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.
That's funny, you must've lived in the times.
The cannon would have put everyone in danger and would have not been allowed, 2nd Amendment or no.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
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
How would a cannon put everyone in danger? Does it load itself, aim, and ignite all alone?
How would a cannon put everyone in danger? Does it load itself, aim, and ignite all alone?
A citizen with a cannon could fire that cannon at whomever they wanted. The same way someone today could fire an "assault weapon" at anyone and at any time. The difference is the cannon would not have been tolerated by the very people whose words the gun lobby is twisting to keep "assault weapons" available.
So, whether all the people responding knew the details (or not) regarding your question before you asked, I'd say it was a success...now most of us are more aware of what an assault weapon is...not that simply knowing it can kill a shhitload of folks in seconds isnt enough...but we're more educated now, so that is good.
Now its time to reinstate that ban.
What do you think usung, as a whole were these the answers you were expecting?
How would a cannon put everyone in danger? Does it load itself, aim, and ignite all alone?
A citizen with a cannon could fire that cannon at whomever they wanted. The same way someone today could fire an "assault weapon" at anyone and at any time. The difference is the cannon would not have been tolerated by the very people whose words the gun lobby is twisting to keep "assault weapons" available.
I can stick a pen in your eye and it would be defined as assault with a weapon. I give up, you people are too dense.
So, whether all the people responding knew the details (or not) regarding your question before you asked, I'd say it was a success...now most of us are more aware of what an assault weapon is...not that simply knowing it can kill a shhitload of folks in seconds isnt enough...but we're more educated now, so that is good.
Now its time to reinstate that ban.
What do you think usung, as a whole were these the answers you were expecting?
Well I'm not unsung, but since I've been involved in the thread, I'll respond. As defined in this thread I would not support a ban on assualt weapons.
Ban:
High-cap mags (say, above 15 rounds)
Full-auto
High-caliber (say, .50cal or above for long-barrel)
How would a cannon put everyone in danger? Does it load itself, aim, and ignite all alone?
A citizen with a cannon could fire that cannon at whomever they wanted. The same way someone today could fire an "assault weapon" at anyone and at any time. The difference is the cannon would not have been tolerated by the very people whose words the gun lobby is twisting to keep "assault weapons" available.
I can stick a pen in your eye and it would be defined as assault with a weapon. I give up, you people are too dense.
Thanks motodc for having a clue.
You have no legs left to stand on in a debate you started so you resort to insults. Job well done my friend, you represent your pro gun side very well.
So, whether all the people responding knew the details (or not) regarding your question before you asked, I'd say it was a success...now most of us are more aware of what an assault weapon is...not that simply knowing it can kill a shhitload of folks in seconds isnt enough...but we're more educated now, so that is good.
Now its time to reinstate that ban.
What do you think usung, as a whole were these the answers you were expecting?
Well I'm not unsung, but since I've been involved in the thread, I'll respond. As defined in this thread I would not support a ban on assualt weapons.
Ban:
High-cap mags (say, above 15 rounds)
Full-auto
High-caliber (say, .50cal or above for long-barrel)
Then we may have some common ground to work from.
I respect your opinion (you can at least engage in a grown up conversation unlike others here) but I hope your opinion is in the minority.
obviously the responses were more than the OP could handle, judging from his responses so far. Plus, hes just baiting everyone...see his abortion thread?
IBTL...congrats on riling everyone up. Going back to MY job too...or is the concept that most ppl on here probably have a job...or is that too dense for YOU
0
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
obviously the responses were more than the OP could handle, judging from his responses so far. Plus, hes just baiting everyone...see his abortion thread?
IBTL...congrats on riling everyone up. Going back to MY job too...or is the concept that most ppl on here probably have a job...or is that too dense for YOU
I never called you out for not immediately responding to my reply.
You are never, and will never be too much for me, but I know when it makes more sense for me to beat my head off the wall.
3500 to 87. I'm baiting? No, I am presenting FACTS. Don't cry to me about potential in these lives lost, EVERY life lost had potential. We are bombing kids in Pakistan with drone strikes EVERY day. Do they not have potential for good? Or is it only the white kids in one of the richest counties in the world that have potential?
That's why I give up talking, because no matter what you still think it is about a piece of metal.
obviously the responses were more than the OP could handle, judging from his responses so far. Plus, hes just baiting everyone...see his abortion thread?
IBTL...congrats on riling everyone up. Going back to MY job too...or is the concept that most ppl on here probably have a job...or is that too dense for YOU
I never called you out for not immediately responding to my reply.
You are never, and will never be too much for me, but I know when it makes more sense for me to beat my head off the wall.
3500 to 87. I'm baiting? No, I am presenting FACTS. Don't cry to me about potential in these lives lost, EVERY life lost had potential. We are bombing kids in Pakistan with drone strikes EVERY day. Do they not have potential for good? Or is it only the white kids in one of the richest counties in the world that have potential?
That's why I give up talking, because no matter what you still think it is about a piece of metal.
now its bombing kids in Pakistan...a little preoccupied with death are we?
0
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
obviously the responses were more than the OP could handle, judging from his responses so far. Plus, hes just baiting everyone...see his abortion thread?
IBTL...congrats on riling everyone up. Going back to MY job too...or is the concept that most ppl on here probably have a job...or is that too dense for YOU
I never called you out for not immediately responding to my reply.
You are never, and will never be too much for me, but I know when it makes more sense for me to beat my head off the wall.
3500 to 87. I'm baiting? No, I am presenting FACTS. Don't cry to me about potential in these lives lost, EVERY life lost had potential. We are bombing kids in Pakistan with drone strikes EVERY day. Do they not have potential for good? Or is it only the white kids in one of the richest counties in the world that have potential?
That's why I give up talking, because no matter what you still think it is about a piece of metal.
now its bombing kids in Pakistan...a little preoccupied with death are we?
So I'm assuming that as we all now have a description the OP has deemed acceptable we can chalk this thread down as cooked?
For the record, you asked for a definition, of which you got many and you dismissed all but the one you agreed with. I think that kind of sums you and some others up quite eloquently.
Good reply. Although I don't necessarily agree it was obviously thought out.
...
We don't have to agree on everything... maybe just come to an agreement that will lessen the probabliities of another act such as this from becoming a regular routine in the life of America.
You're a smart guy... you know there is no way to end all gun violence. But, you know there is a way to make first graders safer... without standing armed guards on the property and metal bars on the doors and windows.
Just like many problems, just addressing one variable or the other.... availability and massive capabilities of weapons... or mental ilness issues, will solve nothing. We HAVE to address both issues, along with a myriad of other facets in order to finally, do something other than just doing the same thing... which, by the way, isn't helping.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
So I'm assuming that as we all now have a description the OP has deemed acceptable we can chalk this thread down as cooked?
For the record, you asked for a definition, of which you got many and you dismissed all but the one you agreed with. I think that kind of sums you and some others up quite eloquently.
Oh to live in such a vacuum.
I think you're missing the point a little bit. He didn't agree with my definition of an assualt rifle per se (though he probably would, were I to put one out there), nor was he ever confused as to what HE thought an assault rifle was. He wasn't looking to be educated.
What he did was agree with my interpretation of the thread and the point that he was driving at. In the end, a few people on this forum (those that posted in this tread, at least) were able to define an assault rifle vis-a-vis what kind of firearm they'd like to ban. Point conceded. However, my point (and his, I think) was that many people outside of this forum who might otherwise support a "ban on assualt rifles" might be surprised by how the largely left-leaning viewpoint on AMT have defined that for them.
So I'm assuming that as we all now have a description the OP has deemed acceptable we can chalk this thread down as cooked?
For the record, you asked for a definition, of which you got many and you dismissed all but the one you agreed with. I think that kind of sums you and some others up quite eloquently.
Oh to live in such a vacuum.
I think you're missing the point a little bit. He didn't agree with my definition of an assualt rifle per se (though he probably would, were I to put one out there), nor was he ever confused as to what HE thought an assault rifle was. He wasn't looking to be educated.
What he did was agree with my interpretation of the thread and the point that he was driving at. In the end, a few people on this forum (those that posted in this tread, at least) were able to define an assault rifle vis-a-vis what kind of firearm they'd like to ban. Point conceded. However, my point (and his, I think) was that many people outside of this forum who might otherwise support a "ban on assualt rifles" might be surprised by how the largely left-leaning viewpoint on AMT have defined that for them.
But ultimately... it really doesn't matter what people think an assault rifle is. The point the OP was trying to make and the one you were trying to promote means little. I think it's fair to say that most people have a pretty good idea on what an assault rifle is- even if they are not allowed to use wikipedia to define it for them.
With this said, Moto... sincere credit should be given to you for what I consider doing the best job in this forum of defending the position on the gun issue which is most difficult to defend. Despite not being in agreement, your arguments contain elements of logic and more often than not, at least make me pause and reflect for a moment.
I have to say though that I do not 'refelct' for very long: this issue is a slam dunk in my mind; but again, I respect your efforts.
But ultimately... it really doesn't matter what people think an assault rifle is. The point the OP was trying to make and the one you were trying to promote means little. I think it's fair to say that most people have a pretty good idea on what an assault rifle is- even if they are not allowed to use wikipedia to define it for them.
You may be right that it's not entirely germaine the voluminous debates we're having on the topic here on the AMT. However, it's entirely germaine to the likelihood of anything ever getting banned. In other words, in my opinion, if you folks on the AMT were to take out to the "real world" your very strict definition of what firearms should be banned vs. legal, you wouldn't get very far. Perhaps given the recent tragedy in CT, I'd be proven wrong. Solum scit deus.
With this said, Moto... sincere credit should be given to you for what I consider doing the best job in this forum of defending the position on the gun issue which is most difficult to defend. Despite not being in agreement, your arguments contain elements of logic and more often than not, at least make me pause and reflect for a moment.
Not being trite or anything, but this means a alot. We all put a decent amount of intellectual effort into this forum, so it's refereshing to know that one is at least making someone else ponder.
I have to say though that I do not 'refelct' for very long: this issue is a slam dunk in my mind; but again, I respect your efforts.
All good bud. I'm aware I'm putting up a very...conceptual...argument in defense of assualt weapons that ultimately, while logical and cohesive, isn't going to overpower most people's opinions on them, particularly after last week's horror. I get that it's just way too difficult to imagine a situation in the "West" where we would actually need to fight our gov't with force.
I think we boiled it down better, though It's pretty clear what they were going for:
- Pistol grip and threaded barrel -- so as to exclude shotguns
- Shrouded barrel for two-hand use -- so as to exclude handguns
- High cap or quick-swap mags -- for reasons we discussed here and elsewhere
I don't get the telescoping stock and bayonet mount. I suppose the telescoping stock plays into some form of concealment capability, but how is the bayonet mount any different than owning a sword or big knife?
0
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
Yeah, who cares about a bayonet? Can't have apistol grip, God forbid that is be easier to control. Can't have a barrel shroud, God forbid that you can use it without burning your hands. A telescoping stock? God forbid it actually is adjustable to fit.
Comments
The cannon would have put everyone in danger and would have not been allowed, 2nd Amendment or no.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
A citizen with a cannon could fire that cannon at whomever they wanted. The same way someone today could fire an "assault weapon" at anyone and at any time. The difference is the cannon would not have been tolerated by the very people whose words the gun lobby is twisting to keep "assault weapons" available.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Now its time to reinstate that ban.
What do you think usung, as a whole were these the answers you were expecting?
Yep.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I can stick a pen in your eye and it would be defined as assault with a weapon. I give up, you people are too dense.
Thanks motodc for having a clue.
So the only person who agreed with you is the only one who has a clue?
No, but motodc was the only one that picked up on the intent of the thread.
Ban:
High-cap mags (say, above 15 rounds)
Full-auto
High-caliber (say, .50cal or above for long-barrel)
Then we may have some common ground to work from.
You have no legs left to stand on in a debate you started so you resort to insults. Job well done my friend, you represent your pro gun side very well.
I respect your opinion (you can at least engage in a grown up conversation unlike others here) but I hope your opinion is in the minority.
IBTL...congrats on riling everyone up. Going back to MY job too...or is the concept that most ppl on here probably have a job...or is that too dense for YOU
I never called you out for not immediately responding to my reply.
You are never, and will never be too much for me, but I know when it makes more sense for me to beat my head off the wall.
3500 to 87. I'm baiting? No, I am presenting FACTS. Don't cry to me about potential in these lives lost, EVERY life lost had potential. We are bombing kids in Pakistan with drone strikes EVERY day. Do they not have potential for good? Or is it only the white kids in one of the richest counties in the world that have potential?
That's why I give up talking, because no matter what you still think it is about a piece of metal.
now its bombing kids in Pakistan...a little preoccupied with death are we?
I'm preoccupied with LIFE.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
exactly...seems like its all a fun little game to you.
For the record, you asked for a definition, of which you got many and you dismissed all but the one you agreed with. I think that kind of sums you and some others up quite eloquently.
Oh to live in such a vacuum.
We don't have to agree on everything... maybe just come to an agreement that will lessen the probabliities of another act such as this from becoming a regular routine in the life of America.
You're a smart guy... you know there is no way to end all gun violence. But, you know there is a way to make first graders safer... without standing armed guards on the property and metal bars on the doors and windows.
Just like many problems, just addressing one variable or the other.... availability and massive capabilities of weapons... or mental ilness issues, will solve nothing. We HAVE to address both issues, along with a myriad of other facets in order to finally, do something other than just doing the same thing... which, by the way, isn't helping.
Hail, Hail!!!
What he did was agree with my interpretation of the thread and the point that he was driving at. In the end, a few people on this forum (those that posted in this tread, at least) were able to define an assault rifle vis-a-vis what kind of firearm they'd like to ban. Point conceded. However, my point (and his, I think) was that many people outside of this forum who might otherwise support a "ban on assualt rifles" might be surprised by how the largely left-leaning viewpoint on AMT have defined that for them.
But ultimately... it really doesn't matter what people think an assault rifle is. The point the OP was trying to make and the one you were trying to promote means little. I think it's fair to say that most people have a pretty good idea on what an assault rifle is- even if they are not allowed to use wikipedia to define it for them.
With this said, Moto... sincere credit should be given to you for what I consider doing the best job in this forum of defending the position on the gun issue which is most difficult to defend. Despite not being in agreement, your arguments contain elements of logic and more often than not, at least make me pause and reflect for a moment.
I have to say though that I do not 'refelct' for very long: this issue is a slam dunk in my mind; but again, I respect your efforts.
Not being trite or anything, but this means a alot. We all put a decent amount of intellectual effort into this forum, so it's refereshing to know that one is at least making someone else ponder.
I think we boiled it down better, though It's pretty clear what they were going for:
- Pistol grip and threaded barrel -- so as to exclude shotguns
- Shrouded barrel for two-hand use -- so as to exclude handguns
- High cap or quick-swap mags -- for reasons we discussed here and elsewhere
I don't get the telescoping stock and bayonet mount. I suppose the telescoping stock plays into some form of concealment capability, but how is the bayonet mount any different than owning a sword or big knife?