Page 17 of 45 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 442

Thread: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

  1. #161
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,202

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Somehow I don't think that "baseball bat" gets legally classified as an assault weapon regardless of how many assaults you make with it.
    If it is used in an assault, than it is the.weapon used in an assult, typically reffered to as an assalt weapon.

    Legally speaking, a frying pan is no different than a bazooka when involved in assault.

    A weapon that assaults people, that is absurd. Weapons are just objects until used by an assailant in an assault.

    An object can't assault you. So really the only assault weapon is an assailant.

  2. #162
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,202

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    If used during an assault, how else would you classify it?
    his statements totally wrong, when entered into evidence the bat or a frying pan for the brick used in assault, were the weapons of assault. I've set on numerous court cases where they refer to object is deadly weapons or assault weapons, typically the bricks are bats couple pairs of scissors steak knives pistols fists automobiles lumber modified clubs, tools.

    calling an object that was not used in an assault, an assault weapon, is tantamount to saying the weapon is guilty of assault. totally completely absurd

  3. #163
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,963

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    If used during an assault, how else would you classify it?
    Wow and I thought that sangha's "cosmetic" semantic argument was pitiful! The legal definition of an assault weapon and the colloquial definition are probably quite different. Legally an assault weapon is still an assault weapon even if it is never used in an assault. By the definition provided by Clax and supported by you, Paul, no bullet spitting device could ever be banned unless and until it was used in an assault and then only that single device, not the line. By that same definition, as a green belt Tae Kwon Do student, having been in sparing matches, I would need to be banned since I have assaulted someone, along with them assaulting me. It may have been a consensual assault, but it was still assault!

    Edit: I was in the process of writting this when Clax made his two above post, but I'll let it stand regardless.

  4. #164
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    If used during an assault, how else would you classify it?
    I believe the term is "blunt object"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #165
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    If that is the case, then shouldn't the response be an explanation of what those features do and how they do not pose any danger to the public? Wouldn't that be more effective (and honest) than arguing the falsehood that they are purely cosmetic?
    One could argue that is precisely what the current administration is avoiding at all costs. It is far more honest, and effective, to point out that these features have become targets simply because they "look scary," because there is no other rational argument in the case for their ban. Pistol grips do not make a weapon fire faster, nor do barrel shrouds increase muzzle velocity, nor do folding stocks make a rifle fit in your pocket. They are not inherently dangerous features, but instead of criticizing the left for failing to support that argument, you instead blast away at the right for making the contra-argument. All we have left is "scary looking," and that is no basis for a system of legislation.

    Gun control has everything to do with control, and nothing to do with guns.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  6. #166
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,202

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Wow and I thought that sangha's "cosmetic" semantic argument was pitiful! The legal definition of an assault weapon and the colloquial definition are probably quite different. Legally an assault weapon is still an assault weapon even if it is never used in an assault. By the definition provided by Clax and supported by you, Paul, no bullet spitting device could ever be banned unless and until it was used in an assault and then only that single device, not the line. By that same definition, as a green belt Tae Kwon Do student, having been in sparing matches, I would need to be banned since I have assaulted someone, along with them assaulting me. It may have been a consensual assault, but it was still assault!
    assault weapons shouldn't be banned, its redundant, because Assault is banned all this focus on the weapon and its just an object not guilty of assault, or even capable of being guilty. You are not allowed to carry a modifide club (baseball bat used as an assault weapon) but you can have one, they aren't banned, no object should be banned based on its misuse.

    For the record punching someone (outside of a boxing ring) is concidered aggrivated assault, if you are a black belt, it could be assault with a deadly weapon. That is why I practice krav maga, no belts.

  7. #167
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    his statements totally wrong, when entered into evidence the bat or a frying pan for the brick used in assault, were the weapons of assault. I've set on numerous court cases where they refer to object is deadly weapons or assault weapons, typically the bricks are bats couple pairs of scissors steak knives pistols fists automobiles lumber modified clubs, tools.

    calling an object that was not used in an assault, an assault weapon, is tantamount to saying the weapon is guilty of assault. totally completely absurd




    Couldn't find any where they referred to the object as "assault weapon" or "weapon of assault"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #168
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,202

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I believe the term is "blunt object"
    If the weapon of assault is a blunt object, then the blunt object is an assault weapon.

  9. #169
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    One could argue that is precisely what the current administration is avoiding at all costs. It is far more honest, and effective, to point out that these features have become targets simply because they "look scary," because there is no other rational argument in the case for their ban. Pistol grips do not make a weapon fire faster, nor do barrel shrouds increase muzzle velocity, nor do folding stocks make a rifle fit in your pocket. They are not inherently dangerous features, but instead of criticizing the left for failing to support that argument, you instead blast away at the right for making the contra-argument. All we have left is "scary looking," and that is no basis for a system of legislation.

    Gun control has everything to do with control, and nothing to do with guns.
    I'm glad to see that you agree with me that saying that these features are "only cosmetic" is not only wrong, but an ineffetive argument to make.

    And I don't criticize the left for claiming that those features (or at least most of them) make guns more dangerous is because they do make the guns more dangerous

    Rate of fire and muzzle velocity are not the only measures of a weapons effectiveness.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #170
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,963

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    assault weapons shouldn't be banned, its redundant, because Assault is banned all this focus on the weapon and its just an object not guilty of assault, or even capable of being guilty. You are not allowed to carry a modifide club (baseball bat used as an assault weapon) but you can have one, they aren't banned, no object should be banned based on its misuse.

    For the record punching someone (outside of a boxing ring) is concidered aggrivated assault, if you are a black belt, it could be assault with a deadly weapon. That is why I practice krav maga, no belts.
    The problem with your argument is that there is a legal definition of an assault weapon that is not the same as a weapon used in an assault. Now if you want to argue that such a label is bogus and should be removed from the argument, then by all means please make that thread. But that is not what your OP is about. Or maybe more to the point, your OP wasn't what you wanted it to be.

Page 17 of 45 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •