NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Parados; your list amounts to accessories that fit hunting rifles and 'assault rifle's' alike.

Your hunting rifle has a screw end on its barrel for a silencer? Your hunting rifle has a folding stock? Your hunting rifle has a protruding pistol grip? Your hunting rifle has a bayonet attachment? Please inform us what the make and model of your "hunting" rifle is. By the way, my list is the same one Thomas posted which suddenly "makes some sense."

maporsche wrote:

Nothing is 'unreasonable' about it, except that all it does is define what accessories make a rifle considered an 'assult rifle'. The actual mechanics of the rifle are unchanged, but if you have a bayonet attached to the end, it's an assult rifle. If you have a 10 round magazine it's not an assult rifle, but if you have a 12 round magazine it is. I can understand the grenade launcher definition, it's pretty specific. But the others are just simply laughable.

10 round mag = ok
12 round mag = BAD = just as lethal

Rifle w/o knife = ok
Rifle w/ knife = BAD = just a lethal

Rifle with normal stock = ok
Rifle with folding/telo stock = BAD = just as lethal


The laughable part is that the gun itself is not the issue, but apparently it's the accessories attached to the gun.

I didn't realize the stock of a rifle was an accessory. or it's weight, or its barrel, or.....

Your hunting rifle has a screw end on its barrel for a silencer? Your hunting rifle has a folding stock? Your hunting rifle has a protruding pistol grip? Your hunting rifle has a bayonet attachment? Please inform us what the make and model of your "hunting" rifle is. By the way, my list is the same one Thomas posted which suddenly "makes some sense."

here

Those rights were not only never codified by Parliament for all men, the Agreement of the People of 1649 had been beaten down by the Puritan Major Generals who rounded up the Agitators and hunted down the Levelers.

The Agreement of the People was the principal constitutional manifesto issued by the Levellers. It was intended to be signed by all those who wished to enjoy rights of citizenship. The Agreement was first drafted in October 1647 when Agitators of the New Model Army and civilian Levellers collaborated to propose a new constitution in the aftermath of the First Civil War.

Stating that sovereign power should reside in the people of England rather than with the discredited King or Parliament, the original Agreement consisted of four clauses:

* The peoples' representatives (i.e Members of Parliament) should be elected in proportion to the population of their constituencies;
* The existing Parliament should be dissolved on 30 September 1648;
* Future Parliaments should be elected biennially and sit every other year from April to September;
* The biennial Parliament (consisting of a single elected House) should be the supreme authority in the land, with powers to make or repeal laws, appoint officials and conduct domestic and foreign policy.

Certain constraints were placed on Parliament: it was not to interfere with freedom of religion; it was not to press men to serve in the armed forces; it could not prosecute anyone for their part in the recent war; it was not to exempt anyone from the ordinary course of the law; all laws passed by Parliament should be for the common good.

If you have a 10 round magazine it's not an assult rifle, but if you have a 12 round magazine it is. I can understand the grenade launcher definition, it's pretty specific. But the others are just simply laughable.

10 round mag = ok
12 round mag = BAD = just as lethal

If you want to continue the pissing match, O'Bill, that's OK by me. You were the one who was attempting to force people to a definition, i doubt not in order to launch the kind of idiotic attack in which Maporche is now engaged. But the fact of the matter is, whether or not you an Maporche want to whine about it, that Congress has defined assault rifle to their satisfaction. Get over it.

You are free to consider that the definition provided by Congress did not make sense--that does not alter the fact that for all legal and practical purposes, the Congressional definition trumps all other notional definitions. I would also direct your attention once again to Joe's point about your argument: That's not an argument against drawing arbitrary lines, that's an argument against drawing any lines.

And I don't disagree with Joe's point. In regards to magazine size, an arbitrary line doesn't make any sense. However, I am not against drawing any lines in other areas (say, grenade launchers).

maporsche wrote:

And I don't disagree with Joe's point. In regards to magazine size, an arbitrary line doesn't make any sense. However, I am not against drawing any lines in other areas (say, grenade launchers).

On the contrary, an arbitrary line is the only one that does make sense. There is as little difference between a ten-round magazine and an eleven-round magazine as there is between a ninety-nine-round magazine and a hundred-round magazine. Yet there is quite a difference (I think you'd agree) between a ten-round magazine and a hundred-round magazine. Any line between ten-round and a hundred-round magazines, however, must cut between two magazines that differ by a single bullet's capacity. The only way to differentiate between magazines, then, is to draw an arbitrary line and to say that those falling below that line are ok and those that fall above it are not.

joefromchicago wrote:

maporsche wrote:

And I don't disagree with Joe's point. In regards to magazine size, an arbitrary line doesn't make any sense. However, I am not against drawing any lines in other areas (say, grenade launchers).

On the contrary, an arbitrary line is the only one that does make sense. There is as little difference between a ten-round magazine and an eleven-round magazine as there is between a ninety-nine-round magazine and a hundred-round magazine. Yet there is quite a difference (I think you'd agree) between a ten-round magazine and a hundred-round magazine. Any line between ten-round and a hundred-round magazines, however, must cut between two magazines that differ by a single bullet's capacity. The only way to differentiate between magazines, then, is to draw an arbitrary line and to say that those falling below that line are ok and those that fall above it are not.

I would argue that there is no functional difference between a 10 and 100 round magazine. Would you limit the number of magazines a person could own too?

What is the difference between 10 10-round magazines and 1 100-round magazine. Keep in mind that it takes 3 seconds to change the magazine in a gun.

How much of the definitions are built up around the ability to surprise a large group of people and cut them down quickly?

I would argue that there is no functional difference between a 10 and 100 round magazine.

Would you limit the number of magazines a person could own too?

What is the difference between 10 10-round magazines and 1 100-round magazine. Keep in mind that it takes 3 seconds to change the magazine in a gun.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How much of the definitions are built up around the ability to surprise a large group of people and cut them down quickly?

And how often does 'a large group of people' get 'cut down quickly'? Does it happen enough to nessecitate this absurd law?

The real issue here is that the same people who want to ban assult rifles, would have no problem banning ALL firearms from citizens. They pick on assult rifles because they think they can get a small win, followed by another win, followed by another.

Refer to my point about the simularites between anti-gun and pro-choice people.

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How much of the definitions are built up around the ability to surprise a large group of people and cut them down quickly?

And how often does 'a large group of people' get 'cut down quickly'? Does it happen enough to nessecitate this absurd law?

The real issue here is that the same people who want to ban assult rifles, would have no problem banning ALL firearms from citizens. They pick on assult rifles because they think they can get a small win, followed by another win, followed by another.

Refer to my point about the simularites between anti-gun and pro-choice people.

Does it matter that it only happens every now and then? Only rarely are groups of people killed by explosives in America. Should we legalize them, then?

You discount the idea that the current restrictions are one of the reasons that it doesn't happen that often...

Your 'real issue' is untrue. I want to ban assualt rifles (and pistols), and I own two long rifles and a shotgun myself. You are lumping people together for no good reason, and also Appealing to Extremes; not a great argument to make.

Cycloptichorn

maporsche wrote:

I would argue that there is no functional difference between a 10 and 100 round magazine.

Then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

maporsche wrote:

What is the difference between 10 10-round magazines and 1 100-round magazine. Keep in mind that it takes 3 seconds to change the magazine in a gun.

In addition to the points raised by Cycloptichorn, there's a big difference between carrying around nine extra magazines and carrying none. But there's little need for me to argue that there's a difference, since gun advocates themselves, in pushing for no limits on magazines, amply demonstrate that they think there's a big difference.