Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Al right, there you hve a perfect example of something untrue you have repeated over and over for years, and it's stil untrue. No one is trying to bsn pistol grips on rifles, they re want to ban a group of rifles, some of which have pisto grips, some of which do not. Ban the RIFLES, not the grips. It was silly the first time you propounded it, it's even sillier the 50th time, or so it seems countwise. . And I might add, another federal court of appeals just let a ban on assault-style weapons stand as constitutional, and nowhere did it mention pistol grips being banned. You're trying to foist your fantasy on the rest of us and it is not working, nor is it working on the courts.

Serious question here, are you mentally handicapped? Do you have a mental impairment that stops you from understanding what people say?

New York State has expressly banned pistol grips. I believe that Der Fuhrer of New York State Andrew Cuomo is somebody and according to him;

An assault weapon is defined as:

• A semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:
o A folding or telescoping stock;
o A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
o A thumbhole stock;
o A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
o A bayonet mount;
o A flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;

2 Replies

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5056854.1552589495!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/usa-shooting-connecticut.jpg

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Don't you mean throw out the 2nd Amendment and change the Constitution?

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Our very discussion is about human life. I want to be able to protect my home and stand against the govt if they ever go tyranical. The very fact a majority of people on this site think Trump is Hitler and yet still want to get rid of guns, confuses me. It just goes to show you all your "orange man bad" talk is just politics.

No response to my earlier post? You asked a lot of questions that I answered... why no reply?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Your description of an assault rifle is bull shyt. An long gun that can discharge 20 rounds in 20 seconds should be categorized as an assault weapon. You might ask yourself about that mentally handicapped question.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/notebook-with-help-written-in-blood-and-crime-scene-markers-after-a-picture-id919221516

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Your description of an assault rifle is bull shyt.

That wasn't his description, that was NY's description of an assault weapon.

Quote:

An long gun that can discharge 20 rounds in 20 seconds should be categorized as an assault weapon.

That's just silly, many guns, including shotguns can shoot that fast, that's a really weak qualification for an assault weapon. Of course the whole phrase "assault weapon" is made up by anti-gun people. The more emotional the words, the easier it is to control the masses and that's what this whole argument is about, controlling the masses. Can't leave anyone a way to defend themselves when socialism goes wrong. Keep following the footsteps of tyrants, that's what the DNC does.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Weak reply and it won't work. My Constitutional Rights are worth more than your emotional plea. Besides, I think we should get rid of "gun free zones" as they don't work and replace them with trained and armed teachers and or Veterans who would be willing to work as security for schools. Nothing you have proposed besides total confiscation would solve the issue. People are the issue, not inanimate objects.

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

https://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/a-man-is-lead-away-from-the-scene-of-an-attack-inside-an-aurora-theater-july-20-20121.jpg?quality=85&strip=all

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

So still no reply to the previous post? I kinda proved you wrong on what you thought my experience is.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Where in the second amendment is anyone guarantied explicitly the right to own a firearm?

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Of course the whole phrase "assault weapon" is made up by anti-gun people.

The Sturmgewehr 44 (translated "assault rifle 44") wasn't named by anti-gun people.
(The GDR army used it until it was replaced in the early 1960's with variants of the AK-47 "Sturmgewehr".)

"Sturmgeschütz", btw, is translated to "assault gun": Sturmgeschütz III

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

The Sturmgewehr 44 (translated "assault rifle 44") wasn't named by anti-gun people.
(The GDR army used it until it was replaced in the early 1960's with variants of the AK-47 "Sturmgewehr".)

You cut off the part of the definition where it mentions that the rifle is a select fire weapon, which is exactly the definition we have batted around this thread. Select fire being the defining characteristic of an actual assault weapon. Using the term to describe the AR15 is the made up part.

Quote:

The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II. It is also known as the MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43 and 44).

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Contrary to your post, I don't "think" of you at all.

To think that arming teachers is a good idea is lunacy. Teachers teach, that's what they do. Besides low pay, using their own money for supplies and generally disrespected at almost every turn, your idea isn't appropriate.

Most schools aren't adequately financially supported yet want to cut the budget even more to add paid veterans as security guards. NEWS FLASH --- there already ARE armed security at schools.

If people WERE the issue, pages upon pages of argument which gun constitutes lethal capability wouldn't go on. Yet it does. So, yea, I guess you are right.

You ARE the issue.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

Where in the second amendment is anyone guarantied explicitly the right to own a firearm?

Did you miss the several years old Mcdonald and Heller cases? We are way past the point of questioning whether people can have guns. Only someone hell bent on ignoring the 2nd Amendment trys to argue such things.

Quote:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Back in time for the 2020 election? I noticed you tucked you tail and ran after the 2016 election, I was starting to think you were some sort of troll or bot. I guess only time will tell if you do the same things this time around, I'll reserve judgement for after the election when you run away again.

0 Replies

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say anyone can own any kind of firearm without being in the armed forces or a "well regulated militia."

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

The term Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle") is not suitable for clearly defining a category of small arms from a technical point of view. Most armies simply refer to their ordnance rifles as 'rifles' within their service regulations.

The English term "assault rifle" is less a direct translation of the German word, but goes back to the way the machine pistol was used by the German infantry in the First World War.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

Contrary to your post, I don't "think" of you at all.

You thought enough of me to try and challenge my knowledge of the M16, my age and my military service, it was a weak attempt to defend Snood. Since that avenue didn't work, you tried to take a different tact, putting up emotional pictures in another weak attempt to shame me or something.

Quote:

To think that arming teachers is a good idea is lunacy. Teachers teach, that's what they do. Besides low pay, using their own money for supplies and generally disrespected at almost every turn, your idea isn't appropriate.

Nice try, but we spend more per student than other 1st world nations, and our schools aren't doing so well. It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with how that money is spent. How many administrators does a school or school district really need? Students can't fully read, write or do basic math, but at least they know to ask someone's preferred pronouns.

Quote:

If people WERE the issue, pages upon pages of argument which gun constitutes lethal capability wouldn't go on. Yet it does.

These discussions only take place because the people who know nothing about guns listen to other people who know nothing about guns. They use emotional language when their BS can't beat the actual facts.

Quote:

So, yea, I guess you are right.

You ARE the issue.

I'm not the issue, I know what I'm talking about. On the other hand, you and your ilk spread misinformation and lies about guns and the Constitution. You feel no shame because you feel the means justify the ends, no more 2nd Amendment.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say anyone can own any kind of firearm without being in the armed forces or a "well regulated militia."

Sorry, the SCOTUS disagree's with your definition as they said in McDonald and Heller. The 2nd Amendment was left vague by using the term arms, the Founding Fathers knew someone like you would exist one day and used that word specifically to prevent exactly what you are trying to do. They were much smarter than you are.

The only meaning of the time to "well regulated" was to be drilled and in good working order, it had nothing to do with laws or regulations. As has been pointed out hundreds of times, they had just fought a war of independence, do you really think they didn't think people should have guns? You ignore the totality of the Revolutionary war and the fight for Liberty.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It has also been defined as a weapon with a select fire switch, meaning it will fire at full auto or semi-auto. The AR15 and all civilian rifles only have a semi-auto option, no select fire.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know