• 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 is an assault rifle?

What is an assault rifle?

  • Any semi-automatic rifle (fires one shot every time the trigger is pulled)

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • A semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the features in the Brady bill.(see OP post)

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • A rifle that will keep firing bullets as long as you hold down the trigger.

    Votes: 36 64.3%

  • A rifle that will fire 3 bullet every time you squeeze the trigger.

    Votes: 20 35.7%

  • I do not know.

    Votes: 11 19.6%
  • Total voters
    56
Catawba said:
We were discussing the federal ban.
Click to expand...

well given your beloved leaders have said everything is on the table and given many of the massacres have involved pistols I doubt you have the psychic capability to know exactly what the disgusting gun banning politicians are up to
 
TurtleDude said:
they were new unused in the wrapper. and I know for a fact that some magazines made overseas while the ban was in place came into this country and were sold in the course of trade. Silly law, many people ignored it

I am willing to bet that it won't be. I am willing to bet people like DIFI wouldn't be around very long if the police go door to door trying to seize stuff people have owned for years
Click to expand...


By new, I meant manufactured in the US after the 94 ban.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given your beloved leaders have said everything is on the table and given many of the massacres have involved pistols I doubt you have the psychic capability to know exactly what the disgusting gun banning politicians are up to
Click to expand...

No one does, we won't know until Biden's group completes their study and it passes the legislative hurdles.
 
Catawba said:
By new, I meant manufactured in the US after the 94 ban.
Click to expand...

Don't know, they didn't have such a date on them

I do know you could buy "replacement tubes" for normal capacity (17 round for STI 40 caliber IPSC Limited guns) if your magazine "broke" and with those you could make new magazines. It was not uncommon among the practical pistol crowd, and since there are no serial numbers on those things its impossible to stop and frankly police and bureaucrats did not want to mess with a public outrage if someone was prosecuted for that when their intent was target shooting.
 
Thrilla said:
lots of manufacturers had ban compliant AR and AK variants...
Click to expand...

bought several, ARSENAL 106s, several bushmaster ARs one DSA FN FAL

most of them now look like stuff being sold currently. The one that had one of those silly pinned telescoping stocks got a good magpul stock on it-the pinned monstrosity went into the trash
 
Thrilla said:
lots of manufacturers had ban compliant AR and AK variants...
Click to expand...

As long as they met certain criteria, including:

"'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.


During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban."

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[h=2][edit][/h]
 
Catawba said:
As long as they met certain criteria, including:

"'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.


During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban."

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[h=2][edit][/h]
Click to expand...

good thing you are here to cite information that I already knew.

my AR variant has no flash suppressor or bayonet lug... and it had a lil shorty mag...I had 25 or 30 30rnd mags at home just waitin' on a rifle
the flash suppressor and bayonet lug are things I didn't care about.... they don't matter.
the rifle functioned perfectly.. just like the banned models.
 
Thrilla said:
good thing you are here to cite information that I already knew.

my AR variant has no flash suppressor or bayonet lug... and it had a lil shorty mag...I had 25 or 30 30rnd mags at home just waitin' on a rifle
the flash suppressor and bayonet lug are things I didn't care about.... they don't matter.
the rifle functioned perfectly.. just like the banned models.
Click to expand...

did you see DIFI have a cow over that--a few years into the ban someone pointed out that colt et al were selling the same rifles sans the cosmetics and she whined they were NOT COMPLYING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. and someone pointed out that they told her the law was stupid and had no merit and of course they were going to keep selling stuff

what a silly self important turd she is
 
TurtleDude said:
bought several, ARSENAL 106s, several bushmaster ARs one DSA FN FAL

most of them now look like stuff being sold currently. The one that had one of those silly pinned telescoping stocks got a good magpul stock on it-the pinned monstrosity went into the trash
Click to expand...

I had the bushmaster XM15-AR2...twas a fine rifle.
I dressed it out over the years, and gave it to my son when he graduated Marine boot camp... along with my old Hummer
 
TurtleDude said:
did you see DIFI have a cow over that--a few years into the ban someone pointed out that colt et al were selling the same rifles sans the cosmetics and she whined they were NOT COMPLYING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. and someone pointed out that they told her the law was stupid and had no merit and of course they were going to keep selling stuff

what a silly self important turd she is
Click to expand...
she's like 99% of gun grabbers... a dolt... and totally befuddled when their bull**** doesn't work out the way it did in their dreams.

the AWB ban that was ready to go in 2009 ( never introduced though) addressed alot of that stuff that was easily bypassed in the first ban.... as well as giving the AG wide discretion to ban any firearm that is in use by the military or law enforcement ( can you imagine what Holder would do with that power?.. sheesh)

I hope that's the one the doltess introduces....
 
TurtleDude said:
did you see DIFI have a cow over that--a few years into the ban someone pointed out that colt et al were selling the same rifles sans the cosmetics and she whined they were NOT COMPLYING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. and someone pointed out that they told her the law was stupid and had no merit and of course they were going to keep selling stuff

what a silly self important turd she is
Click to expand...
"Not complying with the spirit of the law" huh? That's rich coming from that little crook who has no problem not complying with the law of the land(Shall not be infringed) or even complying with laws prohibiting fraud and malfeasance(her husbands defense deals with no benefit to the military). I swear that C-word needs to be involuntarily committed.
 
Catawba said:
And your point is? No one has proposed banning handguns. Apples do not equal oranges.
Click to expand...

Many hand guns meet the criteria under the brady bill as a so called assault weapon.Besides that DC vs Heller reaffirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right not a collective right.
 
jamesrage said:
What is an assault rifle?

Any semi-automatic rifle(fires one shot every time the trigger is pulled)
A semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the features in the Brady bill.
A rifle that will keep firing bullets as long as you hold down the trigger.
A rifle that will fire 3 bullet every time you squeeze the trigger.
I do not know.

Semi-automatic rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A semi-automatic rifle is a type of rifle that fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled, automatically ejects the spent cartridge, chambers a fresh cartridge from its magazine, and is immediately ready to fire another shot.

Automatic rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An automatic rifle is a type of magazine-fed rifle that uses either its recoil or a portion of the gas propelling the projectile to operate its action. And, to remove the spent cartridge case, **** the rifle, load a new cartridge and fire again repeatedly, as long as the trigger is held down or until the magazine is exhausted.

Assault weapon defined by the 1994 assault weapons ban.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

-Folding or telescoping stock
View attachment 67139437


-Pistol grip

View attachment 67139432

-Bayonet mount
View attachment 67139433


-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
View attachment 67139435

-Grenade launcher(more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
View attachment 67139436
Click to expand...

What strange objects are these! We are so ill informed when it comes to these that you call "A salt weapons." Our salt weapons are smaller and we use them for dinner to make foods more salty.
 
jamesrage said:
Many hand guns meet the criteria under the brady bill as a so called assault weapon.Besides that DC vs Heller reaffirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right not a collective right.
Click to expand...

If those were the only type of handguns available, then you could make the argument that people's "rights" to handguns were being infringed.

As Conservative Justice Scalia noted in that decision: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
 
Catawba said:
If those were the only type of handguns available, then you could make the argument that people's "rights" to handguns were being infringed.

As Conservative Justice Scalia noted in that decision: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
Click to expand...

still stuck on dicta I see
 
Catawba said:
If that is your code word for the facts.
Click to expand...

you merely demonstrate you don't understand much about supreme court rulings

and that is a fact

registration was not an issue before the USSC

in the LOPEZ decision the USSC struck down a guns near schools law based on the tenth amendment and because the nexus with "interstate commerce" was too thin. AJ Thomas noted that if the appeal had been brought under the second amendment the law may well have been stricken on that grounds as well

BUT SINCE IT WAS NOT, that too was DICTA
 
TurtleDude said:
you merely demonstrate you don't understand much about supreme court rulings

and that is a fact

registration was not an issue before the USSC

in the LOPEZ decision the USSC struck down a guns near schools law based on the tenth amendment and because the nexus with "interstate commerce" was too thin. AJ Thomas noted that if the appeal had been brought under the second amendment the law may well have been stricken on that grounds as well

BUT SINCE IT WAS NOT, that too was DICTA
Click to expand...



That has absolutely nothing to do with the post I responded to, or my comments.
 
Catawba said:
...As Conservative Justice Scalia noted in that decision: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
Click to expand...

I believe you (and your link) took Scalia's comments out of context. The full text (references omitted for brevity):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues....Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Click to expand...
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Considering his opinion in the totality of this portion his 'unlimited' reference was in regards to felons, mentally ill, sensitive places (schools, etc.). His opinion contains NO reference as to the type weapon ('arm'), especially assault rifle, as it relates to the second amendment.


...try again.
 
Catawba said:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the post I responded to, or my comments.
Click to expand...

you are not being truthful

you are trying to suggest that bans on commonly owned semi auto rifles (more than a million of which were distributed to citizens through the DEPT of civilian marksmanship before it became a private enterprise) would be upheld by the Heller court
 
Dickieboy said:
I believe you (and your link) took Scalia's comments out of context. The full text (references omitted for brevity):


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Considering his opinion in the totality of this portion his 'unlimited' reference was in regards to felons, mentally ill, sensitive places (schools, etc.). His opinion contains NO reference as to the type weapon ('arm'), especially assault rifle, as it relates to the second amendment.


...try again.
Click to expand...

Nope, you have referenced some other quote. Here is Scalia's quote that I referenced word for word, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
 
TurtleDude said:
you are not being truthful

you are trying to suggest that bans on commonly owned semi auto rifles (more than a million of which were distributed to citizens through the DEPT of civilian marksmanship before it became a private enterprise) would be upheld by the Heller court
Click to expand...

I am suggesting no such thing, I am merely quoting what Scalia's opinion was, that he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment applies to "any weapon whatsoever".
 
Catawba said:
Nope, you have referenced some other quote. Here is Scalia's quote that I referenced word for word, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
Click to expand...

Did you not read the first sentance that I quoted from the opinion? Or maybe you can find the portion that you referenced specifically as I provided the link...or you could merely stand by your current 'no it's not' position. I found this section quite relevent to the thread:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Click to expand...

Given the current debate about 'assault weapons' the SCOTUS seems to have affirmed the 'militias' right to 'possess at home' weapons 'to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large'...of course you can interpret it as you will...
 
Dickieboy said:
Did you not read the first sentance that I quoted from the opinion?
Click to expand...


Yes, I read your sentence which did not match the quote I referenced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom