What's an "assault weapon"?

MotoDC

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

I assume the reason no one had previously answered your question is because no one believe you didn't actually know the answer.

Actually, there's quite a bit of firearm ignorance on this site. It's not unreasonable to think that people don't know what in the fuck they're talking about when it comes to the details of firearms, which could lead someone to the conclusion that many people here are just knee jerk reactionaries.

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.

pjradio

JimmyV wrote:

Where did the OP go?

:corn:

Jason P

This discussion has made me realize that I technically own an assault rifle, although not in the traditional sense. I have a 30 round banana clip for my .22 rifle. The clips that came with the gun only hold ten rounds.

My intention was only to assault pop cans and I bought it so I wouldn't have to reload as often.

blackredyellow

MotoDC wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

I assume the reason no one had previously answered your question is because no one believe you didn't actually know the answer.

Actually, there's quite a bit of firearm ignorance on this site. It's not unreasonable to think that people don't know what in the fuck they're talking about when it comes to the details of firearms, which could lead someone to the conclusion that many people here are just knee jerk reactionaries.

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.

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.

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

I assume the reason no one had previously answered your question is because no one believe you didn't actually know the answer.

Actually, there's quite a bit of firearm ignorance on this site. It's not unreasonable to think that people don't know what in the fuck they're talking about when it comes to the details of firearms, which could lead someone to the conclusion that many people here are just knee jerk reactionaries.

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.

...
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.

MotoDC

BRY wrote:

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.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, at the very least, the potential tyranny of an excessively powerful government. One could also argue it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from ANY oppressive, violent force, whether gov't-sourced or not. Bolt-action rifles, which we've established are really just for hunting, are not reasonably sufficient to form this kind of militia around.

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 but then look at the arab spring. It doesn't take 100s of billions of dollars of military gear to effect change if you have a will and some form of a way. But you still need some kind of a way.

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.

mydogmookieblaylock

MotoDC wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

I assume the reason no one had previously answered your question is because no one believe you didn't actually know the answer.

Actually, there's quite a bit of firearm ignorance on this site. It's not unreasonable to think that people don't know what in the fuck they're talking about when it comes to the details of firearms

I don't disagree - but i am still under the assumption that the OP was baiting said people with his question and actually already knew the answer.

JimmyV

MotoDC wrote:

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, at the very least, the potential tyranny of an excessively powerful government. One could also argue it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from ANY oppressive, violent force, whether gov't-sourced or not. Bolt-action rifles, which we've established are really just for hunting, are not reasonably sufficient to form this kind of militia around.

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 but then look at the arab spring. It doesn't take 100s of billions of dollars of military gear to effect change if you have a will and some form of a way. But you still need some kind of a way.

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.

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

This discussion has made me realize that I technically own an assault rifle, although not in the traditional sense. I have a 30 round banana clip for my .22 rifle. The clips that came with the gun only hold ten rounds.

My intention was only to assault pop cans and I bought it so I wouldn't have to reload as often.

...
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.

MotoDC

cosmo wrote:

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.

Wasn't looking for further clarification. Was responding to someone else who was implying this thread didn't have a point.

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.

dignin

MotoDC wrote:

BRY wrote:

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.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, at the very least, the potential tyranny of an excessively powerful government. One could also argue it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from ANY oppressive, violent force, whether gov't-sourced or not. Bolt-action rifles, which we've established are really just for hunting, are not reasonably sufficient to form this kind of militia around.

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 but then look at the arab spring. It doesn't take 100s of billions of dollars of military gear to effect change if you have a will and some form of a way. But you still need some kind of a way.

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.

To me the 2nd amendment is ridiculous and needs a serious update. But you are right, by those terms assault rifles by right should be legal to the common citizen (this is why the 2nd amendment in it's current form is insane in my opinion).

dignin

MotoDC wrote:

cosmo wrote:

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.

Wasn't looking for further clarification. Was responding to someone else who was implying this thread didn't have a point.

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.

It seems there is a consensus here, most have the same idea of what they are calling to ban.

blackredyellow

MotoDC wrote:

BRY wrote:

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.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, at the very least, the potential tyranny of an excessively powerful government. One could also argue it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from ANY oppressive, violent force, whether gov't-sourced or not. Bolt-action rifles, which we've established are really just for hunting, are not reasonably sufficient to form this kind of militia around.

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 but then look at the arab spring. It doesn't take 100s of billions of dollars of military gear to effect change if you have a will and some form of a way. But you still need some kind of a way.

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.

Why yes, the fine young Wolverines fended off the Russians without assault weapons (although i think they acquired some )

But like you eluded to, fighting off a tyrannical government isn't going to happen anyway in this age, with all the advance weapons at their disposal.

Jason P

Cosmo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

This discussion has made me realize that I technically own an assault rifle, although not in the traditional sense. I have a 30 round banana clip for my .22 rifle. The clips that came with the gun only hold ten rounds.

My intention was only to assault pop cans and I bought it so I wouldn't have to reload as often.

...
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.

Yeah, it's a Ruger 10-22.

It doesn't fire .223 rounds ... a substantial conversion would be required.

A - .22
B - .223

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

Wasn't looking for further clarification. Was responding to someone else who was implying this thread didn't have a point.

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.

..
Oh, I understand... i just wanted people to get a mental image of a hunting team with a belt fed Remington rifle, mowing down a herd of migrating deer in the beautiful plains of our nation.
I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).
Home defense... yes. a .357, .38, .44 and 9mm has plenty of stopping power. The sound of a shotgun gun shell being loaded into the breach should scare the shit out of 99% of burglars... the sound of it firing will convince the remainder.
Along with ownership, the responsibility of ownership. That includes training for everyone in the household. And if you have a kid with emotional problems... it is your responsibility to do everything it take to keep those weapons out of his hands... up to and including removing either the kid or the weapons from your home.
I believe the time for rhetoric and bumber sticker slogans has ended and the time for reasoned debate has come. Too bad it took the murders of 20 five and six year olds to get there, but we really need to sit down... put the hysteria on both sides down... quit being children and come up with a reasonable, adult solution to resovle this thing. It won't mean ALL gun violence end... I'm just sick of it becoming a normal and defining aspect of who we are.

JimmyV

pjradio wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Where did the OP go?

:corn:

The silence is deafening.

MotoDC

dignin wrote:

It seems there is a consensus here, most have the same idea of what they are calling to ban.

For the most part at this point, I agree, but I would offer that this particular forum does not necessarily reflect the views of the populace at large, whether left OR right.

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

Yeah, it's a Ruger 10-22.
It doesn't fire .223 rounds ... a substantial conversion would be required.
A - .22
B - .223

...
Yeah. I know the Ruger 10-22... it is fun because it is light and accurate. Real fun to target practice from a fairly good distance.
and it IS capable of creating harm, just as a lot of weapons are. But, me... personally, I don't believe a Ruger 10-22 falls into the same category as an AR-15 (that fires a .223 caliber load). The .223 packs a wallop that will rip your innerds apart.
That is part of the 'reasonable' debate that America MUST take. Don't ban the Ruger 10-22 by lumping it in with the AR-15.... and don't argue that if the Ruger 10-22 is leagal, the AR-15 should be legal, too. Reasonable debate... something like, 'Would you take a Ruger 10-22 into the Afghani battlefield wth you?'
I think we can all come to a resonable conclusion... not necessarily everything we want... but, that's what happens when we decide to live in a society of civil people. We don't get everything we want.

MotoDC

cosmo wrote:

I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).

I respect your opinion, Cosmo, and generally enjoy how you express yourself on this site -- can't say that about everyone I read. However, I don't understand how you can claim that you believe in second amendment rights and then continue with your semi tongue-in-cheek hunting hyperbole.

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

cosmo wrote:

I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).

I respect your opinion, Cosmo, and generally enjoy how you express yourself on this site -- can't say that about everyone I read. However, I don't understand how you can claim that you believe in second amendment rights and then continue with your semi tongue-in-cheek hunting hyperbole.

...
No. i'm for hunting as sport. It's just that 'Hunting' has taken a odd term.
Hunting... as most of us think... is gong out in the brush and pretty much thinking like our ancent ancestors... or the natural predators of the forests and plains. Except for the part where the wolves work in packs and run down the weakest prey, instead of shooting them from a distance. But, i understand, we are not wolves. It seems like sport and the reward is red meat for the Winter.
But, hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head, execution style. It's funny to me... not very sporting... which explains why I see a loyt of fat, out of shape hunters out there. you don't burn many calories, sitting around, waiting to ambush an unsuspecting, horny deer.
...
Also... where in the 2nd Amendment is hunting mentioned? I must have missed that part.