Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban


SnyderShrugged

Recommended Posts

That infringement is not the product of the gun, but the product of a human choice. Rather than being forced to look in the mirror and accept responsibility for their actions, humans have begun to blame their problems on their surroundings. Taking away guns doesn't end murder. It ends gang shoot outs. It ends drive by shootings.

What is the largets criminal enterprise in this country? The drug trade. Hmmmm, what are synonymous with the drug game? Guns. But rather than thry to eliminate the drug game, many on here argue to legalize these drugs. While at the same time arguing to make guns illegal, unless an appointed official gfrants you permission. Which just so happens to be a direct infringement of the Constitution.

uh huh... the ability of a person to shoot someone has nothing to do with the availability of guns. riiiiiight.

You have a point, but you can't really say you see nothing constructive about the counterpoint.

But, these are the kinds of arguments people make with the second amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term "assault" gives it away, right?

Why can't the gun freaks be happy with firing one bullet at a time?

Why can't bloggers be happy with one blog post per month?

Or why can't women be happy with one vote per decade?

Do you not see how asinine your post is?

It takes on freakin bullet to kill someone

The AWB basically banned "scary looking" guns. Made it a pain in the ass for people who liked these scary looking guns for personal use or to collect them

There are plenty of gun laws already, what the hell is an AWB going to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if nobody had heroin, nobody would die from it right?

Oh, damn. Thats not true? :whoknows:

Tongue in cheek statements are lost on you.

Do you think I'm that stupid? I hope not.

My thought is that I don't give a rat's ass about guns. Don't need one. But I fail to understand why there can't be a happy medium.

Supporters don't want ANY laws on gun ownership and then others don't want people to have guns at all.

No compromise is possible, evidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like guns because they mess with natural selection. Fat and slow people with guns because just as good as athletic people without guns. If everyone just had knives, then the fast people would be able to get away, and spread their superior genes. But guns mess that up. Now fat, slow people can sit back and pop some caps up fast guys' asses.... not cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not support that move. If an individual in D.C. wants to own a gun, the 2nd Ammendment affords him/her that right to make his own decision.

Yeah but even in the wild west, Wilde Eurp didn't allow folks ot carry guns in Tombstone. I think if an urban community want's to be gun free, that's their business. If I lived their I could still own a gun; I'd just keep it at the range. I think it's basicaly rock head vs rock head on the gun rights issue; and reasonable well ajusted people like myself are paying the price.

It should be a compromise. The second ammendment isn't a blanket, even in Virginia the closest thing to tombstone we have today they don't let me pack my 1911 at Schools, Universities, churches, liquer stores or government centers. Where is the moral outrage there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supporters don't want ANY laws on gun ownership and then others don't want people to have guns at all.

No compromise is possible, evidently.

There are already 20,000 freakin gun laws on the books.

If you want to see a place with NO gun laws fly with me to Karachi. Could have gotten my own M-16 in the market and every sane citizen carries a weapon to avoid being muggeed

If gun "nuts" were truly about no compromise, they'd be attempting to rid us of the 1934 law

Again, notice that after anytime of social upheavel and protest, a new sweeping gun law is passed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, all guns fire one bullet at a time. Some just fire one at a time in more rapid succession than others. ;)

The definition of an assult weapon is any weapon which carries more than 10 rounds in the clip. that includes most modern pistols.

and from a trivia perspective, all guns do not fire one bullet at a time.. google "steel cloud".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of an assult weapon is any weapon which carries more than 10 rounds in the clip. that includes most modern pistols.

I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that the assault weapons ban also applied to things like shoulder-stock lenth, barrel length, etc.

but yah, regular old magazine capacity is the main point of the entire thing. Which is largely stupid.

..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that the assault weapons ban also applied to things like shoulder-stock lenth, barrel length, etc.

but yah, regular old magazine capacity is the main point of the entire thing. Which is largely stupid.

..

I know my 1911, 45 which has a 12 round clip would be illegal, and the FN 5.7 which I want to get, shoots a 28 mm round would be considered an assult weapon because it has a 20 round clip. It's just a little larger than a 22. It's a pop gun for pete sake.

"assult weapon" is not a realistic label for what they are proposing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);

It must be capable of selective fire;

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Semi-automatic rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) and semi-automatic-only versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or [[Assault rifle#Assault weapons vs. Automatic weapons|political reasons] to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

From wiki, but I know there were other stipulations in the ban

I also believe rifles have to have a pistol grip to be classified as such

For pistols it was mainly the mag capacity like so many have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...