dfisk Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 the definition of assault rifle is more based on looks more than functionality. I posted a link to an article a gun owner wrote addressing this very issue. I can have two versions of the same gun that both function the same way, but if one has a pistol grip and the other doesn't, the pistol grip gun is considered an assault rifle. It's not that the law is lenient, it's just that it doesn't make any sense, and even then each state puts in even more odd restrictions. When I hear "assault rifle", I think machine gun, like a fully automatic weapon or sub machine gun. A don't look at a semi-automatic weapon as an assault rifle, but again, the definition is nebulous, and can be interpreted different ways be different people. The feds are never going to ban all guns, and another assault weapons ban will be ineffective. There are too many guns already in circulation, not to mention the guns in this country illegally that nobody really knows about. The genie is out of the bottle, and it can't get put back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Israel does this quite well without all the security theater we have here in the US. As soon as you purchase an airline ticket a background check is done on you. When you get to the airport, security asks you a few basic questions. The security people they have are actually very highly trained in being able to interpret people's answers and body language to know if someone is a threat. I think we all can agree Israel is a country that a lot of other people would like to harm, and yet Israel has not had any problems. All vehicles are checked and searched upon arrival at the airport. And who gets full body searches is determined by racial profiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Just let the kids bring them to school, just make sure they have all the proper training and keep their weapons secured in a safe.. Hell why not. Firearms could be a subject just like Maths and English. Every school could have a shooting range, NRA could fund it,, then all our children will be armed and ready for the the worst. Wow. Seriously. Wow. Kids shouldn't have to grow up in a war zone. No wonder so many grow up into messed up adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 No, and that's taking a big leap. What I said was, if there was a gun in the home and the teenager was properly trained on how to use it, they could protect himself. That's not straight up handing him a gun and saying "here, have fun". Like I said. Now you want to arm teenagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Woodcock Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Wow. Seriously. Wow. Kids shouldn't have to grow up in a war zone. No wonder so many grow up into messed up adults. I grew up in that environment and so did many others I know, we are all fine. N.Ireland was a crazy place growing up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymz Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 When I hear "assault rifle", I think machine gun, like a fully automatic weapon or sub machine gun. A don't look at a semi-automatic weapon as an assault rifle, but again, the definition is nebulous, and can be interpreted different ways be different people. When I think of an "assault rifle", I think of anything with an AR15 or AK style receiver (or any equivalents, SA80, G36 etc). Any semi-automatic rifle that fires an intermediate or heavier cartridge and is magazine fed more than 10 rounds (this would include battle rifles, G3 etc). Anything reaching the above criteria (that was made for a soldier to kill/wound another soldier) has no place in the hands of a civilian outside of a firing range. There are too many guns already in circulation, not to mention the guns in this country illegally that nobody really knows about. The genie is out of the bottle, and it can't get put back in. It's very true that the moment the constitution was drafted and they wrote the second amendment, the damage was done....the US has the issues it has now with gun violence purely because of that. But of course, I don't blame them. It was a different time and they were oblivious as to the way things would be. The western world has since gone through a bit of enlightenment, negating one of the main reasons the 2nd amendment was written (fighting against an oppressive government*). Yet firearms themselves have become vastly more lethal. Again, the maximum firerate for a smallarm when the US constitution was drafted was 4-5rpm. In summary, I completely agree that the previous assaults weapons ban would be worthless. But I'm of the opinion that something much stricter needs to come into place, at least something close to what Australia did in the 90's. *There may be exceptions to this, the US is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 All vehicles are checked and searched upon arrival at the airport. And who gets full body searches is determined by racial profiling. Racial profiling may work for Israel but it's not allowed here. Full body searches have been done on 6yo children and 90yo grandmothers. The TSA's directive seems to be it is better to search everyone rather than offend just one person who fits the terrorists profile. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhobbit Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Any semi-automatic rifle that fires an intermediate or heavier cartridge. That type of ban would make most guns illegal. AR-15's use a .223 bullet which is about the same diameter of a 22 cal bullet. It is considered too small in Nebraska to hunt deer. In Nebraska, ammo has to be .250 or large. The .223 is considered a varmint round. To ban all semi-automatic rifles would leave only bolt and lever action rifles. Where does the line get drawn? Size of bullet, type of action or size of magazine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 . To ban all semi-automatic rifles would leave only bolt and lever action rifles. Where does the line get drawn? Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 So, everyone agrees though, that because part of the problem is lack of access to mental healthcare, part of the solution is in fact then an affordable national healthcare program for everyone. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I I was joking mate.. Sorry. It's hard to tell here sometimes. As there are enough here. who actually would be serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markfarrowaudiopost Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Sorry. It's hard to tell here sometimes. As there are enough here. who actually would be serious. aussie sarcasm sorry, I think its pretty messed up, gun laws in America. Surely human lives matter for the laws to be seriously changed. Laws here got changed drastically after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymz Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 That type of ban would make most guns illegal. It would make weapons that were designed to win wars illegal. AR-15's use a .223 bullet which is about the same diameter of a 22 cal bullet. Indeed. It was also designed to kill/wound a Soviet/NVA soldier and allow US troops to carry more ammo. No place for it in the hands of a civilian outside of a firing range. It is considered too small in Nebraska to hunt deer. In Nebraska, ammo has to be .250 or large. The .223 is considered a varmint round. A very sensible law. Also considering the controversy over whether or not the bullet "tumbles" as is claimed (whole other discussion though). To ban all semi-automatic rifles would leave only bolt and lever action rifles. Where does the line get drawn? Size of bullet, type of action or size of magazine? There are tons of semi-auto hunting rifles that use rotary and/or can use 10 round or less straight magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Like I said. Now you want to arm teenagers. No, I never said that. What I said was if there is a gun in the house, and the teenager knows how to access and knows how to safely use it, they could defend themselves against an intruder. Never did I say the teenager should have a gun strapped to them at all times. THAT would be arming teenagers. You are twisting words around....again. I do agree that part of the problem is lack of access to mental healthcare, however national health care isn't the end all be all, although it would be a step in that direction. Part of the problem now is you can't forcefully put someone in a mental health facility against their will unless they pose an obvious threat to themselves or others. A post on facebook or random comment isn't enough to put someone in a mental institution. You could change the law to forcefully put people in a mental health care facility, but that gets into the realm of big brother, as anyone can claim "hey, that guy is crazy", and then you have them go through a battery of tests to see if they are indeed nuts, which wastes time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwstudios Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 It's very true that the moment the constitution was drafted and they wrote the second amendment, the damage was done....the US has the issues it has now with gun violence purely because of that. But of course, I don't blame them. It was a different time and they were oblivious as to the way things would be. The western world has since gone through a bit of enlightenment, negating one of the main reasons the 2nd amendment was written (fighting against an oppressive government*). How do you to begin to make an assumption of where America might be now without the second amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Suggesting putting a gun in a teenagers hands is called arming a teenager. Of course, what makes much more sense is making sure he isn't put in that position, by not having such an ignorant sign in the yard. . Guns aren't the only solution to a problem, you know. How do you to begin to make an assumption of where America might be now without the second amendment? We wouldn't have 300 million guns in circulation,that's for sure. As there would be no 2nd amendment to be taken out of context, as an excuse to own any number and the of gun and ammunition as one pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwstudios Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I do agree that part of the problem is lack of access to mental healthcare, Along with poverty, ghettos, gang culture, and Christmas stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymz Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 How do you to begin to make an assumption of where America might be now without the second amendment? I didn't. I only stated the fact that the US has such severe gun violence issues because of the 2nd amendment, it's what allowed so many firearms to go in circulation over the years. It was a law of it's time, it doesn't fit today's society and needs to be heavily modified so that it does. It already has been for 50+ years btw, "shall not be infringed" has been null and void for a long time...and rightfully so (it it wasn't, anyone could own any type of firearm they want). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 There's really no point discussing it really. Some people pick dead children and planes getting blown up, over gun control and patdowns/body scanners. Just so they can pretend they are true patriots, standing up for their rights. Body counts be damned. While they label those asking for common sense to be used, as people not deserving their liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwstudios Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 We wouldn't have 300 million guns in circulation,that's for sure. As there would be no 2nd amendment to be taken out of context, as an excuse to own any number and the of gun and ammunition as one pleases. Without the second amendment California and Texas might still be part of Mexico. The south could be part of France. Native Americans could still control most of the country. What about the future? Going to guarantee the idiots we elect to Washington will not do something to plunge the country into chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 What about the future? Going to guarantee the idiots we elect to Washington will not do something to plunge the country into chaos? I tend to not vote for idiots. Unfortunately, we can't say that for almost half of the rest of the country. As far as the south. If only. Te rest of the country would be better off. At least my federal tax dollars wouldn't be going to keep those welfare states alive, while,they try to drag the rest of us down the toilet with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 At least my federal tax dollars wouldn't be going to keep those welfare states alive, while,they try to drag the rest of us down the toilet with them. It's not just the south that has welfare states. California is a welfare state. One man's idiot is another man's genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwstudios Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I tend to not vote for idiots. Voting for the lesser of two evils seems to be the norm these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 It's not just the south that has welfare states. California is a welfare state. One man's idiot is another man's genius. Nope. California supports the other southern states via our federal tax dollars. Certainly not the other way around. I would be happy to give them what they want, and that is to secede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Voting for the lesser of two evils seems to be the norm these days. I have never seen Obama as the lesser of two evils. To pretend he even comes close to anything the other sides has put forward is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts