- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:21 am to yumahog
Posted on 3/5/14 at 10:21 am to yumahog
quote:
Again I ask you, what is an assault rifle?
No one seems to have a definitive answer, I suggest watching Senator Cruz take on Senator Feinstein on this, great vid, I'll get a link later unless someone wants to help me out
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:41 am to Ace Midnight
quote:I agree with this.
No select fire feature = not an assault rifle by any reasonable interpretation of the phrase. It is just a semi-automatic rifle with some functional and cosmetic similarites to an actual assault rifle.
That said, we really shouldn't argue that a semi-auto 5.56 (or 7.62x39 AK or 6.8 SPC for that matter) AR-style rifle isn't an excellent instrument to kill people with. It's really what it's designed for, & it's why we (the gun crowd) like to have them. Well, plus they're cool.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:26 pm to Tigah in the ATL
To call an AR-15 an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is disingenuous at best.
It paints whoever uses that weapon in a corner as if they are going to be assaulting people with it.
And honestly that's just bullshite.
It paints whoever uses that weapon in a corner as if they are going to be assaulting people with it.
And honestly that's just bullshite.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 12:31 pm to deltaland
This is not surpising and is a completely different question than say, "should background checks be required before purchasing assault weapons?".
that number would also be close to 70%, which is all most Dems want.
the thought that Obama wants to "take away your guns" is BS politics of fear.
that number would also be close to 70%, which is all most Dems want.
the thought that Obama wants to "take away your guns" is BS politics of fear.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 3/6/14 at 7:04 am to Clames
quote:
Assault weapon is the term for ignorance-based scare propaganda used by gun-control advocates.
You're wrong.
Yesterday as I was driving back to Louisisna from North Carolina I was listening to the radio in Alabama. On came a commercial for a sporting goods store whoch advertized, "With a large selection of assault weapons to choose from". Here is an entrepreneur using the term to his benefit. Those of you saying that it is a made up term for scary guns are inadvertantly falling for the propagamda. There is nothing inherently bad with the term 'assault weapon', and the sporting goods store owner recognizes that. Many posters in this thread don't.
We shouldn't be arguing that there's no such thing as an 'assault weapon', we should instead be arguing that we shouldn't ban assault weapons. They want to call them assault weapons? I don't care what they call them, I only care about the legality of these weapons - whatever they want to call them. Don't get caught up in the semantics, it's a diversion from the real issue.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 9:12 am to WildTchoupitoulas
You're clueless. If you are unable to understand the importance of semantics when dealing with written laws then you are part of the problem. "Assault weapon" is a deliberately nebulous term that gives laws using it broad discretion in defining it.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 9:38 am to Clames
quote:
You're clueless. If you are unable to understand the importance of semantics when dealing with written laws then you are part of the problem. "Assault weapon" is a deliberately nebulous term that gives laws using it broad discretion in defining it.
Wrong.
Once it is defined legally, it is a valid term - no matter how you feel about it.
The fact is that sitting on the sidelines just saying, "there's no such thing as 'assault weapon'" doesn't help. They will define it and ban as they see fit unless people start accepting terms and debating the actual merits of the argument.
Ultimately it doesn't matter how the term is defined, what matters is securing our right to bear arms - whatever they want to call them. the shop owner on the radio thought, "Hey, 'assault weapon' sounds kind of cool, I'll use that to sell products." And there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with the term "assault weapon". If you think there is, you're letting the propaganda get to you.
Call it what you want, just don't inhibit my lawful ability to stock my safe with it is all I'm saying.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:40 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Try again when you can cite a legal definition of that term that doesn't reflect the deliberate ambiguity of its use. Listening to a radio jingle isn't going to cut it.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:02 am to Clames
quote:
Try again when you can cite a legal definition of that term that doesn't reflect the deliberate ambiguity of its use.
The legal definition will come when they try to ban certain weapons - just like last time. At that point we will debate the merits of such a ban. It will not matter one whit what they call them. They can call an AR-15 a popsicle, and then say they are going to ban popsicles. I say keep our right to own ALL popsicles. Let them call it whatever they want as long as I maintain a right to own it.
When they go to ban certain firearms, they will be precise on what fits into the class they want to ban.
Do you not realize that they ALREADY banned 'assault weapons' whereas they provided a precise definition of what constituted an 'assault weapon'? The only way they could pass it was to include a sunset provision. Well, the sun has set on that piece of legislation, and I propose we don't allow them to re-enact it. What I don't propose we do is go around and around the issue by crying about what is and what isn't an assault weapon. We should focus more on what firearms and features we desire to remain legal.
And like I said, the numbers in that presentation say it all, what, 0.6% of gun crimes were committed using weapons they would classify as 'assault weapons'? That right there says they are not addressing the problem that they themselves perceive. Get them to clearly define what they believe to be a problem first, and then argue for rational solutions to the problem. Getting caught up in semantics is a waste of time.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The legal definition will come when they try to ban certain weapons - just like last time.
The problem you fail (repeatedly) to understand is that there is no such thing a precise definition of a nebulous concept. Which is why...
quote:
Do you not realize that they ALREADY banned 'assault weapons' whereas they provided a precise definition of what constituted an 'assault weapon'?
...you never realized the 1994 AWB banned NOTHING. Notta, zip, zilch. That "precise" definition based on ambiguous cosmetic features wasn't very precise which is why the loons that wrote the law still complain that manufacturers violated the "spirit" of it. The focus should be on making sure such terms are known to be emotional pandering and never see the light of day in any piece of legislation. Your focus implies that the ground already lost is gone for good.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:09 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
the thought that Obama wants to "take away your guns" is BS politics of fear.
Kind of like "roll back time to the 1950's."
Obama the senator was very much a gun control politician. As president, he's toothless.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:10 pm to deltaland
quote:
The Liberal indoctrination attempts are failing miserably in this department
Or, perhaps, not everyone is as caught up in political branding as you are.
I know of a community that is filled with the artist socialist type and they feel we should be able to own any gun we wish.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:16 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Obama the senator was very much a gun control politician. As president, he's actually EXPANDED our gun rights.
fixed
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:35 pm to Clames
quote:
you never realized the 1994 AWB banned NOTHING. Notta, zip, zilch. That "precise" definition based on ambiguous cosmetic features wasn't very precise which is why the loons that wrote the law still complain that manufacturers violated the "spirit" of it. The focus should be on making sure such terms are known to be emotional pandering and never see the light of day in any piece of legislation. Your focus implies that the ground already lost is gone for good.
Just a quick trip over to wiki shows:
Title XI-Firearms, Subtitle A-Assault Weapons, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or the Semi-automatic Firearms Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons" (a non-technical term), as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more cosmetic features, such as a telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug.
This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
The ban took effect September 13, 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004, due to a sunset provision. Since the expiration date, it is again legal to own or possess the subject firearms as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The National Rifle Association and other organizations argued that the ban was unconstitutional and that it violated the Second Amendment.
Any time you have a market demand for an illegal product you will get two things:
1. A black market in banned products
2. Legal products on the market that violate the spirit of the law
You can't stop the signal, Mal.
quote:
Your focus implies that the ground already lost is gone for good.
No, my focus is on the specifics of any bill presented that would serve to infringe on our right to bear arms. What they call it is immaterial to me. What, exactly, they intend to outlaw is the material argument.
But, yes, the 1994 law did ban some very specific things:
In this expired U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms because they possessed a minimum set from the following list of features:
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 mount
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:
Name of firearm / Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models) Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70) Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15 Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12 Legal
Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 Legal
As ridiculous as that list may look, that is what I'm talking about. Attack the list, don't attack the nomenclature. Attacking the nomenclature is falling into their trap, imo.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 6:30 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Let me fix you since it seem Wiki is pretty much the extent of you knowledge on this topic.
Let's make this part clear for you, none of these weapons were outright banned. In fact it was still legal to manufacture, posses, and sell those exact same weapons during the 1994 AWB either by making use of grandfathered parts or slight changes in the details of assembly. If you wanted to buy an AR-15 with bayonet lug, bird cage, pistol grip, and folding stock (not exactly common back then) then you could legally do so. You just paid a bit more.
Not really. Millions that were newly made just prior to the law's effective date were legal to buy and possess. Millions more were imported from overseas too. Stamping "Restricted Law Enforcement/Government Use Only" doesn't really mean as much as you think it does.
Except it was never illegal to own or possess such firearms during the 1994 AWB.
Sooner or later you'll figure out that the terminology matters and attacking it also attacks those who depend on that same terminology to push their agenda. You still haven't figured out that "assault weapon" isn't limited to rifles, shotguns, and funny looking pistols but also includes the ubiquitous Glock 26 et al.
quote:
...barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons" (a non-technical term), as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more cosmetic features, such as a telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug.
Let's make this part clear for you, none of these weapons were outright banned. In fact it was still legal to manufacture, posses, and sell those exact same weapons during the 1994 AWB either by making use of grandfathered parts or slight changes in the details of assembly. If you wanted to buy an AR-15 with bayonet lug, bird cage, pistol grip, and folding stock (not exactly common back then) then you could legally do so. You just paid a bit more.
quote:
This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Not really. Millions that were newly made just prior to the law's effective date were legal to buy and possess. Millions more were imported from overseas too. Stamping "Restricted Law Enforcement/Government Use Only" doesn't really mean as much as you think it does.
quote:
Since the expiration date, it is again legal to own or possess the subject firearms as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Except it was never illegal to own or possess such firearms during the 1994 AWB.
Sooner or later you'll figure out that the terminology matters and attacking it also attacks those who depend on that same terminology to push their agenda. You still haven't figured out that "assault weapon" isn't limited to rifles, shotguns, and funny looking pistols but also includes the ubiquitous Glock 26 et al.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 6:36 pm to MisterSenator
quote:
70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles
The other 30% are mostly politicians, criminals, or gun phobics. They definitely have issues.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 6:49 pm to Porky
"assault weapons" (a non-technical term) -lol
Posted on 3/6/14 at 7:18 pm to deltaland
Then I guess I am one of the 30%
Posted on 3/6/14 at 7:31 pm to Clames
quote:
it seem Wiki is pretty much the extent of you knowledge on this topic.
That's a false assumption on your part, wiki just happened to provide the first easily quotable link in a google search.
quote:
none of these weapons were outright banned. In fact it was still legal to manufacture, posses, and sell those exact same weapons during the 1994 AWB
+
quote:
If you wanted to buy an AR-15 with bayonet lug, bird cage, pistol grip, and folding stock then you could legally do so.
+
quote:
Millions...were legal to buy and possess.
+
quote:
Except it was never illegal to own or possess such firearms during the 1994 AWB.
+
quote:
Sooner or later you'll figure out that the terminology matters
Does not compute.
quote:
You still haven't figured out that "assault weapon" isn't limited to rifles, shotguns, and funny looking pistols but also includes the ubiquitous Glock 26 et al.
And all of those are legal. As a matter of fact, recently the term was re-defined and is different from the 1994 definition.
But you pretty much have an empty arument here. You say that terminology is so important, yet nothing seems to be illegal. So what's your problem? They may make some nebulous term up and then come up with a completely toothless law that doesn't ban anything?
I still submit it's more important to focus on the actual items they want to ban rather than the terminology. So we disagree, big deal. Neither one of us wants them to ban assault weapons - or any other weapons.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News