Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[quade 4]

Quote

Would you call a sniper rifle an assault weapon?

No. A sniper's job is to make a single shot and have it kill his target from a long distance. While various weapons have been adapted to that use, there are a small number of weapons specifically designed for that purpose and it's only those that I would call a "sniper" rifle, regardless of what some others may say.

Quote

How about a Winchester 700 hunting rifle?

You mean the Remington 700?

In either case I think if we get away from the cosmetic features and focus on, again, the amount of kinetic energy over time, no I personally would not consider that an "assault" weapon.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm curious... what effect do you think an assault weapon ban would have and why do we need one? Or more specifically why do you want one?

Because beyond a certain point, and I'm not saying what that is at this time, a certain amount of kinetic energy over time really only serves one real purpose; having the ability to kill a high volume of people in a very short amount of time. This is, in fact, what the weapons are designed to do.

The way you are talking you would only leave us law abiding citizens with single fire bolt action rifles.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You mean the Remington 700?

I meant to put the Winchester 70 or the Remington 700. I'm glad you understood my mistake.

Quote

No. A sniper's job is to make a single shot and have it kill his target from a long distance. While various weapons have been adapted to that use, there are a small number of weapons specifically designed for that purpose and it's only those that I would call a "sniper" rifle, regardless of what some others may say.

How about Charles Whitman?

The point is that what some have called "assault weapons" are simply classified as scary looking. What you would classify as an assault weapon, has obvious flaws and exceptions. Others have called for a banning of all calibers that are used or have been used by the US military. Well, that's literally just about every caliber made. With all the current gun laws on the books, how is another AWB going to do anything for society except limit our rights as law abiding citizens.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 4]

Quote

The way you are talking you would only leave us law abiding citizens with single fire bolt action rifles.

Never even implied that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

You mean the Remington 700?

I meant to put the Winchester 70 or the Remington 700. I'm glad you understood my mistake.

Quote

No. A sniper's job is to make a single shot and have it kill his target from a long distance. While various weapons have been adapted to that use, there are a small number of weapons specifically designed for that purpose and it's only those that I would call a "sniper" rifle, regardless of what some others may say.

How about Charles Whitman?

The point is that what some have called "assault weapons" are simply classified as scary looking. What you would classify as an assault weapon, has obvious flaws and exceptions. Others have called for a banning of all calibers that are used or have been used by the US military. Well, that's literally just about every caliber made. With all the current gun laws on the books, how is another AWB going to do anything for society except limit our rights as law abiding citizens.

Since you folks tell us that the same functionality is found in "scary looking" packages as in more normal ones, what is the purpose of buying a "scary looking" firearm for hunting? Do you want to scare the animals away before you shoot them?

OTOH, if the reason is to scare people, then maybe that is a reason to ban them.

And if gun folks just want one because it makes them feel macho, maybe they should invest in some penis-enlarging therapy instead.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

The military does not specify weapons for hunting. When they go to the gun manufacturers, they do so with criteria determined to kill people.

All Guns are capable of killing people. There is no difference between a semi Automatic Assault Rifle and Semi Automatic Hunting Rifle other than the Stock (How it Looks).

There are many advantages to using what most would consider an Assault Rifle for Hunting. The much lighter Fiberglass Stocks and rugged designs make these weapons easier to carry through the woods. The "Assault Rifles" are designed to take more abuse (Dropped in the Mud and such) and in many cases will make a better Hunting rifle.

In fact I cant think of a single thing that the Military would ask for in the design of a semi-Automatic weapon that would not also be a desirable improvement for a Hunting Rifle.

What is about the design of an Assault Rifle that makes it "Designed to kill People"?

The Caliber? Nope.
The Easy of Changing magazines? Nope. (Same mechanism for both)
Something different about the way the gun shoots? Nope.
Different Barrel? Nope.
Different trigger? Nope.

It all boils down to one has a "Scary Stock" and one doesn't. There is no difference in the function of the weapons at all.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Who the hell cares what it looks like?

The real definition of an assault rifle goes back to WW2. The germans realized that most fire fights took place around 200 yards or less, not the 600 yards they had originally thought, and built their rifles around. The rounds they were firing were of medium caliber, with a large case to propel the bullet to long ranges. A byproduct of this extra power was large recoil, limiting how many shots you could place on the target within an amount of time, even if the gun was fully automatic (a couple round burst is all you could do, because then you had to re aquire the target). So, the germans began to develop weapons that used large caliber bullets with small casings, known mostly as pistol calibers. This allowed a low recoil, and high rate of fire to be used, and good stopping power due to a heavy bullet that did not simply go straight through the target.

Ok, so now we have a definition of an assault weapon, a weapon using a small rifle round or large pistol round, which has a low recoil, allowing the user to fire accurately and at a high rate of fire.

Now, how do we "ban" this sort of weapon? Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated, so we are only talking about semi automatic here. There is obviously nothing we can do to limit the caliber, because they are already much smaller than the average hunting rifle (the largest round I would consider to still be in the assault category is the .223/5.56Nato, which is mostly considered to be inadequate for large game, although is still fine for coyote or varmint).

What about the rate of fire? Well, since they are semi automatic, they will fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled, so there is nothing you can do there.

What about the magazine capacity? Wouldn't this slow down the overall rate of fire? Or making the magazine fixed to the receiver, so that it cannot accept a detachable magazine? Yes, this makes it so that you cannot sustain anywhere near the amount of continuous fire that a full capacity detachable magazine weapon can.

Welcome to California! No detachable magazines allowed here! (if you have any other "evil" features, including a pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lugs, etc, so a standard hunting rifle with detachable mags is alright) Full capacity magazines are also prohibited from being bought, sold, or transferred in any way. 10 rounds is the maximum. So, if you want a semi automatic weapon that has a pistol grip, legally, you must fix the magazine so that is can only be removed with a tool, and the magazine installed on the weapon must only contain 10 rounds. OK.

So now that we certainly don't have any assault weapons, because our mags are fixed and they only hold 10 rounds anyways, we are not going to be taking part in any mass killing rampages correct??? Well, lets see what it will take for that "definitely not an assault weapon" to be converted back to its original form. (What I am about to tell you is not legal in California) First, we remove the magazine locking mechanism, which only requires the removal of one or 2 screws. Congrats, we just broke the law, but we don't care because we are going on a murder suicide mission right? Anyways, back to our rifle. Now that it can accept detachable magazines, where can we find some? Well, if you had bought them before the ban in 1999, you would have some laying around anyways. They don't have serial numbers or anything of that sort, so if a friend of yours was to sneak into your house and deposit some under your pillow and you just found them, thinking you had had them before the ban, you wouldn't be breaking any laws. What if you have no magazines, and do not know where to get them? Well, its a good thing you can still buy parts for those magazines, including every single part in the magazine, including the mag body. So, You order up a huge stack of magazine "parts kits" that get sent to my doorstep, which can easily be assembled into full capacity mags. (Doing so is a felony, but remember, we are talking about someone who doesn't care about the law).

Away we go on our rampage!

As you can see, even in California where there are some of the strictest laws in the nation, getting around them is incredibly easy. The ones who want to commit the crimes are not going to care about breaking the law.

If you need more examples about how crazy our laws are here, check this out.
The .50bmg round has been banned by name in California, so shortly after, a new round came out that is exactly the same size, same bullet, and same performance in every regard, called the .510 dtc. This round is perfectly legal!
Another example, the roberti-roos law bans weapons by name, such as the ak-47 and colt ar-15. These weapons are now illegal. So, a manufacturer makes a receiver that is identical in every regard to the banned weapon, and installs the components of the illegal weapon onto the newly manufactured and completely legal "Bumfuck guns inc. Plinker" version. You now have the same weapon, but totally legal. All you did was cause a major pain in the ass.

There is no law that will ever come out, that will prevent someone from obtaining an assault weapon.

[TankBuster 0]

Since you folks tell us that the same functionality is found in "scary looking" packages as in more normal ones, what is the purpose of buying a "scary looking" firearm for hunting? Do you want to scare the animals away before you shoot them?

Quote

OTOH, if the reason is to scare people, then maybe that is a reason to ban them.

And if gun folks just want one because it makes them feel macho, maybe they should invest in some penis-enlarging therapy instead.

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. So hopefully my black gun scares plenty of people, namely Pelosi, Frank, Obama, hell Bohner, Shelby, etc. My brown gun is pretty scary too, esp with the 40 round banana magazine, and it's a helluva lot of fun to shoot. AND, if the fecal matter ever DOES hit the rotating blades, I can add a third gear to both of those.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[1969912 0]

Quote

...third gear...

-------


Here's a scary looking gun (see pic).

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

...third gear...

-------


Here's a scary looking gun (see pic).

OOOOOH.....My favorite scary gun of all time. It has one HELLUVA third gear.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Since you folks tell us that the same functionality is found in "scary looking" packages as in more normal ones, what is the purpose of buying a "scary looking" firearm for hunting? Do you want to scare the animals away before you shoot them?

Quote

OTOH, if the reason is to scare people, then maybe that is a reason to ban them.

And if gun folks just want one because it makes them feel macho, maybe they should invest in some penis-enlarging therapy instead.

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny.

How does the APPEARANCE of the weapon make a difference to that? Surely you want the most functional weapon.

BTW, thanks for keeping us all safe from tyranny.
I do it by scattering pepper around the back yard. Just as effective, and it keeps the elephants away too.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[cliffwhite 0]

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. ***

LOL!!! Do you really think your light arms will bring the US military to it's knees?
I'd suggest you study the tactics of the Iraqi and Afgan freedom fighters.You won't "whoop" 'em but at least you'ld be a pain in the ass.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mean the Remington 700?

I meant to put the Winchester 70 or the Remington 700. I'm glad you understood my mistake.

Quote

No. A sniper's job is to make a single shot and have it kill his target from a long distance. While various weapons have been adapted to that use, there are a small number of weapons specifically designed for that purpose and it's only those that I would call a "sniper" rifle, regardless of what some others may say.

How about Charles Whitman?

The point is that what some have called "assault weapons" are simply classified as scary looking. What you would classify as an assault weapon, has obvious flaws and exceptions. Others have called for a banning of all calibers that are used or have been used by the US military. Well, that's literally just about every caliber made. With all the current gun laws on the books, how is another AWB going to do anything for society except limit our rights as law abiding citizens.

Since you folks tell us that the same functionality is found in "scary looking" packages as in more normal ones, what is the purpose of buying a "scary looking" firearm for hunting? Do you want to scare the animals away before you shoot them?

OTOH, if the reason is to scare people, then maybe that is a reason to ban them.

And if gun folks just want one because it makes them feel macho, maybe they should invest in some penis-enlarging therapy instead.

I have to applaude you. No one can argue with that kind of logic. It all comes down to the penis. Bravo.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. So hopefully my black gun scares plenty of people, namely Pelosi, Frank, Obama, hell Bohner, Shelby, etc.

OK, serious question here. You've made a very clear statement advocating resistance by force against elected politicians you happen to disagree with, should they cross some line in your perception of things. Every time discussion of the 2nd amendment comes up, someone makes a similar statement. So why is this OK, presumably it makes you a "true patriot" and all that, but when someone else of a different political leaning actually does take up arms to oppose a government they see as oppressive and unresponsive to the peoples will, they are labeled "terrorists". To be specific, why is Tankbuster (and others of similar persuation) a patriot, but William Ayers is a terrorist, and by extention Obama "pals around with terrorists"? I'm really curious about why you don't see Ayers as an "American patriot", since he actually did what you all threaten to do.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. ***

LOL!!! Do you really think your light arms will bring the US military to it's knees?
I'd suggest you study the tactics of the Iraqi and Afgan freedom fighters.You won't "whoop" 'em but at least you'ld be a pain in the ass.

Blues,
Cliff

Well to begin, I'm not advocating overthrowing the government at this point. Just knowing that there is an armed populace keeps an otherwise tyrannical government somewhat at bay. (Although I'm beginning to wonder) It's the reason we have the 2nd ammendment, so why is that statement subject to such ridicule? And, if there were several hundred thousand of us with CAR-15s, AKs, M-14s, etc, I believe we could be more than just a pain in the ass. If we became subject to an opressive regime and the economy failed, the military wouldn't exist in its present state, and there is the serious question of how many would fire on their own or join them. In that scenario, many of those in rebellion would be ex-military, could organize, capture weapons that they knew how to use, etc. It may seem like an outlandish scenario, and I certainly hope it never happens, but its not impossible, and it IS the reason for the 2nd ammendment.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[downwardspiral 0]

Extremely well put. There is a reason the first line to the Oath of Enlistment reads....


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Our military will be at serious odds when the order comes down to kill our own citizens. This was demonstrated in Tianamen Square in 1989.

After the square had been cleared Chinese Army troops continued to occupy the city5, with continuing reports of sporadic gunfire and interfactional fighting among PLA units. The possibility that units of the PLA would turn on each other was raised in the June 6th edition of the Secretary of State's Morning Summary as well as embassy cables from June 5-6. An embassy cable from June 5 (Document 18) reports that armored units from the PLA's 27th Army "seem poised for attack by other PLA units," and notes that a "western military attaché" largely blames the 27th for the June 3 massacre, and says that the 27th "is accused of killing even the soldiers of other units when they got in the way." The June 6 edition of the Secretary of State's Morning Summary (Document 19) states that the 27th Army is "being blamed for the worst atrocities against civilians during Saturday night's attack on Tiananmen Square," and also notes that "some clashes between military units reportedly have occurred." Document 20, an embassy cable from June 6, refers to "persistent rumours of splits among the military and fighting among military units."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/index.html#12-29

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Well to begin, I'm not advocating overthrowing the government at this point.

Well then ,BLAH BLAH BLAH!!
Just how far will you let them go before armed revolution is your course of action?
I mean really! Where do you ,"Tankbuster", draw that line?
How about when Habeus Corpus is suspended? Is that enough to stir the revolutionary fire in your loins?
Blah, Blah,Blah!
I've heard it before.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. So hopefully my black gun scares plenty of people, namely Pelosi, Frank, Obama, hell Bohner, Shelby, etc.

OK, serious question here. You've made a very clear statement advocating resistance by force against elected politicians you happen to disagree with, should they cross some line in your perception of things. Every time discussion of the 2nd amendment comes up, someone makes a similar statement. So why is this OK, presumably it makes you a "true patriot" and all that, but when someone else of a different political leaning actually does take up arms to oppose a government they see as oppressive and unresponsive to the peoples will, they are labeled "terrorists". To be specific, why is Tankbuster (and others of similar persuation) a patriot, but William Ayers is a terrorist, and by extention Obama "pals around with terrorists"? I'm really curious about why you don't see Ayers as an "American patriot", since he actually did what you all threaten to do.

Don

No, I haven't made a statement of that nature. The 2nd ammendment was intended to ensure that government would never get too powerful and oppressive, because of the threat of armed revolution. When I mention those politicians, including two conservative ones, I'm sort of restating that point. They must fear us, respect our right to bear arms and protect ourselves. Not just from home intrusion, but also from an oppressive government. It isn't a threat to any of them, but a warning which was issued a couple hundred years ago, and not by me. While I'm absolutely diametrically opposed to the current "leadership" in DC, they gained power according to the constitution, and I'm just gonna have to grin and bear it for as long as it lasts. Bend over too, it seems. As in the Declaration of Independence, if enough of us believe that government has become destructive of these ends......

Ayers was a terrorist. Just because he opposed the war didn't give him the right to take up arms against the government. He should be behind bars, but since he's not he's gotten smart and decided to change the government legally, by pushing a radically left agenda through the education system. Hopefully, conservatives will be able to counter this movement, also within the law.

There's a big difference between organizing a few hippies to plant bombs, and organizing an entire nation to throw off an oppressive government. If it ever does happen, and I believe there's a decent chance of it in the next few decades, there will patriots and loyalists, just like the last one.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Extremely well put. There is a reason the first line to the Oath of Enlistment reads....


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
Our military will be at serious odds when the order comes down to kill our own citizens. ***

Really ? Are you aware of a survey of USN Marines conducted a few years back asking them if they would follow orders to collect weapons from households inside the US?
Obviously by your post I know you haven't.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

• Quote

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Extremely well put. There is a reason the first line to the Oath of Enlistment reads....


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
Our military will be at serious odds when the order comes down to kill our own citizens. ***

Really ? Are you aware of a survey of USN Marines conducted a few years back asking them if they would follow orders to collect weapons from households inside the US?
Obviously by your post I know you haven't.

Blues,
Cliff

There's your answer Cliff. That's when the war would start. IMHO

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

• Quote

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Ayers was a terrorist.

Really? Are you sure about that?
Could you tell us all,Tankbuster, why he got off on the charges?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[GeorgiaDon 380]

I guess I'm still not getting the distinction.

Quote

So hopefully my black gun scares plenty of people, namely Pelosi, Frank, Obama, hell Bohner, Shelby, etc.

Seems like a thinly veiled threat to me, but I'll take your word for it that it's more of a hypothetical than an immediate sort of threat.

Quote

The 2nd ammendment was intended to ensure that government would never get too powerful and oppressive...

Agreed that was at least a big part of the intention.

Quote

They must fear us, respect our right to bear arms and protect ourselves...from an oppressive government.

Quote

Just because he (Ayers)opposed the war didn't give him the right to take up arms against the government.

So what qualifies as an oppressive government? To you (and for the record, to me also), if the government were to come into our homes and confiscate legally owned weapons from law-abiding citizens, that would be an act of oppression. However, how can taking people from their homes, schools, lives, and then shipping them off to fight and, in many cases, die in a poorly conceived "police action" (as the Congress never actually declared war), against the wishes of a majority of the American population (at least by the later years of the war), NOT be seen as oppressive in the extreme? National guard troops shooting unarmed (well, except for flowers) "hippies" who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble and protest is not "oppressive government"? Maybe oppressive government, like assault weapons, is something that people "know when they see it", except everyone sees things through the lens of their own beliefs and values.

Quote

There's a big difference between organizing a few hippies to plant bombs...

Your use of the word "hippies" seems slightly perjorative, but then again "Tankbuster" kind of implies you probably side with the militaristic perspective rather than peace/love/get high. Anyway, at least Ayers et al deliberately targeted buildings/facilities and not people (setting the bombs to go off at night, phoning in warnings so buildings were always evacuated), so they never killed anyone except themselves. The same can hardly be said for the government. (Just to be clear, I do not agree with or condone their protest methods. I'm just making a point about who was the "oppressor").

Quote

and organizing an entire nation to throw off an oppressive government.

I wonder how an entire nation could be organized like that? I suppose if the government were to go completely off the deep end and suspend elections, round up all the guns (that they could find), round up and jail political opponents, then it would be obvious and there might very well be a spontanious national reaction. Mostly, though, I hear people whining about government using tax dollars to provide education or health care to "hippies". Is that "oppressive" enough to justify armed revolution? Better dead than European?

Quote

If it ever does happen, and I believe there's a decent chance of it in the next few decades, there will patriots and loyalists, just like the last one.

Well, I hope you're wrong, and I don't share your level of concern, although the previous administrations obvious disdain for the constitution did make me wonder (a little bit) if they would actually give up power. You'll survive the "bend over, grin, and bear it", I'm sure, as I have the last 8 years. It's in the nature of a democracy that none of us get what we consider to be perfect leadership, it's always a compromise.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

Quote

The point is that what some have called "assault weapons" are simply classified as scary looking.

I've made this point before and I'll make it again; if Pro-gun people don't like "assault weapons" being banned based on being "scary looking", then they should work with the gun control advocates and educate them so that there is a more reasonable criteria.

Start by picking something ludicrous like the amount of kinetic energy per minute delivered by a SAW and work downward until it become apparent that a simple hunting rifle (one specifically designed for hunting and not an adaptation of a military weapon) over takes it.

I know this might not make sense on the first read through but read it over again until it does.

You can't just SAY that what they're doing is silly and cosmetic. PROVE to them that the energy delivered is less than what is available specifically for hunting.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You can't just SAY that what they're doing is silly and cosmetic. PROVE to them that the energy delivered is less than what is available specifically for hunting.

Uh........ actually the hunting weapons I use are far more powerfull than any of the typically "scary" looking assault weapons... PLUS... I could VERY easily reach out and touch someone with my better weapons easily past 500 yards.

ANYONE who is even slightly familiar with weapons... should know that.... People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.. and take a class or two.... to overcome their phobia's

Rather than regulating what kind of weapons we "BAN"... I would much rather make SEVERE penalties for those who USE a weapon in the commission of any crimes.....period.

"BAN" those who misuse the tools... instead of the tool.

[quade 4]

Quote

People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.

Why? Their view of the world is working perfectly good for them. They have absolutely no motivation to change it.

If Pro-gun people want them to change their minds, they should be doing the education AND should be doing it subtly from the point of HELPING them, not fighting them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver