What's an "assault weapon"?

Kat

Enough of the bickering.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

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.

unsung

How would a cannon put everyone in danger? Does it load itself, aim, and ignite all alone?

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio

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?

JimmyV

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Now its time to reinstate that ban.

Yep.

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

unsung wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio

unsung wrote:

Thanks motodc for having a clue.

So the only person who agreed with you is the only one who has a clue?

unsung

JonnyPistachio wrote:

unsung wrote:

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.

MotoDC

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

dignin

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

unsung wrote:

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.

dignin

MotoDC wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

pjradio

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

unsung

pjradio wrote:

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.

pjradio

unsung wrote:

pjradio wrote:

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?

unsung

pjradio wrote:

unsung wrote:

pjradio wrote:

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?

I'm preoccupied with LIFE.

JimmyV

Guy can't see the difference between a musket and a cannon but everyone else is too dense.

pjradio

unsung wrote:

I'm preoccupied with LIFE.

exactly...seems like its all a fun little game to you.

Moonpig

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.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

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.