Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by modernpaladin, Jun 8, 2023.
all legal adults. some law abiding citizens are mentally incompetent or too young
I've had my eye on an Alreigh Burke.... Should make a lovely personal statement when I park it at the local marina....
Anyone who can legally own a firearm.
Always been partial to the Gearings.
well, i mean...
Private Anti-Piracy Navies: How Warships for Hire are Changing Maritime Security | Center for International Maritime Security (cimsec.org)
I'd expand to say: "Any adult who has their liberty." If they are too dangerous to bear arms, they are too dangerous to be at large in our peaceable society at all.
Do you mean assault weapons as in military rifles with option for full-auto capability, or "assault style weapon", which is wording used by some to refer to civilian versions with only semi-auto capability? Or is this another thread designed to argue over words?
Those are assault rifles
My guess is yes.
My answer is he same, either way.
Thats an excellent question for the people who want to ban 'assault weapons'. I honestly dont know. The term seems to have variable meanings. Some people seem to think we can go buy full auto M-16s at walmart. Other people seem to think anything semi-auto is an 'assault weapon'. Trying to get a conformitive and objective definition on the matter is like herding cats. So i guess for the purposes of this thread, 'assault weapons' are whichever weapons you think certain classes or groups should be able to have, but not the common citizen. As to what weapons those specifically are, I'd love to get a concrete, objective answer on that... My position is that all weapons appropriate for self defense should be legal. Weapons like artillery, explosives and CBRN are not appropriate for self defense. Semi-auto rifles absolutely are appropriate for self defense.
real assault rifles should be the most protected firearm under the second amendment if you take what the FDR marsupial court seriously in Miller. There should be no difference between a semi auto 22 target pistol and a M16 surplus US army rifle legally for citizens with clean records
When I see the word "style" I know what they mean even if I disagree with inserting the word "assault" in it. After all actual assault weapons (full auto capability) can't be banned since they are already banned, unless you have a special license to own one. That being the case everyone should know what people mean when they say "assault style weapons".
Ok, but I think most people are glad the nation is not saturated with M16s because it would mean criminals / gangs / the mentally insane would also have easier access to them.
The bills in Congress don't refer to "assault-style weapons". They refer to "assault weapons" which include some semiautomatic rifles but not other semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic handguns but not other semiautomatic handguns, and some semiautomatic shotguns but not other semiautomatic shotguns.
They do refer to assault style aka semi-auto. There is no need for them to refer to M16, because those are not available except to those with special licenses. Is it the correct word? I am aware its not the correct term, and I am also aware there are bill proposals with various attempts to define what they mean by it.
The media uses that term, politicians use that term and gun control advocates use that term. The bills in Congress do not:
Class III firearms including machines require the purchase of a tax stamp ($200), some simple paperwork, a photo and two sets of fingerprints.
Every bill has its own definition, and I haven't found any that the state level that match any other state or the definition in the federal bills.
Criminals and gangs have the same access to what 'most people mean' when they say 'assault weapon' and yet they never use them. Criminals and gangs still use almost exclusively small, concealable pistols, sometimes modified to full auto. If they wanted to use rifles, or even full auto rifles, they would. But they dont.
If people who want to ban 'assault weapons' actually know 'what they're talking about', why do they have such a terrible time trying to explain it? Most often, I get something along the lines of 'its like porn, i know it when i see it' or 'anything that can kill people more quickly', neither of which have any objective meaning at all.
To gun control advocates, that's a feature, not a bug. If they can ban weapons called "assault weapons", nothing prevents them from including any type of firearm they want in that definition and ban.
They know that handguns are by far the most commonly used firearm in shootings and mass shootings. They need to get evil black rifles banned first then the dominos start to fall.
They don't have easy access to full auto military gear, simply because there aren't many around.
They are referring to semi-auto "military style" rifles like AR15. I think they do know, and I think you (and everyone) know what they mean, you just don't like it that they use "assault style weapon" or "assault weapon". I don't support banning them, or other semi-autos, either but word games are not helpful.
The primary issue is that those who use the term think that only certain types of firearms, the arbitrarily defined "assault style weapon", are banned under any federal or state ban; they are ignorant that some pistols and shotguns are, too. They're also ignorant that changing one line in any of those bans can ban every semiautomatic firearm in the US whether it's "assault style" or not.
The term "assault weapon" came before the definition of "assault weapon". Why were AR-15s, pistols with threaded barrels and semiautomatic shotguns with pistol grips added to the list of "assault weapons" when Mini-14s, pistols with standard barrels and pump action shotguns were not added to the list in the first federal AWB in 1994?
EDIT: I don't care what terms they use. The laws they want are unconstitutional.
I don't see any bans coming, so I don't worry about. Gun laws are loosening, not tightening.
you're talking at a federal level-several blue states are passing bans until the Supremes slap them down
what is outright dishonest is using the term "assault" in an effort to link firearms almost never used for criminal assault as favored for that type of crime.
See, this is what Im talking about.
Criminals and gangs can get AR15s just easily as anyone can. You say 'they dont have easy access to military weapons' in one breath when referring to 'assault weapons', then you say 'people know they're talking about military style weapons like AR15s when they say assault weapons' in the next.
So which one is it?
If criminals and gangs wanted 'military style' AR15s, they can get them just as easily as they can get pistols. Criminals and gangs dont use rifles because they want guns they can carry concealed.
No, I said I dont see any bans.
If you say so. I am not triggered by it, because I know what they are referring to. Also, I never said they are favored in 'criminal assault'.
I was talking about M16 type rifles with full-auto capabilities. They are not easy to find in the black market because there aren't many around. If they wanted AR15, then yes, they would be easy to find
Separate names with a comma.