United States of Earth

Remove all ads!

Based on my own extensive recent research I agree with T2Bruno and I do advocate the banning of this type of weapon for anyone who is not a member of the armed forces or a law enforcement agent and possible disabled ones for gun collectors. I do believe in strict gun control. All guns of any type should be registered. Carry permits should be very carefully given. There are people who have a illegitimate need for them. There is room for discussion on who needs a carry permit and even exactly what a carry permit is.

I am a supporter of the First Amendment although I think it is often misinterpreted by people. Along with freedom comes responsibility. If I demand the right to speak my opinions freely then I grant to others the same right. All I ask is if they quote me they do it accurately;

As for the Second Amendment although I am not totally comfortable with it as it is currently interpreted I do not advocate that it be done away with.

As far as politics in other countries go I have refused to get involved in those discussion on the grounds that I don't know enough to do so. I may ask a question or for a futher explanation but I make no judgments.

I do have strong opinions and do not hesitate to express them. I have learned through harsh experience that silence is often taken as agreement. I would rather be censored for what I believe in than be told I believe something that I do not believe.

 

I think most models of weapons are made for hunting and sport -- but if you're right that could be one of the reasons from such variety in the definition of assault weapon.

 

BTA, I can't give at the moment a positive verifiable answer to that but but I believe that rifles are manufactured for sport, for hunting, vermin control or even just target practice. I grew up in a household, rural area, that had five guns. A double barreled shotgun, a single barreled shotgun, my grandfather]s rifle, my mother's 22 and my 25 rifle. My grandfather used his for hunting and taught me to shoot and care for mine. My mother didn't use hers. Rifles and hand guns may be used by the military and law enforcement agents, armed security guards but are commonly used by others for sport or vermin control. Considering the fact that any weapon that falls under the NFA is banned in New Jersey and yet I have withing a couple of hours drive of me over 7000 vendors of weapons available to the general public my opinion is that rifles and at least certain hand guns are manufacted for the general public as well as for the armed forces; etc.

Assault weapons are manufactured for use by the armed forces and law enforcement agents.

 

Pretty much. Feinstein admitted that the basis for her ban was "looking at hundreds of pictures of guns online."

This wouldn't be banned:


But this would be:


Both are the exact same, only one "looks scary" and the other doesn't. The bottom picture is of imaginary "assault weapon," whereas the upper image isn't classified as an "assault weapon." T2Bruno was mostly correct with his list of cosmetic features, but was mistaken in the sense that semi-automatics were banned, which they never were. Take two semi-automatic rifles that fire the same ammunition and have the same magazine capacity, both are perfectly legal, now add a pistol grip to one of them. "OMG! ASSAULT WEAPON WE HAVE TO BAN IT!!!"


There is no such thing as an "assault weapon," it's just a term the gun control lobby made up in the 1980s in order to attack gun owners. "Assault weapon" sounds scary and is intended to confuse people, polls show that the majority of Americans think that "assault weapons" are machineguns, which is exactly what the gun control lobby wants. That being said, machineguns shouldn't be banned either.

Pictures from: http://www.assaultweapon.info/




To quote directly from the website of the VPC, one of the largest gun control lobbies:

Source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

 

The pictures are obviously different. The bottom weapon has a clip. Does the top weapon have the capability of an exteneded clip? Does it have a pistol grip option? What other features can be applied to the top weapon? If any, you should state that instead of being deceitful. You are placing half the story, half the facts out there. If you are going to advocate the owing of guns, be truthful. I'm a gun owner and I do not want to relinquish my weapon to a government mandate. BUT, I formulate my decison to own a weapon from informed knowlege, not ignoring what I don't want to believe and I do not try to convinve others to do the same as I with half-truths.

 

T2...what was it you used to do for a living? It involved firearms or something, didn't it?

 

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/
Link to some general information on the NFA with further links to the right of the article if you wish more information.

Many states ban the weapons defined under this act as assault weapons. The Federal Government cannot ban weapons. They can and do regulate the sale and manufacture through licenses and taxes.

Some states and localities have stricter definitions and some states do not ban them or have lesser restrictions.

 

@ Blades - Actually, if you check out the link AD gave, it's pretty interesting. I don't pretend to know much about these things, but I'd like to hear from others who do (and after they've read the info in the link), because, while it's probably pretty one-sided, it presents a pretty compelling case (at least for people like me who aren't familiar with guns).

 

I disagree there and would cast my vote to ban automatic weapons if it's ever on the ballot. I personally believe there is no need for automatic weapons being available to the public.

If you noticed my choices for a weapons ban were pretty much the definition of the "assault rifle" you had in your link. I don't really care about cosmetics -- pistol grip, plastic, scopes, clips ... those aren't really an issue for me. You can get a speed loader for a revolver that can reload a .44 mag nearly as fast as a clip can be shoved in an M1911 or Bushmaster. The big issue for me is a silencer and full auto capability -- no civilian needs those for any reason. Weapons designed for military/police are typically made to have a full auto mode, a burst mode or be easily convertable to do those or are such huge caliber they can penetrate solid concrete walls (another feature not needed by citizens).

If a ban on assault weapons/rifles means I can't have a M82A1 or M107 to take out deer in the corn fields from 800+ yards away is just fine ... I'll settle for a Winchester .300 mag with its 500 yard range. If I can't have a fully auto M16A4 with the M203 grenade launcher or bayonet (both on the same weapon is a very bad idea) then fine. The AR-15 is a nice weapon (and I received my sharpshooter ribbon firing one) but again the .300 mag would suffice as a replacement ... provided I ever feel like I need a weapon.

 

Both before and after the Hughes Amendment in the 1980s, there weren't any murders committed with machineguns. To this day there are still hundreds of thousands of legally owned machineguns in civilian hands, yet they aren't used in any crimes.

Even 25+ years after the ban, the public is evenly split on whether or not fully-automatic machine guns should be legal for purchase. The vast majority of Americans still think machineguns you can walk into your local Walmart and buy a fully-automatic machinegun. In reality you require a Class 3 license in order to own a machinegun and those permits are almost never issued; due to the Hughes Amendment. Other countries like Canada, Finland, Switzerland and others also allow civilian ownership of machineguns, and in some cases, they're completely legal for purchase still (unlike the US).

 

Sorry I was still editing when you posted. I realize full auto weapons can be purchased but are difficult to obtain.

I don't think the public is even close to being evenly split with full auto. I personally believe if we were to put an amendment change to exclude machine guns, bazookas, grenades, etc. from the second amendment it would be very close to a two-thirds passing.

 

The thing that those who advocate that assault weapons, machine guns, bazookas, grenades, etc. fail to explain to me is why these types of weapons should be made available to the general public. Why does the average civilian need these weapons? What is their use?

 

That is so misleading it's beyond ridiculous.

"Individuals are allowed to possess certain prohibited firearms if they had one registered in their name when it became prohibited, and they have continuously held a valid registration certificate for that type of prohibited firearm from December 1, 1998, onward."
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm

Automatic weapons (such as machine guns) fall under the definition of "prohibited".

So while yes, in Canada you can own one, you had to have owned it in 1998, and it must be registered. You make it sound like owning a machine gun is a piece of cake for anyone.

 

So I can take out an entire herd of deer eating the in-law's corn in a matter of seconds. Those damned overgrown rodents would eat the entire crop and destroy our livelihood!!! Deer are the SPAWN OF HELL! There's not enough cars to rid the world of the vile beasts so we need to UP THE ANTE! TAKE THE WAR TO THE DEER!!!!

That and when the US military falls to the Chinese I'll be there to defend this nation.

 

Oh, Thanks T2

Another question: what does this discussion have to do with the orginal topic?
Me thinks it is only proving to our European cousins just how crazy we are and exactly why they do NOT want to join us. That is what me thinks.

 

I just want to weigh in, and I'm going to have to be careful here.

This thread is based on the fallacious assumption that the rest of the world wants to be American. Now they may wish to partake of American culture and material wealth, but they most assuredly don't want to be American. Not even Canada, my beloved country, who would be the most likely to see such a union as a beneficial one (due to geography and such), would ever wish to join the U.S.A. I would bet both of my fun spheres that if it were put to a referendum, the bill would go down in flames. And this is a country that is in many ways difficult to differentiate from the U.S.

So IMHO, this is a pointless thread. Thank you all for your time.

 

*sigh*

Back to gun control, again?

WTF?

 

Nakia: I think often the reason is simply "because I can." Sad really.

BA: I got thick skin ... as my grandpa used to say "call me anything you want just don't call me late to dinner."