- 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 3/7/14 at 1:03 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 3/7/14 at 1:03 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
For now, I embrace 'assault weapons', and I think you should too.
I don't think you get it..
1
Posted on 3/7/14 at 1:45 pm to TheDoc
quote:
I don't think you get it..
Quite obviously I don't. After pages and pages of people trying to tell me how it is, I still don't get it. I've been trying and trying to understand it, but I just can't. It all seems so very important too, but it just won't go through my thick skull.
I don't care what you call it, just don't ban it.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I don't care what you call it, just don't ban it.
I see your point, I really do. However, nomencalture certainly matters to the masses of people that the government depends on for support to suspend the 2nd.
I can't tell you how many times i've educated someone on the difference between your standard semi-auto hunting rifle and the evil AR-15.
You obviously didn't fall for it. But for us, attacking nomenclature is an easy way to educate those who have no idea what a real assault rifle is.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 4:48 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
attacking nomenclature is an easy way to educate those who have no idea what a real assault rifle is.
I'm just afraid that the masses you are trying to reach won't respond well to the approach of "There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon', that's a made up term.", and the people who would respond positively to it, well, you would've had them anyway.
That's been my experience, your results may vary. I've just decided to dumb it all the way down to, "Hey man, I don't care what you call it, just don't ban my shite."
Good post, thanks.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:10 pm to Clames
quote:
quote:
A flash suppressor isn't a "cosmetic feature" - it is clearly functional.
Then cite in the law where that function is defined and the purpose for including it.
A flash suppressor isn't a "cosmetic feature" regardless of what any law says. It serves a function.
quote:
They are and each has a specific function
They have a function? I thought you said they were COSMETIC? Do you know what the word means? Seriously, I can't argue with someone who insists on using the wrong definition for words.
quote:
BTW, only one of those was mentioned in the law but was applied to encompass the other two.
The law clearly states a barrel that is threaded to accept a flash suppressor meets the definition - regardless of what the threads are actually used for.
Further, some linear compensators and muzzle brakes also act as flash suppressors. If it reduces the visual and auditory impact of the flash on the eyes and ears of the shooter - its a flash suppressor. Whether or not it does this can be objectively determined using digital photography and sound recording equipment.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:16 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
They reason they chose cosmetic features, rather than truly functional ones
Dude - seriously - pick up a fricking dictionary. You clearly don't know what the terms "cosmetic" and "functional" mean. A flash suppressor is FUNCTIONAL. Its FUNCTION is to direct the flash away from the shooter. A detachable magazine has a FUNCTION - to enable the shooter to reload quickly. A grenade launcher has a FUNCTION - fire grenades. A telescoping stock has a FUNCTION - to allow the weapon to be stored or carried in a smaller space.
Your assertion that these features are "purely cosmetic" flies in the face of the meaning of the English word "cosmetic".
I seriously can't argue with someone who refuses to speak English - its the only language I know - so if you continue to insist on using your made up language that looks like English but where all the definitions are switched around - I'll have to stop here.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:27 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:that is absolutely not true. It is an old term. It has just been abandoned by the gun lobby.
The entire term was made up to ban a certain group of weapons based on cosmetic features.
It goes back to the 70s at least.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 5:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:because ti's just parroting of the current line.
Quite obviously I don't.
It makes people feel good to scoff at people who don't understand guns well.
It's just dishonest to say these guns (yes we know what they are) aren't good at killing people, because they are. Form follow function & the AR Carbine & its kin have been proven to be great platforms for killing people.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 6:54 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:so is my lever action rifle it can hold 20 rounds too of good ole murican 44 cal boolits and I dont have to remove a magazine to reload oooooooohh its scary, if I put a flashlight on it pained it black it would be an ar15 LOL
It's just dishonest to say these guns (yes we know what they are) aren't good at killing people, because they are. Form follow function & the AR Carbine & its kin have been proven to be great platforms for killing people.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 6:56 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
But for us, attacking nomenclature is an easy way to educate those who have no idea what a real assault rifle is.
Yeah because it's so clear. When a .22 can be called an assault rifle there is something wrong with the definition.
The very reason any rifle was labeled as an assault rifle is to make is scary to the public and turn public opinion against it. No one would go out with a .22 planning or defending themselves or to murder someone with it.
After the ban yes you could buy used guns pre-ban but you could not buy a new banned gun or magazines. If you don't think the government is not out to ban "assault" rifles just look at New York.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 6:59 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:All guns are good at killing animals, be that animal man or beast.
It's just dishonest to say these guns (yes we know what they are) aren't good at killing people, because they are. Form follow function & the AR Carbine & its kin have been proven to be great platforms for killing people.
I just believe that all citizens should be afforded the opportunity to purchase the same weaponry as all government agencies, minus the military.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 7:04 pm to SpidermanTUba
I would love to own an "assault weapon". Hopefully the NFA act of 1968 will be revoked so I can.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 7:08 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
that is absolutely not true. It is an old term. It has just been abandoned by the gun lobby. It goes back to the 70s at least
Incorrect. The term "assault weapons" came about when the Dems passed the ban in 94. Assault Rifle was in in use before that, but not a generalized term. And it was latched onto by those who wished to disarm citizens and increase gov't control over those citizens. It's a bad term, as it doesn't have a definitive description attached to it. It's whatever the next gun control nut wants it to be. Modern sporting rifles, are the most accurate and proper term to use for these firearms.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 7:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Dude - seriously - pick up a fricking dictionary. You clearly don't know what the terms "cosmetic" and "functional" mean. A flash suppressor is FUNCTIONAL. Its FUNCTION is to direct the flash away from the shooter. A detachable magazine has a FUNCTION - to enable the shooter to reload quickly. A grenade launcher has a FUNCTION - fire grenades. A telescoping stock has a FUNCTION - to allow the weapon to be stored or carried in a smaller space.
I stand by my statement. The features were selected based on their cosmetic presentation. I guarantee you they didn't balance whether or not a crowned match barrel, versus a birdcage style (AR-15) versus an AK-style break or a Y-comp was more "lethal" - the idiots pointed to it and asked somebody, presumably who at least sort of understood and said, "What's that thing?" A:"Flash suppressor". "What like a silencer?" A: "Not real..." = "Nevermind, it's ugly, it's got to go."
And then they pointed to the "shoulder thing that goes up" - and said, "What's that?" A:"Stock" "But, why does it look like PVC?" A:"Collapses" "WHAT? So they can conceal it?" A:"Not nec.." "Nevermind, it's ugly, it's got to go."
And so on, and so on.
Now the magazines - you've got me there - ONLY assault weapons use detachable box magazines - oh wait - it is a common feature and constitutes about 90% of semi-automatic firearms, if you include pistols.
So that's functional and gets to the core of their desire - banning all semiautomatic rifles (then pistols, then revolvers, etc.) - but - again, they can't do it all at once, so they demonize a class of weapons based on a common set of features - PRIMARILY based on the cosmetic appearance of those features.
(Happy now? I've walked it back a little, so you can move on to why we shouldn't have guns. I mean, after all you're a scientist. I've picked up a weapon and manned a post. That's all I know about it.)
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:47 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I just believe that all citizens should be afforded the opportunity to purchase the same weaponry as all government agencies, minus the military.
any firearm that the police or military are issued, should be legal to use by the citizenry.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:29 pm to TheDoc
quote:-agree
any firearm that the police or military are issued, should be legal to use by the citizenry.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:41 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
It's just dishonest to say these guns (yes we know what they are) aren't good at killing people, because they are.
That's the second time you've made that comment and nobody in this thread has even hinted about "these guns" not being good at killing. I'm sure you think you are making a point...somehow.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:45 pm to Alahunter
quote:
I would love to own an "assault weapon". Hopefully the NFA act of 1968 will be revoked so I can.
Those are "Title II" weapons. The "assault weapon" ban has expired.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:52 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I stand by my statement.
You made more than one statement.
quote:
The features were selected based on their cosmetic presentation.
That was one of them. It may be true. I'm not arguing it either way. Unlike you, I can't read the minds of other people.
This:
quote:
They reason they chose cosmetic features, rather than truly functional ones...
was another.
You are implying that features such as flash suppressors, detachable magazines, grenade launchers, and telescoping stocks are not "truly functional". That is complete horseshite by any definition of the word "functional". A detachable magazine is TRULY FUNCTIONAL by any definition of the phrase. Its FUNCTION is to enable the shooter to reload quickly. frickING DUH USE THE DEFINITIONS OF WORDS.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
You are confusing actual weapons with incorrect terminology. I understand youre not knowledgeable on the subject, so i understand the ignorance.
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News