33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 07:35 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The matter most under discussion at the moment is a ban on harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks.

What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?

I'm not familiar with the details of defining what constitutes an assault weapon, so I don't know if it's true that grips and stocks are at the core of the issue. But if you're right and they are, Congress will have to find a better line to separate assault weapons from the permissible kind. No problem for me.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 07:43 am
@Thomas,
Oralloy has been singing that song for a while. It's his attempt to suggest that the proposed legislation is trivial. I doubt that he is correct, but if he is, it's just more confirmation that Congress is playing a game which may one day come back to bite them in the ass.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 08:11 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
congress will have to find a better line to separate assault weapons from the permissible kind. No problem for me.


The problem for all of us is there is no meaning differences between so call assault rifles and most other modern rifles.

Looks are not a meaningful difference and looking deadly and therefore cool is not a logical reason for a ban.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 08:13 am
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2112146653001/
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 08:28 am


Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers once and for all
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 11:15 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The matter most under discussion at the moment is a ban on harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks.

What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?

On reflection, it's not about the pistol grip, it's about the weapon being semi-automatic. I just read Wikipedia's summary of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994--2004). It tells me you withheld some key information about the definition of "assault weapons": The ban specifically applied to semi-automatic weapons with the cosmetic features you listed. On guns you re-cock manually, you can have all the cosmetics you want.

Hence, it seems that the US government could make your concerns (and BillRM's) go away simply by banning all semi-automatic weapons. Removing the need to reload most certainly increases a shooter's threat to public safety, justifying a government interest in prohibition. So, would a blanket ban on all semi-automatic weapons make you happier constitution-wise? If not, how would a ban on all semi-automatics not be narrowly tailored to uphold public safety?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 12:29 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Hence, it seems that the US government could make your concerns (and BillRM's) go away simply by banning all semi-automatic weapons


All 200 millions or so modern firearms that are own by half the adults in the nation?

Quote:
he need to reload most certainly increases a shooter's threat to public safety,


That would not be a problem at all and when you do that magic people turn to lever action firearms that can perform as well as any semi-auto then what?

LOL I can see us going to match lock black powder rifles.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 12:45 pm
@BillRM,
Thomas wrote:
Hence, it seems that the US government could make your concerns (and BillRM's) go away simply by banning all semi-automatic weapons

BillRM wrote:
All 200 millions or so modern firearms that are own by half the adults in the nation?

Sure, why not? Remember, my question isn't whether that would be a practical problem, but whether it would be a Constitutional problem.

BillRM wrote:
LOL I can see us going to match lock black powder rifles.

I'm glad to hear that. And what, to repeat my question, would be your standard for deciding if that's a Constitutional problem or not?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 12:57 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The matter most under discussion at the moment is a ban on harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks.

What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?

On reflection, it's not about the pistol grip, it's about the weapon being semi-automatic.


Are you saying that cosmetic features such as the pistol grip are not 'evil'?

Please enlighten under-informed-liberals because they have not figured out the truth you now know.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 01:16 pm
@Thomas,
The constitution 2 amendment did not limit the technology of firearms and there is no overwhelming superiority of semi-auto rifles compare to lever action rifles that date back to the 1860s that would allow anyone to go after semi-auto weapons under the theory of their outstanding deadliness call for a public safety limitation on the 2 amendment.

To do so would be to de facto reppeal the 2 amendment and the courts are not going to do that.

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 01:24 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The constitution 2 amendment did not limit the technology of firearms and there is no overwhelming superiority of semi-auto rifles compare to lever action rifles that date back to the 1860s that would allow anyone to go after semi-auto weapons under the theory of their outstanding deadliness call for a public safety limitation on the 2 amendment.


You've stated this as if it was a fact, but it's not. I believe - and anyone who has significant experience with firearms would likely agree - that there is indeed an inherent superiority to semi-automatic rifles when compared to lever action rifles.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 01:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
herent superiority to semi-automatic rifles when compared to lever action rifles.


In what way rate of fire?

The time it take to move a level and pull a trigger is hardly that large to have any great different in rate of fire of the two types of weapons at least to grant semi-auto rifles any real world superior in being deadly.

Level actions can be manufacture and have been manufacture to take the same or similar magazines also so numbers of rounds fired is not going to be difference either.

So to sum up how in the hell is semi-auto rifles all that more deadly the lever action rifles?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 01:41 pm
@BillRM,
The fact that a couple of lever-action rifles are produced that come close to matching the firing speed of a semi-auto doesn't change the fact that the vast, vast majority of lever- and bolt-action rifles don't come anywhere near the firing speed of a semi-auto. You are using a few outliers as an example of the entire class, which is foolish.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 01:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Liberals tend to fire off talking points faster than a machine gun, but they rarely hit their targets.

Spray & Pray

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The fact that a couple of lever-action rifles are produced that come close to matching the firing speed of a semi-auto doesn't change the fact that the vast, vast majority of lever- and bolt-action rifles don't come anywhere near the firing speed of a semi-auto. You are using a few outliers as an example of the entire class, which is foolish.




You would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities of these rifles and
the Americans that know how to use them with great speed & efficiency.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 02:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The point is that any complete ban on semi-autos rifles will just result in the change over to lever actions rifles that are very very little inferior to semi-auto firearms in killing abilities and other then pouring untold billions into the hands of gun manufacturers the benefit of doing so is hardly great enough to get the courts to make an exception to the second amendment.

Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 02:04 pm
Anyone who thinks there's a possibility of a ban on all semi-automatic weapons really doesn't understand the situation.

And BillRM< why do you keep fantasizing about lever-action rifles? Bolt action are far more common and have been since about 1903.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 02:07 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 5234297)
The point is that any complete ban on semi-autos rifles will just result in the change over to lever actions rifles that are very very little inferior to semi-auto firearms in killing abilities and other then pouring untold billions into the hands of gun manufacturers the benefit of doing so is hardly great enough to get the courts to make an exception to the second amendment.


Yup...but the economy would benefit greatly...and the gun owners would be spending their money.

Win/win.

But you guys have been telling us right along that you hold all the cards...that legislation will never pass...and if by accident any does, it will never get past SCOTUS...and even if by a miracle it managed to be upheld by SCOTUS, no law enforcement officials will (or could) enforce it.

So what are you guys going on about?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 02:08 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Anyone who thinks there's a possibility of a ban on all semi-automatic weapons really doesn't understand the situation.


Agreed.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 02:09 pm
@BillRM,
I just find it so funny that semi automatic weapons with large clips are no different than semi automatic with small clips because clips can be change in less than a second and now lever action rifles are the same as semi automatic weapons. Is it because you can load 10 more rounds in less than a second in a lever action rifle?

The all guns are the same argument leads me to the conclusion that we can give everyone a single shot weapon and you guys would be happy because it is the same thing. But you won't be happy because you don't believe your own argument.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 02:12 pm
@parados,


It's both funny and sad that some still don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Having an intelligent conversation with the under-informed is quite a challenge, but we can't give up on them.


P, you require further education
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 01:27:22