Assault Weapons


JAG89

JAG89

THE NEW AMERICA'S TEAM
How many people know the legal definition of an assault weapon and why the Bushmaster AR-15 (semi-automatic rifle) is not consider an assault weapon.

IMO, no one buys an AR-15 just for hunting or just for protection. IMO, the AR-15 was intentionally built to look like the M-16 to give someone the perception that it is a military weapon that can effectively kill a large number of people at one time. To most military people the AR-15 is a crude imitation of the M-16, but to the most people without any military experience or the mentally insane, its resemblance only gives them the feel of having a military weapon/M16.
 
An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies......

I won't go into how many weapons I own, but I do own a Panther Arms (DPMS) similar to the one pictured here.....

1_rifles_dpms_ar15_65584.jpg


The AR-15 is simply the civilian version of the military rifle. It operates in the same manner, minus the ability to fire full auto or burst. It is possible for you to own the fully auto verison if you fill out the federal paperwork, pay the $5,000 and become a class III weapons dealer. Oh yeah, they keep your money even if you don't pass the FBI's approval.

And it doesn't matter what it looks like....Luke Woodham in Pearl and all the kids at Columbine didn't have a single rifle in this category.

The insane will find a way to kill with fertilizer and box cutters.
 



Makaho 2.0 said:
An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies......

I won't go into how many weapons I own, but I do own a Panther Arms (DPMS) similar to the one pictured here.....

1_rifles_dpms_ar15_65584.jpg


The AR-15 is simply the civilian version of the military rifle. It operates in the same manner, minus the ability to fire full auto or burst. It is possible for you to own the fully auto verison if you fill out the federal paperwork, pay the $5,000 and become a class III weapons dealer. Oh yeah, they keep your money even if you don't pass the FBI's approval.

And it doesn't matter what it looks like....Luke Woodham in Pearl and all the kids at Columbine didn't have a single rifle in this category.

The insane will find a way to kill with fertilizer and box cutters.
Click to expand...

I guess during my days in the military (1985-1991), I never developed a fascination of owning anything that resembles a military weapon. Why would someone have a desire to own weapons that look or is a military type of weapon, especially if the country they live-in is not fighting a war inside its borders? Is it for hunting and security protection or to make sure the government doesn't infringe on your constitutional rights?

But don’t get me wrong, I do have a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun that came with two barrels, a short barrel with a pistol grip and a standard barrel with a standard shotgun butt, which looks like the one in the pictures below:

Short barrel with pistol grip:
774-DEFAULT-L.jpg


Standard barrel with standard butt:
472505_01_mossberg_12ga_shotgun_with_2_b_640.jpg


The only reason why I brought that shotgun, when I lived in Los Angeles, it was very easy to train my ex-wife how to use when I left for military training during extended periods of time. Every time I left for training, I would remove the plug in it and put six (6) shotgun shells in it with one of those shells ready to fire. I would slide the gun under the bed with the safety on and tell her if anyone enters the apartment unannounced, do not hesitate to switch the safety off and start firing. I would always tell her I would rather go to court in her defense than go through life knowing that someone had invaded our home, raped and killed my lovely wife. Now that we are divorced, I've only used the shotgun for hunting.

Also, the AR-15 doesn’t have a bayonet attachment.

Every time I think about my ex-wife shooting that shotgun, I think about this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SpuW-aREDgA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
I will not comment for fear of self incrimination but my mother owns an AR-15 that my father brought home when he retired after being the Sergeant Major at Fr. Polk after the invasion of Panama. What he liked about the AR-15 was that in urban combat and close quarters it was extremely useful. Plus as a Sergeant Major he rarely walked around with a rifle having been done 3 tours in Vietnam, a POW, stints in Africa during the Idi Amine(sp) regime, and some other shit during a 31 year Army career.

Now me personally I believe in our right to bear arms. The problem is not with those who legally bear arms. Like me I am in process of petitioning to get my gun rights back because my father, when he died, gave me 21 guns. From a .357 which was designed for his right hand, a desert eagle, AR-15, and others.

The problem is with those who use guns illegally. Another issue is that these schools need to instruct teachers and principles on gun training and allow them to have concealed weapons permits so that this can be a deterrent.

It's just like tinted windows. A car jacker is not inclined to jack someone with dark tinted windows because he/she can't see what is on the other side.
 
You might not have the desire to own such a weapon, but based on laws and rights those that do have the desire can. There are even those that would argue with you for owning such a shotgun. "What you need that for?" I have heard those arguments too. The point is, banning any gun of any kind will not stop this kind of stuff from happening. Not one law on the books or anyone can come up with can.

Let's say for instance the president made a law banning these or any guns....what will that change? NOTHING! People will get what they want illegally period. Criminals do not obey laws of any kind. Our massive drug problem proves this. Even if you somehow imposed martial law and went door to door and tried to take everybodies guns, that wouldn't work. Mofos gonna hide them, probably in the same places they hide their damn drugs and other illegal stuff.

Making assault rifles illegal will not stop tragedies such as this. Now a bunch of terrorists armed with box cutters killed over 3,000 Americans, box cutters aren't banned, but now we have a lot of security and methods of prevention at our airports that do. Even after we implemented advanced security methods the terrorists evolved by making shoe and underwear bombs. Oh yeah, they are planning other ways as we speak. That's what terrorists do.

Now do I have the answer to preventing school shootings from happening again? No, but there is a way we can deter/make it harder for this to be repeated. Much like how we got advanced security at our airports, why not get security at our schools? Put more money into municipal budgets so they can hire a police officer/deputy to work these schools.

A gun ban is simply a cheap solution that will not work, but will get people saying...."Hey, at least the governments doing something." This will quiet some outrage until the next tragedy. Pardon the pun, but our govt. simply puts band aids on bullet wounds.

You mentioned that you lived in L.A. California has the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, yet has the highest number of gun crimes. In California a Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test in addition to a extensive background check is required for handgun purchases. You can't even own, possess, import, or purchase assault weapons. Yet.......they have the highest amount of crimes committed with assault weapons.

Banning guns simply doesn't work....it just makes people think something is being done.



JAG89 said:
I guess during my days in the military (1985-1991), I never developed a fascination of owning anything that resembles a military weapon. Why would someone have a desire to own weapons that look or is a military type of weapon, especially if the country they live-in is not fighting a war inside its borders? Is it for hunting and security protection or to make sure the government doesn't infringe on your constitutional rights?

But don’t get me wrong, I do have a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun that came with two barrels, a short barrel with a pistol grip and a standard barrel with a standard shotgun butt, which looks like the one in the pictures below:

Short barrel with pistol grip:
774-DEFAULT-L.jpg


Standard barrel with standard butt:
472505_01_mossberg_12ga_shotgun_with_2_b_640.jpg


The only reason why I brought that shotgun, when I lived in Los Angeles, it was very easy to train my ex-wife how to use when I left for military training during extended periods of time. Every time I left for training, I would remove the plug in it and put six (6) shotgun shells in it with one of those shells ready to fire. I would slide the gun under the bed with the safety on and tell her if anyone enters the apartment unannounced, do not hesitate to switch the safety off and start firing. I would always tell her I would rather go to court in her defense than go through life knowing that someone had invaded our home, raped and killed my lovely wife. Now that we are divorced, I've only used the shotgun for hunting.

Also, the AR-15 doesn’t have a bayonet attachment.

Every time I think about my ex-wife shooting that shotgun, I think about this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SpuW-aREDgA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...
 
All military styled weapons should be banned from private ownership. Those who manufacture, sell and purchase should be held liable for their usage. The families of the 26 killed should be able to sue the estate of Mrs. Lanza, the manufacturer, and seller of the AR that took their loved one away.
 
J C said:
All military styled weapons should be banned from private ownership. Those who manufacture, sell and purchase should be held liable for their usage. The families of the 26 killed should be able to sue the estate of Mrs. Lanza, the manufacturer, and seller of the AR that took their loved one away.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you think so? I guess you want to hold spoons and forks liable for making people fat?

Did you even read anything that has been posted so far? Look at the example of California alone where it's illegal to even own or possess a military style rifle; yet more crimes are committed with them than anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have that right and you have the right to oppose. Let's the political debate start. I have already contacted my congresswoman.
 
J C said:
Yes, I have that right and you have the right to oppose. Let's the political debate start. I have already contacted my congresswoman.
Click to expand...

Yanno, the almost adolescent ignorance you possess regarding this issue is somewhat saddening. Again, did you even read or entertain what has been said before? If you had, you would have started the debate with something other than..."All military weapons should be banned...."

Please explain California. Based on your flawed logic the remaining states should follow suit considering their banning of them was so successful. They have Banned all military style weapons.....where has that gotten them? Oh yeah, the top of the statistical list of states where crimes with military style weapons occur.

Waiting....
 
Not gonna happen in Bama, and I am glad. I ain't giving mines up. Nope. Nada.
J C said:
Yes, I have that right and you have the right to oppose. Let's the political debate start. I have already contacted my congresswoman.
Click to expand...
 



CEE DOG said:
Why should I be punished because of some fool? I don't understand the logic JC.
Click to expand...

Well, look at how the process air travel has changed after 9/11 and other incidents. We have to nearly disrobe or be x-rayed before boarding a plane. We are even restricted from bringing some common personal accessories on board if those item do not fall within security guidelines.
 
CEE DOG said:
Why should I be punished because of some fool? I don't understand the logic JC.
Click to expand...

Cee, you said the key word....logic! Liberal Logic does not work that way. He simply refuses to deal with the reality of the situation.....as most liberals do. He won't even address the California example I gave as to why banning something will not change things.

You can't reason with these people. You just have to beat them on election day.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
Cee, you said the key word....logic! Liberal Logic does not work that way. He simply refuses to deal with the reality of the situation.....as most liberals do. He won't even address the California example I gave as to why banning something will not change things.

You can't reason with these people. You just have to beat them on election day.
Click to expand...

Im somewhat liberal but I dont agree wiht JC's logic. I don't think you can sweep all liberals with that brush. I hope to own an AR-15. I really don't see the need for a 30 round clip, but outright bans. That crazy, you asking for war with the American people.
 
I can understand that travel process. It makes since. The other one doesn't.
kendrick said:
Well, look at how the process air travel has changed after 9/11 and other incidents. We have to nearly disrobe or be x-rayed before boarding a plane. We are even restricted from bringing some common personal accessories on board if those item do not fall within security guidelines.
Click to expand...
 
CEE DOG said:
I can understand that travel process. It makes since. The other one doesn't.
Click to expand...

Why does one make sense but the other doesn't?!

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/18/the...d=op-main-lead

It’s a familiar drill for millions of travelers: bare feet shuffling on a cold floor, belt off, emptied pockets, personal effects exposed for maximum humiliation. This surely constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, explicitly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Yet we cede this constitutional right to the executive authority that controls our borders millions of times every day.

When it comes to protecting freedom, Americans, including those on the Supreme Court, recognize that personal liberties must often be modified for the safety and protection of others. Yet today’s gun rights advocates routinely cite the Second Amendment of the constitution—the right to bear arms—when threatened by commonsense proposals to limit, but not eliminate, modern-day weaponry. Constitutionally protected freedoms are routinely curtailed in the name of public safety, morality, or even convenience. Our right to free speech is routinely regulated through obscenity laws. Slander, libel, pornography; we’re muzzled all the time. So, too, are our rights to assembly and religion compromised. You can’t stage a protest at noon in the middle of Times Square. A parent can’t deny a child lifesaving medical care or education.

We make these compromises every day, and somehow the sky does not fall. But gun activists want an exemption from the cost of citizenry. Why should we pay such a high price for their freedoms if they wish to pay no price for ours? Last Friday in Connecticut, the bill came due, and it’s time for the NRA to pay.
 
When flying, it is the responsibility of the Airlines to protect their passengers. You pay for that as customers. It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family. I don't need to call 911 for that. Maybe after the fact, but not to handle the situation at hand.
southsuburbs said:
Why does one make sense but the other doesn't?!

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/18/the...d=op-main-lead

It’s a familiar drill for millions of travelers: bare feet shuffling on a cold floor, belt off, emptied pockets, personal effects exposed for maximum humiliation. This surely constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, explicitly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Yet we cede this constitutional right to the executive authority that controls our borders millions of times every day.

When it comes to protecting freedom, Americans, including those on the Supreme Court, recognize that personal liberties must often be modified for the safety and protection of others. Yet today’s gun rights advocates routinely cite the Second Amendment of the constitution—the right to bear arms—when threatened by commonsense proposals to limit, but not eliminate, modern-day weaponry. Constitutionally protected freedoms are routinely curtailed in the name of public safety, morality, or even convenience. Our right to free speech is routinely regulated through obscenity laws. Slander, libel, pornography; we’re muzzled all the time. So, too, are our rights to assembly and religion compromised. You can’t stage a protest at noon in the middle of Times Square. A parent can’t deny a child lifesaving medical care or education.

We make these compromises every day, and somehow the sky does not fall. But gun activists want an exemption from the cost of citizenry. Why should we pay such a high price for their freedoms if they wish to pay no price for ours? Last Friday in Connecticut, the bill came due, and it’s time for the NRA to pay.
Click to expand...
 
CEE DOG said:
When flying, it is the responsibility of the Airlines to protect their passengers. You pay for that as customers. It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family. I don't need to call 911 for that. Maybe after the fact, but not to handle the situation at hand.
Click to expand...

The killer's mom thought she was protecting her family too. :smh:

You can protect your family...nobody (even the article) is stating that you shouldn't be able to but the 2nd Amendment should not be a pass for anyone to just go out and buy an excessive number guns/assault rifles/etc. :tdown:
 
Don't be fooled. That lady knew that boy was crazy. Parents know their kids. Just because folks momma and daddy don't say nothing, doesn't mean they don't know. Parents know when you are off in the head, a drunk, a druggie, a freak and many more things. They just tend to hide it because no one wants to admit it is their child. The best thing people can do is be honest. If Lil Johnnie is crazy, get Johnnie help. If Mary likes to lay around, get her help.The problem is not gonna go away.
southsuburbs said:
The killer's mom thought she was protecting her family too. :smh:

You can protect your family...nobody (even the article) is stating that you shouldn't be able to but the 2nd Amendment should not be a pass for anyone to just go out and buy an excessive number guns/assault rifles/etc. :tdown:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top