"assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles [W:598]

[Irwin Corey]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

None of that is a compromise. It's a clear violation of Miller and Heller, though.

IF it's a "clear violation" then we can expect machine guns back on the market soon; I guess? Yes, it is a compromise from a complete ban.

 

[calamity]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Wrong. Your calculations only work with identical projectiles.
Change just the shape of the projectile and now you have another variable that is different that will yield a different result.
Every variable causes a different result. You cannot just go by weight and velocity.
A hardened piece of steel will have a different result than a soft piece of lead striking someone even though the weight and velocity are kept the same.
This should be simple for anyone to comprehend.

It just means the energy is distributed differently. Same energy, same force needed to stop it though.

 

[jwzg]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Would you rather liberals say "we don't want to take away your guns" and enact commonsense gun control, or would you rather fascists say "we didn't want to take away your guns, but we had no choice?"

Being sticklers is not helping the situation. We're going to move forward, like it or not. You have an opportunity to be a part of that progress.

We’re keeping the rifles, and you will get over it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gfm7175]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

It just means the energy is distributed differently. Same energy, same force needed to stop it though.

So basically I was right in my post from the other page... you finally got into specifics about FPS and different types of ammunition and Turtle ate you alive... you strike me as someone who is "college educated" but has zero "real world" experiences with weapons and ammo... you focus on a single factor of the overall equation because you know absolutely nothing about the other factors involved... a bb or a 22 (I don't care how many FPS it is traveling at) isn't going to have as much stopping power or cause as much trauma as bigger ammo would do... a little tiny hole isn't going to stop or cause trauma like a much bigger hole would...

I just got done shooting a giant coon with a 22lr late last night... took a body shot to get him to fall off the beam going across the side of the barn (my dad had to poke him out of where he was hiding because you can't shoot through the roof obviously).. then it took a few more body shots to get him to stop walking around. Then I got in multiple head shots from no more than 10ft away and it still took the thing like 5 minutes or so to stop breathing and wiggling around...

 

[Rucker61]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Banning all guns is just as extreme as not allowing any gun regulation at all. I'm somewhere in the middle.

If they tried to disarm you while serving in the militia...then you might have a point.

Actually, that's the one time you have no point. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress full power over arming the militia - if Congress says "no guns for the militia", the militia is not allowed to arm themselves with guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

IF it's a "clear violation" then we can expect machine guns back on the market soon; I guess? Yes, it is a compromise from a complete ban.

You don't seem to understand the definition of "compromise", and based on your post, you've shown exactly why we fight unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun laws.

You seem to think a complete ban is even feasible to make it part of your "compromise".

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Banning all guns is just as extreme as not allowing any gun regulation at all. I'm somewhere in the middle.

If they tried to disarm you while serving in the militia...then you might have a point.

The Democrat leadership (Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi..) are old, TD....and they don't have as much clout in the party, anymore. So, I don't see the point in getting riled up about what they have to say. It's the MSHS kids and their five million followers you should worry about because they're gunning for your precious NRA.

so you believe the Launteberg Amendment violates your statist version of the second amendment-because NG and regular army were disarmed because of retroactive application of the "yes dear" democrat nonsense

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

You don't seem to understand the definition of "compromise", and based on your post, you've shown exactly why we fight unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun laws.

You seem to think a complete ban is even feasible to make it part of your "compromise".

His entire goal is to eliminate anyone owning semi auto rifles. he pretends its not a ban but how many people would pay 2500 dollars for each rifle they own. He's never come close to explaining why criminals-already in violation of the law would step up and register these weapons since they don't face any additional prosecution for ignoring his idiotic harassing proposed laws

 

[calamity]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

His entire goal is to eliminate anyone owning semi auto rifles. he pretends its not a ban but how many people would pay 2500 dollars for each rifle they own. He's never come close to explaining why criminals-already in violation of the law would step up and register these weapons since they don't face any additional prosecution for ignoring his idiotic harassing proposed laws

Speaking of: You've never come close to explaining why so many criminals--especially young teens---have such an easy time getting guns.

Hint: it's probably because of the gun policies you and the NRA's ho-dog politicians support. In other words, you all enable them to have access to those guns.

 

[SirGareth]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Semi auto means 21st century. Banning semi auto is banning modern guns. It would mean going back to ancient ways and customs.

Jousting poles?

 

[Irwin Corey]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

You don't seem to understand the definition of "compromise", and based on your post, you've shown exactly why we fight unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun laws.

You seem to think a complete ban is even feasible to make it part of your "compromise".

The FFA of 34 does BAN guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

The FFA of 34 does BAN guns.

No, it doesn't. Everything in NFA 1934 can still be purchased and owned. If you think NFA is an example of a compromise then you aren't familiar with the history of the Act.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

The FFA of 34 does BAN guns.

Whoops; that should be does NOT ban guns.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

No, it doesn't. Everything in NFA 1934 can still be purchased and owned. If you think NFA is an example of a compromise then you aren't familiar with the history of the Act.

Yep, still not awake. sry.

So what made you say

You seem to think a complete ban is even feasible to make it part of your "compromise".

???

I'm not for banning guns. Strictly regulating SOME OF them, yes, specifically box magazine semi-auto rifles, but not banning them.

 

[jet57]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

None of that is a compromise. It's a clear violation of Miller and Heller, though.

How is that a complete violation? Miller was about sawed off shotguns and Heller was about pistols.

 

[Moot]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Actually, that's the one time you have no point. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress full power over arming the militia - if Congress says "no guns for the militia", the militia is not allowed to arm themselves with guns.

Ok...but what about that pesky little clause...."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Who said I didn't understand it? Do you think the founders wanted their new Constitutional government forcibly overthrown? The real absurdity is that you probably do.

Yes they did. They were very much aware that any government can become corrupt and need to be forcibly done away with. They had just done that themselves. They discussed the fact that any government can become corrupt and did everything they could think of to stop it. Unfortunately they did not conceive that our government would be one day run by 2 parties that are funded and owned by a very small percent of the richest people in this country. They said this country would not fall to a foreign power but be destroyed from within. It appears not only were they right about how our country would go down the drain but the fact that we one day will have to forcibly take back our government.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

It just means the energy is distributed differently. Same energy, same force needed to stop it though.

You are starting to figure it out. Great.

That is why a small round travelling at high speed may have more kinetic energy than a 45 but very little of that energy is delivered to a person if it travels right on through and goes 2 miles down the road. The 45 will most likely not go through delivering all its kinetic energy to the person. That is why a small high speed projectile may not have the same stopping power as a larger slower moving projectile even though they have same kinetic energy. There are much more than 2 variables in determining how much damage a bullet will do to a person. The variables are almost infinite.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Ok...but what about that pesky little clause...."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ?

That's what the GCAs ignore. Congress can totally regulate the militia's guns. They are not empowered to restrict the right of the People, ie, individual citizens.

 

[Moot]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Yes they did. They were very much aware that any government can become corrupt and need to be forcibly done away with. They had just done that themselves. They discussed the fact that any government can become corrupt and did everything they could think of to stop it. Unfortunately they did not conceive that our government would be one day run by 2 parties that are funded and owned by a very small percent of the richest people in this country. They said this country would not fall to a foreign power but be destroyed from within. It appears not only were they right about how our country would go down the drain but the fact that we one day will have to forcibly take back our government.

Ok...but I think you may be talking about the 'right to revolution'....which is a collective right, not an individual right. So where does the Constitution guarantee the 'right to revolution?'

There were two parties when G. Washington was elected... Hamilton's Federalist party vs Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

 

[Moot]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

That's what the GCAs ignore. Congress can totally regulate the militia's guns. They are not empowered to restrict the right of the People, ie, individual citizens.

Yes, because the individual right to bear arms predates the Constitution and is enshrined and protected in state law and thats why the founders saw no need to debate it at the national level.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Yes they did. They were very much aware that any government can become corrupt and need to be forcibly done away with. They had just done that themselves. They discussed the fact that any government can become corrupt and did everything they could think of to stop it. Unfortunately they did not conceive that our government would be one day run by 2 parties that are funded and owned by a very small percent of the richest people in this country. They said this country would not fall to a foreign power but be destroyed from within. It appears not only were they right about how our country would go down the drain but the fact that we one day will have to forcibly take back our government.

No they didn't. Without a standing army, they needed a militia to resist an alien enemy, not themselves. In order to supply enough troops to form a militia, the population had to be armed and trained.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Ok...but I think you may be talking about the 'right to revolution'....which is a collective right, not an individual right. So where does the Constitution guarantee the 'right to revolution?'

There were two parties when G. Washington was elected... Hamilton's Federalist party vs Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

Every revolution started with 1 person and spread. So everyone has the right.

True, but they were not owned by the same people. Most of are largest banks donate to both parties almost 50/50. Their is only one logical reason to fund both parties. That is so no matter who we vote for they own the winner. Neither party will turn down their money and neither party will vote against what they want.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

No they didn't. Without a standing army, they needed a militia to resist an alien enemy, not themselves. In order to supply enough troops to form a militia, the population had to be armed and trained.

The population was already armed and most were expert in the use of their firearms. They were not fighting an alien enemy they were British people on land granted to them by the British government. They had revolted against the government that was in place at the time and formed their own government. We were a British colony and British subjects.

 

[Moot]

Re: "assault weapon" vs Semi auto rifles

Every revolution started with 1 person and spread. So everyone has the right.

True, but they were no owned by the same people. Most of are largest banks donate to both parties almost 50/50. Their is only one logical reason to fund both parties. That is so no matter who we vote for they own the winner. Neither party will turn down their money and neither party will vote against what they want.

A revolution is usually caused by exploitation, famine, economic or political decline of the collective, not just one individual. One individual alone isn't going to cause or make a revolution. For that, you need a collective of people.


I think you missed the point...the founders had a two or more party system which negates your claim they didn't want or have one.