auto rifles or shotguns or handguns don't ?
I would propose that there is no legal definition of an assault weapon today. There was one from 1994 to 2004. Now it is a vernacular term for "BIG UGLY BLACK SEMI-AUTOMATIC". AR-15 is much easier to type and say. The weapon used today is very different from the original Armalite. It is totally wrong to call all these AR-15s, especially given only the USAF Security troops carried it, and they are defensive troops, and do no assault. Snipers use a much more accurate action, as do all real hunters. Anyone who needs a 10 round clip to take on a deer needs more time at the range.
But hey, can we allow people their colloquialism and stop defending Armalite? It is an indicator of their ignorance about guns, sure, but you already know that. Stop complaining every time someone misuses the vocabulary. Do what I do now, when someone misspells or misuses a term I just respond to what they are saying, underline their error and move on to respond to their ideas.
"Don't be a grammar NAZI"
So say what you want. A ban on semi auto's or a ban on a magazine over 10 rounds. Pure and simple. Assault rifle is a label being thrown around to scare the masses into a frenzy. Had this latest nutcase used a Ruger Ranch 14 they would be calling it a hunting rifle , even though it is no different from the AR that he used.
While we debate what an AR-15 is or isn't -- I'm struck with finding these articles by veterans saying why they support an AR15 ban. I know little about guns so I rely on folks who tell me they know. On this board folks have explained the AR15 and how common/ordinary it is blah blah blah....and then I go and see these articles and think --
hmmmm what about these guys. Are they totally off their rocker?
I would like to know what some of the people on this thread think about these men too.
Great post moneill.
They probably think there there are lots of differing opinions on the matter regardless of the source. The fact that those are sourced and heavily labeled , puts those articles into the realm of propaganda.
I would like to know what some of the people on this thread think about these men too.
Great post moneill.
You might as well be asking what some people think about being vegetarian rather than eat meat...
Point being, this issue, problem, debate is strictly a function of what aspect of having guns (or not) matters to you most, or more specifically the "assault rifle" loosely or very specifically described. I've followed this issue for awhile now, more than a few threads, and no facts, reason or logic will change the hearts or minds on either side. Unfortunately, no facts, reason or logic seem to point toward any clear or effective solution either, so again I hate to admit it or repeat myself, I think we're just screwed. Waiting for the next shooting to occur something like we do the next natural disaster, simply unable to do much about it other than to prepare for the worst...
You might as well be asking what some people think about being vegetarian rather than eat meat...
Point being, this issue, problem, debate is strictly a function of what aspect of having guns (or not) matters to you most, or more specifically the "assault rifle" loosely or very specifically described. I've followed this issue for awhile now, more than a few threads, and no facts, reason or logic will change the hearts or minds on either side. Unfortunately, no facts, reason or logic seem to point toward any clear or effective solution either, so again I hate to admit it or repeat myself, I think we're just screwed. Waiting for the next shooting to occur something like we do the next natural disaster, simply unable to do much about it other than to prepare for the worst...
Yeah I agree -- I will continue to try to understand but I believe the lines in the sand are drawn and nobody wants to listen anymore.
Because once it starts it will never end. It's the old "give them and inch and they'll take a mile" as that's how our government works.
This has been shown over and over again throughout the years to be a truism.
It's not the guns, it's the CULTURE that needs fixing. How do we get respect back?
Well, it would be easier to give up semi-automatics, than to implement culture change, so out the damn window they go!
You might as well be asking what some people think about being vegetarian rather than eat meat...
Point being, this issue, problem, debate is strictly a function of what aspect of having guns (or not) matters to you most, or more specifically the "assault rifle" loosely or very specifically described. I've followed this issue for awhile now, more than a few threads, and no facts, reason or logic will change the hearts or minds on either side. Unfortunately, no facts, reason or logic seem to point toward any clear or effective solution either, so again I hate to admit it or repeat myself, I think we're just screwed. Waiting for the next shooting to occur something like we do the next natural disaster, simply unable to do much about it other than to prepare for the worst...
Here is the thing. I'm all for doing something to try and stop these tragedies from happening along with all the violence in the inner cities. What I'm not fond of is bans or restrictions that will do nothing.
Here are a few things that we need to do. And for the laws , I will go with Michigan laws since I live here and know them.
All purchases of any firearm new or used from an FFL needs a purchase permit (background check) and has to have a call to the NICS (background check). CPL holders only need the call at the moment of sale to the NICS (background check)
Any face to face secondary sale of any firearm needs to go thru an FFL.
Age to own any firearm should be 21
Hospitals need to share information with the NICS, currently can't due to HIPAA laws.
If one is diagnosed with bi polar ,or schizophrenia , possibly any other illnesses that could lead to violent outbursts cannot purchase any firearm regardless if they are being treated for it or not.
As far as the inner city violence. Implement stop and frisk between certain times. Most of the violence and drive by shootings are late at night or early morning.
Add a minimum of 10 years to any firearms related crime regardless of age and no plea bargains.
These are just quick and dirty, many details would have to be worked out.
Now many are going to say some of this violates our Constitutional rights, well so many are willing to take the rights away from the law abiding that will do little to nothing why not violate people rights for things that will work ?
You might as well be asking what some people think about being vegetarian rather than eat meat...
Point being, this issue, problem, debate is strictly a function of what aspect of having guns (or not) matters to you most, or more specifically the "assault rifle" loosely or very specifically described. I've followed this issue for awhile now, more than a few threads, and no facts, reason or logic will change the hearts or minds on either side. Unfortunately, no facts, reason or logic seem to point toward any clear or effective solution either, so again I hate to admit it or repeat myself, I think we're just screwed. Waiting for the next shooting to occur something like we do the next natural disaster, simply unable to do much about it other than to prepare for the worst...
We could get rid of "gun free zones" for starters. The fact that the shootings only end when someone with a gun shows up and forces the shooter(s) to either stop or commit suicide should be all the proof anyone needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
