What's an "assault weapon"?
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
In your words, not wiki's. I've asked numerous times for a definition but still haven't received one.
Many on here want "assault weapons" banned, I want to know what they are.
Many on here want "assault weapons" banned, I want to know what they are.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
you can even call them friendly weapons,sexy weapons,cool weapons
the weapons is the problem..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Assault or weapon.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
In my mind anything that has been designed for the modern military initially, would fall under the term "assault weapon".
I believe the only weapons that joe public should be able to own are hunting rifles that require you to reload after every shot.
in short, military grade weapons that are not used for hunting. you would not hunt with an ak-47 or an uzi.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
no one needs more then say 3 bullets at a time anyway for hunting... good point.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
+1
I always thought they were weapons intended for killing humans and were therefore mostly utilized by the military. They are useful for their ability to fire quickly...more bullets...more capacity...more killing.
Semi auto handguns are not worth fighting over, but i am good with a magazine size limit. I cant remember the old ban, but I think it was 12. I'd be fine going to 10 or even lower and get them closer to revolvers. That is the difference in uzis for me. The hold like 30 rounds.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I grew up hunting. If you need more than 3 shots you are either screwing around or just wildly shooting at a running animal, which is dangerous, as you can't be fully aware what is behind what you're shooting at.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Magazine capacity: so we're down from 12 to 10 to 5 to 3 within the first page of the thread. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so I doubt this approach will go very far in terms of legislation.
Fair enough. So we can make uzi's legal so long as we limit magazine capacity to <pick a number depending on the anti-2nd amendment person you're talking to> and ensure they aren't full auto.
Seems like the main thrust of the argument here is to limit capacity and fire rate. Do we really need to define "assault weapon" further?
Hmm but what about shotguns? As I understand it, it's easy as pie to convert a standard 12-gauge to carry at least 8 shells. Shotguns can be semi-auto. I assure you shotguns cause far more destruction at short range than a long-barrel "assault" rifle.
UnSung...Would like to know, given the many responses here, if have you recieved your answer yet? Or are you still in need of further insight.
The second amendment doesn't mention hunting, but it also doesn't mention mass shootings or semi-automatic weapons. But it does reference a "well regulated" militia... I'm still waiting for that part in quotes. And if these wanna me militia types are so gung ho on assault rifles, maybe they should actually join a militia like the national guard.
And depending on what your definition of short range is, I might argue the "far more destructive" part. That aside, I'd much rather have a situation where a guy gets off 7-8 shotgun shells and has to reload one by one, then a guy with quickly exchangeable 30 rd magazines.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
A civilian derivative of a military styled, long barreled gun that is capable of firing multiple rounds from a high capacity magazine. Examples of such a weapon is an AR-15, AK-47, AK-74, etc...
This also includes short weapons, such as the Uzi, Mac-10 and Tec 9 automatic pistol. Pretty much any weapon that is magazine or drum fed that is capable of being converted from a semi-automatic state to fully automatic.
...
Weapons such as the .50 caliber sniper rifle should fall into the banned from civilian use because we really don't want anyone outside of our military and/or law enforcement listing 'Sniper' as their occupation.... do we?
...
Weapons that do not fall under this classification. Bolt or lever action rifles up to .30 caliber. Non-drum loaded shotguns. Revolvers and semi-automatic pistols (with no greater capacity than 13 rounds, or the nominal length of the grip). A .357 or .38 caliber is sufficient for home defense... as is a 9mm or .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun. .30 caliber hunting rifles and shotguns are capable sporting rifles.
Hail, Hail!!!
Look at this thread you're in. We're down to assualt rifles being pretty much anything other than a 3-round bolt-action hunting rifle. One person was willing to concede that handguns were not assualt rifles/weapons, but you wouldn't get that agreement from everyone on this site/thread.
The point is that it's easy and feels good and self-fulfilling to scream "BAN ASSAULT RIFLES" because everyone who does is so cock-sure they're in the right, especially in light of the recent tragedy. But when you get past the fervor, it becomes clear we're not just talking about banning those "scary" AR-15s that look like what we see in movies about US Navy SEALs -- which I realize it feels very good and warm and fuzzy to ban -- we're talking about an across-the-board ban on everything that doesn't look like something that John Wayne would have strapped to his saddle in an old Western.
My intention was only to assault pop cans and I bought it so I wouldn't have to reload as often.
So, do nothing?
Yes, there are details that have to be worked out, and the past assault weapon ban had some holes in it, but it was a good start. Just like any law, it's not going to be perfect, but it will be more effective than sitting arguing about semantics.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Any weapon that is capable of being converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
If someone can come up with a way to belt feed a Remington 30.06 hunting rifle to fire off 3 rounds a second... then, that gun will fall under that category, too... so, quit trying to convert your bolt action rifle to a deer migration slaughtering machine.
Hail, Hail!!!
If you accept that, it then becomes a question of where to draw the line. E.g., to oppose the US military, you'll probably want, say, tanks and bombers, too, but is it reasonable to allow any individual to have that sort of power (Bush and Obama have taken it upon themselves to use that kind of power, but that's another thread)? Probably not. Anti-gun folks love to make this argument and then
And as I've said privately before, if it comes to the point where the US gov't is using tanks and bombers on its citizens, we're probably already so far gone as a society that you're gonna be wishing you had made nice with that armed "good ol' boy" down the street. The zombies are probably coming next!
I'll end by saying I can't believe no one has made a Wolverines reference yet, in all this assault rifle chatter.
But the 2nd amendment was also written at a time when its authors could imagine no weapon more powerful than a cannon. And if a citizen set up a cannon on his property, either the town fathers or the local militia would come calling sooner rather than later. And they would be asking the logical question, "Why do you need this?" before hauling said cannon away.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
A Ruger 10-22? A fun gun to shoot for target practice.
But, yeah, I can see it capable of doing significant damage when you decide to flip the silicone switch and take out your frustrations at the local mall. A couple of banana clips duct taped to flip-clips... you can see how it can go from 10 to 60 rounds with no gunsmithing skills other than knowing which is the sticky side of duct tape, right?
Also, does you gun fire standard .22 caliber rounds... or .223 long rifle rounds? That makes a difference, too.
Hail, Hail!!!
The point that I believe OP was trying to make is that it's easy enough to demand a ban on assault rifles, such that even moderate gun-control people would agree with it, particularly in light of the recent tragedy. But then you get down to defining what that means, as this thread has done fairly well, and you're left with the highly restrictive notions being put forth here. If you're going to call for bans (of anything -- guns, carburetors, potted plants), it's good to know specifically what you're signing up for.