Thread: The President's Gun Proposals

Originally Posted by BlackmoreRulz

oh yea, that's definitely an equivalent....

Actually it isn't, several thousand more have died since that mission was accomplished....

Originally Posted by Of Sound Mind

Indeed.

If the "assault weapons" ban comes to fruition here in the U.S.A., I'll just head to Mexico and buy a couple of those guns the ATF lost south of the border.

Touche

10 shot clip,
10 shot clip,
see how they drool,
see how they drool.
It's all the rage to find them cool
Though they'll solve nada at street or school
10 shot clip,
10 shot clip,

I seem to recall, from many moons back, a simple, somewhat a rite of passage, semi-automatic, .22 caliber rifle with a barrel magazine that ran along the underneath of the barrel. No clip at all, but it held in excess of 10 rounds. Half again that many, iirc. How bizarre it might be to consider it an assault rifle, though I'll certainly concede in proper hands it could inflict mortal wounds on fowl, beast or man.

Originally Posted by Wambo36

You realize of course that there is no functional difference between a semi-automatic "military style assault rifle" and the run of the mill semi-automatic hunting rifle, right? The only differences are cosmetic. Sort of like adding a spoiler and hood scoop to you parents old Civic and then calling it a race car. Again, still waiting for a definition.

Come on, you know that's a half-truth. A tube fed .22, or a normal hunting autoloader with a 4+1 capacity, "operate" the same as a modern assault rifle, but that's like saying there's no functional difference between a Chevy Malibu and Chevy Corvette.

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Come on, you know that's a half-truth. A tube fed .22, or a normal hunting autoloader with a 4+1 capacity, "operate" the same as a modern assault rifle, but that's like saying there's no functional difference between a Chevy Malibu and Chevy Corvette.

It's no half truth at all. I can bring you a Ruger 10/22 that over half the people on this site would swear was an assault weapon. On sight alone. I'll wager some loon could do enough damage with my old semi-auto 30-06 to have them swearing it's an assault weapon, too. Tell you what, why don't you forward me information where you found the definition they're going to use for whatever ban they're trying to pass. Until then neither one of us has any idea what semi-auto weapons, if any, are going to be exempt. In the mean time, I'll take them (the ones making the most noise about a ban) at their word.

For those that dont know here is a pretty good peice about what is.....and isnt an assault rifle.
Its a good read and far more informative then anything you will see on Fox and Cnn.
The Truth About Assault Weapons

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Come on, you know that's a half-truth. A tube fed .22, or a normal hunting autoloader with a 4+1 capacity, "operate" the same as a modern assault rifle, but that's like saying there's no functional difference between a Chevy Malibu and Chevy Corvette.

Hold on, that's hardly true (mainly the part about the hunting rifle, not the .22 obviously). Other than the obvious capability for fully automatic and burst fire, the M4 isn't much different than the M14s that the military used to use and that are widely used for hunting, except improvements were made in materials to make it lighter, more reliable and have the ability to mount a wide variety of accessories.

This is a civilian M14:


This is the improved version the military used to use (has been phased out):


The use the same ammo and have the same capacity, but the military one has been improved with lighter, plastic stocks and body that are more flexible in their arrangement for a better fit for the user, easier to handle pistol grip and lots of locations to mount accessories. They are both semi-auto and use the same ammunition, but one looks scarier than the other so it would be considered an assault rifle, while the other a hunting rifle. The differences have no effect on the lethality of the weapon, only the aesthetics and weight. The AR-15s that people are so afraid of are no different than the civilian M14 in operation, only in looks and a slightly larger magazine (30 instead of 20), but because they use plastic instead of wood, they seem scarier to people who don't know the difference.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the functions are the same, except one can be used for full auto firing and that is what makes it an assault rifle, not the grip, stock, or any other aesthetic item.

Originally Posted by MadMonk

Hold on, that's hardly true (mainly the part about the hunting rifle, not the .22 obviously). Other than the obvious capability for fully automatic and burst fire, the M4 isn't much different than the M14s that the military used to use and that are widely used for hunting, except improvements were made in materials to make it lighter, more reliable and have the ability to mount a wide variety of accessories.

Again, I don't want an "assault weapons" ban anyway, but maybe it's like pornography: we can't necessarily define it, but we know it when we see it!

but the military one has been improved with lighter, plastic stocks and body that are more flexible in their arrangement for a better fit for the user, easier to handle pistol grip and lots of locations to mount accessories.

For greater mobility and to add accessories, both for how they aid with assaults (as opposed to hunting.) Sure, you can take an assault rifle hunting and make an assault with a hunting rifle but they have different design features for a reason.

Originally Posted by kevinpate

10 shot clip,
10 shot clip,
see how they drool,
see how they drool.
It's all the rage to find them cool
Though they'll solve nada at street or school
10 shot clip,
10 shot clip,

I seem to recall, from many moons back, a simple, somewhat a rite of passage, semi-automatic, .22 caliber rifle with a barrel magazine that ran along the underneath of the barrel. No clip at all, but it held in excess of 10 rounds. Half again that many, iirc. How bizarre it might be to consider it an assault rifle, though I'll certainly concede in proper hands it could inflict mortal wounds on fowl, beast or man.

I still have one of those in the closet.

Originally Posted by mkjeeves

For greater mobility and to add accessories, both for how they aid with assaults (as opposed to hunting.)

... and defense.

Originally Posted by kelroy55

I still have one of those in the closet.

My Remington Model 24 holds 14 short 22 shells in the stock feed tube. (Great-grandad's squirrel gun.)

Originally Posted by Of Sound Mind

... and defense.

Exactly. For better ability to move and kill people from further away and/or in the dark with something like a tactical flashlight and laser sight than with other types of defensive weapons, as opposed to how one would typically use a gun to hunt.

Another example of why this is difficult. I ran across one of the guys on MSNBC last night - Lawrence O'Donnell. He was talking about how he thought Tom Selleck should follow President Bush's lead and disassociate himself from the NRA.

I have no problem with him stating his opinions, but he was just a complete idiot when he started discussing other NRA board members. He discussed Brownell's and their current owner being a rich kid who inherited his father's company, ,etc., etc., etc., and how Brownell's is, in essence, some merchant of death. Blech.

I guess calm, normal folks from either side don't stand a chance...

When Murder Weapons Are Outlawed,
Only Murderers Will Be Outlaws.

Legal (even in California) Framing Hammer


Semi-Automatic Framing Hammer (outlawed 2019)


Fully-Automatic "Annhilator" Hammer (outlawed 2019)

Ooops... Maybe politicians should try reading bills first.

Politics | NY passes toughest gun laws in country | Queens Courier

Less than a week after Governor Andrew Cuomo promised to make New York the leader in gun safety, the State Legislature voted in favor of the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement, or NY SAFE Act, that would effectively keep weapons away from the mentally ill and crack down on illegal guns.

The State Senate voted 43-18 in favor of a broad gun package around 11 p.m. on Monday, January 14; the Assembly voted 104-43 the following day, after hours of debate, to make the bill official.

Many opponents in the Assembly argued the bill was hastily thrown together in order for the state to be an example for the country. As a result, opponents said, registered gun owners would suffer.

Additions to be made to gun laws for law enforcement | 7online.com

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.

The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.

Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity.

...

The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

Why does a retired law enforcement officer get exempted? What happens when the police become the criminals? I wonder if someone planning a mass shooting is concerned they might be violating the 7 round capacity law.

Why does a retired law enforcement officer get exempted? What happens when the police become the criminals? I wonder if someone planning a mass shooting is concerned they might be violating the 7 round capacity law.

Maybe because at some point they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and all local statutes in effect at the time of their hiring? Say! Maybe The Gideons could provide stacks of Bibles at Retail Outlets and Gun Shows for buyers to swear on . . . ?

Originally Posted by mkjeeves

For greater mobility and to add accessories, both for how they aid with assaults (as opposed to hunting.) Sure, you can take an assault rifle hunting and make an assault with a hunting rifle but they have different design features for a reason.

So, we aren't allowed to take advantage of improvement in benign technology such as lighter materials and convenience features because they were developed initially for military reasons? That's like saying you can't use your high speed internet because there are people out there abusing it for child pornography. Back to 28.8k dial-up for you then!

Originally Posted by RadicalModerate

Maybe because at some point they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and all local statutes in effect at the time of their hiring? Say! Maybe The Gideons could provide stacks of Bibles at Retail Outlets and Gun Shows for buyers to swear on . . . ?

I took an oath to uphold the constitution on Sept 9, 1990 (and 2 more times since then), do I get exempted as well?

Originally Posted by Just the facts

I took an oath to uphold the constitution on Sept 9, 1990 (and 2 more times since then), do I get exempted as well?

I would grant you an exception, because I know you've only got 7 years left to prepare...

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I would grant you an exception, because I know you've only got 7 years left to prepare...

Good one, but life doesn't end in 7 years. Care to guess how governments and constitutions France has had since 1776? France is currently on their 5th constitutional Republic since 1851. The US has done a pretty good job of keeping one constitution for +200 years but clearly there are now atleast 2 primary concepts of what government should and should not do in this country.

Call me crazy if I don't think we can keep it together. We have crisis at every turn, from society to financial to religion to immigration. We haven't had a federal budget in 4 years, we are having to increase the debt limit every 16 months, the President's job council (which he was going to focus like a laser beam on) has never met - not even once, and the only way the federal government can keep from defaulting is to borrow money directly from the federal reserve who is creating it out of thin air (and then we call that growth). And what do we have to show for $16 trillion worth of debt (and the trillions of government spending that isn't debt) - nothing except a crumbling interstate system. Hell, we don't even have a single mile of dedicated high speed rail.

You know, I can see why the government doesn't want us having guns.

This will probably get some interesting responses but I was wondering....

Many, if not most, people on the right are against any form of gun control and many have stated they will rise up against their government if the government tries to enact gun control. I don't think anyone disagrees that guns do kill people, and quite a few at that. So even though it's a fact that guns kill people the same people are against abortions because they claim it kills people.

Originally Posted by kelroy55

This will probably get some interesting responses but I was wondering....Many, if not most, people on the right are against any form of gun control and many have stated they will rise up against their government if the government tries to enact gun control. I don't think anyone disagrees that guns do kill people, and quite a few at that. So even though it's a fact that guns kill people the same people are against abortions because they claim it kills people.

Really?

I'm against people killing people (unless it's in self-defense).

Guns do not kill people. People can use guns to kill people. I'm against people using guns to kill people (unless it's in self-defense). I'm not against guns or people owning guns.

Knives do not kill people. People can use knives to kill people. I'm against people using knives to kill people (unless it's in self-defense). I'm not against knives or people owning knives.

Hammers do not kill people. People can use hammers to kill people. I'm against people using hammers to kill people (unless it's in self-defense). I'm not against hammers or people owning hammers.

Hands, feet and fists by themselves do not kill people. People can use hands, feet or fists to kill people. I'm against people using hands, feet or fists to kill people (unless it's in self-defense). I'm certainly not against hands, feet and fists or people having hands, feet and fists.

Abortion is an intentional act of killing a living human being.

I'm against people using whatever means and/or tools to kill a living human being. I'm not against the tools themselves.