It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illinois city bans assault weapons (any semi-auto), imposes fines up to $1,000 per day

page: 10
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I guess we must think similarly!

previous post







posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

There is NO such thing!!

I defy anyone to define "Assault Rifle"!!



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The definitions are being created in a vacuum. Despite the common sense of the misnomer of the usage, the term is widely used.

So much as to the point where towns are banning them by that name.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

AND...they are banning something they are simply unable to define!

I defy ANYONE to discretely define the term "Assault Rifle".

ANYONE!!

ETA...Consequently, any legislation citing an "Assault Rifle" is non-enforceable!~


edit on 4/5/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

AND the village in question has produced their definition in their law which I can only suppose that they are going to attempt and enforce.



In this wiki, it lists several states who have come up with their own definitions:
en.wikipedia.org...

Despite the sense of the matter, the term is being codified and IMO illegally.

If I hear one more argument that starts with common sense gun control and assault rifles, I'm going to elevate my thoughts and words into assault thoughts and words!



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: JinMI

AND...they are banning something they are simply unable to define!

I defy ANYONE to discretely define the term "Assault Rifle".

ANYONE!!

ETA...Consequently, any legislation citing an "Assault Rifle" is non-enforceable!~



Scary boom stick.




posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm offended by Will's repeated use of that assault drumstick on that poor poor cowbell.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

There's no definition there, just more BS rhetoric!

No definition at all.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Pretty much...or, you could just stop with "skeery" (to some).



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: JinMI

There's no definition there, just more BS rhetoric!

No definition at all.



www.sterlingcodifiers.com...




The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Assault Weapon:

(a) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:

(1) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;

(2) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

(3) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

(4) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

(5) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator.

(b) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition.

(c) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(1) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

(2) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

(3) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(4) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:

(1) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;

(2) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

(3) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

(4) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five (5) rounds; or

(5) An ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(f) Conversion kit, part or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

(g) Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows:

(1) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

(A) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

(B) AR-10;

(C) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

(D) AR70;

(E) Calico Liberty;

(F) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

(G) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

(H) Hi-Point Carbine;

(I) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

(J) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

(K) Saiga;

(L) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

(M) SKS with detachable magazine;

(N) SLG 95;

(O) SLR 95 or 96;

(P) Steyr AUG;

(Q) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

(R) Tavor;

(S) Thompson 1927, Thompson MI, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

(T) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

(2) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof, when not designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand:

(A) Calico M-110;

(B) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

(C) Olympic Arms OA;

(D) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

(E) Uzi.

(3) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

(A) Armscor 30 BG;

(B) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

(C) Striker 12; or

(D) Streetsweeper.

"Assault weapon" does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or satisfies the definition of "antique firearm", stated in this section, or weapons designed for Olympic target shooting events.

Detachable Magazine: Any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

Large Capacity Magazine: Any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten (10) rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten (10) rounds.

(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever action firearm.

Muzzle Brake: A device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

Muzzle Compensator: A device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement. (Ord. 0-13-24, 7-1-2013)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Surely you aren't expecting me to respond to that, right???? I mean, please, spare me. ...I could go on for hours, with each and every bullet point.

"Thumbhole stocks?" "protruding grips?" .... really?????

ETA...where is the Springfield Armory M-1A? (Perhaps one of the finest rifles ever manufactured) What about the M-1 Garand? Or, the MA-2, or M279 or even an M60?



edit on 4/5/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As I said, in spite of the misnomer of the term, it is gaining traction. In direct opposition to the 2nd amendment mind you with zero recourse from the courts.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

As my tag line says..."Fortes et Liber"!

I can say no more.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Actually, I disagree in some respects. The term may be gaining traction in "some" segments, but overall we are starting to see more and more people come out in opposition and say "NO!!"

...even age groups of the same who are protesting.

This is a good thing.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


Why do people feel the need to say such patently stupid things?

Because they do not understand what war is.

We have all grown up watching a redefinition of war through TV and movies. In the old Westerns, combat was accomplished with some sort of 'honor,' wherein the good guy and the bad guy set up a time to meet, the whole town boarded up and hid to watch, they walked out in the street, faced each other, and then drew their guns and fired. The truth is, that's Hollywood's dream... usually people were shot in the back when they weren't looking.

We saw two groups of people standing facing each other, with both leaders moving back and forth giving pep talks, then charging the enemy. War ain't like that. In war, each side is going to try and kill the other and it doesn't matter if the other side is ready or not, or even if the other side knows they are under attack or not.

War is like we saw in Irag. A group of soldiers driving down the road, thinking they are in safe territory, when something goes boom beside their vehicle and suddenly their guts are strewn all across their buddies. No warning, no honor, no time outs, no excuses. In the Revolutionary War, Britain made that same error in judgement: the "redcoats" were so named because their uniforms were bright red, specifically so the enemy wouldn't see them bleed as they fell and be emboldened. Their tactic was to form two lines across the front; the first would fire and kneel to reload their muskets while the second line would stand and fire. The Americans hid in the bushes and behind trees and simply took many out before they could form their two lines. Fire and move, reload while the enemy was trying to find where you went. That tactic worked well anywhere except an open battlefield.

In short, one does not have to fight to win, if one is more willing to win than fight.

I still remember when I was young. Almost every boy at some point decided he was bigger and badder than his Daddy, and every single one lost that fight... most badly. At the time, no one could understand how that was... we were younger and often stronger than our fathers. Why it happened was that our fathers did not want to fight to win; they wanted to win so they wouldn't have to fight. It's easier when one gets old.

But still, the belief remains that any future battles will be fought with some sort of 'rules' under a code of 'honor.' They won't. I for one am too damn old to fight; I just want to win.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I sure hope to see more folks wipe the mud from their eyes and resist whatever pit that the banning of firearms stance came from, however they aren't seeing the limelight. They aren't the focal point of the MSM.

One would think that this line:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

www.law.cornell.edu...

would hold as much weight as this one:

..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Doesn't seem, to me anyway, for much if any grey area. However, here we are.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, I generally agree, but at the strategic level war isn't really about killing the other guy, but rather wounding the other guy. Logistically, it's far more difficult from a resource perspective to deal with a wounded troop than it is to deal with a dead one (in any sort of civilized society).

Hence the 5.56mm NATO cartridge (among other reasons, weight not the least of them).

Indeed asymmetric warfare is different than conventional warfare on the offensive side, but on the defensive side the rules remain pretty similar.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Well, that 1st quote is patently WRONG!

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has EVERYTHING to do with 'collective' rights, including those of a militia. In fact, those the the very words...."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

"...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...shall NOT be infringed"





edit on 4/5/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/5/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   
AND, if there's any question about the emphasis above, I add this...

We THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That is very true; an injured warrior reduces the strength of the enemy by three for a short time, and by one for a long enough time to consider permanent. A dead warrior reduces the enemy strength by one. However, it is also more difficult to injure than to kill, so that dynamic is somewhat offset.

As for defense, no, it is not the same. Al Quaida taught us that. The new defense is stealth and deception; it's hard to attack a stronghold when no one knows where it is.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join