• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons?

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What do people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons?Do they mean just want to ban those semi-automatic firearms with the "scary" cosmetic features and not all other semi-automatic firearms that fire the same size rounds? Or do they mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms? I say they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. One only has to watch this clip of the Democrat primary debate from Saturday to see that it's true.


fast forward to 1 minute.

This is basically what the moderator asks Martin O'Malley.
Martha Raddatz:You talk about assault weapons.Even if you were to ban the purchase of assault weapons tomorrow. Americans own a estimated 7-10 million semi-automatic rifles. Would you make it illegal to own those weapon,force people to turn them in and if not how would banning the sales make a difference?
 
Assault Weapon == anything that is a "bad scary looking gun."

That is all you need to know about politics and guns.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Assault Weapon == anything that is a "bad scary looking gun."

That is all you need to know about politics and guns.
Click to expand...

Usually (historically?) such "scary" features were grouped (and a gun was "banned" only if it had "too many" of them) but, as of late, they stand virtually alone like any semi-automatic gun with a "large" capacity magazine. Once any law defining what makes a gun "too scary" is allowed to stand it is then simply a matter of tweaking that precedent just a bit more to get us down to only seven foot long, blaze orange, single shot, smooth bore muskets (with an exception only for government security personnel).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Usually (historically?) such "scary" features were grouped (and a gun was "banned" only if it had "too many" of them) but, as of late, they stand virtually alone like any semi-automatic gun with a "large" capacity magazine. Once any law defining what makes a gun "too scary" is allowed to stand it is then simply a matter of tweaking that precedent just a bit more to get us down to only seven foot long, blaze orange, single shot, smooth bore muskets (with an exception only for government security personnel).
Click to expand...

One of the things the OP video reveals well is the disconnect, in many ways, on this subject within the party. The candidates on the stage have varying interpretations on gun control, what would "work," when they were for it and against it, and why.

Our issue is always the same, all gun control means in today's context is continued chip-away at the 2nd Amendment in some manner. "Assault weapons" ends up an open ended interpretation, and even today we talk about certain handguns that qualify as assault due to the number of rounds in a clip. If you define weapons a civilian can own vs. what is military intended you end up with a slide rule on not just the gun itself, but attachments and even "intention."

We are already seeing that debate. Once we put standards on this using those words, it becomes difficult to undo. Especially once we realize all we did was empower criminal enterprise.
 
jamesrage said:
What do people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons?Do they mean just want to ban those semi-automatic firearms with the "scary" cosmetic features and not all other semi-automatic firearms that fire the same size rounds? Or do they mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms? I say they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. One only has to watch this clip of the Democrat primary debate from Saturday to see that it's true.


fast forward to 1 minute.
[viBXc[/video]
This is basically what the moderator asks Martin O'Malley.
Martha Raddatz:You talk about assault weapons.Even if you were to ban the purchase of assault weapons tomorrow. Americans own a estimated 7-10 million semi-automatic rifles. Would you make it illegal to own those weapon,force people to turn them in and if not how would banning the sales make a difference?
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate, they want to ban weapons which have a greater ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities (assault). As opposed to defensive or hunting weapons.
 
jonny5 said:
Playing devils advocate, they want to ban weapons which have a greater ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities (assault). As opposed to defensive or hunting weapons.
Click to expand...

The natural counter to that argument is no where in the debate are we talking about the will of the one wanting to inflict such damage. Or, demand for a product even if made illegal. In this nation perhaps kick-starting the next criminal enterprise only rivaled by the illegal drug trade.
 
jonny5 said:
Playing devils advocate, they want to ban weapons which have a greater ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities (assault). As opposed to defensive or hunting weapons.
Click to expand...

Then why not actually ban them?

These not really a ban (infringement?) laws include "grandfather" clauses - why is that?

If these guns have no defensive purposes then why are they used by the DOD, DHS and state/local LEOs?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why not actually ban them?

These not really a ban (infringement?) laws include "grandfather" clauses - why is that?

If these guns have no defensive purposes then why are they used by the DOD, DHS and state/local LEOs?
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Democrats dont trust the people. They dont think in terms of citizens one day having to defend themselves from tyranical govt. Or maybe they dont want to to be able to.
 
jamesrage said:
What do people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons?Do they mean just want to ban those semi-automatic firearms with the "scary" cosmetic features and not all other semi-automatic firearms that fire the same size rounds? Or do they mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms? I say they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. One only has to watch this clip of the Democrat primary debate from Saturday to see that it's true.


fast forward to 1 minute.

This is basically what the moderator asks Martin O'Malley.
Martha Raddatz:You talk about assault weapons.Even if you were to ban the purchase of assault weapons tomorrow. Americans own a estimated 7-10 million semi-automatic rifles. Would you make it illegal to own those weapon,force people to turn them in and if not how would banning the sales make a difference?
Click to expand...


they ultimately want to disarm the American Public

for years the Banite movement wanted to ban handguns for the following reasons

1) easy to conceal

2) used in the majority of criminal incidents where a firearm was utilized

3) "not accurate"

4) "not suitable for hunting"

5) often cheap

6) not a "military weapon"

when that jihad failed, the Banite movement's odious Josh Sugarmann realized that the Banites had to shift their attack
so using the popularity of ultraviolent movies like RAMBO, DELTA FORCE, SCARFACE that all featured massive deaths inflicted with machine guns, this turd of the Vile Propaganda Center told the media to confuse the public about what is a machine gun while calling semi auto rifles "assault weapons" trying to smear such firearms with the concept of CRIMINAL assault

so lets see what the Banites tried to ban

1) expensive

2) hard to conceal

3) usually very accurate

4) often useful for hunting

5) almost never used in criminal attacks

6) many had a military pedigree and some like the MI carbine had been used by the millions by our military


so what we see is the Banites want to ban

1) concealable and non concealable firearms

2) expensive and Cheap Firearms

3) Firearms useful for hunting and "not useful" for hunting

4) firearms that have a high incidence of criminal misuse and firearms that have almost no such history

5) weapons that have obvious military use and those allegedly that do not

Oh and the same Sugarmann's VPC tried to ban "sniper rifles which are bolt action highly accurate, scoped hunting rifles


so if you look at the parameters the Banite movement has established for what guns should be banned, its basically EVERY type of Firearm
 
Last edited:
Those turds aren't even honest about weapons. Bernie was in office when actual automatics were banned out of spite by scumbags Hughes and Rangel. Most of the weapons the moron from Maryland wants to ban are not "combat assault weapons" the only "combat assault weapons" that the USA has issued are the MI carbines with the paratrooper stock. (though some laws define the MI Garand as an assault weapon) other examples would be the Semi auto only FN FAL and the FN 49 ( I doubt the Moron from Maryland is able to even comprehend this matter)
 
jonny5 said:
Playing devils advocate, they want to ban weapons which have a greater ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities (assault). As opposed to defensive or hunting weapons.
Click to expand...
And people should respond with the following question-
How does a semi-automatic firearm that is not designated an assault weapon have a lesser ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities?As opposed to so called assault weapons.
 
jamesrage said:
And people should respond with the following question-
How does a semi-automatic firearm that is not designated an assault weapon have a lesser ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities?As opposed to so called assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Im no expert, but wouldnt a handgun on average have lower capacity, be less accurate at range, and slower velocity slugs? Why does our military use rifles instead of handguns for 'assaults', ignoring the automatic issue.

Again, devils advocate ->
 
jonny5 said:
Im no expert, but wouldnt a handgun on average have lower capacity, be less accurate at range, and slower velocity slugs? Why does our military use rifles instead of handguns for 'assaults', ignoring the automatic issue.

Again, devils advocate ->
Click to expand...

Our military also uses handguns.The Beretta M9
They make 20 round and higher capacity magazines for handguns.
A handgun is not a long range weapon while a rifle general is a long range weapon.
Under the Brady assault weapons ban many semi-automatic handguns qualify as assault weapons.
 
jamesrage said:
And people should respond with the following question-
How does a semi-automatic firearm that is not designated an assault weapon have a lesser ability to quickly inflict mass fatalities?As opposed to so called assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Oh that's silly!

everyone knows a bullet shot from a weapon with a FLASH HIDER or a folding stock will be 40% more lethal than a rifle without one and a bayonet lug means the bullet will cut far deeper into flesh!!
 
Visbek said:
Look it up.

Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

That iteration also includes a list of specific firearms.
Click to expand...

its a stupid designation by dishonest turds in office. they are trying to ban as much stuff as possible based on cosmetics that have no relevance to anything that matters. They prove they hate the second amendment and are full of contempt for the history behind it by pretending that military cosmetics make a gun less suitable for 2nd amendment coverage

once again, the second amendment is a blanket prohibition on the federal government and any asshole in office who pretends that a flash hider or a certain number of rounds allows one weapon to be banned and another not is someone who should never ever be allowed to hold any public office and should be despised for disrespecting the oath they took to the Constitution
 
jamesrage said:
What do people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons?Do they mean just want to ban those semi-automatic firearms with the "scary" cosmetic features and not all other semi-automatic firearms that fire the same size rounds? Or do they mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms? I say they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. One only has to watch this clip of the Democrat primary debate from Saturday to see that it's true.


fast forward to 1 minute.

This is basically what the moderator asks Martin O'Malley.
Martha Raddatz:You talk about assault weapons.Even if you were to ban the purchase of assault weapons tomorrow. Americans own a estimated 7-10 million semi-automatic rifles. Would you make it illegal to own those weapon,force people to turn them in and if not how would banning the sales make a difference?
Click to expand...



I see the problem... in asking the question ,you think it's possible the gun banners are coming from a position of intelligence and knowledge on subject.

it's not, and they aren't.,,, that's the long and short of it.
 
Thrilla said:
I see the problem... in asking the question ,you think it's possible the gun banners are coming from a position of intelligence and knowledge on subject.

it's not, and they aren't.,,, that's the long and short of it.
Click to expand...

The worst thing 2nd amendment proponents can do is assume that the 2nd amendment opponents are ignorant when it comes to firearms. Sure the 2nd amendment opponents wish to exploit the ignorance of the populace. It is why 2nd amendment opponents falsely label certain semiautomatic firearms as assault weapons. Its why they falsely label 20 to 30 round standard capacity magazines as high capacity magazine. It makes it easier for them to ban those firearms. During that debate they were falsely labeling those semi-automatic firearms as combat assault weapons. They can't honestly say that so called assault weapons that fire a .223 or a 7.62×39mm round are somehow more deadly than other semiautomatic firearms that fire those same rounds. A Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle doesn't become more deadlier just because you stick a bayonet lug and pistol grip on it.Nor does a AR-15 or a civilian AK-47 become less deadlier just because you take off the flash suppressor and pistol grips. The 2nd amendment opponents know this. The countries whose gun control laws they praise didn't ban civilians from owning assault weapons, they banned civilians from owning semi-automatic firearms and confiscated or did forced buybacks of those firearms.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Oh that's silly!

everyone knows a bullet shot from a weapon with a FLASH HIDER or a folding stock will be 40% more lethal than a rifle without one and a bayonet lug means the bullet will cut far deeper into flesh!!
Click to expand...

This is why 2nd amendment proponents have to assume that the 2nd amendment opponents really mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms.
 
jamesrage said:
This is why 2nd amendment proponents have to assume that the 2nd amendment opponents really mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms.
Click to expand...

of course they do. Feinswine pretty much admitted that. when the makers changed their weapons in 1995 to remove the COSMETIC features that made the weapons subject to the idiotic ban, FeinSwine whined that the makers were violating the SPIRIT of the law which was to ban all magazine fed semi auto rifles. anyone who thinks that turds like Feinswine or Obama would just stop with bans on guns with harmless features really is naive given what FeinSwine stated. anyone with a brain knows that if a gun will accept a detachable magazine, you cannot limit the amount of rounds in a magazine it will accept. we know have 50 round magazines for Glocks that were issued with 10-15-17 round magazines. AND THIS IS NOTHING NEW. LUGERS and Colt 1911s used in the early days of the air war in WWI were often fitted with extended magazines for use by aviators


350px-Luger-P08ArtilleryWDrum.jpg



19113.jpg
 
TurtleDude said:
of course they do. Feinswine pretty much admitted that. when the makers changed their weapons in 1995 to remove the COSMETIC features that made the weapons subject to the idiotic ban, FeinSwine whined that the makers were violating the SPIRIT of the law which was to ban all magazine fed semi auto rifles. anyone who thinks that turds like Feinswine or Obama would just stop with bans on guns with harmless features really is naive given what FeinSwine stated. anyone with a brain knows that if a gun will accept a detachable magazine, you cannot limit the amount of rounds in a magazine it will accept. we know have 50 round magazines for Glocks that were issued with 10-15-17 round magazines. AND THIS IS NOTHING NEW. LUGERS and Colt 1911s used in the early days of the air war in WWI were often fitted with extended magazines for use by aviators


View attachment 67194491



View attachment 67194492
Click to expand...

Here is the video to that if anyone is a 60 minutes all access subscriber.
What Assault Weapons Ban? - 60 Minutes Videos - CBS News
 
jamesrage said:
What do people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons?Do they mean just want to ban those semi-automatic firearms with the "scary" cosmetic features and not all other semi-automatic firearms that fire the same size rounds? Or do they mean they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms? I say they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. One only has to watch this clip of the Democrat primary debate from Saturday to see that it's true.


fast forward to 1 minute.

This is basically what the moderator asks Martin O'Malley.
Martha Raddatz:You talk about assault weapons.Even if you were to ban the purchase of assault weapons tomorrow. Americans own a estimated 7-10 million semi-automatic rifles. Would you make it illegal to own those weapon,force people to turn them in and if not how would banning the sales make a difference?
Click to expand...


I think they want to ban assault weapons, then semi auto weapons, then eventually everything else.

Just look at the rest of the world, gun bans and confiscation have been the norm. Of the countries outside the us that have the right to kba, I can only think of two, britain and mexico. Britain had it written in their books that protestants could own firearms, granted it was ancient and only applied to pretty much white protestant males, it was still a written right and england took that right away. Mexico has the right to arms in their constitution, but their own constitution allows the govt to regulate it, which they regulated to a single gun store in mexico city for the whole country and it is run by their army and requires army approval and a permit to buy a firearm.



Every ban has just been a chipping away point. If they banned semi autos tomorrow and someone made headlines killing with a bolt action, they would call for it to be banned too. If the next week someone sat on a skyscraper in new york with a flintlock and started sniping people, they would ban them or demand a 6 month waiting period and mandatory they lock their firearms in a smart safe with a 30 minute delay before opening.

All the while none of it would affect crime, and the people calling for those bans know it. Europe has a low crime rate now, but it had a low crime rate when most countries allowed them to have arms as well. It is a demand issue and if someone demands a firearm, someone will supply it, smuggle it, or just make one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom