White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

a reply to: forkedtongue
Well when people normally kick and scream their rights are being violated, it's normally for a need. You are very right you have the right to one, because that is the mentality.

It normally stems from a need or desire. If you have neither than why would you come to that opinion. I ask these questions cos I genuinely want to know. I try to understand but am often met with constitutional rights as a justification for these opinions.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: CellDamage420

On the left a .223 hunting rifle, on the right an AR-15 "assault" rifle. Both chambered in .223. Both fire the same round, the same number of rounds, at the same muzzle velocity, with the same ballistic characteristics. Functionally identical weapons in every way, yet under the AWB one is legal one is not. Stupidity at its utmost.

And not one gun grabber will understand your point, because the black one is a full auto machine gun meant exclusively for use on a battle field, CNN told them, and everyone knows, they wouldnt lie.

There are also some very distinct differences between the two that make them two complete different firearms. Under military standards, they are not comparable.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

You sure could! Guess what though? The reason is, its nearly the exact same round the only difference being a infinitesimal size difference in the casing. They are so close to being the same round that the gun will fire either one without modification. A slight difference in the amount of gun powder in the 5.56 round makes it a little more dangerous to fire from the .223 though and as such is not recommended because most .223 rifle chambers can't handle the minor increase in pressure. Before anyone tries to use that as an excuse though, let me remind you the .223 and 5.56 both kick like a .22lr. Pea shooters, compared to a .300 Winchester magnum, which happens to be a hunting rifle as well.

a reply to: introvert

Name those differences? I'll hold my breath while I wait.

a reply to: Edumakated
You are correct. My premise was based on a definition provided in another thread and based off the responses I was clearly wrong.

If everything you say is true, and it is merely a cosmetic affect, why is there an initiative to get rid of them. Is it for the "terror it can incite" or can they be easily modified beyond there stock capabilities. There has to be a reason no? I understand now why people are so "enraged " if this is the case but what is the justification for this initiative by Obama?

Trying to undrstand...please be gentle.lol

originally posted by: introvert
I'm confused. In the other thread, which you quickly left after being exposed, you were ok with gun confiscation for Muslims and mosques, but now you get upset at the White House suggesting an assault weapons ban?

You're not very consistent.

You guys prattle on about not demonize mostly peaceful Muslims, but you demonize mostly peaceful guns owners and think nothing of it.

a reply to: hangedman13

If you fight against both does that exonerate the person in your eyes or is it a view against guns that prevents you from seeing that the issue is actually of great importance? What will it take for you to realize that setting these precedents makes the next infringement easier for those in office?

I've stated in this thread previously out right I have nothing against firearms of any kind. So to assume that I'm being blinded by a bias against guns is fallacious. Your referring to both the right to privacy and firearm ownership right? If not I'm sure you'll correct me. My problem is that Americans are too willing to allow the state to apply band aid legislations for a complex issue like gun control and mass surveillance. All sides of the debate want the state to either intervene or abstain entirely from the issue. The people should be deciding, not those big wigs in Washington.

What needs to happen is a reformation of the American political system and a redraft of the constitution so as to update it to protect responsible firearm owners and the privacy of U.S citizen's. So in short yes if the same people whom are aggressive about their political principles on the 2nd A were just as aggressive about upholding the privacy of citizen's, in a way it would show their at least consistent in their principles on the constitution. When you say 'exonerate' it are you implicating that I consider firearm owners guilty? Guilty of what exactly?

The AR style rifle was designed as a military weapon. It has a rapid fire capability, a pistol grip, and a large magazine. It owes a lot of its design to the STG-44, the world's first assault rifle.
Saying that it's not an assault rifle is silly. It is, by its very design, just that.

With 'bump fire stocks' and sliding recoil fire techniques, a semi-automatic assault rifle can fire at rates similar to a fully automatic, right? So I'm not buying the tired rhetoric about how a semi-automatic is so much different from auto.
Unless you have an AR and have never heard of this; which I doubt.

A hunting magazine did a review on the best, and worst rifles for hunting. I'll see if I can find it for the people who will attack the idea, rather than actually researching, or prefer to just argue without really thinking...
Anyway, they found that an AR style wasn't really a good rifle to hunt with. It came dead last on their list.
Aside from SonOfThor and his buddies with their Texas ranches with boars, and coyotes (although I have it on good authority that a charging boar necessitates some serious firepower, and the AR wouldn't cut it), I've got to believe that there are thousands of these assault rifles in the hands of non farmer types. I can't think of a good reason why, other than "ooh, shiny!"
As the picture above notes, a .223 hunting rifle does the same job, right?

Now we have to look at "protecting ourselves." What kind of penetration does a long rifle have in a standard stud house?
Would it penetrate walls? Would those rounds that did still have any power to them? Is a long rifle the best choice for tight spaces? Are passers by in any danger from bullets penetrating walls? Neighbors?

People keep repeating how over 100,000 guns have been sold "since Obama took office!" but not providing any data to how many were sold prior. With approx. 320,000,000 guns in the US it's likely that some of them were sold during other administrations. Amazing how statistics can work.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Sure. Whatever. I'm done in this thread since I see it was authored by you.

Better get to your safe space!

a reply to: Badgered1

That rapid fire capability you speak of, is present in EVERY semi automatic rifle made. The AR-15 IS SEMI AUTO. After market bump fire kits can indeed up that rate of fire, but are illegal in many states. As for the hunting magazines article, the AR-15 and a .223 rifle would've had the same ranking if they had directly compared the two, which they didn't I can say with almost certainty.

a reply to: Badgered1

The AR style rifle was designed as a military weapon. It has a rapid fire capability, a pistol grip, and a large magazine.

No it wasn't.

No military in the world would carry and AR.

The Ar-15 was specifically designed for the civilian market, and as such was never designed with Mil=Spec standards.

Literally they are apples to oranges.

a reply to: neo96

Well, having fired and being in contact with both for long periods of time, they are exactly the same aside from one huge difference. One has a 3 round burst, the other don't. The bolt carrier group and trigger assembly has some differences as a result but its still mostly the same. Not that it matters, even a lot of our guys in boots think the m16 is old worn out design with less than ample stopping power.

a reply to: CellDamage420

Personally speaking.

I would rather have an M4 than an AR.

a reply to: neo96

Honestly, they're made cheaper, I'd rather have the civilian versions with burst.

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
What will it take for you to realize that setting these precedents makes the next infringement easier for those in office?

This is exactly what a lot of people miss. But it's hard to blame them too much because in all fairness, the average person doesn't think like a lawyer and politicians and lawyers damn well know it. Precedent is everything when it comes to stuff like this and the average person just isn't looking that far ahead.

And more, most people are selfish. It's just that simple. There's nothing wrong with being selfish (it's normal) but people need to understand that everyone they meet is looking out for their own interests. It does not necessarily occur to someone who supports strict gun laws (and other such things) that it could come back to haunt them in 10 years when this precedent makes something they never considered possible.

It's this simple. Ordinary people are not good at predicting the future. Which is why most people are lousy gamblers and why so many people are so far in debt. And on the other side of the equation, we have people who are basically legal chess players. They plan and connive and calculate. They know what they're doing. They understand precedent. They are looking at the future and thinking about their next moves. The idiot sitting there on his couch crying over some news story just has no incentive to think about any of that.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Badgered1

The AR style rifle was designed as a military weapon. It has a rapid fire capability, a pistol grip, and a large magazine.

No it wasn't.

No military in the world would carry and AR.

The Ar-15 was specifically designed for the civilian market, and as such was never designed with Mil=Spec standards.

Literally they are apples to oranges.

Nope. You are, unfortunately, absolutely wrong. The army adopted the AR-15 as the M-16. Colt also then marketed the AR-15 to civilians. Designed by Armalite.

a reply to: forkedtongue

Because as usual is not about the criminals, radicalized terrorist or crazy loner shooters, none of those have common sense, only those law abiding citizens that respect and follow the law understand common sense.

Sadly they are the ones that will be targeted with any gun ban and gun laws.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Edumakated
You are correct. My premise was based on a definition provided in another thread and based off the responses I was clearly wrong.

If everything you say is true, and it is merely a cosmetic affect, why is there an initiative to get rid of them. Is it for the "terror it can incite" or can they be easily modified beyond there stock capabilities. There has to be a reason no? I understand now why people are so "enraged " if this is the case but what is the justification for this initiative by Obama?

Trying to undrstand...please be gentle.lol

Why is there an initiative to get rid of them? That is what we want to know!

Why is there this focus on a gun that is barely used in the commission of gun crimes? The only possible answers are 1) Ignorance and 2) other agendas.

I don't believe the progressive leadership is stupid and they have access to the same data, so I am left to believe they have some other agenda they are trying to cover up.

a reply to: Badgered1

Hmmmmm.

In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then.[16]

en.wikipedia.org...

Fast forward to the 90s/Clinton.

They began being called 'assault weapons'.

The AR-15 was specifically designed for civilian use.

Says it right there doesn't it ?

a reply to: neo96

I still think your logic doesn't state anything about why you think the 2nd amendment claims anything about states' rights.

But, regardless, I think we're on the same side in the end, so it really doesn't matter. And while I agree that all amendments work in conjunction with each other, they are numbered because each one discusses something different to make it easier to both cite and enforce.