Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

[calamity]

The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.

Technically, a state could declare itself a gun free zone. But, I doubt it would work.

 

[Rich2018]

The M14 was a disaster of a weapon. Intended to replace everything other than a pistol or machine gun, it was a failure in almost all of them. And with a service life of only 5 years, it was the main battle rifle for the shortest amount of time in US military history. Although because they had a wood stock, they still remain in service to this day, primarily as a D&C weapon.

My last unit in the Marines had 10 of them in the armory, 7 of which they would pull from the armory for funeral details. We also used them for Color Guards for various events. With a wood varnish highly polished, they are a very sharp looking weapon.

D&C = Drill and Ceremony ?

I thought the USMC liked the M14 and still used it as a sniper rifle ?

 

[Rich2018]

Technically, a state could declare itself a gun free zone. But, I doubt it would work.

I'm not so sure it can.


When Florida recently upped the minimum age to buy a firearm, they were immediately sued by the NRA.

I'm watching with interest how the courts will rule on that one.


Dicks Sporting Goods has likewise been sued by a young man refused ...again I wonder how a court will rule.

 

[calamity]

I'm not so sure it can.


When Florida recently upped the minimum age to buy a firearm, they were immediately sued by the NRA.

I'm watching with interest how the courts will rule on that one.


Dicks Sporting Goods has likewise been sued by a young man refused ...again I wonder how a court will rule.

That's what I meant by "they could enact it, but I'm not sure it would work."

 

[Rich2018]

Now I would like a serious answer.

If I modify this to a 10 round magazine with a bullet button, is it or is it not an "Assault Rifle"?

What type of ammunition does it fire ?
Does it fire on full auto ?

An "Assault Rifle" is a selective fire fire, firing an intermediate cartridge.


Now politicians seeking to ban certain weapons, target "assault type" weapons and a lot of their criteria is cosmetic like having a pistol grip and generally resembling a military rifle in appearance.

 

[Oozlefinch]

What type of ammunition does it fire ?
Does it fire on full auto ?

An "Assault Rifle" is a selective fire fire, firing an intermediate cartridge.

Now politicians seeking to ban certain weapons, target "assault type" weapons and a lot of their criteria is cosmetic like having a pistol grip and generally resembling a military rifle in appearance.

But it does not have a pistol grip!

Were you not telling us for post after post that the defining characteristic is a pistol grip? And now you apparently think it does not matter?

And no, it does not fire on full auto.

And like ma great many firearms, the barrel can be changed so it can fire a large range of calibers. From 9mm to 7.62. Some of those fall into the "intermediate cartridge" classification, others are well outside of it.

 

[Rich2018]

OMFG...

A bit exclusive of you, why do you only include YOUR deity ?

...if an internal clip is involved the rifle being discussed is an M1 RIFLE. Whether or not someone got the number of rounds wrong is irrelevant....

Some people just don't know much about guns...you'd be surprised how people get the M1 Garand and M1 carbine mixed up as it appeared the poster in question had, reinforced by speaking of the M1 and M2 in the same breath.

...the M14 was a main battle rifle. Did it change with a bipod or auto selector? No....

The M14 was a hybrid, it was intended for it to replace the M1 Garand, the BAR and possibly the M3 sub machine gun. Yes it was a battle rifle (or intended to be) but it was also intended to be so much else (as noted above).

The concept was sound but the problem was that there were a few influential individuals in the US army who were wedded to .30" ammunition and so the USA made all of NATO use the 7.62x51mm round despite the lessons of WWII.

....and full auto weapons possessed ILLEGALLY still is cause for incarceration....

ALL weapons possessed illegally can lead to incarceration. That doesn't mean all weapons are illegal.

Why are you even arguing this - what is your point? That assault rifles are or are not illegal in the USA (as was stated).

...M16s no longer in existence no longer exist. Unless you wish to count the ghosts of M16s past....

Not true there are many video on YouTube of US citizens firing M1A1's - on full auto too

If you're saying that the US military no longer uses them/even has any then that is true/probably true. But that's not what you said. You said that on 1-2% of M16's are full auto capable.
Since 8 MILLION M16A1's were built that suggests the total production run of the M16 frame was in the order of 400 million (which would dwarf even the AK series of assault rifles...widely regarded as the most manufactured small arm ever)

If you're trying to now say that only 1-2% of M16's in existence today are full auto capable - then I would like to see the source of this claim (or was it a figure you just made up?)

...your "400 millions" is a fantasy number you came up with through ridiculous math....

The math is correct. But 400 million cannot be. So either:
The Wiki figure of 8 million M16A1's produced is wrong
Or your assertion that only 1-2% of M16's are full auto is just a number you invented.

And the INLINE STOCK decreases percieved recoil and muzzle climb. A pistol grip is used because the design does not allow for gripping the stock properly....

Yes...so...a pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the weapon in a manner that decreases recoil and muzzle climb. ie: it affords the shooter better control the weapon.

What part of this are you not getting ?

...take a look at a Thompson SMG front grip... Ever wonder why the grip finger groove are so pronounced? No, of course not.

To allow for a better grip ?

 

[Rich2018]

But it does not have a pistol grip!

Were you not telling us for post after post that the defining characteristic is a pistol grip? And now you apparently think it does not matter?

And no, it does not fire on full auto.

And like ma great many firearms, the barrel can be changed so it can fire a large range of calibers. From 9mm to 7.62. Some of those fall into the "intermediate cartridge" classification, others are well outside of it.

No, an assault rifle does not need a pistol grip, but to control full auto fire, it is advisable to include one on a design.

Hence pretty much all assault rifles have a rear pistol grip and some have a front pistol grip too - but this is not a requirement to meet the definition.


However politicians talk about "assault type" weapons and look at firearms that resemble those used by the military. Black colored rifles with pistol grips, slings and scopes are far more conspicuous to the gun control lobby.

 

[Rich2018]

That's what I meant by "they could enact it, but I'm not sure it would work."

My apologies, I mis-read your previous post.

Allow me to modify my response. I'm not sure a state can declare itself gun free either.

 

[calamity]

My apologies, I mis-read your previous post.

Allow me to modify my response. I'm not sure a state can declare itself gun free either.

It could pass the law, but it probably won't hold up.

 

[Rich2018]

It could pass the law, but it probably won't hold up.

As shown by past Supreme Court judgements.

If politicians want to control guns, they must start with the second amendment - otherwise nothing they do will be anything but a half measure.

 

[Fledermaus]

A bit exclusive of you, why do you only include YOUR deity ?



Some people just don't know much about guns...you'd be surprised how people get the M1 Garand and M1 carbine mixed up as it appeared the poster in question had, reinforced by speaking of the M1 and M2 in the same breath.



The M14 was a hybrid, it was intended for it to replace the M1 Garand, the BAR and possibly the M3 sub machine gun. Yes it was a battle rifle (or intended to be) but it was also intended to be so much else (as noted above).

The concept was sound but the problem was that there were a few influential individuals in the US army who were wedded to .30" ammunition and so the USA made all of NATO use the 7.62x51mm round despite the lessons of WWII.





ALL weapons possessed illegally can lead to incarceration. That doesn't mean all weapons are illegal.

Why are you even arguing this - what is your point? That assault rifles are or are not illegal in the USA (as was stated).




Not true there are many video on YouTube of US citizens firing M1A1's - on full auto too

If you're saying that the US military no longer uses them/even has any then that is true/probably true. But that's not what you said. You said that on 1-2% of M16's are full auto capable.
Since 8 MILLION M16A1's were built that suggests the total production run of the M16 frame was in the order of 400 million (which would dwarf even the AK series of assault rifles...widely regarded as the most manufactured small arm ever)

If you're trying to now say that only 1-2% of M16's in existence today are full auto capable - then I would like to see the source of this claim (or was it a figure you just made up?)




The math is correct. But 400 million cannot be. So either:
The Wiki figure of 8 million M16A1's produced is wrong
Or your assertion that only 1-2% of M16's are full auto is just a number you invented.



Yes...so...a pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the weapon in a manner that decreases recoil and muzzle climb. ie: it affords the shooter better control the weapon.

What part of this are you not getting ?



To allow for a better grip ?

How many M16A1 rifles are in existence? Compared to how many of the non automatic M16A2 and later models.

A hand full up YouTubes don't amount to much.

You math is flawed because 8 million was the total run of M16 rifles both automatic and later not full auto. The automatic versions long gone but for a fraction of a percentage of the total rifles in service.

The pistol grip is a pistol grip because in the case of inline stocks it is very difficult to wrap your hand around the stock.

As to the Thompson. Try again. Try logically approaching the question rather than simply responding

Did the M14 change because they added a bipod and an auto sear?

 

[Fledermaus]

D&C = Drill and Ceremony ?

I thought the USMC liked the M14 and still used it as a sniper rifle ?

They do, in small quantities. As do other services.

Exceptions to the rule appear to be your stock in trade.

 

[Fledermaus]

No, an assault rifle does not need a pistol grip, but to control full auto fire, it is advisable to include one on a design.

Hence pretty much all assault rifles have a rear pistol grip and some have a front pistol grip too - but this is not a requirement to meet the definition.


However politicians talk about "assault type" weapons and look at firearms that resemble those used by the military. Black colored rifles with pistol grips, slings and scopes are far more conspicuous to the gun control lobby.

Last time I checked the Kalishinkov series weapons are the only major assault rifle that does not have an in line stock.

Hmmmm

I wonder which has more muzzle rise.

An early AK series or a later in line stock rifle.

 

[Rich2018]

How many M16A1 rifles are in existence? Compared to how many of the non automatic M16A2 and later models.

A hand full up YouTubes don't amount to much.

You math is flawed because 8 million was the total run of M16 rifles both automatic and later not full auto. The automatic versions long gone but for a fraction of a percentage of the total rifles in service....

I'm really not sure what the goal of debating the number of remaining M16's in existence that are capable of full auto is.

However I'm quite prepared to accept that quantities of M16A1's have been destroyed. If your position is now that this number is high enough to mean that only 1-2% of M16's in existence today are capable of full auto fire, then I ask you whereby you came that figure ?

I still think that you invented it.

...the pistol grip is a pistol grip because in the case of inline stocks it is very difficult to wrap your hand around the stock...

So a pistol grip allows you to better control the weapon when firing it ?

...as to the Thompson. Try again...

Nah, I'm sticking with to afford a better grip.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never owned or even held a Thompson M1918

...did the M14 change because they added a bipod and an auto sear?

No but it was thought that the M14 with a bipod could perform the same role as the BAR did in WWII.

 

[Fledermaus]

I'm really not sure what the goal of debating the number of remaining M16's in existence that are capable of full auto is.

However I'm quite prepared to accept that quantities of M16A1's have been destroyed. If you position is now that this number is high enough to mean that only 1-2% of M16's in existence today are capable of full auto fire, then I ask you whereby you came that figure ?

I maintain that you invented it.




So a pistol grip allows you to better control the weapon when firing it ?




Nah, I'm sticking with to afford a better grip.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never owned or even held a Thompson M1918





No but it (was at least thought) that the M14 with a bipod could perform the same role as the BAR did in WWII.

Was the M14 an assault rifle?

 

[Rich2018]

Was the M14 an assault rifle?

No, it was intended to fulfill that role but as was shown, the 7.62x51mm round was too powerful.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No, an assault rifle does not need a pistol grip, but to control full auto fire, it is advisable to include one on a design.

Hence pretty much all assault rifles have a rear pistol grip and some have a front pistol grip too - but this is not a requirement to meet the definition.

So a rifle that fires semi-auto only, but has a pistol grip is not an assault rifle?

 

[Rich2018]

So a rifle that fires semi-auto only, but has a pistol grip is not an assault rifle?

No it's not.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No it's not.

OK, I can see now you are nothing but a troll. Your conflicting and changing standards, your ignoring anything that you do not feel comfortable answering because it shows you wrong, and your attacks are simply not even worth reading or responding to any more.

You spent ages screaming about how pistol grips matter, and now suddenly they do not matter at all. You keep going on about fully automatic, even though less than 1% of the weapons talked about have that capability.

That would make it an "assault type weapon" when coupled with the pistol grip.

It has a pistol grip (though it can have two pistol grips) and is magazine fed by a detachable magazine.

Only the bottom one has a pistol grip. So no, they're not the "exact" same weapon.

Because military assault rifles invariably have at least one pistol grip.

Have fun troll, I am done.

 

[SDET]

I am struggling to find any sense in this statement. You trade one tyranny for another yet still worship guns as a road to freedom from tyranny? Despite the fact that you have both guns and tyranny.

It would seem that the reality of all this " need guns to fight tyranny" crap is nothing more than the tyrants propaganda to keep americans believing they have freedom while your rulers do as they please.

That's a very interesting argument about firearm ownership just being a gimmick to create the perception of a free society. While I'm on the NRA's side when it comes to gun ownership, I see cultural Marxism advance here in the USA. Dictatorships are not empowered by a single dictator, but rather a culture that enables them. Too many people are all too happy to support repression against things that are "offensive". A free society is just not a priority for many in this day and age. Even in Communist Cuba, many confuse safety with freedom. Sure, one can walk the streets of Havana at 2 AM without worry, but try disseminating information against socialism and see how quickly you get arrested.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Dictatorships are not empowered by a single dictator, but rather a culture that enables them.

To many people are simply ignorant in this nation. They were spoon-fed information that Teachers and Colleges thought they should know, and never learned to think for themselves.

I bet if you took 100 people and asked them what a "Dictatorship" was, 98 would get it wrong. The same would happen if people were asked to define "Junta", or "Tyrant".

Today, far to many have had things like that pounded into their heads. And the definitions that was pounded in were not correct. Of course, they also tend to believe the United States is a Democracy, and that the will of the people matters most.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's a very interesting argument about firearm ownership just being a gimmick to create the perception of a free society. While I'm on the NRA's side when it comes to gun ownership, I see cultural Marxism advance here in the USA. Dictatorships are not empowered by a single dictator, but rather a culture that enables them. Too many people are all too happy to support repression against things that are "offensive". A free society is just not a priority for many in this day and age. Even in Communist Cuba, many confuse safety with freedom. Sure, one can walk the streets of Havana at 2 AM without worry, but try disseminating information against socialism and see how quickly you get arrested.

Actually that is not marxism. A single leader was the idea of lenin not marx. Marx was very much a person who believed the proletariat ruled through elected government. A shared responsibility of the people rather than one group of elite.
Lenin through bolshevism decided that one single party ruled by one man was the way to go. Marx would have favoured trotsky who was a menshevik.

I still do not see how guns come into this. As you point out it is a cultural problem best solved by changing the culture rather than just collecting guns and waiting for someone to start shooting your elected leaders.

 

[Rich2018]

OK, I can see now you are nothing but a troll. Your conflicting and changing standards, your ignoring anything that you do not feel comfortable answering because it shows you wrong, and your attacks are simply not even worth reading or responding to any more.

You spent ages screaming about how pistol grips matter, and now suddenly they do not matter at all. You keep going on about fully automatic, even though less than 1% of the weapons talked about have that capability.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - so let me explain more clearly:


There is no requirement for a rifle to have a pistol grip in order to be classified as an "assault rifle".
A military assault rifle is a rifle that fires an intermediate round, with selective fire (meaning it can fire semi or fully automatic) and has a detachable box magazine.

However the purpose of a pistol grip is to aid control of the weapon when firing, especially on full auto - hence nearly all if not all assault rifles have a pistol grip (if not two).



An "assault type" weapon that is attacked by the gun control lobby is one that resembles a military combat rifle (assault rifle) - though they are usually semi auto only as you can't have a fully auto weapon made after 1996.
But resembling military rifles they will invariable have a pistol grip and are usually black (or camo painted).
So if a semi auto rifle, firing a NATO 5.56mm round in a detachable magazine has a wood stock and no pistol grip, it may very well not be attacked by the gun control lobby as an "assault type" weapon.

 

[Rich2018]

That's a very interesting argument about firearm ownership just being a gimmick to create the perception of a free society. While I'm on the NRA's side when it comes to gun ownership, I see cultural Marxism advance here in the USA. Dictatorships are not empowered by a single dictator, but rather a culture that enables them. Too many people are all too happy to support repression against things that are "offensive". A free society is just not a priority for many in this day and age. Even in Communist Cuba, many confuse safety with freedom. Sure, one can walk the streets of Havana at 2 AM without worry, but try disseminating information against socialism and see how quickly you get arrested.

Sadly yours is a POV that is so common amongst the Republican right.

Anyone promoting gun control is labelled a Marxist, Communist...etc

Stalin took away people guns, Stalin was a communist, so if you want to restrict gun ownership in the USA, you're a Communist, Marxist. Socialist.

Do you count Germany today as a Marxist country...or France...or the UK, Ireland, Australia ?
Guess what they all control gun ownership.