A new term to bring clarity to the gun discussions...

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Cars, hammers and fists are not designed to kill humans. Not even all guns are designed to kill people.

But the attempt is to note there is a class of rifles whose primary purpose is to kill humans. HKR is merely an attempt to define this class. There are of course other weapons designed to kill people - the M1911.45 comes immediately to mind.

All of this is merely an attempt to stop the silly nonsense about "assault rifles". One would think the gunnies would like to get rid of that issue but apparently not....

Fists were probably the first weapon used to kill another human being, followed closely by rocks - the prehistoric equivalent of a hammer.

Trying to substitute one silly classification for another doesn't stop any of the nonsense. You can categorize all of the scary black guns that you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that they account for a miniscule amount of gun crimes.

[Redraven]

recently, a local man was convicted of assault with a padlock tied to a piece of cloth.
WHEN are we going to pass laws regarding "assault padlocks"?
I know people who collect swords of various types. Swords are for killing people, that is their ONLY purpose! WHEN are we going to place controls on who can own such "assault knives"?
The point is, ANYTHING can be and/or has been used as a weapon to injure and kill people. In fact, MANY things have injured or killed people more often that any long gun regardless of type in the world of today! Including vehicles!
It has been stated many times, the shooters in many of the mass shooting of recent times got their weapons LEGALLY, after passing one or more BACKGROUND CHECKS!
think about that...

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by Redraven

recently, a local man was convicted of assault with a padlock tied to a piece of cloth.
WHEN are we going to pass laws regarding "assault padlocks"?
I know people who collect swords of various types. Swords are for killing people, that is their ONLY purpose! WHEN are we going to place controls on who can own such "assault knives"?
The point is, ANYTHING can be and/or has been used as a weapon to injure and kill people. In fact, MANY things have injured or killed people more often that any long gun regardless of type in the world of today! Including vehicles!
It has been stated many times, the shooters in many of the mass shooting of recent times got their weapons LEGALLY, after passing one or more BACKGROUND CHECKS!
think about that...

There is not to many things I could not kill with.

There have been deaths from drinking to much water.

One girl was drinking to win a radio contest.

One mother was mad at her child and killed the child giving him/her a drink from a water hose.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by lvoc

And if they are not for self defense they would not be covered under the latest USSC rulings would they?

That's a Circular Argument.

Originally Posted by lvoc

For a Gunnie you sure seem to have problems getting the concepts straight...

The concepts are simple.....

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely; there are limitations on what government can do to stem the amount of power it acquires so that it isn't absolutely corrupted; those limitations on government are clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by lvoc

But the attempt is to note there is a class of rifles whose primary purpose is to kill humans.

The primary purpose of all rifles is to kill people.

Your ignorance on the matter is truly astounding.

You might want to study the development of missile weapons.

The nobility wanted to outlaw cross-bolts.

Why?

Because a simple slave could build one using a piece of wood, a tensioner (made of wood or rope or metal twines...cable) and missile....and then launch the bolt (the missile) at an armored member of the nobility and slay them from a distance.

Since your ignorance is unsurpassed:

Landed Estate = Plantation
Nobility = Plantation Owner
Serf = Slave
Writ of Manumission = Free Papers
direct comparisons continue ad nauseum etc etc

The nobility was also the government.

Rifles are merely faster and more powerful cross-bolts.

Here, ask someone to read this to you and explain it....Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Book 8:

"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature (or form)? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?"

Originally Posted by lvoc

HKR is merely an attempt to define this class.

With extreme prejudice.

Originally Posted by lvoc

There are of course other weapons designed to kill people - the M1911.45 comes immediately to mind.

The M1911 was specifically designed to slay Moros.

Remember, you're an Empire...your government now enslave peoples.....especially peoples of color...like the Moros....an indigenous group in the Philippines who also happened to be largely Muslim.

The drugged up Moros could be shot four or five or 12 times and not be phased...still attacking.

The M1911 was designed for knock-down power....it will put you down on the ground. You get shot in the hand by an M1911 it will put you on the ground.

Originally Posted by lvoc

All of this is merely an attempt to stop the silly nonsense about "assault rifles". One would think the gunnies would like to get rid of that issue but apparently not....

The pro-Tyranny, pro-Dictator, anti-Freedom freaks are the ones who coined the phrase.

Originally Posted by JimRom

Why don't we just call them firearms. Then we can move past semantics and possibly start focusing on fixing our broken "justice" system.

Well, that would be common sense, but Liberals will have no part of it.

Originally Posted by lvoc

Sorry that is flatly untrue. The USSC has tacked "but for reasonable regulation" onto the end. We now await where the actual line is to be drawn.

The Supreme Court has no power to amend the Constitution.

Originally Posted by lvoc

YOu could I suppose but hopelessly incorrect. The USSC has made it clear that there is no such role. Self defense with limits is what the court has said.

It is, I Agree, not what the founders intended. But it appears that all significant contingents have now agreed that the founders intent is no long operative.

The intent is operative so long as government exists.

Be ignorant no longer....

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures....Check!
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:...Check!For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:...In Progress!...the militarization of your local police continues unabated, with the chain of command and lines of control being slowly taken from the people and handed over to federal government agencies.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:...Check!
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:...Check!...for decades your government wrongfully imprisoned innocent civilians in foreign States, tortured them, and then murdered them....it's only a matter of time before that starts happening in the US...and it already is...if the government declares you to be a "terrorist" then you don't get a trial by jury.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences...Check!...for now that involves foreigners.. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.....Check!....even though its applicable to foreign States only at this time, there are more common occurrences of Waco and Ruby Ridge et al.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation....Check!and what isn't done by hired private armies is accomplished by militarizing the police, and establishing a fleet of drones.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions....That's debatable...one could certainly make an argument for it using Waco and Ruby Ridge et al.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only....Check! ...Obamacare is a perfect example, along with holding States hostage over drinking ages, seat belt laws, gun laws, and any number of other laws or examples.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers....Check!...Qualified Immunity for prosecutors (and police) would be once such example.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries....Check!...these three work in tandem where the 9th and 10th Amendments are violated continuously.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance....Check!...the latest being the Healthcare Gestapo and the Food Police, not to mention the IRS Scandal and other transgressions.

Originally Posted by T0103E

The reason for the 2nd amendment is for protection, not killing people,...

No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to slay government troops, whether those troops are the federal army, the national guard or police, should the government violate the Bill of Rights.

A benevolent government does not illegally overthrow legitimate governments, install puppet-dictators who then violate all of the Rights of the subjugated people that Americans cherish under the Bill of Rights, and then subsidizes, funds, arms, trains and advises such dictatorships.

The US government is not a benevolent government, since it does all those things, and more, including murder heads-of-State in cold blood.

The government cannot claim it opposes tyranny, while simultaneously engaging in and supporting tyranny.

So long as any government supports tyranny, ADWs....Anti-Dictator Weapons....are going to be more than just a passing fad.

Conceptually...

Mircea

[Driller1]

Our rifles are to feed our family.

Some seasons are for bows and cross bows are aloud.....and VERY deadly.

My husband's "claim to fame" is shooting a turkey in fight with a bow.

[thebigr]

Originally Posted by T0103E

The reason for the 2nd amendment is for protection, not killing people, so human defense rifles would be more fitting. It's to avoid the situation where law enforcement and military have a monopoly on deadly weapons and citizens have no defense against them if they happen to become oppressive. People who are anti-gun aren't anti-gun. They just don't trust "ordinary" citizens to have them, yet believe people in power should have them.

Very well said.

I cannot understand how people put so much trust in their government thinking they will do whats right for the people. That's right, they don't read history books.

[TrapperJohn]

Out of the hundreds of millions of rifles manufactured only a very, very small percentage would qualify as HKR's. Less than 1/100 of a percent, including war.

Millions of them would qualify as HSR's - Human Saving Rifles.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by lvoc

You wish to claim they don't kill humans?

Or they are simply for whacking beer cans?

Would it not be dumb to have a weapon not suited to killing humans for self defense?

And if they are not for self defense they would not be covered under the latest USSC rulings would they?

So banning them would be OK?

For a Gunnie you sure seem to have problems getting the concepts straight...

"You wish to claim they don't kill humans?

Or they are simply for whacking beer cans?"

Good! Let's re-name baseball bats to killing clubs since baseball bats kill more people here in the U.S. then rifles do.

[kwhitegocubs]

It's so strange how the pro-gun crowd claims to be so afraid of the police state and the "dictatorial" power of government, but also tend to be the people voting in the "tough on crime" judges and DAs into power and valorizing the police.

It's also strange that the European nations with extreme or complete restrictions on gun ownership have far less of a police state, as evidenced by incarceration rates of less than 1/5th our own nation. Or maybe it's not strange, and all the paranoid fantasies about the Montana militia being able to defeat the National Guard are just cover for a load of meaningless hokum.