The Truth about "Assault Weapons"

The Truth about "Assault Weapons"
(youtube.com)



A police officer explains the differences between a fully-automatic "assault" rifle, a common semi-automatic rifle, and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. He explains how the media usually get's it wrong when reporting on tragedies involving mass-shootings by indiscriminately throwing around the term "assault rifle".

For reference sake, when the officer refers to "Stockton CA" early in the video he is referring to a mass-shooting that occurred at an elementary school in 1989 where a lone assailant opened fire with an AK variant, wounding dozens and killing several children.

No matter what side of the gun debate you are on, this is an educational video that will at least ensure you use the correct terminology, and avoid over-sensationalizing tragedies that gain national media attention.


ETA: video link fixed, thanks RS

I can't see the video, I think maybe it is linked wrong or perhaps gone.

Looks like something I'd love to see though, good luck with a fix.

What's the point of even banning semi-auto? You can still kill things just as easily if you had a pistol.....right? I don't really know much about guns myself.

Do they hold more bullets or something?

Fully automatic guns like machine guns shouldn't be legal, what does one need a machine gun for? The only purpose is mass murder/destruction

It should be self evident:
1) military "assault rifle": fully automatic (shoots as many rounds as available with one trigger pull) or select fire (limited to 2 or 3 rounds per pull).
2) civilial (military styled) "assault rifle": semi-automatic (one shot/round per trigger pull)
3) hunting rifle:
a) semi-automatic (magazine fed as #2 above but usually more ltd capacity & non-military styling)
b) bolt-action (requires manual bolt action to eject and rechamber a round).

The fervor over "assault weapons" these days, IMO, really comes down to the issue of caliber and power. Every rifle that seems to end up being criticized happens to have the capacity for overcoming body armor protection.

In my eyes this is the real argument that they're hiding behind the term "assault weapon". They just don't want to be up-front about it.

~Heff

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


"self-evident", yes, but not always to the MSM. I too slip into calling some AR's "assault" rifles and have to remind myself of the distinction.

reply to post by Hefficide

Calibre capability (ballistic power), speed of firing and capacity (all relevant) but you are right to a degree...why else would 5.7 (x28) ammo sell for more than 5.56 (x 45) if not primarily for "armor piercing" characteristics and capacity?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

The use of the term "assault rifle" is kind of like "sports car". You can have a fancy 2 door car with a low profile, sleek wheels and "racing" accessories but it is not necessarily a real "racing" (sport of) car....but it looks cool like one.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Maybe they will outlaw "sports cars" next as their appearance suggests breaking the law regarding speed limits and governments dont trust citizens to exercise judgment in that regard.

Reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Since the max speed limit in the US is 65 or 75 why are all these "assault cars" capable of going well over 100 mph?

Ban'em all I say. They serve no purpose but to speed and kill 30,000 people a year.

People want transportation then cap all cars speed and make them all blocky and utilitarian.

Think ofthe children. Won't someone please think of the children?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Yes I think you are right....the government needs to require all "sports (assault) cars" to have "governors" put in to restrict the capacity to speed. In fact, citizens cant be trusted....all cars and trucks should be "governed" (regulated).

reply to post by RealSpoke


The thing about the 2nd Amendment is that its whole reason for existing is to give the people the power to overthrow or at least resist a tyranical government. If the government restricts or prohibits the people in the type of arms they can have, especially if it is to give the government the upper hand, then to do so flies in the very face of the 2nd amendment.

reply to post by RealSpoke


All things being equal, a semi-auto will help a shooter acquire the next target faster in a multiple target scenario. Granted, the difference in time saved between a semi-auto and a bolt action for example may not be all that much in the hands of a trained shooter and the variables of the target environment.

reply to post by Wolf321


Then according to that line of thought we should be able to have nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.

reply to post by RealSpoke

Obviously when the Bill of Rights was written there was nothing more powerful than cannon in the arsenal of available weapons. Even then the restriction was on firearms that could be born by an individual. Common sense and the risk to the security of the state (beyond the ability of a civilian militia to resist and overthrow tyranny) dictates that weapons of mass destruction are not protected (too easy to be used against the people also). Remember the turning point of the Revolutionary War was the Battle of Saratoga and the turning point of the battle was when a colonial marksman (sniper) felled the redcoat general on horseback with one shot from his flintlock.

Most gang members with civilian "assault rifle" can not hit the broad side of a barn and use the spray and pray method.e

I has seen many shootings where a gang member has emptied a 30 round mag into a group of people and only hit one person.

I would rather be shot at with a assault rifle in the hands of a moron like the gang member here in calif then be shot at by a guy with a good scoped bolt action rifle.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


We can't overthrow this government with guns. They have a trained military, drones, heat seeking missiles, and everything else. Plus some gun control just makes sense, like gun age limits and felons...you would consider those against the 2nd amendment would you not?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

 

We can't overthrow this government with guns. They have a trained military, drones, heat seeking missiles, and everything else. Plus some gun control just makes sense, like gun age limits and felons...you would consider those against the 2nd amendment would you not?

I guess that all depends on where you live. If push came to shove, I like the odds of independence in my region of the US.

Oh, and of course, those laws are already on the books and enforced. Fact is, the threat isn't from lawful gunowners, but because they're lawful they're easy to pick on and demonize.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Then according to that line of thought we should be able to have nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.

This is always the first question I get when I explain the 2nd Amendment to people.

First, let me explain the uniqueness of the USA. We were established to ensure self government with the purpose of living as free people. As such, every issue with respect to law and government should be to keep its people free. In a perfect world, there would be no need for government as humanity would be completely moral, ethical, benevolent, altruistic, etc. Basically a utopia. That would be a state of anarchy. (Not to be confused with chaos.) In such a perfect world, although there would be not need for such things, nuclear weapons could be possessed by anyone. Since humanity has not progressed to that level of responsibility and morality, we require laws and such to prohibit and punish behavior or actions that are destructive towards freedom.

So, back to the question about allowing WMDs by the people if the US government posses them. As the 2nd Amendment is to prevent or deter tyranny, we assume that the nature of government is always to try to assume more power (as the founders have noted.) For the government to utilize WMDs on itself is not in its self interest of growing or maintaining power. Therefore, it can be assumed that an attack on a revolting US would not utilize WMDs in any form. This is because the use of such a weapon cannot be contained in the area of attack alone. The nature of WMDs as a weapon used by governments is towards or to prevent the use of the same by foreign forces. As such, WMDs are not a weapon that could be used against its own people. If a weapon cannot be used against its own people, there would be no need for the people to have a weapon to counter or retaliate with the same.

Any weapon that the US can and would use against its own people, should be legal for the people to posses. Guns, tanks, jets, non-lethal sound rays, drones, anything.

We can't overthrow this government with guns. They have a trained military, drones, heat seeking missiles, and everything else. Plus some gun control just makes sense, like gun age limits and felons...you would consider those against the 2nd amendment would you not?

You can't overthrow the government with guns alone. That realization should make it clear that the government regulation or prohibition of arms is not in accordance with the letter or spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

So lets consider the control you bring up. Age. Everything should be legal for an adult. There should be no differing the freedom an 18 year old has over a 21 year old. If your old enough to be considered an adult and vote, then your old enough to have all the same rights and freedoms as any other adult. Parents should not be prohibited from allowing their kids to use guns under their supervision.

Felons. There are two types of felons. Violent and Non-violent. However, I don't even need to make a distinction for my argument. The way incarceration should work, is that a person is punished for a given time related to the crime they have committed. If a person completes their incarceration, and society has deemed their debt to society paid, then a person should be completely a free. If a persons crime is something they should be punished for for life, then they should not be released and the issue of gun ownership is moot. If a person commits a felony, serves their time and is released. Should they not be able to protect their life as a freed citizen? Should we limit or prohibit other rights for felons such as voting, speech, religion etc?

ETA: As for the individual weapons, such as a gun, they serve a barrier to tyranny and less as a tool against it. Essentially, it keeps tyrannical forces from just coming to get you. The ability for a armed civilian population or militia, even with tanks, jets etc, to wage an offensive war against a tyrannical government is extremely small in scale and chance of success. The best action is to hold your position (using the same tools at the discretion of the tyrannical force) until they run out of resources or their forces turn on themselves. But to have a people who cannot even stand their ground only allows tyranny to gain a foothold and grow.

reply to post by RealSpoke

You raise an excellent point. What hope could a "well armed militia" have against the United States military? AR-15's against F-22s? The army has all sorts of "crowd control" weapons at it's disposal as well. I think the days of any militia, no matter how well armed it thinks it is, of resisting a tyrannical US government with it's $700 billion annual "defense" budget have been left in the past.



reply to post by Wolf321

Just 2 points to make:

1. To the founding fathers, a firearm was a single shot flintlock musket. One person, armed with a musket, could never wipe out a crowd of people in an enclosed space.

2. The "well-armed militia" and "right to bare arms" - one of the biggest reasons this was included in the constitution was the inability of the Continental Congress to pay for a standing, professional army. They had to rely on a volunteer militia that could be called up in a moment's notice, where each citizen militia member could provide his own firearm. It saved the early post-revolutionary war government a ton of money while keeping us somewhat prepared for potential invasions by Europe's professional armies. It also needed to be included because America at that type was largely a fledgling pioneer nation, most of the continent was still wilderness under foreign powers or in the hands of hostile (from their point of view) indigenous peoples. No one was taking a right to bare a firearm away from a settler.

That said, to me the type of modern firearm most in keeping to the founding father's interpretation of a firearm is a single-shot rifle. But things have changed drastically since the revolutionary war, and the writing of the constitution. Back then, the most basic component of an army was a single soldier armed with a musket. To make an army, you just needed a bunch of them. Put some of them on horses and you had a Calvary. For extra firepower add some cannons. You now have an army that can take on your own tyrannical government or defend against invasion. But today, a single soldier with a firearm is not a basic component of an army. No matter HOW many of them you have, they'll never take on any government. Just look at the "militias" in Syria, getting slaughtered. What level of firepower would our own militias need to take on the US government? Even cannons would be a joke. We would literally need RPGs, Tanks, Apache attack helicopters, SAMs, and a whole lot more. A militia armed with AR15s going up an US Army unit in full-fledged combat? No contest.

That just illustrates the constitution is out of date. They couldn't possibly have known that a single individual armed with a high-powered "firearm" could slaughter dozens in a single instant, any more than they could imagine a time when a "well-armed militia" would be so hopelessly outmatched by our standing army (or that we would even have a standing army).

The constitution is needing another update to match reality.