U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2012, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,824 posts, read 21,347,290 times
Reputation: 6524

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
No, I had it correct the first time. For you to say that "assault weapons" are covered by NFA-34 as Title II arms and restricted from the general population is incorrect.

Federally, 'assault weapons' do not exist. The law that defined what an 'assault weapon' was is gone.

That legal definition, when in effect, only covered semi-automatic, medium caliber, able to receive detachable magazine firearms . . . Since now, no such definition exists those guns are no different than any other rifle in civilian hands.

OTOH, full auto / select-fire assault rifles do exist in law (NFA-34) and firearms capable of semi-automatic fire are specifically excluded from those regulations.

So, my admonition stands and my use of "invented" was in reference to "assault weapon" being invented to serve a political agenda by being easily confused with "assault rifle" / "machine gun". Sugarman's statement lays it out quite well and you are perpetuating the deception he sought to create and sustain.
Incorrect. After the National Firearms Act of 1934 as enacted into law, the FBI defined "assault weapon" to mean any firearm that is capable of fully automatic fire. In the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994 Congress changed that definition to be purely cosmetic, based upon the ignorant media's definition of an "assault weapon." The 1994 law was allowed to sunset, and is no longer in effect. Which means the FBI is free to revert back to their 1934 definition of an "assault weapon."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2012, 03:44 PM
 
112 posts, read 123,611 times
Reputation: 41
Romney wears big boy pants on this issue.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 04:19 PM
 
44,991 posts, read 19,382,798 times
Reputation: 10661
Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
Why was it ok for Romney to sign an assault weapons ban for Massachusetts? But if a democrat did it, they would be vilified?
Apparently you don't the difference between what Romney signed and what the dems want, and did withthe Clinton so-called assault weapon ban.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
402 posts, read 188,149 times
Reputation: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Incorrect. After the National Firearms Act of 1934 as enacted into law, the FBI defined "assault weapon" to mean any firearm that is capable of fully automatic fire.
And the chances that you are capable of providing a legal citation or verifiable proof of that is nil. (Go ahead and waste an hour looking for it by all means)

My criticism stands.

Using that term to describe full-auto is doing the bidding of the anti's.

It's stupid and sloppy and as a supposed gun rights supporter you should strive to be as precise and factual as possible and not use a term of indeterminate meaning that in the public discourse can mean anything between an AR and a sharpened stick . . .

You will not find any use of the term "assault weapon" prior to the mid-80's with sharp rise in use following the Stockton shooting and the ensuing California bills banning semi-auto military lookalikes.

The term "assault rifle" was a name already assigned to select fire military rifles derived from the German Sturmgewehr (storm rifle) with the term being recognized in US Army manuals in the 1970 edition after the adoption of the select fire AR platform (1967 IIRC). As such, nobody but the uninformed or agenda serving refer to current semi-auto civilian military lookalikes as "assault rifles" so for you to claim that the politically defined term of "assault weapon" (being pretty much any black gun) is interchangeable, is not legitimate.

Last edited by Jeerleader; 12-16-2012 at 06:06 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Rational World Park
4,991 posts, read 4,112,191 times
Reputation: 2373
That was the progressive, "I'm not Reagan and Bush" Romney, the 2012 "severely conservative" Romney was totally against any gun control. Despite that he would've likely flip-flopped back to supporting gun control or maybe not..lol..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top