A question for those who want to ban or restrict "assult weapons".

[PavePusher]

Over the last few days, I've asked several times why a certain type of rifle should be restricted. Oddly, I never got an answer. So I pose the question (somewhat expanded) again:

Please explain why they should be retricted/banned?

Please explain why this:
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx
is suitable for hunting (or not)...

but this:
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx
is not (or is).

Or perhaps these:
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-770.aspx
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-770.aspx
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/pump-action-model-7600.aspx

I ask Pro-RKBA folks to hold back for a bit, until we see what sort of responses come through. If you are against hunting completely, feel free to say so, but please also stay on the topic at hand. Thanks in advance to all..

[Hoopla Phil]

1. Kick and Recommend. Will hold back for a bit to comment.

[KansasVoter]

2. Please don't wait. We are dying to hear!

[Hoopla Phil]

15. Honoring the request made in th O.P. You know what that is don't

you. . .

[onehandle]

3. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I ask Pro-Woodchuck folks to hold back a bit so that we can make fun of those who respond.

[Oregone]

4. The Woodchuck amendment guarantees their right to chuck as much as they want

[Oregone]

5. "assault weapons" is an arbitrary term

No one wants to have a real debate on it. I *think* the original point of the classification was to label rifles whose mass killing potential in a short amount of time outweighed its utilitarian purpose (for hunting or self-defense). That assessment of risk vs utility is arbitrary in itself, but alas, can't we have any line in the sand without pissing and moaning? Unfortunately, there was no objective scale to class these weapons, or even a real argument to form one. Instead, people opt that they were "bad" without defining "bad" and proving each weapon may in fact fit that criteria.

In the end, you have a mess. Some people would rather play semantic games (on both sides) than work to address this mess of a debate.

The crux of the issue is when does risk outweigh utility (especially if less riskier models have the same utility). Of course, you must have everyone agree that risk *can* outweigh utility, and all those people then agree to an objective scale to measure "risk" by (rounds per minute, stopping power, clip sizes, velocity, range, etc).

[Pavulon]

13. All that shit means nothing

the weapon used by the military was conceived to kill small vermin. A piss weak 22 will shatter your brain and kick up dirt on the way out of your head. A 22 in the hands of a skilled shooter is far more lethal than a belt fed machine gun in the hands of a doofus.

A deer rifle and "sniper' rifle are the same thing. Whitman killed beyond 300m with a hunting rifle. Shotguns are by far the most lethal device available to the public. The same one your grampy used to hunt birds is tremendously lethal when loaded with buckshot. A shotgun can be made from pipe.

The weapon is a distraction for the stupid. Root cause it important. Why are telluride co and chicago ill. so different?

[Oregone]

19. Whatever

Silly is as silly does

"in the hands of a skilled shooter is far more lethal than a belt fed machine gun in the hands of a doofus"

Such an objective scale would aim to standardize the shooter to eliminate that variable for a comparison

You are flinging feces, fitting the grouping of people who refuse to address the risk vs utility debate.


"Root cause it important"

Address all the root causes till you are blue in the face. As long as certain weapons allow sociopaths to instantly spread mass death in a matter of minutes with ease, I assert that debate risk vs utility remains important. Your root causes schtick is merely a stonewalling tactic against an obvious and reasonable debate

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Obvious and reasonable to you. Unreasonable and unconstitutional to us.

Even Miller vs. US accepted that firearms in common use by the military were protected under the 2nd.

They deemed Miller's 'short barreled shotgun' unprotected, because they deemed it not to be in use by any military. (an error in itself, but it illustrates the point, they BELIEVED short barreled shotguns were not military weapons, therefore it was not protected under the 2nd)

[Oregone]

44. If its unreasonable, no weapon can ever have its utility outweighed by its risk

Including 50 cal and fully automatic weapons.

I know you've said you appreciate the current laws, and such, but Im talking about the philosophy behind the formation of the laws. And if you think its unreasonable to even ask the question about risk vs utility, and ban accordingly, it would follow you want all arms legal.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. The question has already been asked.

The answers have been formed by the legislature and the courts over the last 100+ years.

Ignoring the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, where you want to go with this is simply unconstitutional.

By the way, .50 cal is legal. It's bore sizes larger than that that are regulated as destructive devices. Again, because they are not meant for the sort of duty implied by the 2nd. It is the lawfully recognized border between a firearm, and ordnance.

[Oregone]

49. And technology has changed during those 100 years

Your answer is basically a big "fuck you" to critical thought.

You don't get it. Im not even talking about the US of fuckn A (I don't even live there anymore actually). Im talking about an idea. Im talking about hypotheticals. Your panties are wound up so tight over this, citing this case and that, you can't even think independently for a moment for yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. No, you're simply not understanding me.

Technology around firearms has evolved in the last 100 years, yes. Not radically, we still don't have death rays and laser weapons. Stuff like that will probably be ruled 'destructive devices' and shuffled out of the protected zone of the 2nd amendment for the exact risk assessment you propose.

But the ability to detach a magazine for reload, semi-automatic weapon cycling, etc, are all features that are not and should not be up for debate under these legal terms. Within the context of the United States of America, you literally must amend the constitution again, to put them within the zone of legal regulation.

Wherever you are now, that is up to the compact under which you live. This sort of risk assessment may be perfectly legal wherever you may be, and you are welcome to it. I don't begrudge you it. But HERE, it is not appropriate.

[Oregone]

54. "Not radically"

:rofl:


And society has changed to. Risk models have changed. Everything keeps changing. The only think staying the same are religious fundamentalists and people who have their heads so far buried in arbitrary legal positions that they can't think for themselves.


"But HERE, it is not appropriate"

Apparently, its not even appropriate to wildly suggest ANY firearm may potentially impart more risk than benefit to a society. Sacrilege.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. The fact you call them 'arbitrary legal positions' suggests to me you may be the one

having trouble discussing the issue seriously.

[Oregone]

61. Until we can determine universal human law through math alone...

Its all somewhat arbitrary. Clinging to precedent to avoid thought and debate gets no one anywhere. Perhaps that is what you are happy with.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. The pressures and risks that brought about the 2nd amendment remain, today.

Just as they did in the 1700's. Just like the 1st amendment. Forgive me if I have grown tired of 'hypothetical' exploration of end runs around the core laws upon which our entire nation is founded, like the fucking republicans always seeking to subvert and limit our modern understanding of the 1st Amendment. And for the good of the people, or risk to society, seek to curtail our freedom of expression, because OH GOD the risk of ideas outweighs the benefit to some imaginary city on a hill in some cro-magnon republican's imagination.

Technology has changed around free expression as well as it has around firearms. And like the 2nd, the pressures that require the 1st, remain unchanged today.

[Oregone]

65. Yep, the British are coming

Just with waves of shitty music

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Getting back to history

one should probably be aware that wasn't the only pressure in play.

[Oregone]

68. I agree

There was also the gun-obsessed opium drug cartels slaughtering everyone with horse-back ride-by musket hits to gain territory. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Despite social changes, technological innovation, the rising of America as a global military super-power, etc, the issue of a well-regulated militia to ensure the security of a free state hasn't changed one iota. Im glad the founders settled this for us, because its too scary for us to think our way out of a paper bag

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Now you're just being silly

Civil unrest. Again, two recent usages: Katrina and LA in 1992.

That old saying, when seconds count, a cop is only minutes away? Well, with the State Guard or National Guard, they are only DAYS away.

The core need for this civil right has not changed in 200+ years. Despite changing dangers, and changing technology of the firearms themselves, the need is, as it always has been.

[Oregone]

104. The entire stonewalling youre conducting against debate is silly

You are scared shitless to consider if a weapon is more "dangerous" than useful

[AtheistCrusader]

107. My weapons are useful, specifically because they are dangerous.

That's why I own them. That's why I literally own military firearms. Firearms used IN actual wars.
Firearms in use, today, by our military. They are incredibly useful, precisely because they are the most dangerous weapons I can obtain.

As for your cries of 'stonewalling', a post further downthread;

I didn't lock your thread or delete your posts. I pointed out the futility of the discussion. The nice thing about a tree-like discussion thread is, the discussion can continue on, all around my posts, as if I wasn't even here.

It is impossible for me to stonewall your discussion. And on the flipside, you have proposed no balance/limits at all, when you are perfectly free to do so, and I can do nothing to stop you.

You have been 'stonewalled' only by the nature of your own responses to the information I have provided.

[Oregone]

110. All weapons are dangerous. Some more than others

[AtheistCrusader]

114. You continue to ignore the point.

The law protects, and people like me desire these weapons, specifically because of their features.

How do you propose to limit them in any meaningful fashion, with these two factors:

Lawful use
Desireable operation


I suppose you could start by nerfing actual military weapons. That would then allow for some constraint under Miller. But you would have to limit not only American military weapons, but worldwide.

[Oregone]

115. You continue to muck

"I suppose you could start by nerfing actual military weapons"

Thats a grouping...a classification. I have no interest in constraining according to pre-existing classification. I'm not discussing law. I'm discussing a concept.

When does risk outweigh utility with specific firearms? Can it?

[AtheistCrusader]

118. When the weapon doesn't operate as designed

through faulty construction or engineering (Fires without trigger pull, explodes upon use, etc).

Also, when the weapon crosses into indiscriminate fire, like a grenade launcher. If you cannot direct fire against an individual target, we already have a 'too dangerous' prohibition for this.

Other than those two criteria, I do not believe any firearm in current use, or considered for current prototype generates any form of risk that outweighs utility.

Utility is precisely the variable that is being advanced, that you seem to consider 'risk'.

[Oregone]

119. "Utility is precisely the variable that is being advanced, that you seem to consider 'risk'"

Ah.....

Because I had a much narrower definition of utility (there we go with "unreasonable" arbitrary definitions). For example:

Utility...the ability to put down a buck at 150 yards (lots of bolt action rifles can do this)

Utility...the ability to put down a home intruder (lots of shotguns excel at this)

Now, I never considered utility being the ability for someone to pump 750 rounds per minute into a crowded theatre. I consider that risk.

Silly, silly, me.

No wonder no one can ever agree on an issue like guns. Silliness abound.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Nobody can do that with current semi-autos.

Cyclic rating doesn't translate into actual firing rate.

Your continued misconstruals of how firearms are, and can be used, is the reason no one will ever agree on issues like this.

[Oregone]

121. Who said I'm talking about semi-autos?

Maybe I'm referencing a class thats already banned. Thats entirely consistent with my earlier approach, because I'm not here to discuss precedent and false classifications.

Regardless...where do we set the bar? 750 RPM...is that risk or utility to you? How about 500 RPM? Where do we stop? When is the line drawn in the sand, indicating that the rate of fire, combined with other features, produce a weapon that is far more useful than actually potentially dangerous to a society?

I guess we can continue just grouping weapons together based on how evil they look.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. 750+ rounds per minute is utility.

There is a natural 'brake' on the damage some shithead can cause, if only in the amount of ammo he or she can carry, and how fast he or she can reload.

The VT shooter's guns, for instance, did not have a high cyclic rate. He was allowed ample time to reload, because he was in an environment where no one had the tools to fight back. A revolver can cause similar mayhem in such situations.

There have been ample studies on the 'lethality' of rampage shooters, and their behavior when they encounter opposition, or not, as the case may be. Cyclic rate of the weapon has never really been a factor.

[Oregone]

125. Okey doke

:rofl:

Thatd be one hell of a deer hunting rifle I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. When hunting, 5 rounds is generally the legal max on what you put in the rifle.

In most, if not all states, that I am aware of, for game such as Deer. Cyclic rate is still important, because it relates to the speed of a follow-up shot, which could mean the difference between a dead deer, and a miserable, wounded deer that bolts, and struggles on for days and miles before dying.

[Oregone]

127. Yes, and we should fight to repeal such an infringment

I want my meat laced with lead.

Thats called utility.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Hunting regulations are not related to the protections afforded by the 2nd amendment.

Again, you continue to misconstrue.

A follow-up shot is often necessary. The faster a weapon cycles it's bolt, the faster you can get an accurate shot on target. Simple mechanics.

Your 'laced with lead' comment is simply childish.

[Oregone]

130. Most of this thread is simply childish

Ive long passed to point of taking anything you post seriously BTW, so kill me. Skull fucking tangents isn't going to redeem yourself.


If you simply believe that risk can never outweigh utility, just say so (as other people with the courage have already). All the mucking around in between has been comedy gold.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. I did, long ago.

You just didn't understand me.


Utility is precisely what is lawfully protected, and as a firearms owner, precisely what is desirable to me. I stated this several times.

With that in mind, how could I possibly accept X level of utility being 'too dangerous'?


I also pointed out the general boundaries where, as much as 85 years ago, we set constitutionally acceptable limits on 'risk', when weapons crossed the line into area of effect or indiscriminate weapons. You laughed this off several times, for reasons I cannot comprehend.

[Oregone]

132. "how could I possibly accept X level of utility being 'too dangerous'?"

"we set constitutionally acceptable limits on 'risk'"


That seems to be a contradiction. You don't accept the notion that utility can ever be outweighed by risk, but you accept and abide by precedent that determined just that.

At least other people here claimed they wanted all automatic and large caliber rifles legalized. You are saying a lot of nothing, frankly speaking.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Actually

your ignorance on the subject is telling. Automatic weapons and Destructive Devices are obtainable through invasive permit processes. The only exception is the closure of the NFA registry in 1986, the Hughes Amendment. That should, and probably will be overturned.

NFA and DD's are highly regulated, not banned. Therefore, I accept the 'risk' versus 'availability' tradeoff the nation made, starting some 80+ years ago.

Does that clarify for you?

[Oregone]

134. No

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

How can you mitigate risk by limiting availability, if "risk" does not even exist to you (because you seem to express that "risk" is essentially a synonym for "utility").

The problem is you are letting piecemeal established precedent do your thinking for you

[AtheistCrusader]

135. The same way we limit availability to recidivist felons post-release

or limit availability to children or the mentally disabled (statutes define this as having been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for X period of time, which varies based on state)

These restrictions on availability have long been acceptable, both legally, and to firearms owners and enthusasts unconcerned with legal specifics. Since they are legal, I can objectively evaluate the restriction's worth from an effectiveness, and a desirability standpoint.

I find the requirement for a significant background check into a NFA weapon, to be desirable. I do not want thugs obtaining indiscriminate, suppressive fire weapons. Of course, I don't want felons to obtain firearms of any type, but this specific class has been, historically, especially dangerous in their hands. Precisely because it is indiscriminate.

[Oregone]

136. "I do not want thugs obtaining indiscriminate, suppressive fire weapons."

Now we are almost getting somewhere. So there does exist weapons that have risk we simply cannot treat normally, despite what utility they may also serve.

The difference here is Id like to think about exactly what features of a weapon manifest in such high levels of risk; it seems you want to avoid thinking about it by pulling out and 80 year old legal classification.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Indiscriminate fire.

That would be a feature that manifests high levels of risk.

Such weapons are already regulated for precisely this function. There are no other features that warrant a 'high level of risk'.

[Oregone]

139. Such an ability to do so is determined by a combination of attributes of the model

"Such weapons are already regulated for precisely this function"

Some would suggest, not all are. But you would have to think to examine this issue and how it pertains to specific models, rather than rely on precedent. I don't think we are going to break any ground there.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Can you name a feature set that lends itself, not just by capability

but actually forces indiscriminate fire by nature of its operation?

Who is 'some', and what weapons are they concerned about?

[Oregone]

144. No attribute of any gun forces it to be used in a malevolent, indiscriminate manner

A gun cannot force a user to pull the trigger, nor aim in any direction. Though a combination of many can aid malevolent, indiscriminate actions of varying degrees and make them possible with relative ease. You have suggested the same with your comment regarding what you wish thugs could not get a hold of.


Anyone who is concerned about risk vs utility meets the grouping of 'some' (myself included). Id be concerned with any model that could easily aid mass indiscriminate killing in some short, finite period of time. I reject decades old arbitrary classifications to determine those.

[Statistical]

146. It isn't arbitrary.

Semi-autos are limited to a rate of fire based on how fast you can pull the trigger accurately. Unless it is your goal to ban all semi-autos (an invention well over hundred years old) the logical classification is

semi-auto - rate of fire limited by skill & capabilities of user.
automatic fire - suppressive and capable of extreme rates of fire limited only by the design of the weapon.

Based on that higher level of risk suppressive fire weapons are restricted more heavily (rather extremely IMHO the 1984 ban needs to go).


We aren't going to ban all semi-auto firearms. It is the most popular class of handguns, and rifles (and rapidly gaining in shotguns). That would be limiting firearms to pistols, bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, and pump shotguns as well as single shot weapons. No possible way that will EVER be considered constitutional and even if it was American public would never support that.

The overwhelming majority (like 99.9999%) of these weapons and owners use them in a lawful and safe manner.

So if we don't ban ALL semi-auto than any ban of a subset of semi-auto weapons based on grips, looks, style is dubious at best.

[Oregone]

147. "Unless it is your goal to ban all semi-autos"

Oh, thats not my goal, whatsoever.

Are you also suggesting that there exists no semi-automatic rifle that can be utilized for suppressive fire?

[Pavulon]

149. Not aw well as an M249 or 240 golf

not that you cant use the golf to place aimed fire either.

[Oregone]

151. "Not as well" doesn't eliminate the possible capabilities, eh?

:)

[Pavulon]

153. You can put suppressive fire down with a bolt action rifle

the germans and japanese did in ww2. Should we ban anything that can fire faster than once every 3 seconds? You know like the weapon used to kill JFK.

[Oregone]

156. I don't think so

But good question. We currently have a line drawn, more or less. Is it a just line? What direction should the bar move in? What is that line intended to do specifically? How efficiently does it serve its function?

[Pavulon]

157. You have nothing but a lost cause.

gun control is dying a slow death as it is irrelevant. The NFA covers everything, its restriction on pre 84 parts should be lifted. Background checks for class3 title 4 stays.

Other than that there is no restriction relevant to which type of rifles or pistols I should be able to own or carry.

Because of the dual nature of all technology a sniper rifle and deer rifle are the same thing. The semi auto is an "assault weapon" and the contents of your kitchen cabinet is a "bomb factory". Get it.

All about intent.

[Oregone]

158. "there is no restriction relevant to which type of rifles or pistols I should be able to own or ca"

Ok. Thanks for your opinion. Its so funny that people go to such great lengths to avoid saying just that. I appreciate your honesty.

[Pavulon]

159. Pretty much reasonable. Limiting me to a 10 round mag

on a sidearm is pretty stupid. I have no criminal background and therefore should (an am) able to own whatever I like. Now it just needs to be 50 state legal. Like my drivers license.

If I feel like purchasing an M4 I should be able to, and not pay 20,000 for a 700 dollar weapon.

[Statistical]

160. "suggesting that there exists no semi-automatic rifle ..."

"Are you also suggesting that there exists no semi-automatic rifle that can be utilized for suppressive fire?"

No I am suggesting than ANY semi-auto weapon (rifle, pistol, shotgun) has roughly equivalent rate of fire. It is wholly dependent on the skill of the shooter and the quality of the design.

Thus they all are equally "good" at laying suppressive fire. I would more correctly say they are all equally inferior at laying suppressive fire. This is why all militaries around the world use automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons to suppressive support.

So any ban would be utterly arbitrary. Ban weapon x well weapon y could be used for the same function. It isn't like there is a sub-class of semi-autos that are inherently superior to other semi-autos when it comes to rate of fire.

Since you asked:
* NFA remains in effect.
* 1986 ban rescinded.
* All semi-auto weapons are treated equally in terms of availability and regulations.

Anything less is smoke and mirrors. Banning just to ban and say "we are tough on crime" like the first totally worthless AWB. If you want tougher gun control then we can agree to disagree but at least I can understand it. However to treat a subset of semi-auto as "more dangerous" is morally and technically bankrupt. I am not saying Congress won't do that someday, I am saying it will serve no purpose other than to ban for ban's sake.

[Oregone]

161. "and the quality of the design" contradicts "they all are equally "good""

[AtheistCrusader]

164. Jams and misfires are not a contradiction.

[Statistical]

167. However it is very subjective and differences in quality are minimal compared to skill.

Also doesn't it seem kinda stupid to only ban high quality firearms. I mean really.

Maybe I should have said equal but more accurately roughly equal.

All semi-auto have roughly equal rates of fire, lethality, and capacity. Higher quality firearms are less likely to break, be more accurate, and less likely to jam however I don't find it Constitutional to restrict the law abiding to only junk guns.

The reality is statistically mass shootings are very rare. They always have been and likely always will. For every VT there will be thousands of people killed during the commission of violent crime. The idea that you can reduce violence and homicides by putting some bogus limit on lethality is silly.


Functionally all semi-auto designs have roughly the same potential for capacity, rate of fire, and lethality. There is no magic distinction you can make to ban only guns with potential to be used in mass shootings. The VT shooter killed far more people than the PAIR OF ATTACKERS at Columbine and with an arguably inferior weapon.

Society is better serves by solving the societal problems that lead to violent crime then putting arbitrary limits on firearms.

The only thing one could do to reduce the rate of fire, capacity, and lethality issue would be to ban all semi-auto weapons. First that will never happen and second it wouldn't be effective unless the tens of millions of weapons were confiscated. Even then the millions of illegal/street guns would be around for centuries.

[Oregone]

169. "doesn't it seem kinda stupid to only ban high quality firearms."

So, you are suggesting all bolt-action rifles are not high quality? :)

[AtheistCrusader]

170. Now you're just flailing around.

Yes, I see the smiley.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. Even a revolver can be used for 'suppressive fire'.

That is an extremely fungible term. But no, a revolver isn't DESIGNED for it, and neither is a semi-auto, of any potential cyclic rate.

[Oregone]

165. Not a term I introduced, mind you

[AtheistCrusader]

168. Agreed.

However, the point about the term, as it was originally introduced to this discussion is, that is ALL a machine gun is really useful for. That IS what it is designed for. You can make a meaningful statement that it IS an indiscriminate weapon. Select Fire somewhat greys the boundaries, and is available in some of the 'assault weapon/assault rifle' variants, but the feature full auto is properly categorized, and regulated.

Any 'semi-auto' type 'assault weapon' with the option to rock and roll, is immediately regulated forever as a machine gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. The nature of the mechanics of a fully-auto weapon

make it an indiscriminate weapon. Muzzle rise, kick, etc. It's mode of fire MAKES it not a specifically aimed weapon. The distinction is blurred somewhat around SMG's, but for full machine guns, you are literally 'spraying'.


Any firearm can easily aid mass indiscriminate killing in some short finite period of time. Again, as VT illustrates, the function of how many people get killed has little to do with the capacity or cyclic rate of the firearm, and as studies have shown, is really a function of how long the shooter has before encountering armed opposition.

[Callisto32]

74. A 12 Gague shotgun is .72 caliber.

Yup, the humble Foster slug is bigger than the dreaded "50 cal." and a .338 Lapua carries nearly twice the energy, with half the diameter of the bullet.

Bullet diameter doesn't have as much to do with it as people without knowledge of ballistics (read: politicians banning stuff to look like they are "doing something") think.


Full auto is merely a way to turn money into noise, for most shooters. If it was so useful for killing, why did the military decide that most weapons don't need to be full auto?

Could it be because full auto fire is really only useful for making people keep their heads down? The real world is not like the movies, where full-auto=super-death.

[Oregone]

101. Yeah, its what I use for home defense

But not much for rapid fire, my model, and only holds 7

[Pavulon]

86. Applied to the rest of the rights.

that would be an unmitigated disaster.

[HALO141]

145. That's not accurate.

The Miller Court merely said that the defense had not shown that a short-barreled shotgun had any value as a military weapon. Not surprising since the defense DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP to argue the case before the Court! Furthermore, the S.C. DID NOT decide against Miller. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case back to the lower court (which had decided in Miller's favor) to re-examine and flesh out what it considered to be an incomplete proof. That retrial never took place because Miller had disappeared and his co-defendant had since died. Since the S.C. vacated Miller's acquittal, all the pro-control fascists jump up and down, pointing to that as proof of their "collective rights" fantasy, conveniently ignoring the critical details in the case.

[Pavulon]

85. The guys who blew up buses in london used TATP

ingredients are under your bathroom sink or in your local drug store. Gonna ban them too?

Any one can spread mass death with any number of things you use every day.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Anything with enough stopping power to humanely kill a deer, will go through 2-3 human bodies.

Barring hitting major bones.

So uh, if 'hunting is ok', hunters will have to be restricted to 'nothing larger than a housecat', if you want the 'stopping power' to be meaningfully regulated in such a way as to 'protect' human life.

Hell, even a .22lr can kill humans, properly placed.

[Oregone]

29. Youre setting the bar of risk vs utility very low, and constructing a strawman in the process

I never suggested it had to be low. Thats all open for debate...a debate people simply do not want to have. Of course a bolt action hunting rife can kill people. Can it be used to kill 30 people in a matter of a few minutes by an untrained marksman? Can other weapons be used in such a manner?

But to the main question: is there ever a point where the potential risk of a specific firearm outweighs the utility that specific model will impart on a society?

Ever?

And if not, any such weapon should be legal and allowed to be possessed in any quantity. If you believe that there should be some arbitrary line in the sand, where do we set it, and how do we objectively go about classifying weapons?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. The classification is already done.

Anything with a bore larger than .50 is classified as a destructive device, not a 'arm' or 'firearm' for common purchase. Because it is meant for anti-material work, like hulling an armored personell carrier.

Armor-piercing pistol ammo is already tightly controlled, and unavailable to the public in the US. In rifles the term is meaningless. A soft tip round for deer in .30-30 will go right through a IIIa vest and come screaming on out the other side.

Select-fire weapons made after 1986 are fully unavailable to the public (burst or full auto). Weapons in this class registered before 1986 are collectors items, commanding prices upwards of 10k USD. They are registered. The BATFE inspects periodically to ensure you haven't 'lost it'. You pay a 200$ tax just to own it. You submit to a full FBI background check to purchase one, not just a NICS check.

Your work is already done for you.

[Oregone]

35. Thats bullshit, and it avoids the question I asked

Is there ever a point where the potential risk of a specific firearm outweighs the utility that specific model will impart on a society?

All you did is cite established regulations. That doesn't even attempt, whatsoever, to tackle this basic question. If you had courage to examine your beliefs, you can take an honest stab at just thinking about this question.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. You didn't understand my response.

The line, drawn at 'destructive device' is exactly that. A weapon that cannot be used in single combat. It is not used in warfare against other people. It is used to destroy large objects, vehicles, emplacements, and therefore is deemed 'too dangerous' or really, 'not useful' within the context of a citizen militia.

Every restriction I just explained to you, came about because of that risk assessment you are describing, whether it presents a risk to society, whether it is useful within the context of a citizen militia.

[Oregone]

40. The problem here is...

Rather than you actually examining the very question Im asking, you are just using pre-established arbitrary definitions to instantly answer it.

It would be like me asking you if God exists, and you reading a Bible verse saying he does. Well, first one would have to give that text any bit of credibility to take such an answer seriously. But its a great way to avoid thinking about it.

You mention automatic rifles being banned. But we know of many lethal semi-automatics that are not. What objective measures create the line between the two classifications? Did anyone scientifically examine every facet of each model, apply the results to some graded metric, and then determine which models pose more risk than their utility can mitigate? Or did they just draw quick groupings based on similar features? Is it possible that in doing so, some automatics that have great utility are unjustly banned? Is it possible that some semi-automatic riles pose great risks that their utility simply cannot justify?

Honestly, as long as you are making broad "groupings" of arms, and trying to say this or that group, based on what this law says, should be/or not be permissible, I think you are missing my point.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Select-fire weapons are used for suppressing fire.

Not something that joe citizen has any use for outside military combat, and in combat, ammo consumption is so voracious, it will require supply, and in many cases, a crew to serve. One guy, reporting on the orders of a governor, simply cannot carry enough ammo to enable the proper military use of that feature. So, they weighed the risks, in the face of criminal mis-use of these weapons, and registered the hell out of them, and later banned new ones entirely. This class of firearm, in fact, is the only class that can legally be registered by the federal government. I suspect after McDonald, California's 'assault weapon registry' is going to get slapped down hard.

The other features you mention, such as semi-auto, simply cannot be regulated in any meaningful way, without oh, banning some 70-90+ million firearms in common, lawful use for hunting, target practice, and even 'militia' use. It simply cannot be done. Not without getting 36 states together to shitbarn the 2nd amendment. There is no meaningful distinction to compare between these weapons that would allow a 'safer' or 'less damaging' weapon.

[Oregone]

47. "It simply cannot be done."

Then, uh, duh, lets just drink a fuckn beer and forget about it. Because thinking is too tough. Even in hypotheticals


"There is no meaningful distinction to compare between these weapons that would allow a 'safer' or 'less damaging' weapon."

I don't agree with this, whatsoever. Perhaps one does not exist, but we can most certainly create meaningful distinctions. I think we all can agree what we don't want to be able to happen (quick mass slaughters by half retarded sociopathic step children). If a certain combinations of features of a firearm would aid these types of acts, then that it a good place to start looking. And we can use science to help too.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. The appropriate counter-measures to the 'half retarded sociopathic step child'

is to limit access, which we do based on age and mental competence, and by shooting back.

You may not be aware, since you have apparently left the US, but in the case of Columbine, we changed the way police respond to active shooter situations, specifically because of that incident. The police sat outside for quite some time, while the inside of the building became a fucking war zone. No more. We changed response policy as a result.

Are there some things we can clean up around access laws? Sure. That can be done lawfully. But the weapon features, again, are not within the scope of lawful regulation. Not in the manner you are proposing anyway. Not while the military maintains weapons with those features.

[Oregone]

55. "we changed the way police respond to active shooter situations"

Im worried about damage that happens before the police can arrive...because some models don't take much time to warm up, eh.

All such risk that you find justified by your sacred holy text of the 2nd amendment, utility be damned.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Approve or disapprove, meaningless to me.

The law is the law, and if you truly want to have this sort of regulation, step one is amending the constitution to allow for it. Otherwise, good luck when the republicans get in power again, see what democrats have done with the 2nd, and stomp on privacy to ban abortion or whatever.

We are a body of laws and rights. Violate them at greater peril than the 'risks' you seek to mitigate.

[Oregone]

60. Laws are not universally correct, just because they are laws

Hell, America should have seen enough examples of that in history. Sometimes its ok to discuss them in an open, honest fashion, to determine if laws even need to be changed (and perhaps they do not)

Yeah, scary notion.

You can essentially stop ANY debate in this manner (by saying your hypothetical policy would violate laws that would probably need to be changed prior to such policy implementation). Its silly stonewalling. Its a super way to not even have to think about the question.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I didn't stop your debate.

I didn't lock your thread or delete your posts. I pointed out the futility of the discussion. The nice thing about a tree-like discussion thread is, the discussion can continue on, all around my posts, as if I wasn't even here.

It is impossible for me to stonewall your discussion. And on the flipside, you have proposed no balance/limits at all, when you are perfectly free to do so, and I can do nothing to stop you.

You have been 'stonewalled' only by the nature of your own responses to the information I have provided.

[Oregone]

109. You just mucked it up with nonesense

It was a simple question you went to great lengths to ignore

[AtheistCrusader]

113. I haven't ignored it.

you continue to miss the point.

[NewMoonTherian]

88. I agree with you

on the arbitrary nature of current regulations. There is no objectivity and no legitimate rationale. The current laws reflect a century of legislators randomly pushing whatever legislation they thought had a chance to pass(and probably a bunch of stuff they knew wouldn't, just to make a statement), and the rest of Congress randomly deciding what to support.

It seems to me that you're asking our opinion on the subject of arbitrary thresholds. I don't support them. I don't think any ban of any type of firearm has ever saved a life, and I support the repeal of bans on large calibers, AP ammunition and machine guns. I certainly don't think a panel of bureaucrats examining "lethality" against "utility" is going to do anything of substance except further clamp down on an already crippled civil right.

[Oregone]

108. "I support the repeal of bans on large calibers, AP ammunition and machine guns"

Thanks for at least being honest.

:toast:

Quick question...do you think that risk can't ever outweigh utility, or do you rather just believe bureaucrats have no ability to achieve a working model to assess that (so the attempt would inevitably ban more utility than eliminate risk)?

[NewMoonTherian]

188. I think an occasional shot of...

shocking honesty helps the discourse. I might overuse the principle at times. :9

I was thinking over my position on the issue after I posted, extrapolating to the logical extreme(the old "let's allow nukes" canard), and I found that I'm inconsistent in my viewpoint. There must be some point at which it's legitimate to keep a dangerous device out of the hands of the public, but no, there's no government entity I trust to determine that point. They've proven ineffective and malfeasant each time they've tried.

[Callisto32]

75. It's funny:

The anti RKBA folks like to bring up how dangerous drive by shootings are, but then say that weapons that defeat vehicles aren't useful.....

[NewMoonTherian]

254. *snicker* I see what you did there. n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

106. is there ever a point where the potential risk of a specific firearm outweighs the utility .......

No.

Nor, in my opinion, can any mere arrangement of ink on a page, vibrations of air or electrons, or specific set of phosphorescent dots on a screen be 'obscene'. Nor should any entity anywhere have the right to examine or regulate what chemicals are in my blood stream.

[Oregone]

111. Even if that utility is redundant (not unique)?

So, this essentially means you support the legalization of all weapons, correct?

[The Green Manalishi]

117. Ideally.

I am willing to live with reasonable regulations. As long as I have some say in what is "reasonable". However, in a choice between no regulations and those imposed by the more strident restrictionists, then I'll take no regulations.

Being a history buff, I want actual versions of pretty much every military hand held weapon in existence, or that has existed. Yes, that means actual AK-47's and fully automatic .50's. If someone doesn't like it then they can go to hell.

This is separate from the discussion of having the right to self defense of one's property and person.any opponent of which is simply a POS fascist not worth spitting at.

Personally, I think it reasonable to require demonstrated competence and psychological stability to own anything more than a shotgun, but unless and until all courts stipulate that there shall be no restrictions OTHER than competence, such as the arbitrary and capricious ones in California or Chicago, then better few or no restrictions than too many.

[benEzra]

204. Yes, certainly. And that line is based on function,

is there ever a point where the potential risk of a specific firearm outweighs the utility that specific model will impart on a society?

Yes, certainly. And that line is based on function, and is drawn by the National Firearms Act.

Semiautos lie on the civilian side of that line; select-fire and full autos lie on the restricted-to-government-use side of that line.

[Callisto32]

73. You would be incorrect.

If that were the purpose, than rifles that are, in essence, functionally identical, would not be on different sides of the ban.

TA DA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=326493&mesg_id=326659

[sharesunited]

6. You ask why should any be banned. I ask why should any be allowed.

[Pavulon]

8. For the same reason you will not be bound and gagged

for suggesting any political opinion. Or "defaming" bush, obama, or the mayor of chicago. Because smart men wrote laws that you or people who share your opinion do not have the political or social will to change. Thats why.

[Oregone]

10. "Because smart men wrote laws"

I'm not sure many of these types of rifles existed at the time those smart men wrote those laws. I'm not sure those smart men could even conceive of the types of weapons created today. Those smart men were simply mortals, and as all mortals go, they are dead today.

If a small group of soldiers armed with AR-15s could travel back in time, its likely they could decimate the entire Continental Army. Had these smart men saw that happen, *perhaps* they would of thought a bit harder about the issue. Of course, without an army...

[Pavulon]

11. Yet, you still have no political base to change them.

booze, stupid people "won", then figured out what they did. A rifle back then fired a bullet over a hundred yards. A rifle still does that.

Your argument falls flat as only a printing press would be protected by the first. No typewriters, digital cameras, or internet. So this medium is not protected?

You guys have had plenty of time to gut the second, but just cant do it. Move on to fixing root cause.

[Oregone]

12. "A rifle back then fired a bullet over a hundred yards."

It may have, but it didn't hit anything. :)


"You guys"

Throwing people in some lame group because they don't follow lockstep is pretty pointless

[Pavulon]

14. The killed plenty of people back in the day

with primitive arms. I generally look down on people who focus on the weapon instead of the shooter. There is a reason chicago and ontario have such different crime rates even though gun law in canada is far less restrictive.

[Oregone]

18. Plenty of people standing in dense lines

[AtheistCrusader]

30. You are describing the generally abysmal british marksmanship of the time.

And forgetting the general horror the British felt upon discovering the lethal accuracy of American Riflemen.

"Capt. Samuel Stockbridge calmly “shot at a mark about 12 or 14 rods and hit it exactly within an inch.”"

That's about 70 yards. One inch.

For the british, in the battle of Vittoria, in 1813, 1 out of every 459 rounds fired by the british line infantry found it's mark in an enemy soldier. Contrast that with the Americans at the battle of Bunker Hill, where we hit with 1 out of every 50. INCLUDING irregular militia.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Wrong.

At bunker hill, every single one of the 12 staff officers escorting the british commander Gen. Howe was either killed or wounded. Of the officers that were killed or wounded, few suffered less than 3-4 wounds. This demonstrated excellent marksmanship, because high value targets like officers were primary for the Colonial soldiers. Line british soldiers didn't suffer in numbers anywhere approaching that. The Colonials by and large, hit what they were aiming at.

1775. A few years later, the Austrians started fielding a 20 shot repeating rifle by the way. Later used on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Girandoni Repeating Rifle.

I do wish people knew their history better...

[Oregone]

33. Random thought...

I bet a few students at Columbine wouldn't have minded if those shooters were using a Girandoni. Simply put...modern firearms allow buffoons to do some serious damage with minimal effort. Buffoons didn't wield the firearm you speak of.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. What about Gas Grills?

Since the shooters at columbine rigged propane tanks to blow in the parking lot when EMS arrived. (Lucky the timers failed)
How about steel pipe? Since they had pipe bombs and all?

The shooters at columbine were, well, one was a sociopath, the other a manic-depressive. They were NOT 'buffoons'.


Now, I'm not going to argue that weapons haven't incrementally evolved in reliability, ease of use, penetration, rate of fire, and capacity. They clearly have. But only incrementally. There is nothing truly exotic about a M2 machine gun that would've really 'seemed like magic' to the founding fathers. The machine's operation and manufacture could have been easily explained. The argument that the FF's 'could not have forseen', is rather empty. They didn't grant us firearms. They prohibited the government from banning them. They expected the people to maintain proficiency, and posession of the same arms our military uses. On the subject of ordnance, instructions came later with the militia acts, and the dick act. Nobody expected joebob the farmer to maintain a cannon, or later on, a howitzer. Those weapons are supplied by the town, or state. But arms, arms we were meant to have, and arms are relevant to the security of a free state today, in the hands of civilians. See Korean business owners in the 1992 Rodney King riots.

They didn't form up. They didn't issue or take orders. But they illustrated the function of a citizen militia. They protected lives and property from even a domestic threat.

[Oregone]

38. Do gas tanks and pipes have utility that outweighs their potential risks?

See where I am going here?

I'm not saying everything dangerous should be banned. I'm rather suggesting that when the risk could not, under any circumstances, be outweighed by its utility to some agreed upon, arbitrary scale (especially if another less-risky model delivers the same utility), we should question what use it has in a society.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. In the 90's, I was told I could not buy a rifle with certain features, because it was an 'assault we

apon.'

Literally, safety features placed purchasing a modern rifle out of my reach. Features like:

A collapsable stock, so my wife and I can safely, and ergonomically use the same rifle, even though our arms are different lengths.
A flash hider, so I can fire the rifle in a low-light situation without blinding myself on the first shot.
A bayonet lug, so I could easily attach a light, for identifying my target safely.
A detachable magazine, so I can quickly reload, should circumstances warrant.

I've played your game. Certain people spend time misconstruing these features to paint a weapon as some dangerous thing it isn't, like a 'collapsable stock' enables hiding the rifle in a coat, LOL. Yes, 6 inches of adjustment makes a huge difference. Or that a 'flash hider' allows people to snipe without being seen, which is utter bollocks, people downrange still see the flash, it CANNOT be hidden from them. It only protects the shooter's vision.

No, I've played this 'agreed upon arbitrary scale' game before. I like the boundaries that are currently set, thanks.

[Oregone]

43. Thats not my game, whatsoever

Reference:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=327481&mesg_id=327494

Ill be the first to point out "assault weapon" is a meaningless and arbitrary classification of weapons that means nothing. I'm much more interested in actually assessing real risk by examining accuracy, rate of fire, range (and accuracy at each range), stopping power (examining velocity & caliber), ease of use, conceilability, etc. Score each of these categories in some type of metric to assess the overall risk. Go further to also assess it overall utility (and scale this if its unique). Then you can create a risk vs utility index, and those scoring above some arbitrary point everyone can reasonably agree upon will then be controlled or banned.

Im not interested in simply grouping weapons by what they look like. Id be more concerned about minimizing the ability of a sociopath to spread as much damage as possible in 5 minutes of glee.


"I like the boundaries that are currently set"

Essentially, you like what works for you. You don't appear serious at all about asking the tough questions.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I like what is lawful under our Constitution.

You cannot go down this road, without flying directly in the face of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. What you want to regulate, is 100% counter to the people maintaining the skills to use, and the possession of weapons in common use by the military. And we DO have need of these weapons.

You can't legally get there from here. Your 'tough questions' are meaningless. Without purpose. I WANT to keep my weapons that would run afoul of your proposal, specifically because they do so. Hell, if you set these guidelines, I would use them as a good purchasing guide. Because anything you felt was too outrageous, is exactly what we need to retain for the people.

[Oregone]

48. Does God exist?

"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One." Revelation 1:8

Golly gee fuck. Glad I didn't have to think too hard about that one. Its right there in black and white!

Hell, if you set these guidelines, I would use them as a good purchasing guide. Because anything you felt was too outrageous, is exactly what we need to retain for the people.

:rofl:

Thats not nutty. Not a bit.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I have not encountered any objective, credible evidence to support the existence of any

supernatural phenomenon, including any and all 'gods'.

I have encountered objective, credible evidence that the 2nd Amendment is relevant today, and protects precisely the weapons your proposed risk assessment would target. Including legal findings, at multiple levels of the court, across many 'incarnations' of political appointment to the court, across many decades of social change. The core meaning is unchanged.

[Oregone]

52. Well its right there in the bible. Its written in black and white! Its gotta be true!

"and protects precisely the weapons your proposed risk assessment would target"

I'm not sure what my risk assessment would target...how could I debate how it could be setup and what index levels are permissible when someone is stonewalling and blathering irrelevancies? We didn't get that far.

All we got to was that you seem to reject any validity to the idea that YOU should personally think about if the risk of certain models outweighs their utility. Hell...I can't even get you to think about the notion...crazy, nutty that.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. I am not bound in any way by the bible. I am bound by the Constitution.

Do you not understand the difference?

To restrict us to sub-military firearm functionality due to firing rate(cyclic rate), or penetrating power, or capacity, or any combination, is simply illegal IN THIS COUNTRY.

So it's a rather fruitless exercise, until and if the Constitution is amended to allow such regulation.

[Oregone]

58. "So it's a rather fruitless exercise"

Not exactly. Discussing what *should* be right rather than what is "right", according to the law, is the first step toward changing such laws.

Or we can just put our fingers in our ears and scream, "la la la I can't hear you!"

[AtheistCrusader]

62. We are talking in circles.

What you want to discuss is a violation of not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, in keeping us armed with literally, military grade firearms.

Such restrictions are impractical, have historically been WILDLY abused to restrict safe, sane, SAFETY features, and ultimately, are illegal.

Discuss away, they will never come to pass until the 2nd is altered to allow even the possibility.

[Oregone]

63. So. Discussing is not a violation. We aren't breaking any laws by talking

If we can rationally establish a sound agreeable metric for determining a "lethality to utility index" (or some shit), THEN you try and change law.

You are shitting your pants just thinking about thinking about the concept. Its hilarious.


"Discuss away"

:rofl:

With who?

[AtheistCrusader]

66. As I began earlier

a lethality index would point toward BETTER firearms for use and ownership by the people, under the current understanding of our laws and principles.

So I don't see how pointing out the best products and technologies would lead to changing the constitution to allow increased regulation of that technology.

[NewMoonTherian]

247. I'll engage in the discussion.

Being that it's nonbinding, and knowing that at least one of us won't be satisfied with the result, I don't see what it could hurt to try and hammer out a threshold for our imaginary future congress to argue over. What would be the scope of the discussion? For instance, I'd like to see reduced restrictions on explosives. I have land from which I occasionally have to clear large obstacles like stumps or underground boulders, and the ability to safely explode them would reduce clearing time from weeks to minutes(or hours, at any rate). Might sound little ridiculous, but as a starting point of a hypothetical discussion, I don't see what it could hurt.

[AtheistCrusader]

255. Oh man, I spent all day hacking apart two stumps in the sun, the hard way.

Don't get me started on explosives.

[NewMoonTherian]

256. Man, if I had to...

do it just a little more often, I'd invest in a stump grinder. Those things kick all kinds of ass. This conversation has digressed significantly, and it's my fault ^^;

[oneshooter]

258. Last year I used black powder

to remove a couple of pine and cedar stumps. Don't take much!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

249. Why do you list accuracy as a risk factor?

I think that the more accurate a rifle is, the safer it is. After all, bullets that don't go where they are aimed can hit unintended targets.

[Callisto32]

77. Move those goal posts, move em down, move those goal posts, move em around!

[Callisto32]

76. Bullshit.

Rifles were around back then.

My home-area was a hotbed of production of the finest long-range weapons then available.

A local soldier, during the revolutionary war, was credited with putting aimed fire on British officers from upwards of 200 yards, with an astounding success rate.

Can't remember his name, but will look it up if you really want me to.

[X_Digger]

83. Check out the Kentucky / Pennsylvania / Tennessee rifle

Accurate for man-sized targets out to 300 yards.

[X_Digger]

82. Check out the Girandoni Rifle

In use at the time of the second amendment's passage, 20 round magazine, shot a .51 caliber ball, at velocities similar to a modern 45ACP.

[sharesunited]

22. The words of smart men have intentionally been misinterpreted to indulge a cultural illness.

[TheWraith]

95. Care to back up your claim?

Find writings from the framers showing that they didn't intend for people to own firearms.

You'll fail.

[SteveM]

152. And Johnny-on-the-spot, He's here to cure it! nt

[spin]

16. For hunting, target shooting and self defense ...

assault rifles are used for these purposes.

An Intro to the AR-Style Rifle



Black guns often get a bum rap. They can look a bit menacing, and their configuration and controls are radically different than those found on traditional sporting firearms. But the hunter who automatically dismisses AR-style rifles as legitimate sporting guns would be doing himself a major disservice. Why? Because the AR is one of the most capable, adaptable, and appealing firearm platforms on the market today. And these characteristics are helping it gain traction in the civilian market in its semi-automatic-only form.

So, what exactly is the AR and why is it so appealing? First, AR stands for Armalite, the company that created the guns back in the 1950s (not Assault Rifle as is commonly thought). However, it has now come to refer generally to all manufacturers' civilian versions of the design.


When the first AR rifles were introduced they were radically innovative compared to popular guns of the day. The classic Winchester Model 70, for example, with it’s wood stock and blued carbon-steel barrel, looked great, but it also had an action based on a 19th century design. The AR was something completely different: It combined advanced aluminum-alloy forgings and synthetic materials. It featured a modular design with a two-piece receiver that allowed users to easily swap out upper assemblies of different chamberings or configurations. The two-piece stock design let users reconfigure the AR with different stocks and fore-end systems. That kind of versatility has allowed the AR (which was born as the AR-10 and adopted by the military as the M16) to become the longest-serving rifle in our country’s history.


Over the past 50 years manufacturers have taken advantage of the gun’s modularity to attach optics and accessories, add new operating systems, allow larger chamberings, and even create civilian-legal semi-automatic-only versions. These guns have proved capable and popular with shooters of all stripes, especially varmint hunters. And recent developments have expanded the platform to big-game hunters as well.emphasis added
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles

High Power Rifle

High Power Rifle is a specific format of competitive shooting popular in the United States. It is many times referred to as "Across the Course" and sometimes as 'traditional' High Power. In service rifle matches, a competitor can only use an M-1 Garand style weapon, a M1A (M14) style weapon, or an AR-15 (M-16) style weapon. A post front sight is required for the service rifle category.emphasis added

The standard course of fire for a service rifle match has four (4) individual stages that comprise an aggregate match.

1. Slow fire (10 shots in 10 minutes), standing at 200 yards

2. Rapid fire (10 shots in 60 seconds with reload), sitting or kneeling, at 200 yards

3. Rapid fire (10 shots in 70 seconds with reload), prone, at 300 yards

4. Slow fire (20 shots in 20 minutes), prone, at 600 yards

Starting in 2009, Civilian Marksmanship Matches still require the shooter to begin in the standing position then move into the sitting, kneeling, or prone positions to start their rapid fire. NRA competitions do not require the competitor to begin in the standing position.

This combines to a total aggregate of 50 shots worth 500 points. In addition to points, "X" count is also used to rank shooters in a match. In the center of each target (within the ten ring) is an "X" ring. If a competitor shoots within this ring they receive the ten points for shooting a ten, but an additional "X" which acts as a tie breaker. For example, if one competitor ends a match with 487-14X (meaning 487 points with 14 X's) and another shooter ends with 487-20X, then the one that shot 20 X's will finish ahead of the one which only shot 14 X's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Power_Rifle

The AR-15 Carbine
by Jeff Quinn


In recent months, I have received many emails from Gunblast readers regarding weapons for personal defense. These inquiries are not just of the "which pocket pistol do you recommend?" type of question, but lean more towards the defense of the home against determined intruders. Also, many people are concerned about the need for a bit more firepower that is portable enough to store in the family car, since most people spend a great deal of their time away from home, whether at work or on the road.

Many forward-thinking law enforcement agencies are now equipping their officers with, or allowing them to furnish on their own, a handy carbine chambered for a more powerful round than their sidearm, while providing a greater useful range than the typical police shotgun. After the infamous shootouts in Miami and Hollywood in which the police were carrying underpowered firearms for the situation, many agencies are finally waking up to the need for a better weapon. A handgun is a weapon of convenience; one that can always be at your side, but many social situations can be better handled by a long gun.

For those of you who have read my article on Homeland Security, you already know that I am a fan of the AR-15 family of weapons. Recently, I also wrote an article reviewing heavy-barreled AR-15 rifles. The AR15 system has proven itself worldwide in many different environments and situations. What they lack in beauty, they make up in reliability and ease of use. You wont find polished steel and oiled walnut on an AR, but you will find an ergonomic and beautifully functional weapon.

Unlike the article on the heavy-barreled ARs that are perfect for long range varmint hunting and precision target shooting, this article will deal with the AR-15 carbine: a weapon that has few rivals as an all-around rifle for self defense when the fertilizer hits the fan. The carbines are handy, easy to shoot well, accurate, and very reliable. They use surplus military thirty-round magazines and plentiful 5.56mm ammunition, along with any commercial .223 ammo. The guns are very simple to strip for cleaning, and require very little maintenance to keep them up and running. Also, the market is filled with parts and accessories to modify your AR to suit your particular preferences. emphasis added
http://www.gunblast.com/AR15-Carbine.htm

[safeinOhio]

17. All of that is very true.

I just think if you need 30 rounds to get that woodchuck, you might start thinking about taking up fishing.

[Statistical]

23. Versatility. 5 round mag for hunting, 30 round mag for home defense.

Especially for the person on a budget one rifle can be used for sport-shooting, hunting, and home defense.

[safeinOhio]

24. Lots of versatility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both perpetrators were killed, twelve police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the perpetrators and the police.
Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with 9 mm or .38 Special pistols on their person, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Matasareanu carried fully automatic rifles, with ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, and wore military grade body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' efforts were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with weapons that could penetrate and several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the appropriate firepower for patrol officers to have available in similar situations in the future.<3>

Of course some were full autos, but still deadly with large cap capacity mags. Like what the Hutaree militia planned to use on the local cops.

[Statistical]

26. "Of course some were full autos"

"Of course some were full autos" so we should solve that by banning semi-autos. Essentially because they LOOK like scary weapons.

Kinda like to stop race car driving deaths we should ban spoilers. Because everyone knows strapping a spoiler on a 1984 Kia will make it the same a Formula 1 supercar.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. 12 injured, 2 dead bad guys. Holy shit, I wish every murdering homicidal maniac had a hit rate like

that.

Did you even consider what you were citing? 'some were full auto's' LOL, you know damn well they only used illegally converted fully automatic weapons.

And they managed to kill NO ONE. Not exactly death rays, were they?

[safeinOhio]

70. Some have better results with semi-autos

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/pittsburgh-shooter-poplawski-didnt-o



We're gathering more information about Richard Polawski, the 23-year-old man who decided to kill three Pittsburgh police officers and wound three others because it appears he was afraid they -- at the behest of the Obama administration -- were going to take his guns away. (Dude, they definitely are now.)
Seems he was laying in wait in a carefully planned ambush:
Richard Poplawski, 23, met officers at the doorway and shot two of them in the head immediately, Harper said. An officer who tried to help the two also was killed.

Poplawski, armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, then held police at bay for four hours as the fallen officers were left bleeding nearby, their colleagues unable to reach them, according to police and witnesses. More than 100 rounds were fired by the SWAT teams and Poplawski, Harper said.

And he was paranoid about the Obama administration taking people's guns away -- even though, of course, there have been no indications of any such plans beyond NRA rantings:
Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

[benEzra]

78. You do know that ALL rifles are involved in less than 3% of murders annually, yes?

The "modern looking rifles need to be banned" meme is abject BS. Rifles are consistently among the least misused of firearms, despite their popularity.

[safeinOhio]

84. That is why I'm for

registering all handguns and background checks (NICS) on all private sales of handguns. 90% of all gun crime is with handguns. Thanks for helping me out with that one.

[Statistical]

96. Vast majority of violent crime involves stolen or illegal guns.

How does registering handguns do anything except creating a lot of cost and expense?

Given again that per FBI majority of guns used in crime are "Street guns" or "illegal guns" how does requiring NICS on handguns sales prevent that?

Still I have no problem with NICS being used on all firearm transactions with 4 stipulations
a) you come up with a system that prevents abuse & Identity theft (which is why current system is limited to dealers).
b) the system allows person to person transaction without a 3rd party.
c) the system provides some mechanism for protection of the buyer (confirmation code)
d) the system doesn't retain records (no defacto firearm database)

Something like I have a gun I wish to sell to my friend bob, via some method that protects bobs confidential information I can verify that bob is authorized purchaser, I also receive a code I can keep in my records as proof that I verified bob Identity and the system DID indicate he was authorized at the time of the sale (not my fault if system has an error, or data is not accurate, or bob later becomes unathorized). I can then hand the gun directly to bob (without a 3rd party) and bob hand me the cash.

If you come up with that hell I will support it on all gun transactions (buy, sell, trade, gift) and all types of guns. :hi:

[GreenStormCloud]

250. One DUer has suggested such a system.

Each person's drivers license would have a mark that indicated whether or not they could buy a gun. The DL would have an issue date. You would call state DMV and confirm that the DL is the most recent. DMV give you a confirmation number that you did check his license on that date. You give him a bill of sale and he signs a dated reciept that you keep and record his DL and date of issue.

[TheWraith]

97. Sorry, but the first two cops were killed with a pump-action shotgun.

But hey, go ahead and keep vulturing on their deaths to push your views.

[SteveM]

154. The shoot-out with a Thousand Faces. My word, what glaring over-use.

Respectfully, That Incident has to rate as the most re-re-re-replayed bankrobbery with full auto weapons aince the Bogotazo of 1948 (really an assassination). I bet the thugs who died in N. Hollywood constituted the (double? single?) integer civilian deaths from full-auto fire for several years back, now.

My meat-&-potato Remington 700 holds 5 rounds, including the chamber. I put in five and rarely use more than 1 on a hunt. I keep the rest for emergency signals. At the range, I wish I had a semi-auto carbine (even a pistol) that would crank off 18+ rounds so I can squeeze in some confidence-building, recoil-psyching.

[safeinOhio]

72. If on a budget, I'd get a

Remington 870 Express. A lot cheaper and not as dangerous to the neighbors as 30 rounds of high power rifle bullets. Bird loads for sport-shooting and 00 for home defense.

[Statistical]

100. That is YOUR choice however others have the RIGHT to make their own choices.

Until the RKBA is limited by amendment to only the Remington 8750 Express that is.

00 will punch through quite a few walls (I think box of truth went through 6 walls). So someone else might say they would require only small caliber handgun with frangible rounds. Someone else might say no handgun just tazers, etc.

You make the choice that is right for you, others make the choice that is right for them.

[spin]

112. That's your choice and a good one ...

Many people are using "assault " or black rifles for a large variety of tasks. They are very popular and not merely because they look similar to a military grade assault rifle or that they can handle a hi-cap magazine. They are popular because they are versatile, accurate and reliable.

I personally wouldn't choice any rifle as an urban defense weapon. I own .38, .38/.357, and .45 caliber handguns and a 12 gauge coach gun for that task.

People make different choices in life. You might argue that there is absolutely no reason to own a Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 with a 638 hp supercharged V8 engine that can go 205 mph, but some people chose to buy them.

[Euromutt]

245. You'd be surprised, actually

There's decent ballistics evidence that a 55-grain .223/5.56mm will actually cause less overpenetration of building materials than a lot of handgun rounds. The bullets break up more easily in building materials, or something. It's a large part of the reason why many SWAT teams are moving away from H&K MP5s and UMPs and using AR variants instead.

[spin]

253. I never really thought of that, but it makes sense. (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

69. As usual, a nonsense contribution to the discussion.

[benEzra]

80. Hmmm, how about because they're among the least misused of all guns

and are too big and bulky to practically conceal?

You know, like the gun-control lobby once observed, before they decided "heck, let's ban as much as we can, misused or not":

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; they are not concealable."

--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48, emphasis added.

That was the head of what is now the Brady Campaign, and rifle crime is even lower now that it was when he said that. And back then, you could buy a new AR-15 straight from a dealer without a background check.

[slackmaster]

93. Under our legal system, everything is allowed except that which has been prohibited

That's why.

We don't prohibit things without good reason.

[kratos12]

7. guns are just tools, the gun culture in this country is an illness

Guns aren't the problem, the problem is the USA's own sick obsession with a gun culture that is based on a whole pile of fantasy based hooey.

Guns provide security for oneself and one's family......not.

Guns provide some level of security against some future unforseen government power grab.....sounds good but let's see how uncle joe and the neighborhood militia with their gun show AK 47s do against an Apache or Bradley or just a plain old infantry rifle squad.


Our nation's gun culture, pushed by right wingers, accomplishes nothing but spread paranoia and a sense of false security for people ho are generally scared of their own shadows.

[Pavulon]

9. Yep, the fat "nra" fat fuck gun "culture" is not stacking bodies

in chicago all weekend. You want to see that shit, look up juba on live leak. See all the man with a rifle damage you can stomach.

All the anti folks never address root cause. Much harder to deal with than a few pointless gun laws.

[safeinOhio]

25. I sure don't see the NRA

addressing the root cause. They keep pushing corporate backed Republicans that just increase the economic disparity in the country. Neither side escapes blame.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. The cause isn't specific to firearms. Americans are generally, very violent.

There are cultural differences at play here. There are countries such as Switzerland that enjoy more guns per capita, and select-fire actual military issue rifles at that, and their ENTIRE murder rate doesn't approach ours.

You could start with comprehensive health care that includes mental health care. That would do far more for our murder rate, than banning XYZ weapons based on irrelevant features.

[Pavulon]

87. Not their job. The head up their asses people we elect

need to do their job.

[safeinOhio]

91. It is the people the NRA helps get elected

with head in place up the pooper.

[Pavulon]

150. Voters own it. Easy to blame, but at the end of the day

until we fix the stupid we are stuck with the trash we have at the local level.

[GreenStormCloud]

251. About 29% of NRA endorsed candidates are Democrats. N/T

[KansasVoter]

21. So true. But most do not understand the worry. They need steel courage.

[GreenStormCloud]

252. So what if that piece of steel give me more confidence?

Where is it carved into stone that I am required to gain your approval of my level of courage?

[Travis Coates]

71. Uncle Joe and the Neighborhood Militia

(sounds like a band)

Guns provide some level of security against some future unforseen government power grab.....sounds good but let's see how uncle joe and the neighborhood militia with their gun show AK 47s do against an Apache or Bradley or just a plain old infantry rifle squad.

I guess they'd do at least as well as the Taliban has been for the last 9 years.

Especially when you consider that most of the neighborhood militia probably has military training and better quality weapons

[Callisto32]

81. Typical, gun and thug culture confused.

I am STEEPED in American gun culture. I own, shoot, carry, read out, repair, and upgrade guns.

Funny thing. The American GUN culture is very knowledge/safety oriented. Safety rules are harped upon continuously. Folks that know what they are doing gladly sit through safety briefs at ranges, because we want to keep our sport one of the safest in the nation. Football and lacrosse injuries FAR outstrip those in the shooting sports. Why? Because while gunfire is certainly violent in a physics sense, it is rarely violent in a social sense, unlike the full-contact ritual combat that we call "sports."

The American gun culture is not violent, as evidenced by the huge numbers of life-time gun owners that somehow manage to not ever shoot anyone.

Guns are used as tools in American gun culture. Tools that put food on the table, provide recreation, and defend from violent attack.

Thug culture, on the other hand, leads to a lot of dead bodies, and wounded.

These people see their firearms as a tool to increase the likelihood of compliance with their unlawful, violent demands, or a method of easily removing a competing force; like another dealer.

To lump category 2 into category 1 is absurd, insulting, and disingenuous.

[Euromutt]

246. Any reason you posted that other than to help yourself deal with your inferiority complex?

Because that's the only discernible purpose for the gratuitous denigration your post almost entirely consisted of: putting other people down to help you feel better about yourself. And for the record, I'd like to state that any boost to your self-esteem resulting from that post is undeserved.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Don't most of us want to restrict firearms?

Few of us think felons should be allowed to purchase firearms, and few of us believe the average citizen should be allowed to bring a firearm into the White House. The real argument seems to be the degree of restriction.

[Pavulon]

90. Correct. I passed 2 ssbi checks

swore I was not a homosexual and not doing drugs (at the time) every 6 freaking months. I was at one time trusted with very valuable information and access to things that are horribly lethal I should be able to purchase and carry a handgun anywhere my security is not guaranteed by the property owner. IE courts, secured ares, etc. Across state lines.

I should be able to own NFA weapons without paying 20,000US for a 700 dollar rifle.

Conversely a convicted felon should have to petition the court to own firearms ever again. IE a guy who committed a felony bar fight at 18 vs a career felon have different outcomes.

I also expect the politicians to fix the real problem, not bad hi cap mags and scary looking guns.

[safeinOhio]

92. So, it's all about you.

Which of those politicians are fixing the problem, according to you? I don't think your extremism does the gun rights cause any favors. Just as those that want to ban a scary looking gun are out to lunch, so are those that want cheap full autos for ex-felons. Especially angry ones.

[Pavulon]

148. There is no legal cheap full auto.

Full auto has no use in defense and limited role in offensive situations. The LA shooting was actually a lucky break for the police that these guys were rocking an rolling rather than firing rifles from cover using aimed fire. They would have been quite fucked then. The purpose of full auto is to pin a group while you advance or retreat.

They are also lots of fun to shoot.

[Katya Mullethov]

94. I hooked one of those up the other day

It was more of a case of him having a little bit too much grass on him in the wrong at the wrong time in the 70's . I was there , (the 70's)I remember .

He brought me most of Colt Navy and I turned him on to a cylinder and a wedge . The look on his face was priceless .

[benEzra]

79. Tell me again how rifles are such a fricking crime problem?

This issue is irrational in the extreme, considering that all rifles put together (including the scawwy looking ones with handgrips and magazines that stick out) are consistently among the LEAST misused of all firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

For example, Mayor Daley has been ranting and raving about modern-looking rifles in Illinois recently, and has long been pushing for a statewide ban on protruding rifle handgrips and magazines. So they must be a big crime problem, right?

Well, Illinois reported 530 murders to the FBI in 2008. Guess how many reported murders involved rifles? Answer: THREE. Yes, 3 out of 530. Zero point six percent for all styles of rifles combined.

Nationwide, the percentage of homicides involving rifles was 2.6%. Again, that's all rifles combined, including all the scawwy looking ones PLUS traditional looking huntin' gunz and .22's.

So, tell me again how rifles are such a fricking crime problem?

[safeinOhio]

89. You are right

illegal handguns are the problem. Looks like 99.4% of Illinois murders are from hand guns not rifles. The focus on gun violence should be on handguns. Thanks again for making my point.

[Statistical]

98. Might want to check your math.

You are aware it is possible to murder someone with neither rifle OR handgun. :hi:

[safeinOhio]

138. Of course, but

if you plan a mass murder of police, like the Hutaree Militia, military rifles are the best, if not only, choice. Now just knocking off the wife's boyfriend, a knife will do.

[X_Digger]

141. And yet police are killed with handguns four to one compared to rifles.

'best, if not only, choice' indeed.

[safeinOhio]

176. Sure, for just knocking off one or two,

if you plan on killing about 100, military "style" rifles with 30+ mags are the ticket.

[ManiacJoe]

178. That's one way to do it.

Alternatively, you could use a traditionally-styled semi-auto rifle using 5-round hunting magazines with pretty much the same effect.

[Pavulon]

187. So , I cant own a 30rd mag because some asshole planned something...

please. This is the kind of stuff that makes people question sanity. Go ban diesel fuel and 55 gallon drums. You know, someone actually used them plus another common chemical to kill people by the hundreds.

[X_Digger]

189. And I might use my computer to distribute child porn..

.. let's ban computers!

Or somesuch drivel.

I'm sure there's some whack-job planning in his fevered head to kill 100 kids with chlorine gas. Doesn't serve as a valid reason to ban bleach and ammonia.

When there are multiple cases of hundreds of cops are being killed by "military style" rifles, then we can chat again.

[safeinOhio]

192. Only one time

box cutters were used to highjack airplanes. So, you are saying there is no reason to ban box cutters on commercial flights? Only one time was a Federal building blown up with high nitrogen fertilizer, so your saying it is not worth making it harder to come by? Only one President was killed with a mail order rifle, so now it is unfair to everyone else to ban, or at least make it difficult to get mail order rifles?

Sorry, it won't take multiple cases of hundreds of cops being killed by military style rifles, will it? We may have come close to it happening in Michigan, so why wait until the horse is gone to close the barn door?

You do make good arguments, just not good enough.

[Pavulon]

193. No, it does not matter. All the stacked bodies

will not flip the law of the land. All the dead people on motorcycles will not get a ban. Remember that 60 minutes story about scary motorcycles from japan and how fast they went. The scary guns bs caught on the public forgot to take the bait on sports bikes.

Why do you need a bike that can do a buck 80..

You no argument when you are hoping for some mass casualty event to sway the stupid to change the law in a time of emotional blindness. And you can still buy a rifle like whitman used to kill people down in texas.

Sad when you have to bet on stupid to be able to get your way.

[safeinOhio]

195. Like I said

You still can't take a harmless box cutter on a plane. Try buying a 110 lb bag of the fertilizer McViegh used. Easy to mail order rifle are history. You win some, you lose some.
I'd guess your comments on getting my way are a little bit of projection on your part. You were the one stating all the things you want, full autos cheap.

[Pavulon]

198. 50 state ccw baby.

I can buy that chemical at the southern states store right around the corner. you lost 2 big ones. move on.

[safeinOhio]

208. You sure don't know me

I have CCWs from 2 states and am working on the third. What are the ratios and brand of what you can buy? Let me know when you declare a box cutter on your next flight.

Your problem is that you are so defensive that you ignore what ones really is about and just lump everyone you disagree with on one or two issues as the enemy.

[Pavulon]

211. I have one, and should only need one.

you are not an "enemy" just a person who I disagree with. And I am not posting ANFO recipes online.

[safeinOhio]

226. I travel and this comes in handy

http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php

Saves stopping and putting my carry unloaded in the trunk.

[Pavulon]

229. Driving the east coast is a pain in the ass.

to get from here to NH takes a JD. I just dont bother. It should all be the same, one set of rules for the country.

[safeinOhio]

237. Careful what you ask for

they might agree and make Illinois law the law of the land based on what you said.:rofl:

[Pavulon]

238. Vermont would be better. Its a blood bath there..(nt)

[Statistical]

225. We still have mail order rifles. Ever heard of gun broker.

Hell if it is intra-state (depending on the state) you don't even need an FFL.

[safeinOhio]

230. Not in the Sears catalog anymore.

I'll have to check that out.

[safeinOhio]

232. From their web site

Shipping Legalities
Federal Law requires that all modern firearms be shipped to a holder of a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL) only. The recipient must have an FFL; however the sender is not required to have one. Any person who is legally allowed to own a firearm is legally allowed to ship it to an FFL holder for any legal purpose (including sale or resale).

[Statistical]

239. Hmm.... I must have remembered incorrectly.

I only have used gunbroker for ammo and pistols thought the law was different for rifles.

No misinformation intended.

[Straw Man]

257. Gunbroker is being cautious

This is from the ATF website:

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

<18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)>

[X_Digger]

196. "may" being the operative word.

Even for sufficiently rare episodes I do not think blanket bans make sense.

I wouldn't ban box cutters on planes or good fertilizer, or mail order rifles. You don't legislate on the exceptions, and damn well not on 'may's.

[Statistical]

143. Military rifles are already heavily restricted under the NFA and have been for 8 decades.

You are really calling the "assault weapon" fraud, military rifles are you? I mean that would be lame.

The "scariness" has no effect on the lethality of the weapon. Unless your intent is to scare the officer to death.

[safeinOhio]

177. What most are really referring to

are military style or assault type weapons that have 30+ capacity magazines. The ones favored by right wing militia types that want to use the Second Amendment solution to taking back the country from the legally elected politicians. Don't see many of them training with Rem. 700s.

[Pavulon]

185. Dont see any 30 round magazines

on a rifle that can put a round in your head at a mile either. What you see are replicas. You are being sold a brand, a look. Like some people buy shoes and clothes the black stoner rifle replica is just that a replica.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. OK, here are the thoughts that have been in my mind and I ask that you grant

me the consideration that much of what I have to say has been softened by my time here in the "gungeon".

First, I understand the term "assault weapon" is probably arbitrary. OK, got it. I will concede that point and may even admit the term "assault" was chosen because it sounds scary and as such makes the law more marketable. However, if I DO say "assault weapon" or "AW" please be patient enough to accept that it is only for the sake of using shorthand in the conversation.

Second, I understand these weapons comprise a miniscule percentage of gun crimes in the US, ergo my reasons to be stated below take this into account and I still think my reasons hold.

I guess my beef with AWs (misnomer though that may be) is their high-volume, high-rate of fire, high-power and ability to be modified. Granted many of you here have these weapons and hundreds of thousands of other people do as well all without incident.

But when there IS an incident the police seem hopelessly out-gunned. Whether Columbine or those bank robbers (IIRC) in LA the police have held at bay while the killers went on a rampage. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the average AW can penetrate the average police officers body armor. It seems to me the only chance the police would have would be to arm themselves in such a way as to be able to out-gun the criminals and/or they have to engage in the same attacks the military has to engage in.

I'm not going to be so cliche as to say I don't trust the police with this firepower I'm going to say I don't want our streets turing into armed compounds. An AWB won't stop criminals from getting guns anymore than it will stop criminals from burglarizing my apartment but it does give cops the means to interdict sa many of these weapons as possible BEFORE they get to the wrong people.

The question then comes down to, "But what about us law-abiding citizens?"

Certainly that is a fair question but the nature of my support for the AWB centers on extreme situations. Millions of AW owners never commit a crime...but that 0.0001% who do create such extremes of public danger and can take so many lives while being able to overpower the police that we have to give police the pre-emptive tools to meet this extreme threat.

Of course the recent McDonald ruling changes much of this.

Perhaps what I'm looking for isn't an AWB but some other mechanism. If some idea is forthcoming I'm certainly willing to hear it and even offer support.

Sorry for weighing-in so late in the thread.

[Statistical]

103. None of those are true.

high-volume, - this isn't unique to "assault weapons". Any weapon with box magazine (commonly incorrectly called "clips") can use a larger magazine. To prevent high-volume one would need to ban not only all large magazines but essentially all firearms which could accept a box magazine. This would ban essentially all modern pistols (with exception of revolvers) and vast majority of rifles.

high-rate of fire, - assault weapons are semi-auto they are no faster or slower than any other semi-auto on the planet.
high-power - not true in the slightest. Most of the original "assault weapons" were SMALL CALIBER rifles. They were patterned off of 5.56mm NATO, and 7.62mm SOVIET rifles. Those rounds were chosen for their LACK OF LETHALITY. The older battle rifles have much higher powered cartridges (similar to hunting rifles) but wounded enemies are more "costly" than dead ones. Militaries shifted to the LESS LETHAL rounds to save cost, weight, and improve accuracy and recoil.

ability to be modified - nope. BATFE considers any weapon that can be readily modified into an automatic weapon to BE AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON and subject to all the restrictions and regulations involving automatic weapons. If a company tomorrow sold a semi-auto that could be easily converted to full auto everyone would be going to jail for very long time (10-20 years per transaction, could literally be a sentence of tens of thousands of years). Firearm companies routinely send new models to BATFE BEOFRE they are put on the market to ensure they meet BATFE standards for not "readily convertible". The idea that you can buy a "assault weapon", change a couple springs and get an machinegun is an urban legend.

"Please correct me if I'm wrong but the average AW can penetrate the average police officers body armo"
You are wrong. :)

Any rifle round can penetrate police body armor because Police body armor is designed to defeat handgun rounds.
Rifle rounds aren't just "long range handguns"; rifle cartridges contain much more muzzle energy than even the most powerful handgun round. Thus a rifle round will go through body armor designed to defeat all handgun rounds like it is a sheet of paper. Simple ballistics. To defeat rifle rounds you need very thick heavy ceramic plates which shatter and deform absorbing the massive amount of energy in the round bringing it down to handgun speeds and allowing the kevlar to stop it.



I wore this for a year in Iraq. It is very heavy (about 35 pounds with all suplemental add-ons, destroys your back (still have persistent back pain 2 years later and likely always will), insanely hot (inside the armor it is easily 10-20 degrees hotter than outside air), uncomfortable (like straping a cinderblock to your front an back and then trying to run, duck, kneel, dodge), reduces mobility, and makes you look like a tank. This will defeat most rifle rounds however there isn't anything unique about "assault weapons" that make the round more powerful. Most actually are on the low end of muzzle energy. The types of rounds it won't defeat are those with very high muzzle velocity..... like high end hunting rounds.

A sniper is simply someone who hunts humans. If a round can kill a moose it can kill a human (and defeat even the Interceptor body armor).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. Thank-you

Concerning "box magazines" - see here is the thing: I'm not so sure I'm opposed to, "To prevent high-volume one would need to ban not only all large magazines but essentially all firearms which could accept a box magazine."

Um-m-m..."darn"?

I know that won't win me many friends but not every rifle needs to be able to take box magazines. As for pistols:

Yes, they could take lots of bullets and have a high rate of fire but they don't have the power of a rifle. It's the combination of capacity AND rate of fire AND power combined all together that I believe leaves the police at a serious disadvantage.

Concerning modification: my misconception and I thank you for explaining that to me. Having no reason to doubt you I accept your answer and what I believed to be an issure may not be such an issue after all.

Your point about body armor I don't think proves the issue one way or the other...but it was informative. I can only assume my BF had to wear that when he was deployed. Good grief! I can't imagine having to do anything in that other than falling over. Still, I hope the police here never have to wear it because it will be a sad, sad commentary on our society.

Anyway...you were certainly polite and helped me learn something.

As I said its the combination of capacity, rate of fire and power that puts the police at risk. If not a ban what is the best way to keep the police and citizenry safe?

Thanks again :pals:

[X_Digger]

122. Police wear the armor that best suits the threats they usually face.

A majority of officers wounded are wounded by personal weapons (fist, feet, etc), not even firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_70.html

A majority of officers are killed by handguns, not rifles, by a four to one ratio.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_27.html

So it makes sense for officers to balance the test of best protection for likely threats vs. weight / comfort / maneuverability by going with a vest capable of stopping handgun rounds.

[Statistical]

140. Exactly all armor is a tradeoff in protection vs. encurmberence.

There is no perfect armor. More protection = more weight, more obvious you are wearing armor, more exertion, more alarming to general public, etc.

Since the overwhelming number of LEO deaths and injuries that do involve a weapon involve handguns and knives a light Level II body armor makes the most sense. It is a good compromise between security and usability.

If Police Depts issued Tactical Level IV to every officer likely we would see LEO injuries & fatalities increas.
Why? Simple; 99% of cops would take it off and then be unprotected from a thug with 9mm or knife (something easily defeated by the much lighter/cheaper/comfortable Level II armor).

[safeinOhio]

194. He was totally wrong about banning

high capacity magazines. It is easy to do. It is the law in Ohio. The gun is not banned, only illegal if has a 30 round mag. The plus one in the chamber, making it over 30 is only what makes it illegal in Ohio. So, you can ban the magazine and not the gun. I have a Glock pistol and had a 30 round mag. When I moved to Ohio I got rid of it. I did not have to get rid of the Glock. I have no problem with that.

These people will argue until the cows come home. Just look at this thread. If you wanted to pass a law prohibiting concealed guns at nudist camps, they'd find an argument for that.
:crazy:

[X_Digger]

197. Best ban duct tape, too.

After all, I can take two ten round magazines and effectively make a 20 round magazine. I can take two 10 round handgun mags and a dab of JB weld and create a 20 round mag.

[safeinOhio]

212. I wouldn't try it

in Ohio. Felony and you could never buy or carry a gun again.

just saying.

[Statistical]

228. ROFL.

Show me the statute that says two mags ducked taped together is prohibited.

Two mags is still two mags, duck tape or not.

:rofl:

[safeinOhio]

235. Try it and find out if

that would be inferred in the law or not. I'll let you, good luck and I'd speak with a competent lawyer first.

[X_Digger]

234. But it shows the inanity of such restrictions.

A good handgun shooter can swap mags in 2-3 seconds. A rifle shooter (depending on rifle and position) only slightly longer.

What logical reason can a person give as to why such restrictions make sense? Is it all 'may's and 'might's?

A restriction that has minimal impact to the targeted (pun intended) purpose, is based on theoreticals, and is easy to functionally circumvent- serves no legitimate purpose.

[safeinOhio]

240. All I can say is

you'd have to ask the legislators that passed it and have to run for re-election.

They did change one stupid law here. Use to be you had to have your concealed in plain view if pulled over in a vehicle. So, bike gangs started driving down the road with their shirts and jackets pulled up over their guns, scaring the public. It became a nightmare for enforcement and was change after a year or so. Most laws change and adjust over time as the public and cops bitch.

[Statistical]

199. Which serves no purpose.

Banning large capacity magazine but not firearms which can accept any size magazine is futile. Your firearm still can use magazine of virtually any size.

There is no technical constraint. You obeyed the law criminals tend to not do so. A criminal who is already violating dozens of laws including possessing an illegal firearm is really going to care that the magazine isn't compliant. Really?

Of course not. Given a magazine is stamped from sheet metal it isn't very hard for someone to make their own plus you have the issue of hundreds of millions of magazines already existing.

Once again it is a feel good do nothing law that simply prohibits the law abiding from having full capacity of the weapon.

[safeinOhio]

215. Kinda like speed limits

no one obeys them, but does get em tickets and points. Just one more charge to keep em off the streets a little longer.

[Pavulon]

227. Not everyone. Some pay for the charge to become a non moving violation

that requires a lawyer. Preferably one who knows the judge or the trooper. Trooper smith may be on vacation in two weeks, funny how my case gets dismissed because he is not in court that day..

All about the money and who you know.

[safeinOhio]

241. Welcome to America

where there is no justice, only just us.

[Pavulon]

242. All about what you can pay for..

its cheaper to pass stupid gun law like the ones banning the rifle in this OP, than to deal with problems.

I mean what political hump is going to suggest we legalize drugs..

[Pavulon]

200. No I want to destroy a stupid law like that one.

so if I drive through ohio I dont have to follow some local law. That is the definition of a moron law. I can have lots of mags topped at 28.. Real effective.

[safeinOhio]

218. That makes sense.

You might love Somalia. No stinking laws there.

[Pavulon]

223. Stupid laws, like prohibition

need to go away. Good laws are fine, ones made to fix problems that dont exist, buh bye.

[cowman]

248. The flak vest I

wore in Vietnam was a heavy son of a gun and was about worthless against a 7.62x39 round. I stopped wearing it about 1 month later.

[benEzra]

123. Here is the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "sporting rifle."

This is a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle (.223 caliber semiauto) that I owned for many years:



With the top stock:



A "sporting rifle" explicitly recognized by the 1994 Feinstein law as being "particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

With the middle stock:



Still a "sporting rifle" under the 1994 Feinstein law, but banned in California (felony) as an evil "assault weapon".

With the bottom stock:



An evil "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein law.


The same rifle. Same capacity, same rate of fire, same ammunition, same accuracy, same everything except the stock shape, and the fact that the last one folds for easier storage.


The problem with the "assault weapon" fraud is that it is an attempt to scare people into outlawing the most popular civilian rifles based on no other reason than that they are easily demonized due to their nontraditional looks. They fire no faster than "ordinary" rifles, are generally less powerful and less lethal at range than hunting rifles, are rarely used in murders, and are rarely used against police officers.

What they are is the most popular target rifles in the United States, dominating centerfire target shooting in this country, both recreational and competitive. They are also the most common rifles kept for defensive purposes, as a lighter and more versatile alternative to the traditional 12-gauge shotgun. The vast majority of U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, and more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, so if you ban them, you've gutted the lawful gun culture. Personally, I think is what the Brady Campaign et al are really after here.

FWIW, there is some ownership and use data in this post here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/107

[Oregone]

129. Absolutely absurd

Creating that arbitrary classification did more harm, in the long run, for their particular cause than any good.

Good demonstration BTW with pictures. I personally love that particular model and grew up learning to shoot with one.

[jberryhill]

175. Hey, here's another example:

Britney Spears at age 17:



Illegal to post a picture of her cooter on the internet.

Britney Spears at age 18:



Legal to post a picture of her cooter on the internet.

It's madness, I tell's ya.

Either model has the EXACT SAME PARTS!

[Pavulon]

186. What country is the picture hosted in? (ie how much can you pay)

for a may issue permit? Are you black? all relevant when a person decides if you can get a permit in some cities.

[benEzra]

201. A better analogy would be Britney at 26 in a black dress, and Britney at 26 in a blue dress.

The cutoff between a minor and an adult is age 18, just like the cutoff between a restricted Title 2 military weapon and an ordinary Title 1 civilian firearm is .51 caliber, full auto, sound suppression, and a 16" barrel length.

But with the "assault weapon" fraud, we're not talking functional differences, or differences in capability or potential for abuse. We're talking about legislating aesthetics---to use your example, it would be like making it a crime for Britney to wear a black dress but not a blue dress.

[RamboLiberal]

180. The North Hollywood Bank Robbery was an anomoly

1 incident that has not been repeated. Wikipedia explains it well.

On the morning of Feb. 28, 1997, after months of preparation, including extensive reconnoitering of their intended target—the Bank of America branch on Laurel Canyon Boulevard—Phillips and Matasareanu loaded five rifles and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines into the trunk of their vehicle: two modified Chinese-built Norinco Type 56 Sporters and one modified Norinco Type 56 S-1, a semi automatic HK91 and a modified Bushmaster XM15 E2S. Phillips carried one 9mm Beretta Model 92F. They wore their full-suit body armor, as well as metal trauma plates to protect vital organs, and they took the barbiturate phenobarbital to calm their nerves.

LAPD at the time didn't equip their street officers with a rifle in the car. They should have, but instead they depended on SWAT who took awhile to get to this incident. And look at the date. This incident was after the AWB was enacted. Sure didn't stop these 2 robbers. LAPD officers at the scene were going to gun stores to get rifles to fight back.

Have you seen an incident like this since?

Columbine - no except for the school officer on the scene the police were not outgunned. And even there the weapons Harris and Klebold were carrying were not that great. The rifle was a pistol caliber and the pump action shotgun soemthing that could be used for hunting. And the only reason I give Harris a slight edge against the school officer when they exchanged fire from a distance is the better stability of the carbine vs. a pistol. But no caliber edge.

During the shootings, Harris carried a 12 gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun (serial no. A232432) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle with thirteen 10-round magazines, fired 96 times. Harris's other weapon, the shotgun, was fired a total of 25 times. Harris committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his shotgun.

Klebold carried a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun manufactured by Navegar, Inc. with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine. He also carried a 12 gauge Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun (serial no. A077513). Klebold's primary weapon was the TEC-9 handgun, which was fired a total of 55 times. Klebold would later commit suicide via a shot to the left temple with the TEC-9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

The SWAT officers at Columbine had Harris and Klebold outgunned. But by the time SWAT went in to the school the killers had already committed suicide. Again this terrible crime happened after the AWB. Did nothing to stop it. Look at the high cap mags - thought they were banned? Ah, but exising mags were grandfathered in and there were thousands if not hundred of thousands of them already available. Only thing the AWB did is make them more expensive and valuable.

Anytime police roll up on a criminal with a rifle or shotgun they can be outgunned if they don't get to their shotgun or if they are not carrying a rifle in the patrol car. Cops get killed by criminals with hunting rifles.

Police agencies should train and equip their officers with an AR-15 and many are. Just like they found they had to switch from revolvers to higher capacity semi-autos. Or from 9mm to .40 or .45 calibers.

IMHO the AWB was a knee jerk to a couple of high profile crimes and a stupid ineffective law that did little to stop crime. It soured a generation of gun owners on voting Democratic and will continue to hurt Democrats for at least another 10-20 years or better.

[Statistical]

202. Yup never bring a handgun to a rifle fight.

Or the adage that my pistol is used to get me to my rifle. :)

[SteveM]

155. After tha Bull-in-the ring stuff, I'm glad I followed your adivce to "hold back." nt

[jberryhill]

166. What is the difference between a 20 year old at 11:59 PM on their birthday and a minute later

A minute later, the same person can buy alcohol.

Interestingly, even if he/she was born at 3 in the afternoon, they still need to wait until midnight, even though they are already 21 years old at 3 in the afternoon.

There is just no sense to it. Anyone should be able to drink at any age.

We draw lines.

All lines are arbitrary where drawn.

[Pavulon]

171. we move lines too

recent court decisions show the lines are moving. People have also figured out that gun control laws are a bamboozle and have nothing to do with their safety.

Times are changing.

[jberryhill]

172. Right, so, what's your problem?

Others aren't allowed to disagree on where to draw lines?

Is that it?

[Pavulon]

173. Sure they can disagree. But reason and logic should be there. Not FUD

the we will protect you in your shitty drug infested poor community with gun control logic is repulsive. It is much easier than actually addressing the things that make S. Chicago and Greenwich CT very different in respects to violent crime.

[jberryhill]

174. You are going in a circle

Any line drawing exercise - ANY line drawing exercise - is arbitrary at some level. My comments are directed to the topic of this thread.

There are 14 year olds who are perfectly capable of driving a car. We don't let them. So what.

If you want to discuss some other topic than that of this thread, that's simply a different discussion.

I don't live in a shitty drug infested poor community, so I am not the authority on what people who do live in them might prefer or not, relative to gun control laws. They are citizens capable of expressing their view in the selection of representatives who will participate in line drawing exercises on their behalf.

If your point is that they are making poor choices, then you have an education job on your hands, and you need to get into those communities and tell them what is best for them.

[Pavulon]

182. My point is gun control is a worthless bamboozle

perpetrated on the public to fool people into the appearance something is being done to make their lives safer. Gun control is arbitrary and worthless in almost all its forms is arbitrary.

The people doing all the "telling" in S Chicago are doing such a great job, there is no room for any improvement.

[jberryhill]

205. That's not the subject of the thread

I frankly have no opinion on "gun control".

I do have quite a few opinions about law generally.

The fallacy here is that law is supposed to "make sense" in some particular way. If I want something to make sense, I wouldn't hire 535 people from every corner of the country to write it.

There are a lot of laws that don't make sense in a zillion different situations. I hear it all day long in advising clients about stupid things they must do or not do, simply because it satisfies some wrinkle of some law.

You seem to believe your discovery of this mundane fundamental arbitrary nature of making rules - for anything - is some sort of cosmic injustice.

[Pavulon]

207. Whats the point there, please remind me..

whether a stoner rifle should be regulated in the same manner as another pattern? The law generally can be bent by money. Who knows whom and who can pay.

[jberryhill]

213. Okay, you just plain old don't like law in general

Why waste your time discussing law at all, since you have concluded it is all just a big corrupt game.

You don't have a problem with a law. You just don't like laws, period.

So the fact that you object to a particular law isn't very remarkable.

[Pavulon]

216. Law is enforced based on socio economic basis

I can afford to pay 800 an hour someone else cant. I have an advantage. The law can be changed once it has been deemed worthless or harmful. Prohibition and drug laws are a prime example of this.

[jberryhill]

220. Never saw a poor guy go to jail for insider trading, but whatever. /nt

[Pavulon]

221. Or many millionaires on death row.

lots of black faces. Poor black faces.

[jberryhill]

231. Federal convicts?

Name three people sentenced to death in federal court.

Or are we just totally off the subject of federal laws entirely now?

[Pavulon]

236. More than 8/10th would be black..

80 percent are BLACK. No there is plenty of stupid to go around.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/racial-disparities-federal-death-penalty-prosecutions-1988-1994

[Statistical]

203. If they feel what is "best" is violating the Constitution well then it doesn't really matter what

they want. If Atlanta felt their community would be best served by bringing back Slavery that wouldn't fly either.

OF course any line draw will always have outliers but the point is to have at least some rational basis for the decision.

A ban based on the cosmetics of a weapon has no rational basis. A ban on weapons almost never used in crime has no rational basis.

It is what the courts would call arbitrary and capricious. If the State decided that people can drive at 16 unless their name begins with a B or D in which case they must be 18 that would also be arbitrary and capricious. Just because when a line is defined everything will be either on one side or the other is no reason to just drawn the line because you can draw a line.

[jberryhill]

209. Okay, so, there's been no federal case on this thing?

This is not an issue I follow closely, but people have been yammering on about this for years, and you mean to tell me that nobody thought of actually getting a relevant court decision?

Lots of legal distinctions are "cosmetic". I can get away with things by calling my organization a "church" that I can't get away with otherwise. You want to talk about "cosmetic"? Religion is entirely imaginary. That doesn't even rise to the level of "cosmetic".

Some legal distinctions are purely mental. "Intent" can mean the difference between two entirely physically identical acts being legal or illegal. Again, how is a "state of mind" any more tangible than a distinction you call "cosmetic".

Declaring it to be a "cosmetic" distinction apparently makes you believe you are asserting something which is legally significant. MANY legal distinctions are less tangible than that.

[Statistical]

222. There is very little precedent until now.

Prior to Heller v. DC. (2008) the issue of an indivdual right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd was unsettled law.
Prior to McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the issue of that protection extending to states & local governments was likewise unsettled.

I wasn't talking about legal authority more about moral authority. Laws shouldn't restrict just for the sake of restricting. They should serve a purpose. There is no purpose to an arbitrary ban based on cosmetics.

However if you want to talk about legal requirements.
Generally speaking though now that right has been defined and clearly so.
A legal principle in laws that restrict fundamental rights is strict scrutiny.

The govt can't simply restrict a right because they want to. They can't even restrict a right because it would be a good thing. There are criteria for when/how/why a govt can restrict rights:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Banning a weapon based on how scary it looks has no compelling governmental. Even if it did however is the law as narrowly tailored as possible and is it the least restrictive means available. I would love to see the government argue and lose those points. If the government can't win all 3 points (those contesting the law need only 1) then the law is Unconstitutional on its face. This is the guiding principle for where the government can "draw the line" when it comes to fundamental rights. There will always be outliers however the line should be draw so as to minimize those outliers not arbitrarily or as heavy handed as possible.

[PavePusher]

179. ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY, FULL STOP FOR A MINUTE!!!

Can anyone please address the original question, what makes one weapon suitable for civilian ownership, and what, in the minds of those who wish to ban them, makes the other unsuitable?

[jberryhill]

181. It's simple

What makes it rape to have sex with a consenting woman who is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes old, but not rape to have sex with her a minute later?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

If your answer is good enough, then please meet my cousin at the county courthouse at 11 AM next Thursday. (snark)

[Pavulon]

184. Your age of consent is wrong...

it is actually younger and your race and income and that of your partner are much more important than your 1 second.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. Depends on the state.

Pretty sure at least a few of them are 18.

aaaaahh. I'm probably wrong. Oh what the hell, posting anyway.

[Pavulon]

191. Seen "prosecutorial description"

here. Income and race are factors.

[jberryhill]

214. Oh you have, have you?

But you don't seem to remember the actual phrase.

[Pavulon]

219. Thats when a rape case

involving a minor is prosecuted based on the income or (and) race of the victim. Seen it. Gonna correct my spelling next?

[jberryhill]

224. "discretion", nitwit

Prosecutors, like anyone else, determine which cases are a good use of taxpayer resources and which cases aren't. There is not enough money inthe world to prosecute every case.

But whatever axe you have to grind on the subject has nothing to do with the OP.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

243. Name calling. Nice.

they money justice tends to go to those who have resources. You dont even understand the OP. The selling of a stoner platform and some other gas impingement system. Other is ok, stoner is ok as long as it is not black and has a flattop?

How do you read that op, other than an indictment of stupid people making stupid laws and the stupid people who fail to understand them.

[benEzra]

206. Again, the comparable law on firearms would be the National Firearms Act.

Age of consent:
under 18, restricted;
18 and up, unrestricted.

Firearms:
over .51 caliber/auto capability/sound suppression restricted;
under .51 caliber/non-automatic/non-sound-suppressed unrestricted.


The "assault weapon" fraud is not about drawing a line on a capability continuum, but about making banning some guns based on aesthetic and not functional considerations. To use your analogy, banning certain Title 1 civilian guns as "assault weapons" based on stock shape and whatnot is like criminalizing wearing black lingerie vs. red lingerie for the same 30-year-old.

[safeinOhio]

210. Black lingerie is killer.

red, not so much.

[jberryhill]

217. Yeah... That is in fact done in some contexts

Show up on some beaches wearing "lingerie" that is no more revealing than actual bathing suits.

Report back on how that works out.

[benEzra]

244. Ah, but again, you're once again comparing qualitatively different things,

rather than the same thing with different aesthetics.

Again:



That's the same rifle. Same in every way except appearance. Rate of fire is the same. Effective range is the same. Lethality is the same. Caliber (centerfire .22) is the same. The only difference is, with the top stock it's legal in all 50 states, with the middle stock it's banned in California, and it was illegal to put the bottom stock on it between 1994 and 2004 unless you had already assembled it in a prohibited configuration prior to 9/94.

There's also that pesky little fact that legislation should have a rational basis. The eeee-villll black stocks make the rifle no more prone to misuse than it is with the 19th-century-style wooden stock, and rifles (black or brown) are consistently among the least misused of all civilian firearms anyway.

The "assault weapon" fraud is not only irrelevant to addressing misuse, but such misuse is already so rare as to not even come close to justifying bans, particularly when you're talking about banning the most popular civilian rifles in the U.S.

[Pavulon]

183. Stoner..

the stoner design is generally beset by the ignorant as scary looking and evil. That is the only difference in those weapons pictured. Mechanical function. It is all a visual cue.

The premise was perpetrated on the USA Today crowd and they have yet to educate themselves on the real differences in scary machine guns and "assault weapons".