Guns in Idaho: Common misconceptions

Paduch in Vegas used an assault rifle with semi auto capability only to kill over fifty and would over 500...in a matter of minutes

Oh...

 

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel in the nation of France used a motor vehicle to kill eighty six and severely injure four hundred and fifty eight others, also in a matter of minutes.

 

And while it is hard to paint a myth, in those people's minds such embellishments take place magically on things that don't exist....

 

As I described previously, there is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon."

The term "Assault Weapon" was created in the late 80's by anti-gunners to label any gun they do not like.

No manufacturer calls any of their guns "Assault Weapons."

 

In terms of the AR vs .45, it depends on the type of bullet being used. If you are using the appropriate ammo, the AR penetrates less, primarily because it almost blows up, and tears apart, so it's not too much danger after a couple of layers of sheet rock. The .45 round will just keep going (unless it hits a stud) for a few walls (6 or 8 layers of sheet rock).

 

The guy in the top picture has a ten round magazine in his SMLE (it uses 5 round clips to load the magazine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield

 

I always laugh about banning the bayonet lug.

Literally zero people have ever been killed by a bayonet charge in the US.

 

I shot an AR for the first time a couple years ago. They put in this huge bullet, looked around three or four inches long. This was the first rifle I have ever fired in my 63 years. So I line it up at a target 200 yards away and fired. First shot was low, second shot better, by the fourth or fifth shot I was hitting the target one shot at a time. The impact could be clearly seen from 200 yards. Now imagine if I had been able to shoot shot after shot in rapid succession sweeping a crowd. Or imagine a hunter doing that with a deer or elk. That is not hunting, it is killing. The thing was a fun toy and in the hands of responsible gun owners, it is just that, a toy. But the same right that gave my buddy the right to own that thing also lets nuts own it. Nuts can kill us en masse with this thing. Is the right of my buddy to have fun so important that we risk the nut killing us all at a concert, a school, a theater or a post office? I think not.

 

Is it possible for yourself to demonstrate even a single instance of a hunter engaging in such a course of action, even when the firearm used is capable of such?

Hunting is killing. There are no exceptions when the end result is death.

The second amendment does not protect a right to engage in murder. The second amendment only applies to legal uses of a firearm.

Learn the difference.

 

Actually it only applies to its use in a "well regulated militia'.

Read the 2A

 

There are numerous manufacturers who call AR-15s "assault rifles" though

 

Please provide source.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" means "well-functioning" or working in proper order.

It does not mean government-regulated or government-controlled.

 

It says and means nothing of the kind.

In fact it is described elsewhere in the Constitution (Article 1 Section AS "government controlled" and used to put down the kind of insurrection you claim it is for.

Congrats.

You win the bass ackward award

 

A .223 (common round for AR-15s) is about 2.25 inches long. I'm not sure what the hell you were shooting, or if you are simply exaggerating to make a point. It's a much weaker round than say a common deer rifle round the .30-06, which is 3.36 inches long. Thank you for exaggerating, and I really don't believe a thing you wrote. I doubt you have even shot an AR or seen one in real life. Are you related to this guy?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201


Here is a picture that contains the .223 with a lot of other common rounds.Note the quarter on the left. A quarter is just under an inch in diameter (0.955)

 

1980s: The military issues the M16A2 rifle, which allows for semi-automatic and burst fire, but not automatic fire. The elimination of automatic fire from most weapons makes the military assault weapon more similar to the civilian version. A later version of the M16 often used by Special Forces, the M16A3, is equipped with the option for automatic fire, however the more widely issued M16A1 predecessors, the M16A4 and the M4 carbine, are not typically equipped with automatic fire capabilities.

1980s: Semi-automatic assault weapons become widely available on the civilian market. According to the Violence Policy Center, gun manufacturers began to heavily market these weapons to make up for declining handgun sales.

1982: Guns & Ammo magazine publishes a guide to semi-automatic assault weapons simply titled, Assault Rifles.

1984: A Heckler & Koch advertisement for the "HK 91 Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle" depicts the common survivalist theme seen in assault weapon advertisements. The ad notes that the rifle pictured for sale is "derived directly from the G3" and adds, "Leading military operations and law enforcement agencies rely on firearms that bear the H&K name. Your choice is equally clear. You can carry an ordinary weapon. Or own the most uncompromising firearm in the world." The H&K G3 is an assault rifle used by numerous militaries since its invention in 1959. Also in 1984, the H&K 94 Carbine, a rifle with a shorter barrel, is described by its manufacturer as "a direct offspring of HK's renowned family of MP5 submachine guns."

 

The 30.06 is a full power rifle cartridge.
The entire basis of the assault rifle is that it uses a cartridge smaller than a full power rifle cartridge but larger and more powerful than a hand gun cartridge.
Your comparison is irrelevant.

 

That source is left-wing "Media Matters", not a manufacturer.

Please provide source of a manufacturer that calls their civilian semi-automatic AR-15 an "Assault Weapon".

There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon."

 

Yes it does. Here. Educate yourself...

When the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, "well regulated" was commonly used in everyday context.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

• 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
• 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
• 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
• 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
• 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
• 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No it's not. Stop making up crap.

 

There are absolutely no cases to be found in the history of the united states, where a private individual has ever been arrested, charged, or prosecuted for the offense of using a firearm outside of official militia duties and/or purposes. Therefore the claim on the part of yourself is factually incorrect.

 

First, there are no manufacturers of firearms who utilize such a label on their products.

Second, even if such was truly the case, the obvious question of "so what?" would have to be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, would such actually make. Does an AR-15 being referred to as an assault rifle by its manufacturer automatically make it a fully-automatic firearm? Or is it nothing but marketing hype that plays no difference in the functionality of the firearm?

 

You can kill more people with a truck than you can that AR15.

Ask Nice, France.

 

He was talking about using it for hunting, and how that is unfair because of how powerful it was, so my comparison is relevant. Please read his post below (with my bolding things that inspired my post).

 

The LV shooter had several rifles, including a bolt action scoped rifle, chambered for .223 and .308. The death toll and number of wounded could have been accomplished with multiple .303 bolt action rifles or WWII era Swiss straight throw rifles.
Provide a definition of what you think is an assault rife, or better yet, weapon. Why, during the last ban was an AR15 claimed to be an assault rifle while the Ruger mini 14 was not? And, why the Ruger 10/22 (a .22) with an after market adjustable stock was? Clearly, the cartridge wasn’t the classifying criteria.

 

Deleted