So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

There's is nothing condescending about calling a out a ridiculous and arrogant remark.

Also, good that I'm getting under your skin without even trying :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

They just Caught a Guy in MD that had 25 assault rifles and assorted
weapons sittting on 3000 rounds of AMMO....

he was his own gun store for crying out loud

his tee shirt said "Guns don't kill people , I do"

said threateningly to cops

"i wanna go home and load my guns....."

He'll be charged this weekend for numerous violations

my point is: there are extremists out there in the USA

You can only shoot 2 guns at once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I'm going to start using TNT to catch bass and claim its just my fishing pole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There were 600,000 Jews in Germany before the Nazi crackdown and eventual holocaust. Of that, I assume, half would be able to use an assault weapon. The key is for them not only to be armed, but to know what was about to happen to them if they did not leave or forcefully resist. Waiting too late is the mistake we make when we trust but don't verify. The American Founders did not wait too long. They realized early on what was going on and to what it could eventually lead. Furthermore, what if all the Jews in Europe, millions of them, knew what was going to happen to them, and if they were fully armed? And what if all the non-Jews, especially in Eastern Europe knew what was coming and were fully armed? Even if the Nazis could have overcome them, not only would their losses have been huge, the task of the allies would have been greatly easier, and the German war machine would have been defeated fairly quickly. And half of Europe would have been spared the Communist domination that followed the war. But not only were the people not armed, everybody waited too long. The Germans easily took control of unarmed civilians and weak armies in Poland, parts of Czekoslovakia, Austria with the help of Austrians, and made alliances with Italy and Russia and most of the remaining Eastern European countries who were too weak too resist and saw no help from the West forthcoming.

We are very trusting of our government in America. We think it is ridiculous to arm ourselves beyond protection from criminals or for hunting or sport. We didn't start that way, and were originally fearful of a powerful central government. You believe that it is ridiculous to arm ouselves with more powerful weapons, since you obviously feel that we will never need them. It would be very good if you are right. Because we are far along the road, in many respects even other than arms and the second amendment, to waiting too long. The second amendment was given as a means to resistance in the last resort. We can still turn things around to a more constitutional form of government that centers on individual rights and responsibilities. The vote is still a powerful weapon. But ignorance and blind trust can nullify that weapon.

The flip side to making everything illegal (where did I advocate that) is to make everything legal. I advocate neither. I advocate adherence to the Constitution. You may not have noticed that that is where I draw the line?

The Aurora shooter did not use a "fully-auto machine gun" . . .

"Fully-auto machine guns" have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I find it interesting that Congress knew then that they could not "ban" them.

Hmmmmm . . .

I would be interested in hearing a reasoned, well cited argument precisely laying out what the "wrong side" is and what the "correct side" is.

The appeal that it is all about NRA money is as ridiculous as saying that pro-choice people are in it just to kill babies.

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it 😊

Ok that was a little condescending. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear ya . . .I consider myself a political conservative (Constitutional Originalist) but I condemn theologically based social and cultural conservatives.

As far as I'm concerned, in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and "living constitution" leftists have more in common than dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Originalist conservatives. That many of these dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constitutionalists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

Dogma governed social/cultural conservatives certainly undermine politically conservative originalists with their all-encompassing opposition to abortion / gay rights. Those agendas pollute their constitutional thinking with the, "it's not in the Constitution, so it's not a right" position.

This position is in opposition to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the concept that the Bill of Rights is not the exhaustive listing of the citizen's rights and thus, at complete odds with the principles underlying the 9th Amendment. Which is why so many social/cultural conservatives are in lockstep with liberals in dismissing the 9th Amendment as meaningless surplusage.

Uhhhh, yeah that.

Words have meanings.

"Assault Rifle" is the name of a type of arm that does exist and the characteristics that make the gun an "Assault Rifle" are not met by the AR-15 and its clones.

OTOH, "Assault Weapon" is an invented term that was intended to cultivate a response in the general population unfamiliar with the mechanical operation of firearms, specifically the difference between a semi-automatic AR-15 and a fully automatic Assault Rifle like the M-16:

"Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms are a new topic. Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Josh Sugarmann, 1988, founder, Violence Policy Center

If you are going to use an incorrect term please use the one that is less incorrect.

I agree about the term "assault weapons". It's a word that is much like "weapons of mass destruction".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A lot less conservatives, even serious ones, live in Detroit. I haven't found that they are more driven by phobias than the liberals, nor more armed. Most non-conservatives here are not infected with phobias about constitutional rights or individual liberties, but most still go to a church and have "rigid" religious lives that involve some god (beyond the government to which they are greatly dependant) and many have guns. Don't know if it's because of a special non-conservative phobia, but it not only makes many of them feel safer, but many have actually used them in defense of their lives and property. And they, for the most part, don't like homos or muslims. And, though a great number of the non-conservatives that live in Detroit could be categorized as "the less intelligent ones," even the more intelligent non-conservatives have guns. Probably a different phobia drives them to own guns.

Good stuff by ReelnRod here.

Well, that was interesting . . . Since we are putting on our headshrinker hats on tonite I'll share a bit about what I have learned in 20+ years of gun rights debate . . . To me, anti-gun Liberals / Progressives are an angry bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious anti-gunners I have met in my life and debated had serious anger issues when people disagree with them.

Generally, Liberals / Progressives go on and on about "values" and avoid at all costs the term "principles". Having "values" allows one to just know certain things to be true; problem is, a Liberal / Progressive knows that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection.

That's why anti-gun Liberals / Progressives don't like guns or trust anyone with them - because they don't trust themselves with guns. (Of course, being statists, it is acceptable if not desirable when government possesses these horrible instruments of death -- just as long as the guns are pointed at people waving Gadsden flags)

Anti-gun Liberals / Progressives need to have strict control over the facts as they feel them while dismissing real knowledge.

The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything.

A direct challenge to a anti-gun Liberal / Progressive to defend their public policy positions is often met immediately with anger and vitriol because that challenge is perceived as a personal attack on one's "feelings" about the evilness of guns and not simply an intellectual challenge to logically defend policy stances in reasoned debate.

As bad as all that is, the worst of it comes out when a horrible incident like Aurora happens.

The worst trait anti-gun Liberals / Progressives display is the covetousness for the sympathy of the victimized, claiming society's pain for themselves and then dancing in the victims blood, blaming gun-owners and their evil overlords, the NRA for their pain.

Ok that was a little condescending. :) (but the smiley face makes it alright :love: )

^^ i agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the purposes of this thread they are pretty much interchangeable. The historic naming of such devices is pretty much irrelevant unless it's to distract from the point at hand...

There is a legal precedent that classified the AR 15 as an assault weapon. That the law expired doesn't change the description, it simply means those in charge of policy at the time didn't feel necessary to continue with the ban.

-spence

The opposing force here is conservative hypocrisy. As usual the real world has little time for absolutes.

There is certainly some truth here although I'm not sure it has anything to do with political beliefs...people in general who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to be wary of them. I knew someone who was arrested at an airport because he forgot a hand gun in his bag. Was he just so comfortable around guns it seemed like a casual thing?

I guess the irony here is that you posted this remark in a thread started by an admitted conservative who also happens to be quite familiar with the use of such weapons :hihi:

-spence

you are on a roll lately :rotf2:

My posts are purely for entertainment purposes. However I do believe everyone should have sheet loads of weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, to avoid irony, we must not disagree.

had to look that one up....


Classic:drevil:


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,”

Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.

Oh no he didn't.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

-spence

Timeline | Modern Sporting Rifle
Maybe someone with more computer savvy than I can paste this image in here, "Assault" rifle turning into hunting rifles are nothing new.
The ability and speed of media bandwagon jumping is very different.

http://www.nssf.org/MSR/images/timeline.png

I'm a lot more worried about this stuff
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

I have been packing and moving.....possible the best, most entertaining and informative debate yet.
Well done

Yes, and banning larger clips does nothing. Any good machinist can make any
size clip in no time.
Banning them will not cut down on crime or terrorism as there will always be ways to obtain anything illegal as long as human nature exists.

Talking about gun laws, assault weapons is a waste of time.
Laws don't apply to criminals.

Yeah I guess. Kindasorta like how bicycles and motorcycles are the same because some idiots can't discern further than each having two wheels. I wouldn't be comfortable with those people being given the task of creating policy and laws for them.

Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.

So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?

https://hotfile.com/dl/164925089/ebc...T-BAN.jpg.html

OR

https://hotfile.com/dl/164925291/f54...AN_AR.jpg.html


Well, if you really want to pick nits, if the "legal precedent" that defined what an "Assault Weapon" has expired, can you really say that "Assault Weapon" remains a valid descriptor of anything since legally no "Assault Weapons" exist?

All in all I see this exchange as validation for my earlier stated position:

"The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything."

Actually Assault rifles are kind of mild.
If you want to see real guns you have to go to one of these.
http://greenmountainboysshootingclub.com/2012Flyer.pdf

Tape mags together with ends facing opposite. Then they can just be pulled and flipped. As crazy as it is, if he didn't have that drum, more people would have died. If he knew guns, he wouldn't have bought the drum. He could have even done a tone of damage with just shotguns. If he couldn't get guns, he may have bombed or nerve gassed the place. The whole problem is complicated.

Absolutely, there are many ways to kill if a terrorist chooses, for example
Timothy Mc Veigh. Should fertilizer be banned too?

Banned no, but plans to regulate the sale were proposed last year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh and how about diesel fuel. that's how you make a fertilizer bomb

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

I think there is a much more widespread need for diesel fuel than large quantities of ammonium nitrate. If you need both to form an explosive it would make sense to regulate what would have less impact if you felt it would be beneficial to homeland security.

-spence

This is demonstrative of you not knowing what you're talking about when it comes to this subject matter.

An "assault weapon" as federally defined during the AWB:

"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)"

Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.