|
joether -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/11/2014 11:55:23 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:
ORIGINAL: njlauren
The idea that an assault weapon is only the military full automatic mode is a matter of semantics, because among other things, military weapons can fire both semi and fully automatic modes.
1.) Uh, no. There is a HUMONGOUS legal distinction between a semi-automatic and a full-automatic weapon.
Certain exceptions not included here, an individual can NOT own, use, or have access to a military weapon that fires at a full automatic mode. Just as restricted, are military weapons that fire in a 'single', 'semi-auto', or 'burst' (2-5 round) mode.
Yes, there is a difference between 'full auto' and 'semi-auto': The first fires when the action returns, second when the trigger is pulled. Yet, given mechanical engineering skills, a skilled gunsmith could craft a semi-automatic weapon's triggering system to fire as fast as full automatic. Provided the person operating the arm's finger(s) can skillful reflex at such a rapid rate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
2.) "Among other things", just because a full-auto weapon is also capable of semi-auto operation (as well as single-shot operation, for many models), does NOT automatically* mean that the reverse is true. A semi-automatic weapon will release only one bullet per trigger pull.
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:
... the point is that a weapon that can fire a hundred rounds a minute, can hold large magazines and can have them changed rapidly, is a weapon designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, pure and simple, and by its very nature that is a military weapon, not something appropriate for civilian use.
Hm, I guess once we start creating legal frameworks based on nebulous considerations of what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate", it's hard to stop. Eh, don't worry about things that can be concretely delineated and tested, such as "is this weapon capable of fully-automatic operation? YES/NO" and "is it able to mount a grenade launcher attachment? YES/NO"... let's focus on "ZOMFG, it's big & black & looks scary, so I guess it's, like, inappropriate, or something" (which is the exact thinking behind the hare-brained NY SAFE law, among other things).
If you need more than ten rounds to kill one person....thirty is not going to help you. I would suggest a VERY good firearm instructor and many hours of practice!
An yes, a legal definition of arms can be created into law. The 2nd amendment is not a Bible Quote. Its a law. One that I think has been taken well out of context and abused for far to long. And that we are now experiencing the full on rush of that foolish decision making from years past in the last several years. An we'll experience more of it as time marches onward!
Likewise, your being insulting and behaving like a child. We should be intelligent and educated by now, given history, of allowing physical adult individuals with mental/emotional limits of children....ARMS.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:
I have no problems with a semi automatic rifle being sold that is basically the same thing as the military model, all I want to see is the firing rate, magazine capacity and reload ability made so that it reduces the ability to kill as many people as they can.
Military models are hell of a lot more destructive than anything commercially available, so this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe what she means is the following (best guesses here....):
A ) The manufacture as well as customized work (by the owner or through a machine shop cantering to arms) can not allow said weapon to fire more than 'X' rate of ammunition at 'Y' speed. What 'X' and 'Y' are defined as, I have no idea.
B ) It has been observed that when one is reloading a weapon, its most often due to no ammunition is left in the weapon. Logically speaking, that's the point people reload, right? When someone is reloading, they are not sending rounds 'down range'. So the 'theory' from what I call 'Concern Citizens' and more so 'Gun Controllers', is that the shooter will spend more time reloading then shooting; thus giving potential victims 'moments of opportunity' to resist or flee. Its a pretty brave thing to charge down someone with a firearm in the mist of reloading to wrestle they or the weapon down.
C ) We all understanding that the destructive capability of firearms is one of the reasons why this discussion has raged so long in the American political universe. Since the Military will use any weapon it feels will accomplish a task. Therefore, any weapon could be defined a 'military weapon'. Given that reality, lawmakers have passed bills to create definitions that explain exactly what a 'military firearm' is different from one used in 'law enforcement' and/or 'civilian use'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:
... and with semi automatic weapons commonly called assault weapons, the name is meaningless
Damn right it's meaningless. Because referring to semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons" is utterly, completely, and totally wrong. The term is misused this way intentionally, by the media and the anti-gun nuts like Dianne Feinstein (who, BTW, has a personal license to carry AND armed security, goddamn hypocrite that she is) and Piers Morgan (who also has armed security - armed with the very same semi-auto AR-15's that he denounces on TV).
The term 'Assault Weapon' was original coined to add 'shock' to voters to vote on bills that would establish laws that handle the acquisition, usage, storage, and sale of certain kinds of arms (most notably firearms). I think we can all agree that 'Assault Weapon' is a silly term and move on to more important things, right?
The second part of your reply M4M, is where I see fault...
Dianne Feinstein is a Senator in Congress. Given that she is influential (whether one agrees with her politics or not), there are a number of individuals that would LOVE to have her killed. As such, people in Congress that serve in important roles of our government can get access to the US Secret Service (or other agencies....) for protection of they and their immediate families. Last I checked, the US Secret Service is an example of "A well regulated militia...". In this capacity, the US Secret Service does not operate in a 'law enforcement' capacity. They would leave the actual threats being made to the FBI.
Piers Morgan can either afford himself (or more likely, his employer) to have hired one or more bodyguards to keep him safe. I will take a guess, those bodyguards come from a company that holds within itself a number of 'corporate wide' rules and penalties for operating and the occasional 'screwing up on the job' for each such bodyguard. While I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind in the 18th century, it too could be considered "A well regulated militia...".
I do not feel they are being hypocrites for using the 2nd amendment in the manner it was original intended.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:
I also quite honestly find it a bit pathetic that grown people actually take something out of carrying a weapon that looks like a military weapon
It's not a matter of looks, it's a matter of features / abilities.
Every item in the above image has a purpose and a reason to be there. But because they "look" scary, there are people who'd love to ban them (and already have, in some states).
There's a reason for buying guns that may "look scary" to the untrained eye. A black coated rifle is less likely to spook a deer, or in the case of home defense, less likely to be noticed by intruders. Accessory rails are there not to look cool, but to allow attachments like flashlights and rangefinders. Etc, etc.
[image]http://gentlemint.com/media/images/2012/09/20/1a965730.jpg.505x650_q85.jpg[/image]
I removed the first image because it was just....big and not useful.
If you need an assault rifle and over ten rounds of ammunition to kill a defenseless woodland animal....YOU SUCK AT SHOOTING!
For home defense? Are you expecting someone like him? And I jest with that last image. Not every residence is the same, just as not every encounter with the potential criminal will be the same. Yet, in a society as large as ours (and growing larger by the day), given the history experienced so far in our country, the rules, laws, and situational awareness from the individual on up to a nationwide viewship; making good laws that protect the rights of citizens, while protecting said citizens from the dangers these weapons produce, is a very hard piece of artwork to craft. In order for this nation to move forward, all sides (not just Gun Owners and Concern Citizens) will be forced to make compromises to get what they want. And we'll live with the consequeces. I would rather we make wise laws than foolish ones. Sometimes I feel like I'm alone in that viewpoint....
|
|
|
|
