Started By
Message

re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles

Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:06 pm to
Posted by ninthward
Boston, MA
Member since May 2007
20439 posts
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:06 pm to
its not a question of functionality but rather do these features define a rifle as an assault rifle
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89595 posts
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:30 pm to
quote:

A detachable magazine is TRULY FUNCTIONAL by any definition of the phrase.


This is the point you keep missing - MOST semis work this way. You can see it in other choices of language:

"A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the weapon."

Come on man. I know you're ignorant on the whole weapons issue, but that's the biggest crock of $hit I've ever seen. They picked that because it was common to the "ugly" guns. Not because of the functionality of a pistol grip versus thumbhole, versus straight or angle stock.

Another one you like to bring up is the grenade launcher fitting and the bayonet lug.

Again - what's more dangerous the, essentially, cosmetic fitting for a bayonet/grenade launcher or the actual bayonet (meaning a "knife") or the grenade launcher and f*cking GRENADES which are separately regulated as destructive devices?

Regardless of the items actual functionality - the features they sought to ban were done so on that feature's contribution to the menacing appearance of the rifle. In other words COSMETICS.

What is the difference between these rifles?





More importantly, which one is an "assault weapon"?
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 10:34 pm
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:32 am to
quote:

You are confusing actual weapons with incorrect terminology.


So a "flash suppressor" is 'incorrect terminology'.

You might wanna tell Bushmaster.

LINK

A telescoping stock is "incorrect terminology"

You might wanna tell Brownells

LINK
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:36 am to
You missed the point really hard.

Not surprising.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:56 am to
quote:



This is the point you keep missing - MOST semis work this way.


And?
quote:


Come on man. I know you're ignorant on the whole weapons issue, but that's the biggest crock of $hit I've ever seen. They picked that because it was common to the "ugly" guns. Not because of the functionality of a pistol grip versus thumbhole, versus straight or angle stock.



I cannot read the thoughts of other people like you can - so I won't argue their reasoning with you. When did you first realize you were clairvoyant? Just curious.

Your assertion that a pistol grip serves no function is again - utterly ridiculous and flies in the face of the definitions of words.

quote:


Again - what's more dangerous the, essentially, cosmetic fitting for a bayonet/grenade launcher or the actual bayonet (meaning a "knife") or the grenade launcher and f*cking GRENADES which are separately regulated as destructive devices?


A "cosmetic fitting" ? Now I've heard it all. That's an oxymoron dude. The FUNCTION of the bayonet fitting is to allow the user to attach a bayonet. It isn't there just for show. That should be obvious to anyone who knows the meaning of words and is alive.

quote:


Regardless of the items actual functionality - the features they sought to ban were done so on that feature's contribution to the menacing appearance of the rifle. In other words COSMETICS.



Again - I'm curious as to how you have this insight into the thoughts of other people. Do you just divine it from above - or is there an NRA blog you cut and paste them from?





quote:

More importantly, which one is an "assault weapon"?


The Ranch Rifle would appear to not have at least two of the features in the list as defined in the 94 ban. If I'm wrong please point them out. Obviously I can't see inside the barrel but you can read minds so you ought to be able to see inside a gun barrel with just a photo.


If you're referring to recent attempts to reincarnate that law on the federal level or state bans - I dunno about those.






BTW - I am only arguing against your blatantly incorrect claim that these features serve no function. That is just stupid.

If you would argue that the Ranch Rifle poses as much of a threat to civilian safety as the AR-15 - that would actually be reasonable. I agree with you - the ban should be simpler and have fewer exceptions.

Any semi-automatic that has a greater than 10 round magazine should be banned - with a possible exception for shooting clubs or organized civilian militia who agree to use them only on sight of the club or militia training grounds and abide by certain security protocols to prevent their theft.
The President or state governor would have the authority to release such a militia of the obligation to store the guns on sight in the case of invasion. Then you guys can go shoot off your big guns for fun and you'll have them around for when the British come back.

This post was edited on 3/8/14 at 8:09 am
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16623 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:32 am to
You really are the dumbest poster on this site. It has been repeatedly explained to you that those cosmetic features were used in the 1994 AWB, not because of any functional purpose with regards to lethality (remember you idiots tout these laws as "life saving"), but to attack specific weapons and their analogs. Banning bayonet lugs, folding stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, muzzle devices et al has no functional relationship to the damage a weapon can inflict ergo no functional relationship to public safety. Banning arbitrarily characterized "high capacity" magazines does not enhance public safety. The purpose of the 1994 AWB was to enhance public safety and it did no such thing. Doesn't take clairvoyance to understand that the people who author and support such bills are technically incompetent and base their judgement purely on the outward appearance of subject weapons.

Technically incompetent gun grabber.

Another technically incompent gun grabber.



This post was edited on 3/8/14 at 9:35 am
Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 9:47 am to
Here's the problem with your approach, it always seems to break down like this:
quote:

You really are the dumbest poster on this site.

I would mauch rather approach the argument from the perspective of:

You ought to be able to legally acquire whatever tool it is you think you need to get the job done.

Rather than the condescending:

That's a magazine, not a clip. You're ignorant of guns.
Posted by MisterSenator
Member since Aug 2013
1285 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 10:02 am to
quote:

I would love to own an "assault weapon". Hopefully the NFA act of 1968 will be revoked so I can.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89595 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 10:16 am to
quote:

The FUNCTION of the bayonet fitting is to allow the user to attach a bayonet.


How many people have been killed with a fixed bayonet in the United States since 1865?

Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16623 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 10:39 am to
Good for you. That cookie show up yet? No? Darn. Technical ignorance is what gun control thrives on, explain that to Dan Gross next time you have lunch with him.
Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:12 am to
quote:

Technical ignorance is what gun control thrives on

And you and your put downs are doing NOTHING to help the situation, you only make it worse by representing 2nd Amend advocates as condescending pricks.

Good luck with that.
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16623 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:14 am to
The NFA of 1934 should be repealed. That would remove the 1968 GCA which amended the NFA.
Posted by CptRusty
Basket of Deplorables
Member since Aug 2011
11740 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 3:32 pm to
quote:

Any semi-automatic that has a greater than 10 round magazine should be banned - with a possible exception for shooting clubs or organized civilian militia who agree to use them only on sight of the club or militia training grounds and abide by certain security protocols to prevent their theft.


Posted by ninthward
Boston, MA
Member since May 2007
20439 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:07 pm to
quote:

Any semi-automatic that has a greater than 10 round magazine should be banned - with a possible exception for shooting clubs or organized civilian militia who agree to use them only on sight of the club or militia training grounds and abide by certain security protocols to prevent their theft.
-you have misinterpret the 2nd
Posted by ninthward
Boston, MA
Member since May 2007
20439 posts
Posted on 3/8/14 at 7:07 pm to
quote:

condescending pricks.
LOL pot to kettle
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 9Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram