Sen. Feinstein To Introduce "Assault Weapon" Ban

[mercury14]

There there. Let's calm down and think that maybe no one was really there, that maybe search isn't working because it really didn't happen. Just breathe deeply and let the Thorazine work its magic. Everything will be fine.

(Hide the guns from this one, OK.)

No, the thread was real.

One of you guys was linking youtube videos of some vet who was held against his will on a 72-hour hold, after which a judge released him.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Pistol grips are the main thing, collapasable/adjustable stocks are the other biggie b/c they have the most visual impact and that's what gives them that tacticoolguy look, A2 style Flash Cages and bayonet lugs wrap up Assault rifles.



Making the term "assault" rifle and the reason to ban them silly as all fuck

The Mini 14 and AR15 I posted fire the exact same round...diff internal operations but as far as putting Ft.Lbs of energy with rounds on target..yes they are of equivalent firepower.

If in doubt the laws surrounding this and the specs on both .223/5.56mm AR15's and Ruger Mini 14's can be found everywhere as they are both extremely common rifles.

Ok - so the most obvious thing is the clip. Tell me about the the clip on the one that we all think looks like an assault weapon? It can clip onto either weapon?

 

[Sean]

No, the thread was real.

One of you guys was linking youtube videos of some vet who was held against his will on a 72-hour hold, after which a judge released him.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=824529&highlight=doctor

 

[zipman]

Obviously you didn't understand the definition and you continue to avoid the issue.

Ishmael

Well, here they are:

1. conduct or activity that playfully causes petty annoyance.

2. a tendency or disposition to tease, vex, or annoy.

3. a vexatious or annoying action.

4. harm or trouble, especially as a result of an agent or cause.

5. an injury or evil caused by a person or other agent or cause.


At best, your choice of words was meant to minimize what happened.

 

[mercury14]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=824529&highlight=doctor

Yeah I just found it as well. It was Eyer, Rosco, Vette, and AJ railing (to various degrees) against doctors being able to hold dangerous people. That kind of thing was apparently a Soviet-style abduction and completely unconstitutional. I wonder if they still feel that way.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ok - so the most obvious thing is the clip. Tell me about the the clip on the one that we all think looks like an assault weapon? It can clip onto either weapon?

No, the two guns pictured don't use interchangeable magazines. But those aren't the best examples to use; elsewhere, BotanyBoy linked pictures of a classic M1A Garand (WWII battle rifle) and a picture of an "assault rifle" with the same action, but different "furniture."

A better example might be the .223 Bushmaster and an M-16; the action is the same except for the selector switch has no burst or full auto setting on the bushmaster; both fire the same cartridge and use the same magazine. One is controlled in civilian possession under the Firearms Act of 1934 and the other lost the flash suppressor and bayonet lug to make it legal under the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.

 

[Ishmael]

I'll try starting over.

There will be NO ban on firearms, period. The Supreme Court has definitively ruled on that. Further there is no chance in hell of amending or repealing the 2nd. amendment. Any discussion along those lines is wasted time.

Banning "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines is nothing more than a political palliative, a placebo, a sugar pill. Such legislation will have zero effect on the occurrences or lethality perpetrated by the insane. True assault rifles are already highly restricted to the general public. What the politicos are calling 'assault rifles' are just run of the mill rifles with some cosmetic changes.

There will be NO ban of semi-automatic firearms. (As an aside there are some groups that are trying to get revolvers redefined as being 'semi-automatic.') Another pointless avenue of discussion.

That leaves the mental health aspect. I don't think there is any disagreement that something should/must be done, but exactly what? There are a whole series of Supreme Court decisions that make it virtually impossible to commit someone to an institution if they have minimal functionality and haven't committed a crime. And lest you forget, the little monster that was behind the CT shooting never had so much as a parking ticket. And from all reports was quite intelligent with high daily functionality. He also had a record of being extremely 'odd' and troublesome going back to his early years. But being 'odd' and troublesome is not a criminal offense.

Read up on the SCOTUS decisions and come up with a plan Stan. We need to do something, I want those monsters off the street as much as anyone else, but what's the plan?

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I'll try starting over.

There will be NO ban on firearms, period. The Supreme Court has definitively ruled on that. Further there is no chance in hell of amending or repealing the 2nd. amendment. Any discussion along those lines is wasted time.

Banning "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines is nothing more than a political palliative, a placebo, a sugar pill. Such legislation will have zero effect on the occurrences or lethality perpetrated by the insane. True assault rifles are already highly restricted to the general public. What the politicos are calling 'assault rifles' are just run of the mill rifles with some cosmetic changes.

There will be NO ban of semi-automatic firearms. (As an aside there are some groups that are trying to get revolvers redefined as being 'semi-automatic.') Another pointless avenue of discussion.

That leaves the mental health aspect. I don't think there is any disagreement that something should/must be done, but exactly what? There are a whole series of Supreme Court decisions that make it virtually impossible to commit someone to an institution if they have minimal functionality and haven't committed a crime. And lest you forget, the little monster that was behind the CT shooting never had so much as a parking ticket. And from all reports was quite intelligent with high daily functionality. He also had a record of being extremely 'odd' and troublesome going back to his early years. But being 'odd' and troublesome is not a criminal offense.

Read up on the SCOTUS decisions and come up with a plan Stan. We need to do something, I want those monsters off the street as much as anyone else, but what's the plan?

Ishmael

Or, maybe all the old idiotic fucks on the SCOUTS will die soon and the same generation that has no fear or loathing of homosexuality will also take over the Court and they rule in favor of gun control that does not fly in the face of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ... " something, something.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ... " something, something.

I think this has the makings of a tee shirt

Just sayin'

 

[cjh]

We are in for interesting times.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts* appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and "assault" weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.​

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/07/justice-scalia-guns-can-be-regulated/

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I'll try starting over.

It didn't help much.

There will be NO ban on firearms, period. The Supreme Court has definitively ruled on that. Further there is no chance in hell of amending or repealing the 2nd. amendment. Any discussion along those lines is wasted time.

Banning "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines is nothing more than a political palliative, a placebo, a sugar pill. Such legislation will have zero effect on the occurrences or lethality perpetrated by the insane. True assault rifles are already highly restricted to the general public. What the politicos are calling 'assault rifles' are just run of the mill rifles with some cosmetic changes.

There will be NO ban of semi-automatic firearms. (As an aside there are some groups that are trying to get revolvers redefined as being 'semi-automatic.') Another pointless avenue of discussion.

That leaves the mental health aspect. I don't think there is any disagreement that something should/must be done, but exactly what? There are a whole series of Supreme Court decisions that make it virtually impossible to commit someone to an institution if they have minimal functionality and haven't committed a crime. And lest you forget, the little monster that was behind the CT shooting never had so much as a parking ticket. And from all reports was quite intelligent with high daily functionality. He also had a record of being extremely 'odd' and troublesome going back to his early years. But being 'odd' and troublesome is not a criminal offense.

Read up on the SCOTUS decisions and come up with a plan Stan. We need to do something, I want those monsters off the street as much as anyone else, but what's the plan?

Ishmael

Actually what’s your plan?

You appear to be against any form of gun control and call it unworkable if it was on the table (despite it being effect in all other western nations).

Rightly, you point out that being mentally ill isn’t a criminal offense and how could you imprison anyone for being mentally ill who hadn’t committed a criminal offense anyway.

With that attitude there is no other possible solution and ask the reader to accept the current status quo; that being the murder/slaughter of innocent men, women and especially children on a regular basis.

So what is your solution to reduce murder and mass murders in your country to the levels enjoyed by other comparable western nations?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ok - so the most obvious thing is the clip. Tell me about the the clip on the one that we all think looks like an assault weapon? It can clip onto either weapon?

No they feed differently, so they have diff magazines of all designs/sizes for both.

No, the two guns pictured don't use interchangeable magazines. But those aren't the best examples to use; elsewhere, BotanyBoy linked pictures of a classic M1A Garand (WWII battle rifle) and a picture of an "assault rifle" with the same action, but different "furniture."

A better example might be the .223 Bushmaster and an M-16; the action is the same except for the selector switch has no burst or full auto setting on the bushmaster; both fire the same cartridge and use the same magazine. One is controlled in civilian possession under the Firearms Act of 1934 and the other lost the flash suppressor and bayonet lug to make it legal under the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.

Reason I didn't do that is b/c a real M-16/M4 will run you about 20-30,000 bucks and 6-18 months under a paperwork microscope. They are owned almost exclusively by collectors with expendable income....I E not the guy mercin' the 711 clerk for some scratch offs,' smokes and the chump change in the drawer.

Both the rifles in this case the Mini and AR while diff weapons entirely shoot the exact same round....it will kill exactly the same from either and you can get damn near any size mag you want for either of them. One's just "Dressed" for hunting and the other for combat/competitions.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Actually Harold the pics BB linked were of the M1A, the civilian version of the M14 Rifle which do use interchangeable magazines, not the WWII M1 Garand battle rifle which uses an en bloc magazine.

True story^^ its easy to mistake them though if you're not very familiar...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

We took the M14 into Vietnam in 65. It was a damn good battle rifle. We had to give it up for the "Mattel Toy" in 67-68. Most Marines hated it, in the beginning it got a lot of people killed due to stoppages.

Yay for innocent dead children! Loser.

 

[BotanyBoy]

We took the M14 into Vietnam in 65. It was a damn good battle rifle. We had to give it up for the "Mattel Toy" in 67-68. Most Marines hated it, in the beginning it got a lot of people killed due to stoppages.

Yea them rushing it like they did was a serious derp....

I carried both M4 and the 14 .....both served my very well and ideally for two very very different combat environments.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

I loved that old rifle. I've bought three M1As over the years, still have two, both NM rifles. One topped with an ART type scope the other NM iron sights. I still enjoy taking the latter out in the desert and plink at Jack Rabbits and coyotes at long range.

Yea I just have a shorty with a 1x4 on it....still crack peanuts with it at 600m

But I'm building my own "SASS" Long range AR tac driver. I got the armalite AR10 lower that accepts both SR and AR mags, with a sear/trigger/disconnector/spring set from WC. I stoned and polished all the articulate surfaces, the take up is non existent with a 3.8lb ice sickle break
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhkdez69U81qblm06.gif
I can't wait to finish the build but it will be a few months, a quality upper and appropriate glass isn't going to be cheap....should be around March I'll post pic's when I'm done.

 

[miles]

The automatic aiming device is your own hand, dippy. With a semi-automatic or double action revolver or whatever instrument of multiple death you prefer, you only have to release the trigger and fire again and again.

Now work on convincing me that you need to fire again and again in rapid succession more than six times to repel the guy climbing through your window or onto your wife.

Phro, shut the fuck up. You're making a fool of yourself (even more than usual.)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Waste of "discussion."

Emotion beats facts with the mob mentality.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335845/banning-assault-weapons-not-answer-editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell

I will stock up on magazines...

 

[unregistered]

 

[SeaDaddy1]

I think it's pathetic for anti-gun advocates to be treating the dead children of the Newton massacre like martyrs. The willingness of adults to use innocent children to further their own personal agendas never ceases to amaze me.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

I think it's pathetic for anti-gun advocates to be treating the dead children of the Newton massacre like martyrs. The willingness of adults to use innocent children to further their own personal agendas never ceases to amaze me.

Their opinion differs from yours as to the role that access to firearms plays in these tragedies.

Do you think it's appropriate to consider the need for better mental health care in light of this tragedy? Or is that an offensive personal agenda, too?