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.
She apparently is too ignorant to know that AR-15s are made in this country-and that the import of "assault weapons" has been banned for 30 years (see Bush assault weapons import ban). But that works-her supporters are typically even more ignorant.
Although I am pro-gun control, I think it's a losing issue at the national level. It should be pursued at the state level. Even Bill Clinton has admitted that Democrats lost the US House in 1994 due to the 'assault weapon ban.' Come to think of it, HW Bush lost in 1992. There were other big reasons for his loss (mainly Ross Perot), but I'm sure his 89 import ban did not help him.
Al Gore lost his home state (TN) and Bill Clinton's home state (AR) over gun control. He had campaigned strongly in favor of gun control. With those two states, he would have been president instead of W Bush.
John Kerry was hurt by the gun issue in 2004. He won only the Northeast, the West coast, and a tiny handful of Midwest states including IL and MN. He literally lost the entire rest of the country (except for HI).
I have a good friend who's a staunch republican, and was completely set to vote for Hillary in 2016 until Hillary spouted what my friend considered misleading stats on guns. My friend ended up writing in McMullin.
It's my understanding that the 1989 import ban by HW Bush (which is what Harris wants to extend) was so convoluted and had so many loopholes that it eventually became virtually nugatory ('of no impact').
I tried once to read up on it, and it was so complicated and rife with technical gun language that I gave up even trying to understand it. The now-defunct 1994 ban was much the same, BTW. Even most who supported it could not fully explain it if you held an AR to their heads. But the 1989 ban was even worse in that regard.
Just betting the Harris would take one look at the M-1 Garand and declare it to be a perfectly acceptable hunting rifle. If you don't know anything about guns, you shouldn't be allowed to pass laws on them.
She apparently is too ignorant to know that AR-15s are made in this country-and that the import of "assault weapons" has been banned for 30 years (see Bush assault weapons import ban). But that works-her supporters are typically even more ignorant.
AR-15's are not banned in other countries, they are however limited to .22LR with Rimfire Ammunition.
This is the case in the UK and some other countries with more stringent gun laws.
Blame the firearms media for coining the term "Assault Weapons" and promoting them heavily in the magazines, starting in the late 70s. Like it or not, "Assault Weapon" refers to AR-15s as well as M-16s in the vernacular. Deal with it.
No, the firearms media did not coin the term, in fact no American did. It dates back to June, 1944 in Germany. After testing a newly designed rifle, Hitler ordered it into immediate production, and he also ordered that the rifle be called Sturmgewehr which translates as "Storm Rifle." Since the words storm and assault have the same meaning in this context, "assault" was usually used. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ins...gewehr-44.html
And the only people who refer to the AR-15 as an "assault" anything, are those who don't know what they're talking about.
Do you challenge everyone who says "Xerox" this paper instead of make a copy of this paper ?
The term "assault rifle" is a catchall term at this point and doesn't matter. If all you have to argue about is the definition of "assault rifle" you have already lost.
It would be far more effective to demonstrate the differences in rifles and perhaps also demonstrate their useful purposes.
Except people who say "Xerox" etc don't do so with the purpose of intentionally misrepresenting something to further an agenda that erodes a constitutional right.
Does everyone intentionally misuse the term "assault weapon" ?
No, many are just parroting what they hear from the activist media........but that's the whole point.
There are those who wish to represent the AR-15 as a machine gun.
And the best way to do that is to falsely refer to it as a "military assault weapon"
Except people who say "Xerox" etc don't do so with the purpose of intentionally misrepresenting something to further an agenda that erodes a constitutional right.
Does everyone intentionally misuse the term "assault weapon" ?
No, many are just parroting what they hear from the activist media........but that's the whole point.
There are those who wish to represent the AR-15 as a machine gun.
And the best way to do that is to falsely refer to it as a "military assault weapon"
From someone who served in Vietnam, the AR 15 is not an assault weapon.
Let them continue to focus and debate endlessly over the AR15...all the while, REAL assault rifles, like the AK, pour in illegally!!
I just wish the prices would come down on legal ones. I remember when they were $250, should have bought a few then. Won't pay the prices they are fetching now. I'll just build another AR
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.
