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.
We discussed this early in the thread. The problem is that other definitions of 'assault weapon' have proved unworkable. After the 1994 assault style ban, gun makers slightly changed their designs to get around it. I-1639 uses a simplified definition, namely all semi-automatics are 'assault weapons.'
Just because a poorly thought out bill injects some ignorant nomenclature does not make it so.
The term "assault rifle" was created by the U.S. Army in the very early 50's to define a rifle with a very specific purpose.
"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be capable of selective fire. <-(This means safe/single shot/full auto)
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards). Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such."
Your semi auto 22 rifle might not seem like an assault weapon, but if you can replace the original clip that had, say 5 bullets, with a high caliper clip of 30 bullets, it has basically been turned into an assault weapon.
Good Lord, please explain what a "high caliper clip of 30 bullets" is exactly, in detail
Does the true definition of assault rifle above mention magazine capacity at all? Nope. Is the feeble .22 LR an intermediate power cartridge? Nope. Does it have the effective range of 330 yards? Nope. Does the simple .22 rifles mentioned earlier in the thread have selective fire? Nope.
Just because some ignorant progressive dopes in Washington decide to call these other firearms "assault weapons" do not make them so, no matter how happy it makes you. Again, a case of stupid legislators over reaching.
More:
"Distinction from assault weapons
The term "assault rifle" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault weapon". According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles", which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons", which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle".[94] In the U.S., civilian ownership of machine guns (and assault rifles) has been tightly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and since 1986 under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.[95]"
The above link is a good history lesson on progressives disingenuous attempts confuse the public and use fear tactics over technical terms. You should read it.
Pistols are never defined as "assault " weapons. Ever. Even though this bill you are so keen on includes them.
You should truly educate yourself before voicing an opinion on such things. You are making a fool of yourself.
Last edited by snebarekim; 10-02-2018 at 09:02 PM..
Just because a poorly thought out bill injects some ignorant nomenclature does not make it so.
The term "assault rifle" was created by the U.S. Army in the very early 50's to define a rifle with a very specific purpose.
"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be capable of selective fire. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5] It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards). Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such."
Good Lord, please explain what a "high caliper clip of 30 bullets" is exactly, in detail
Does the true definition of assault rifle above mention magazine capacity at all? Nope. Is the feeble .22 LR an intermediate power cartridge? Nope. Does it have the effective range of 330 yards? Nope. Does the simple .22 rifles mentioned earlier in the thread have selective fire? Nope.
Just because some ignorant progressive dopes in Washington decide to call these other firearms "assault weapons" do not make them so, no matter how happy it makes you. Again, a case of stupid legislators over reaching.
More:
"Distinction from assault weapons
The term "assault rifle" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault weapon". According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles", which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons", which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle".[94] In the U.S., civilian ownership of machine guns (and assault rifles) has been tightly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and since 1986 under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.[95]"
Good Lord, please explain what a "high caliper clip of 30 bullets" is exactly, in detail
As I said before, I never claimed to be an expert on guns, and frankly do not wish to be. I don't have to be an knowledgeable expert on child porn to know I want it completely banned.
I may have some of the terminology not quite right, but I think you know what I mean, and that should be what matters. It is my understanding that with many of these semi-automatic style guns, the clip that comes with the gun can readily be changed out for a much higher clip. It can be done in a matter of seconds, and voila--now you have an assault style weapon.
As I said before, I never claimed to be an expert on guns, and frankly do not wish to be. I don't have to be an knowledgeable expert on child porn to know I want it completely banned.
I may have some of the terminology not quite right, but I think you know what I mean, and that should be what matters. It is my understanding that with many of these semi-automatic style guns, the clip that comes with the gun can readily be changed out for a much higher clip. It can be done in a matter of seconds, and voila--now you have an assault style weapon.
"semi-automatic style guns"
"a much higher clip"
"voila--now you have an assault style weapon"
You are killing me here. You have to be a troll. Or allegic to facts, one or the other.
"I want it completely banned."=equating a constitutional right to child porn......
Nope, I had it wrong. You are not a troll. Just a run of the mill liberal it seems, our constitutional rights be damned.
*sigh* Folks here were trying to educate you for your own good.
I noticed that none of the pro-gun posters seemed to want to touch that one with a 10-foot pole.
Depriving somebody of life is an action, and it is irrelevant what methods (or tools used) are used to do so. You lefties get so hung up on that, and it isnt the first time I have heard lefties using that weak argument. William Kunstler, is that you?
I'm a very large, strong guy. I could kill 20 people with a sharpened spoon if I wanted to.
You want to completely ban spoons under the 5th and 14th? Start a movement. See how that goes.
Maybe nobody touched that one because it was just so infected with dopey left wing logic.
As I said before, I never claimed to be an expert on guns, and frankly do not wish to be. I don't have to be an knowledgeable expert on child porn to know I want it completely banned.
I may have some of the terminology not quite right, but I think you know what I mean, and that should be what matters. It is my understanding that with many of these semi-automatic style guns, the clip that comes with the gun can readily be changed out for a much higher clip. It can be done in a matter of seconds, and voila--now you have an assault style weapon.
The guns you want to ban are common hunting rifles. Are you opposed to hunting? Do you realize how many more people would die from deer/car wrecks if they were not culled? Do you know how many people would go hungry? In my area, almost everyone shoots a deer to fill their freezer with meat, also rabbits, wild hogs, squirrels even ducks, doves, turkeys, some shotguns would qualify as semi autos. It is obvious, you are either a troll or ignorant.
The guns you want to ban are common hunting rifles. Are you opposed to hunting? Do you realize how many more people would die from deer/car wrecks if they were not culled? Do you know how many people would go hungry? In my area, almost everyone shoots a deer to fill their freezer with meat, also rabbits, wild hogs, squirrels even ducks, doves, turkeys, some shotguns would qualify as semi autos. It is obvious, you are either a troll or ignorant.
You seem to forget, the ignorance is willful. You cant fix that. He stated he wants a complete ban. And he doesnt want to learn about what he is talking about. Derp. A complete ban is something that would be unwinnable, and would cause a big surge in violence.
Last edited by snebarekim; 10-02-2018 at 10:12 PM..
Interesting to see that WSSA (Washington State Sheriffs Associaton), WACOPS (Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs), and WSLEFIA (Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association) are all opposed to Initiative 1639. When law enforcement officers say it's a bad law you can be fairly certain that it is, in fact, a bad law.
Thats pretty scary imo...Law enforcement should have NO opinions on ANY laws, nor should they be involved in the creation of laws, thats a huge conflict of interest, naturally police are going to support laws that benefit police.
Law enforcement is in place to enforce laws...PERIOD, when they start throwing opinions and ideas for laws around, we end up with things like the drug war!
Besides that, doesnt anyone else think its a bit strange law enforcement are the ones in charge of dealing with CC permits and licenses, even the training sometime? Im sorry but LE is the LAST group that should be in charge of this!!
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.
