Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Dad what is an Assault Rifle??

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    One of the issues I have with any new regulations on gun ownership is that Hitler was the first government to have all guns registered in Germany. That way when it came time to confiscate them, they knew where they all were.

    Wow, jblake47 triggers Godwin's Law and loses da argument in less than a page!

    Not to rain on your fear of a future imaginary Hitler, but this little factoid is completely false.

    Don't let historical truth get in da way of convenient fiction, though. It would be so disappointin'.

    B


    Comment


    • #17
      I regurlarly shoot with members of Philly PD, and some of the others in the area, they are not as highly trained as they would like us to believe.

      They are the civilian authority, so any regulations forced on we little people should be forced on them as well. Citizens face the same criminals the police do, usually before the police are involved.

      Just today there was a home invasion and murder four miles from my house. Three suspects are on the loose. Would anyone here want to be limited to ten rounds in a fixed magazine if they sought to see refuge in your home?

      Comment


      • #18
        Fear I love the smell of it even over the internet. 4 miles as the perp runs or by road..... not.

        My point is.....

        What exactly is an assault rifle.........

        I own more than one that fits the description even if it isnt black


        I dont see the second ammendment as a black and white document. You can still have your guns.....but nothing that has 1000 rimes the firepower of a 1800's infantry battalion.

        Comment


        • #19
          As to what "arms" we can bear, look at Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller -

          "This Second Amendment rights case was brought by a group of libertarian lawyers on behalf of plaintiffs with respectable backgrounds and appealing reasons for seeking relief from the District of Columbias extremely restrictive gun control regulations. The challenged statute prohibited the possession of a handgun by almost all D.C. residents, and required that all firearms be kept in an inoperable condition. This effort to disarm the citizenry had been in place for over 30 years, and was the most restrictive gun-control law in the country. By a vote of 5-4, the Court held that both the handgun ban and the safe-storage regulation violated the Second Amendment, which protects at least the right to keep a handgun in ones own home and to make it operable for purposes of immediate self defense."
          The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence Nelson Lund, George Mason Univ

          Justice Scalia concluded: The (D.C.) handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [viz. self defense]. The (D.C.) prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation (BD's Glock?) to keep and use for protection of ones home and family, would fail constitutional muster. . . .

          So from Scalia, "arms" in the second amendment means what is now in common use in America for protection. This case was about handguns, the next case may be a about semi-automatic rifles, and maybe in two hundred years there will be a case about hand phasers.

          My $0.02
          (This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

          Comment


          • #20
            EXACTLY!!!!

            Who knows what kind of "arms" will be available tomorrow? When the bill of rights was written, citizens used many of the same arms that soldiers used.

            Today it should be the same, for the same reason.

            Just as the first amendment should not be limited to the types of "press" common in the 1700s.

            SHALL NOT. It is really not that difficult, folks.

            Comment


            • #21
              With a stroke of a pen, I could immediately have my Constitutional rights stripped away and made a criminal. That scares me more than determining what an assault rifle is.

              Um, no. If that "stroke of a pen" changed the constitution, striking down or more probably, interpreting the 2nd Amendment more like Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer and Stevens did in dissent in D.C. vs. Heller, your constitutional rights would not be stripped away - just changed. Southern slave owners did not have their constitutional rights stripped away.

              Right now, a ban on hand guns in the home or requiring them to be kept unloaded is not constitutional. The courts have not said bans on assault rifles or heavier weapons are not constitutional. States may require background checks or a national registry or licensing standards or waiting periods and impose conditions on the commercial sale of guns. Also, bans on machine guns, sawed-off shotguns as well as restrictions on carrying guns near schools, and to prohibitions on ownership for felons and others individuals are all considered constitutional.

              The beauty and curse of our constitution is that is can be changed or interpreted differently as time goes on.(This message has been edited by acco40)

              Comment


              • #22
                Any of yall happen to catch the Newspaper Article about the Two Colorado police Officers arrested and charged who shot and Killed a Moose out of Season while on Duty...Yelp those are Highly Trained Professionals

                I have seen plenty of Police Officer who could not shoot the Broadside of a Barn with a Shotgun at 5 feet..

                Although I am a Correctional Officer I am Qualified each year on Weapons simply by Shooting 1 Shoot Gun Shell into a hillside, Hit a Man sized Target at 50 Yards 7 out of 10 Times with a "assualt rifle" AR15 (.223) and Shooting a .357 with .38 Special Loads..12 Shots at 3 yards, 12 Shots at 7 yards and 6 Shots at 15 yards.
                I regularly am laughed at initially by Local Law Enforcement at Competitions Simply because They are Highly Trained..Yet I am the One Laughing when I win...simply because I have been shooting Many Years starting around 7 Years of Age. I have spent many years shooting. Not Just shooting but "target shooting" for perfection..I shoot for Scores not simply hit a Target anywhere.

                Point being...just because Your wearing a Badge does not mean your Highly Trained

                Do I consider myself highly trained..yes
                14 years of Yearly Hunters Safety Courses
                4 Years JROTC VARSITY RIFLE TEAM..(including an Olympic trial in 1984)..3 Hours a Day Target Shooting...Prone Kneeling Standing..I usually shot about 2000 rounds a Day...
                US ARMY Expert Rifle..Perfect Score
                German Sniper School...Gold (Expert)
                Competition Shooter for 20 years (Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun) and Blackpowder

                Do I Hold a CCW Permit...NO

                You also Happen to see where the New NY Law limited even their Police to a Max Capacity of 7 Rounds???

                Whats the Difference in Carrying 1 30 Round Magazine vs 3 10 Round Magazines..about 6 seconds in shooting time

                Will a .22 tubular feed Rifle be banned also? Mine can be loaded with 15 rounds.

                Do I support a Total Ban on 2nd Admen Rights:NO
                Do I support limitations: Hard to Say, simply because more and more rights erodes away gradually.
                Do I believe that Bans will stop Crime: NO
                Do I believe that Guns will prevent criminal acts: If used Properly...Dead Criminals do not repeat crimes..
                I Never shoot to incapacitate I shoot to KILL>>I never Point a Gun at a Person Except to Kill

                Comment


                • #23
                  Rights don't come from the Constitution.
                  The Constitution restricts the state from infringing on them.
                  The 2nd Amendment doesn't "grant" you the right to bear arms. It recognizes that you have that right and restricts the state from infringing on it.
                  A tyranny of the majority may strip you of your arms.
                  But even repeal of the 2nd amendment would not strip you of your right to bear them.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    "Assault WEAPONS is the term you described. It's a term mostly used by the pro gun control crowd."

                    You are correct, Sentinel947. I should have been more explicit. I do mean what these people are calling assault weapons.


                    Beaver is correct. Hitler never banned guns in the Third Reich, except for Jews. Gun registration and background checks were required. Hitler never had a problem with fearing an armed populace. People who didn't like him tended to disappear into camps or Gestapo graves.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Beavah,

                      It is also a vacuous argument to discount a view just because Hitler is mentioned. Going to Wikipedia under gun politics in Germany reveals that some guns were more restricted and others less. This act was passed and enforced just prior to Kristallnacht so that Jews would be defenseless. Gun confiscation often precedes abuse of citizens.

                      From Wikipedia:

                      The 1938 German Weapons Act

                      The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

                      Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
                      The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
                      The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
                      The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
                      Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

                      Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

                      On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7][8]

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It's not the gun, but the person behind it that is dangerous. Hitler did not have a gun, but with freedom of speach and assembly, look where he took the Nazi Party.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'm not much into the Godwin's Rule in debates, but to a degree it's valid.

                          To put it simply, an assault rifle is any weapon whose cosmetic make up gives the impression of great lethality. When in fact it doesn't. Flash suppressors, telescopic stock, pistol grips, magazine size, etc. etc. etc. have absolutely no relevance to the lethality of the weapon. A 9-mm bullet fired from a Glock, Colt, Uzi, Luger, or pick a model of your choice, makes no difference. A .45 fired from a Colt Model 1913, or Tommy Gun, when it hits a person is exactly the same. A 30-06 cartridge fired from a hunting rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), Thompson Contender or M1 Gerrand is exactly the same. The 7.62mmR X 54 round for the most prolific gun on the face of the earth (Mosin-Nagant) is still used in the modern Dragunov SVD Russian sniper rifles and has the exact same bullet size as the AK-47 (7.62mm X 36). There is no difference except the powder charge 54 grains of powder vs. 36 grains.

                          So we're down to magazine and rate of fire. The longest sniper kill recorded is 1.5 miles by a British sniper who took out another sniper, his observer and disabled their weapon with three shots quickly fired with a semi-automatic weapon, a common configuration of a large amount of hunting rifles in America today.

                          I'm thinking that training is far more lethal than magazine capacity. Neither of which makes a weapon an assault rifle.

                          I'm thinking the term Assault Rifle is nothing more than a media Boogie Man term used to scare small children and an uneducated populace.

                          It always makes me chuckle when I remember why American skipped over the Great Plains and settled in Washington and Oregon instead. The Great Plains were ruled by the American Indians, one of two world's best light cavalry in the world. The other were the Huns of the Asian Steppes (aka, plains). Their weapon of choice? Bow and arrows. How can they win against gunpowder? Simply put, they were accurate with their shots and could empty their quivers (magazine) of arrows while the settlers were reloading their single-shot 50 caliber rifles.

                          I wonder if that time the US government shouldn't have banned bow and arrows as an assault weapon! I'm thinking they had as much difficulty back then with getting those weapons out of the hands of the Indians as modern politicians are about getting guns out of the hands of today's citizens.

                          Stosh

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Feinstein wants it all banned...

                            http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/#ixzz2IuVXffAw

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I am gonna say the assault rifle ban or a magazine ban is short sighted.


                              Ban all Semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine and/or capacity greater than 10 rounds. as my scouting friend brewmeister pointed out, even a klutz can add a fresh 10 round mag in a split second.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                During WWII the average infantryman with zip strips could re-load an M1 Gerrand in seconds. It had a fixed magazine, too.

                                There's a video out there that shows a fella shooting 12 rounds of a revolver in less than 3 seconds. That includes one reload.

                                Don't think for a moment magazine capacity limits will solve any problem for the criminals.

                                Stosh

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X