Tosa Town Square
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

<<Boards Main>>
zephyr
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:37:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/26/2007
Posts: 425
Location: Tosa
Seems awful quiet here, so I thought I'd give this a try.

I've never quite understood the enthusiasm for an assault weapons ban. I'm not a gun person, and I don't own a gun, but aren't the commercially available "assault weapons" only made to look like an assault weapon? Isn't it already illegal to own an assault weapon made to military specifications (i.e., can be fired on automatic, and other special military modifications, whatever they may be)?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but wouldn't the most effective action be to limit the size of magazines to 5 or 10 bullets, as well as shore up the background check system?
Nancy
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:54:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
zephyr
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013 5:56:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/26/2007
Posts: 425
Location: Tosa
Nancy wrote:
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.


I'm aware of that. Banning assault weapons is a very contentious issue and the administration would like to see it be part of the legislation. It seems like something interesting to discuss.
Nancy
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013 6:26:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
zephyr wrote:
Nancy wrote:
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.


I'm aware of that. Banning assault weapons is a very contentious issue and the administration would like to see it be part of the legislation. It seems like something interesting to discuss.


I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Gas Pains
Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013 7:21:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/13/2008
Posts: 588
Location: Tosa
zephyr wrote:
Seems awful quiet here, so I thought I'd give this a try.

I've never quite understood the enthusiasm for an assault weapons ban. I'm not a gun person, and I don't own a gun, but aren't the commercially available "assault weapons" only made to look like an assault weapon? Isn't it already illegal to own an assault weapon made to military specifications (i.e., can be fired on automatic, and other special military modifications, whatever they may be)?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but wouldn't the most effective action be to limit the size of magazines to 5 or 10 bullets, as well as shore up the background check system?


You haven't been able to legally own an automatic weapon since before WWII without a special federal permit. I hate to be picky but magazines hold cartridges - not bullets. A bullet is the projectile on a cartridge.

Learn more about proper firearm technology here.

Nancy wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Nancy wrote:
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.


I'm aware of that. Banning assault weapons is a very contentious issue and the administration would like to see it be part of the legislation. It seems like something interesting to discuss.


I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.


Universal background checks make sense. Magazine size not so much. I can swap out an empty mag with a loaded mag in about two seconds. High capacity mags are a red herring.

The ownership of any firearm (true assault weapons only are used in the military) shouldn't be determined by its appearance. Why should anyone care about the color or cosmetics of a rifle?

In the end there will be no ban.

I'm not a gambler but I'll bet on this.

It's nice to be nice to the nice - Frank Burns (M*A*S*H)
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:40:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
Gas Pains wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Seems awful quiet here, so I thought I'd give this a try.

I've never quite understood the enthusiasm for an assault weapons ban. I'm not a gun person, and I don't own a gun, but aren't the commercially available "assault weapons" only made to look like an assault weapon? Isn't it already illegal to own an assault weapon made to military specifications (i.e., can be fired on automatic, and other special military modifications, whatever they may be)?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but wouldn't the most effective action be to limit the size of magazines to 5 or 10 bullets, as well as shore up the background check system?


You haven't been able to legally own an automatic weapon since before WWII without a special federal permit. I hate to be picky but magazines hold cartridges - not bullets. A bullet is the projectile on a cartridge.

Learn more about proper firearm technology here.

Nancy wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Nancy wrote:
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.


I'm aware of that. Banning assault weapons is a very contentious issue and the administration would like to see it be part of the legislation. It seems like something interesting to discuss.


I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.


Universal background checks make sense. Magazine size not so much. I can swap out an empty mag with a loaded mag in about two seconds. High capacity mags are a red herring.

The ownership of any firearm (true assault weapons only are used in the military) shouldn't be determined by its appearance. Why should anyone care about the color or cosmetics of a rifle?

In the end there will be no ban.

I'm not a gambler but I'll bet on this.


So, the appearance of a gun determines whether or not you have to reload between shots?

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
zephyr
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:10:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/26/2007
Posts: 425
Location: Tosa
Nancy wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Nancy wrote:
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.


I'm aware of that. Banning assault weapons is a very contentious issue and the administration would like to see it be part of the legislation. It seems like something interesting to discuss.


I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.


It's against the law to own assault weapons. People own assault-style weapons not because they need one, but because they want one. Assault-style weapons look cool and are likely fun to use. If I may generalize, many men have always wanted to be a fighter pilot, and probably just as many men, if not more, fantasize about being a sniper/scout for SEAL Team 6. (Wouldn't it be extremely cool if you could be both!) Owning an assault-style weapon is likely just an extension of that.

We could ask the same question about what people need for a number of things. For example, I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people need to own sports cars. They pose the greatest risk to drivers and are not really very functional. Should we insist that auto dealers stop selling sports cars? And what about SUVs? I'm more at risk of being seriously injured or killed by an SUV than an assault rifle. I think we should ban sports cars and SUVs; they are much more dangerous than rifles.

zephyr
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:14:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/26/2007
Posts: 425
Location: Tosa
Gas Pains wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Seems awful quiet here, so I thought I'd give this a try.

I've never quite understood the enthusiasm for an assault weapons ban. I'm not a gun person, and I don't own a gun, but aren't the commercially available "assault weapons" only made to look like an assault weapon? Isn't it already illegal to own an assault weapon made to military specifications (i.e., can be fired on automatic, and other special military modifications, whatever they may be)?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but wouldn't the most effective action be to limit the size of magazines to 5 or 10 bullets, as well as shore up the background check system?


You haven't been able to legally own an automatic weapon since before WWII without a special federal permit. I hate to be picky but magazines hold cartridges - not bullets. A bullet is the projectile on a cartridge.


Okay. I stand corrected. But give me some credit. At least the bullet is in the magazine.

Do you happen to know what other features, besides automatic firing, are on basic military assault rifles that aren't on the civilian versions?
Gas Pains
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:22:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/13/2008
Posts: 588
Location: Tosa

Nancy wrote:
So, the appearance of a gun determines whether or not you have to reload between shots?


Of course not. Go back and reread my post.


zephyr wrote:
Gas Pains wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Seems awful quiet here, so I thought I'd give this a try.

I've never quite understood the enthusiasm for an assault weapons ban. I'm not a gun person, and I don't own a gun, but aren't the commercially available "assault weapons" only made to look like an assault weapon? Isn't it already illegal to own an assault weapon made to military specifications (i.e., can be fired on automatic, and other special military modifications, whatever they may be)?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but wouldn't the most effective action be to limit the size of magazines to 5 or 10 bullets, as well as shore up the background check system?


You haven't been able to legally own an automatic weapon since before WWII without a special federal permit. I hate to be picky but magazines hold cartridges - not bullets. A bullet is the projectile on a cartridge.


Okay. I stand corrected. But give me some credit. At least the bullet is in the magazine.

Do you happen to know what other features, besides automatic firing, are on basic military assault rifles that aren't on the civilian versions?


Military assault rifles are select fire - they can fire one shot, a several shot burst or fully automatic. They probably also have a bayonet lug.

Your comparison to sport cars and SUVs is a good one. I would also point out the fact that more Americans die every year from tobacco use than do from firearms.

It's nice to be nice to the nice - Frank Burns (M*A*S*H)
joeythelovesponge
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:23:39 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,903
Location: tosa
That old 30-06 deer hunting rifle sitting in your grandpa's closet is just as deadly as that scary looking “assault weapon” that the President is demonizing. In fact, that old 30-06 is a very effective assault weapon when in the hands of someone who wants to assault another person.

Can anyone tell me the definition of a high capacity magazine? Is it 5 rounds? 10 rounds? More than one round?

The leftists who are pushing this agenda are using language to manipulate ignorant people's emotions (caveat: ignorant does not mean stupid), and the ultimate goal of their agenda is civilian disarmament.
Gas Pains
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:18:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/13/2008
Posts: 588
Location: Tosa
Nancy wrote:
I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.


The Heller decision affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Since I already enjoy the right I do not have to deliver an argument as to why I have it.

As a consequence, the onus of arguing and convincing the regulation of that right (all rights can be regulated) falls on the shoulders of those who want to implement the regulation.

Have at it.

It's nice to be nice to the nice - Frank Burns (M*A*S*H)
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:38:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
zephyr wrote:
Nancy wrote:
zephyr wrote:
Nancy wrote:
Background checks and restrictions on the size of magazines are included in proposed legislation.


I'm aware of that. Banning assault weapons is a very contentious issue and the administration would like to see it be part of the legislation. It seems like something interesting to discuss.


I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.


It's against the law to own assault weapons. People own assault-style weapons not because they need one, but because they want one. Assault-style weapons look cool and are likely fun to use. If I may generalize, many men have always wanted to be a fighter pilot, and probably just as many men, if not more, fantasize about being a sniper/scout for SEAL Team 6. (Wouldn't it be extremely cool if you could be both!) Owning an assault-style weapon is likely just an extension of that.

We could ask the same question about what people need for a number of things. For example, I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people need to own sports cars. They pose the greatest risk to drivers and are not really very functional. Should we insist that auto dealers stop selling sports cars? And what about SUVs? I'm more at risk of being seriously injured or killed by an SUV than an assault rifle. I think we should ban sports cars and SUVs; they are much more dangerous than rifles.



Do you have any stats on the number of SUVs that were driven into movie theaters, churches, office buildings, beauty salons or schools and used to kill the people inside?

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:31:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
Gas Pains wrote:
Nancy wrote:
I've never heard a convincing argument as to why people must own assault weapons for personal use.


The Heller decision affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Since I already enjoy the right I do not have to deliver an argument as to why I have it.

As a consequence, the onus of arguing and convincing the regulation of that right (all rights can be regulated) falls on the shoulders of those who want to implement the regulation.

Have at it.


You don't have the right to any kind of gun you want. Heller established that people can have handguns for self defense and that they didn't need to have trigger locks on long guns, but there's also precedent for banning particular types of guns for personal use.


Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:36:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
joeythelovesponge wrote:
That old 30-06 deer hunting rifle sitting in your grandpa's closet is just as deadly as that scary looking “assault weapon” that the President is demonizing. In fact, that old 30-06 is a very effective assault weapon when in the hands of someone who wants to assault another person.

Can anyone tell me the definition of a high capacity magazine? Is it 5 rounds? 10 rounds? More than one round?

The leftists who are pushing this agenda are using language to manipulate ignorant people's emotions (caveat: ignorant does not mean stupid), and the ultimate goal of their agenda is civilian disarmament.


It isn't just "leftists" any more. Well over half of Americans favor gun control of some kind. That means that centrists or moderates also favor gun control. These people are neither ignorant nor stupid. They're persuaded by actual events.

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
joeythelovesponge
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 5:31:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,903
Location: tosa
Nancy wrote:
It isn't just "leftists" any more. Well over half of Americans favor gun control of some kind. That means that centrists or moderates also favor gun control. These people are neither ignorant nor stupid. They're persuaded by actual events.


My point is that any firearm is deadly when one has deadly intent. You should tell us how you define "gun control of some kind". Instead of playing debate games, why don't you explain how far you think limitations on firearms have to go to prevent another tragic event like what happened at that grade school in Connecticut?

I'll tell you what my answer is up front so you don't have to guess, that way we don't waste each others time. I don't think it matters what gun control laws are in place until every last gun is rounded up, and not one new gun enters the country ever again. That is when we will be certain that mass murder will never be committed again by a mad man using a gun. Until then, either learn to duck and cover, or learn to shoot back.
Gas Pains
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:53:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/13/2008
Posts: 588
Location: Tosa
Nancy wrote:
You don't have the right to any kind of gun you want. Heller established that people can have handguns for self defense and that they didn't need to have trigger locks on long guns, but there's also precedent for banning particular types of guns for personal use.


Anybody reading my post knows I didn’t say that. Civilian ownership of machine guns (automatic weapons) has been heavily curtailed and federally regulated since 1934. I cannot own a grenade launcher either. As I said – rights can be regulated.
You still haven’t told anybody reading/commenting on this forum specifically why I should not have any other gun I so desire. Since Heller has upheld that it is an individual right the onus is on you to elaborate on what firearms I should be prohibited from owning. Please be specific and include your reasons why.


Nancy wrote:
joeythelovesponge wrote:
That old 30-06 deer hunting rifle sitting in your grandpa's closet is just as deadly as that scary looking “assault weapon” that the President is demonizing. In fact, that old 30-06 is a very effective assault weapon when in the hands of someone who wants to assault another person.

Can anyone tell me the definition of a high capacity magazine? Is it 5 rounds? 10 rounds? More than one round?

The leftists who are pushing this agenda are using language to manipulate ignorant people's emotions (caveat: ignorant does not mean stupid), and the ultimate goal of their agenda is civilian disarmament.


It isn't just "leftists" any more. Well over half of Americans favor gun control of some kind. That means that centrists or moderates also favor gun control. These people are neither ignorant nor stupid. They're persuaded by actual events.


You remind me of John Boehner. He’s always yammering about cut, cut, cut. He drones-on forever about cutting the federal budget. But when asked – he’s unable to offer-up any specific suggestions. You need to layout your specific plan to guarantee there would never be another Sandy Hook-like massacre.


It's nice to be nice to the nice - Frank Burns (M*A*S*H)
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:16:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
joeythelovesponge wrote:
Nancy wrote:
It isn't just "leftists" any more. Well over half of Americans favor gun control of some kind. That means that centrists or moderates also favor gun control. These people are neither ignorant nor stupid. They're persuaded by actual events.


My point is that any firearm is deadly when one has deadly intent. You should tell us how you define "gun control of some kind". Instead of playing debate games, why don't you explain how far you think limitations on firearms have to go to prevent another tragic event like what happened at that grade school in Connecticut?

I'll tell you what my answer is up front so you don't have to guess, that way we don't waste each others time. I don't think it matters what gun control laws are in place until every last gun is rounded up, and not one new gun enters the country ever again. That is when we will be certain that mass murder will never be committed again by a mad man using a gun. Until then, either learn to duck and cover, or learn to shoot back.


I'm talking about polling data.

As far as your fatalistic point of view is concerned...that's you and the way you tend to look at problems. What you're saying, in essence, is that we can't completely reverse the problem so we might as well do nothing. What I'm saying is that we have to start somewhere and sometime, so we might as well start now. Personally, I'd like to see guns treated like cars...mandatory licensing for operators, mandatory registration for owners, annual registration renewal, titling, title transfer upon sale, and mandatory liability insurance for each firearm.

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:18:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
Gas Pains wrote:
Nancy wrote:
You don't have the right to any kind of gun you want. Heller established that people can have handguns for self defense and that they didn't need to have trigger locks on long guns, but there's also precedent for banning particular types of guns for personal use.


Anybody reading my post knows I didn’t say that. Civilian ownership of machine guns (automatic weapons) has been heavily curtailed and federally regulated since 1934. I cannot own a grenade launcher either. As I said – rights can be regulated.
You still haven’t told anybody reading/commenting on this forum specifically why I should not have any other gun I so desire. Since Heller has upheld that it is an individual right the onus is on you to elaborate on what firearms I should be prohibited from owning. Please be specific and include your reasons why.


Nancy wrote:
joeythelovesponge wrote:
That old 30-06 deer hunting rifle sitting in your grandpa's closet is just as deadly as that scary looking “assault weapon” that the President is demonizing. In fact, that old 30-06 is a very effective assault weapon when in the hands of someone who wants to assault another person.

Can anyone tell me the definition of a high capacity magazine? Is it 5 rounds? 10 rounds? More than one round?

The leftists who are pushing this agenda are using language to manipulate ignorant people's emotions (caveat: ignorant does not mean stupid), and the ultimate goal of their agenda is civilian disarmament.


It isn't just "leftists" any more. Well over half of Americans favor gun control of some kind. That means that centrists or moderates also favor gun control. These people are neither ignorant nor stupid. They're persuaded by actual events.


You remind me of John Boehner. He’s always yammering about cut, cut, cut. He drones-on forever about cutting the federal budget. But when asked – he’s unable to offer-up any specific suggestions. You need to layout your specific plan to guarantee there would never be another Sandy Hook-like massacre.


I've posted my thoughts before. I can't help it if you have a faulty memory. I've re-posted my thoughts in a reply to joey. Try to do a little better in the memory department this time, and don't blame me if you fail.

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
joeythelovesponge
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:31:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,903
Location: tosa
Nancy wrote:
I'm talking about polling data.

As far as your fatalistic point of view is concerned...that's you and the way you tend to look at problems. What you're saying, in essence, is that we can't completely reverse the problem so we might as well do nothing. What I'm saying is that we have to start somewhere and sometime, so we might as well start now. Personally, I'd like to see guns treated like cars...mandatory licensing for operators, mandatory registration for owners, annual registration renewal, titling, title transfer upon sale, and mandatory liability insurance for each firearm.


What does that solve? We have laws that mandate registration and insurance for your automobile, but people still drive without it. We also have a law against murder, but people still do it. Try to reason without emotion...it's not that hard.
Nancy
Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:35:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
joeythelovesponge wrote:
Nancy wrote:
I'm talking about polling data.

As far as your fatalistic point of view is concerned...that's you and the way you tend to look at problems. What you're saying, in essence, is that we can't completely reverse the problem so we might as well do nothing. What I'm saying is that we have to start somewhere and sometime, so we might as well start now. Personally, I'd like to see guns treated like cars...mandatory licensing for operators, mandatory registration for owners, annual registration renewal, titling, title transfer upon sale, and mandatory liability insurance for each firearm.


What does that solve? We have laws that mandate registration and insurance for your automobile, but people still drive without it. We also have a law against murder, but people still do it. Try to reason without emotion...it's not that hard.


Well, yes...people do commit crimes. They're also held accountable for breaking the law. That's the point to having laws. Is this the first time you're hearing this? If so, that would explain a lot.

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Classified
Looking for a used car, a new job or a place to live? Search our interactive online classified ads.

Jobs | Cars | Homes
Rentals | Personals | More
Shopping
Yellow Pages
Find goods and services from local merchants in the online yellow pages.

Search