sprawl15: qorkfiend: It is the gun as designed. What was it designed for? To expel projectiles at high speeds towards a target, or in the case of a shotgun, a cloud of projectiles. Is a sawed-off shotgun incapable of shooting? No, it remains fully capable of the functionality it was designed for.

You're begging the question. A gun is designed to shoot human beings which is provable because if you change it in a way so it doesn't shoot human beings it doesn't meet the design which is shooting human beings. Proof!

I didn't say anything about the nature of the target. I said a gun is designed to expel projectiles at high speed towards a target. Removing the firing pin also removes this capability. Sawing the barrel off a shotgun does not.

Perlin Noise: LarryDan43: That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.

[naimalett.com image 360x270]

It was well documented in Freakonomics that the legalization of abortion in the seventies led a a decrease in crime in the nineties. Fewer children growing up in poverty being raised by immature, stressed single moms was correlated with this decrease in crime.

Perlin Noise: I hate to break it to you guys ...but your argument is silly.

Please show your work. Be more specific.

Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

Graffito: It was well documented in Freakonomics that the legalization of abortion in the seventies led a a decrease in crime in the nineties. Fewer children growing up in poverty being raised by immature, stressed single moms was correlated with this decrease in crime.

Cool, just rather that when you drop a whopper like that, there is a little explanation. Makes sense to me ;)

The individual right to bear arms has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, just like nationalized health care with the Obamacare individual mandate. The issue is settled.

qorkfiend: I said a gun is designed to expel projectiles at high speed towards a target. Removing the firing pin also removes this capability.

You're picking one design element and saying that it's the one fundamental thing to a gun because it's the one design element that's fundamental to a gun. Remove the firing pin? It's not a gun because you're altering the design. But altering the design isn't the justification for saying it's no longer a weapon, since that assertion doesn't hold true for the vast majority of design alterations.

Your problem is that you're arguing from emotion - you think that a gun's capacity for violence implies a fundamental purpose to it. It doesn't. High explosives have a high capacity for violence, and we certainly don't want them in the hands of a madman, but that's because the guy is crazy and violent, not because of some fundamental purpose of explosives to blow up daycare centers.

HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.

LarryDan43: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.

Which reenforces a personal belief: Own a firearm and know how to use it.

sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.

I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.

When is the gun owning community going to do something to police themselves?

Prosecuting people for murder doesn't bring the victims back to life.

Bloody William: 3: No, the tragedy wouldn't have been averted if someone else in the theater had a gun, you stupid fark. It probably would have resulted in more people dying because of the dark, crowded location, the armored shooter, the use of tear gas, and the fact that most people in stressful situations aren't freaking Deadshot.

There's hundreds of examples where legal shooters defended their lives or others without harming any additional innocents. Can anyone please provide an example of a legal shooter causing net negative results? The closest thing I've heard is "good guys" getting their weapons stripped and used against them. This happens mostly to cops (because they open carry and actively engage the bad guys).

CPennypacker: sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.

I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

The size of the magazine is irrelevant in classifying something an 'assault weapon', since people can make magazines of huge sizes regardless of weapon. Which is why the assault weapon ban separately banned large capacity magazines. They're separate entities.

Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

the_geek: Can anyone please provide an example of a legal shooter causing net negative results?

John Capano would be a pretty good example.

HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

Civilians of Mexico living in Mexican border regions would disagree.

sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.

Nope. The definition is easily codified into written law. ARs, AKs, FLNs, SKSs, submachine guns, and etc.
There is no ambiguity at all, and where there is, the law should lean toward confiscation.

There is no reason for civilians to own these rifles or high-cap mags.

IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

Luckily, that's not how the Constitution works. That's why the Constitution doesn't need to explicitly say that you have a right to not be raped.

L82DPRT: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

Civilians of Mexico living in Mexican border regions would disagree.

Lotsa good it's doing them, too, right?
Where are their police and military?
Bought off, no doubt.

Because the cartels, who happen to be civilians, have assault rifles.
Race to the bottom much?

CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?

sprawl15: qorkfiend: I said a gun is designed to expel projectiles at high speed towards a target. Removing the firing pin also removes this capability.

You're picking one design element and saying that it's the one fundamental thing to a gun because it's the one design element that's fundamental to a gun. Remove the firing pin? It's not a gun because you're altering the design. But altering the design isn't the justification for saying it's no longer a weapon, since that assertion doesn't hold true for the vast majority of design alterations.

Your problem is that you're arguing from emotion - you think that a gun's capacity for violence implies a fundamental purpose to it. It doesn't. High explosives have a high capacity for violence, and we certainly don't want them in the hands of a madman, but that's because the guy is crazy and violent, not because of some fundamental purpose of explosives to blow up daycare centers.

Are you asserting that guns were not designed to expel projectiles at high speeds, and that a key component to that design is the firing pin?

The fundamental purpose of high explosives is not to blow up daycare centers. It's to blow up, period. Explosives were invented for something else, initially, and then repurposed. The same cannot be said for firearms.

Epoch_Zero: IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

It also doesn't define 'arms' as any kind of firearm.

And what it certainly has in mind are arms as defined at that time that document was written: Muskets, pistols, swords, cannon. NOT automatic and semi-automatic assault/military style weapons.

/I want my cannon. It's in the CONSTITUTION.
//Derp.

HotIgneous Intruder: Nope. The definition is easily codified into written law. ARs, AKs, FLNs, SKSs, submachine guns, and etc.
There is no ambiguity at all, and where there is, the law should lean toward confiscation.

Then you're just ignorant of the laws. Not really surprising.

An "assault weapon" is a cosmetic definition. It has little to do with the capabilities of the weapon.

A basic semi-automatic rifle (of a non-scary variety, like an M-14) that has a bayonet mount and a telescopic stock is an assault weapon. An M&P15 with a grenade launcher is not an assault weapon as long as you remove the pistol grip, put on a solid stock, and make sure it doesn't have a bayonet mount/flash suppressor.

Hobodeluxe: I'd like to preface this WALL OF TEXT

Now, from someone who has a GED in Constitutional Law:

The purpose of the second amendment, as it was created in its time, was to ensure that tyranny could be put down by the populace. First, tyrannical decisions made by the government would have to face an armed populace, so these decisions would have to be tempered and generally fair, not oppressive. Secondly, foreign invaders would have to face an armed populace if they landed on U.S. soil. In modern times, this also allows us to deal with domestic invaders (criminals) who would harm the freedom of law abiding citizens. I don't know that this last idea was intended by those that wrote the Bill of Rights, so I'll leave it aside.

Now, the most common argument is that police and the National Guard serve in the role of "militia" as intended in the second amendment. However, since these entities are armed by, paid by, and take their orders from the state, they don't qualify under the intended spirit of the second amendment. If fact, they are direct support to the government, and would be used to enforce oppressive policies.

For the record - I'm a very left leaning Democrat, who supports the idea of a strong federal government. I'm also very supportive of police and military personnel. But as long as this sits on the books, and is the foundation of our country, guns will be a part of our national identity. I don't see a way past that unless we want to go through the upheaval of rewriting the Bill of Rights.

sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Nope. The definition is easily codified into written law. ARs, AKs, FLNs, SKSs, submachine guns, and etc.
There is no ambiguity at all, and where there is, the law should lean toward confiscation.

Then you're just ignorant of the laws. Not really surprising.

An "assault weapon" is a cosmetic definition. It has little to do with the capabilities of the weapon.

A basic semi-automatic rifle (of a non-scary variety, like an M-14) that has a bayonet mount and a telescopic stock is an assault weapon. An M&P15 with a grenade launcher is not an assault weapon as long as you remove the pistol grip, put on a solid stock, and make sure it doesn't have a bayonet mount/flash suppressor.

You're confusing function with use and military nomenclature with appearance.
Go away now and let the grownups talk.

sprawl15: John Capano would be a pretty good example.

That story is about two law enforcement officers intervening in a crime. I'm looking for a real shooting where a civilian shooter caused the situation to be worse than it would have been.

the_geek: CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?

No, but judging by your clever nerd rage it should be the most powerful weapon you are allowed to have.

Gun owners should have to register like sex offenders.

L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?

the_geek: CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?

I hate this line being trotted out time after time. I know plenty of people that are knowledgable about weapons that interchange clip with magazine, but never the other way around. A clip of ammo goes inside a magazine, saying that a gun accepts a 100 round clip is not as wrong as you make it out to be.

the_geek: CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?

And does your bb gun use gun powder? Are the rounds self-primed. Stop being stupid.

Epoch_Zero: L82DPRT: LarryDan43: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.

Which reenforces a personal belief: Own a firearm and know how to use it.

For what reason should I do this?

Just my opinion man. Rely on others for your personal protection, I don't care.

If you're afraid someone may take your weapon and use it against you maybe you should empty your house of knives, blunt instruments and plastic bags as well.


HotIgneous Intruder: L82DPRT:HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

Civilians of Mexico living in Mexican border regions would disagree.

Lotsa good it's doing them, too, right?
Where are their police and military?
Bought off, no doubt.

Because the cartels, who happen to be civilians criminals, have assault rifles.
Race to the bottom much?

FTFY

Khellendros: For the record - I'm a very left leaning Democrat, who supports the idea of a strong federal government. I'm also very supportive of police and military personnel. But as long as this sits on the books, and is the foundation of our country, guns will be a part of our national identity. I don't see a way past that unless we want to go through the upheaval of rewriting the Bill of Rights

Yes, because those were written in stone and never meant to be updated, or changed, or.....there's some other word I'm trying to recall... Anyway, the commandments of the Constitution are never to be altered, so that's the breaks I guess.

qorkfiend: Are you asserting that guns were not designed to expel projectiles at high speeds, and that a key component to that design is the firing pin?

Mu. Guns are designed in many ways, to meet many different demands. A machine gun with a damaged action that only allows single shot fire can't satisfy its role. A display gun without a firing pin can meet its role. A home defense gun without a firing pin can't be used for home defense. A range gun's firing pin is irrelevant most of the time, as it only needs to function on the range.

qorkfiend: The fundamental purpose of high explosives is not to blow up daycare centers. It's to blow up, period. Explosives were invented for something else, initially, and then repurposed. The same cannot be said for firearms.

I really don't get the purpose of your argument. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot things. Fine. So what? Your assertion that "The fact that some people do not use it as a weapon does not change the fact that it is originally designed and meant to be used as a weapon." is still bullshiat, since 'some people' make up 99.999% of the people. It's like asserting that bombs aren't a weapon since explosives were developed peacefully for mining operations and furthermore.

Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military. Other guns are designed specifically to kill types of animals, others for target shooting, others to just be fun to shoot. An anti-material rifle isn't even really designed to kill people, it's designed to kill objects.

Khellendros: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?

They can never seem to explain why crime was plummeting prior to the loosening of gun laws.

HotIgneous Intruder: And what it certainly has in mind are arms as defined at that time that document was written: Muskets, pistols, swords, cannon. NOT automatic and semi-automatic assault/military style weapons.

/I want my cannon. It's in the CONSTITUTION.
//Derp.

At the time the constitution was written muskets, pistols, swords, and cannons *were* assault/military style weapons.

WRT your other post regarding codified definitions of assault weapons... how do you really define an "AR" for example (which stands for Armalite)? It's essentially a low powered semi-automatic rifle with a plastic stock. In most states you cannot hunt deer with an AR because the .223/5.56 round (the standard AR round) are not powerful enough to kill the deer in one shot and it's deemed inhumane. So, it should go without saying that most peoples' hunting rifles are more powerful than the typical AR. So what is it about an AR-15 that should make it illegal exactly?

Epoch_Zero: No. It's a bb gun.

bb guns are considered firearms by most (every?) state laws.

Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

/Maybe there has been to some of the halfwits in this thread, but legislatively, it's been done.
//Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned and mandatory federal felony prison time attached to their possession.
///Also: Assault weapon owners, who are you gonna fight and kill with your superguns? The government? Please let me know how that shiat turns out.

HotWingConspiracy: Khellendros: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?

They can never seem to explain why crime was plummeting prior to the loosening of gun laws.

::cough:: abortion ::cough::

HotIgneous Intruder: You're confusing function with use and military nomenclature with appearance.

"Assault weapon" is a legal term. Go educate yourself. You do know how to read, right?

the_geek: I'm looking for a real shooting where a civilian shooter caused the situation to be worse than it would have been.

The civilian shooter shot the law enforcement officer because he couldn't figure out who was the bad guy.

sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

Khellendros: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?

Ban tomatoes.

EyeballKid: Khellendros: For the record - I'm a very left leaning Democrat, who supports the idea of a strong federal government. I'm also very supportive of police and military personnel. But as long as this sits on the books, and is the foundation of our country, guns will be a part of our national identity. I don't see a way past that unless we want to go through the upheaval of rewriting the Bill of Rights

Yes, because those were written in stone and never meant to be updated, or changed, or.....there's some other word I'm trying to recall... Anyway, the commandments of the Constitution are never to be altered, so that's the breaks I guess.

There are amendments that have been changed, but the Bill of Rights has been considered generally separate. Sacred, even. Sure, we could attempt to reinterpret them, or write something that alters it, but the spirit of its intent is quite clear. I don't see a practical way getting that legislation through. Not in the next 50 years.