Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Thread: Assault Weapon questions

  1. #1

    Default Assault Weapon questions

    I have two questions that I am curious to discuss here.

    1. What is the definition of an "Assault Weapon"?

    2. Why should I not have one or more?

  2. #2

    Default

    1.

    The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann. Assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons. By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    * Folding stock
    * Conspicuous pistol grip
    * Bayonet mount
    * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    * Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
    * Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
    * A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

    * Folding or telescoping stock
    * Pistol grip
    * Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    * Detachable magazine
    2.because the government says they are dangerous. Honestly i don't think anyone needs an assault rifle but i respect people who want one.

  3. #3

    Default

    There's no real reason for civilians to have these sort of weapons. They're not designed for hunting, for self-defense, for sport, etc. They're designed to kill people. And lots of them. You might say the 2nd amendment allows it, but all rights end somewhere. I don't really want my neighbor to have a bazooka stashed at his place.

  4. #4

    Default

    Well, d4l got the definition of an assault weapon correct. However, most "assault guns" differ very little from the guns that are not classified as "assault" Mostly, the law bans scary looking features like a pistol grip on a rifle or a magazine that protrudes below the barrel of the gun. For example, one of my guns is a Remington 30-06 bolt action rifle. The magazine holds four rounds and one can be in the chamber, so it has a 5 round capacity. If the gun was sold with a magazine that held more rounds, say 10 rounds, it would protrude from the stock and therefore would "look scary" The gun would not be capable of firing a deadlier shot, however this feature would be illegal, at least in New York, we have additional laws here I believe.

    Another feature that would be illegal would be having a pistol grip added to this. That would be illegal under the assault weapons ban. Personally I think this ruling is completely unjustified. All that a pistol grip would help do is help aim the gun in the correct direction. This is a feature that might be necessary for some physically disabled hunters and could hinder their enjoyment of one of America's favorite activities.

    Some firearms are just banned entirely, such as the street sweeper and the stryker 12. Both of these guns have scary looking features, but do not deliver a more lethal shot than a more traditional looking gun firing the same round.

    Also, assault weapons are rarely involved in crimes. One law that has been tossed around is banning 50 caliber rifles. From the reports I have read, no crimes have ever been committed with this type of gun, so why ban it? They cost several thousand dollars each and require special handling and due to the recoil on them, they are suitable only for hunting extremely large game. Banning 50 cal ammo is just like the assault weapons ban, it is a "feel good" measure, it might make people feel safer but does nothing to deter crime. It is just a way for anti-gun politicians to get their way and further restrict our second amendment rights.

    Jeremiah, to answer your question, there is absolutely no reason that you should not have a gun that is classified as an assault rifle and you should have the right to have as many as you want, or at least can afford - gun collecting can get pricey. These assault weapons pose no more threat to society than an old hand me down break-action shotgun. In fact, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do help to reduce crime. So, if you can get your hands on an assault rifle - and it's legal to do so of course, go ahead and get it.

  5. #5
    Mako

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by chevre View Post
    There's no real reason for civilians to have these sort of weapons. They're not designed for hunting, for self-defense, for sport, etc. They're designed to kill people. And lots of them. You might say the 2nd amendment allows it, but all rights end somewhere. I don't really want my neighbor to have a bazooka stashed at his place.
    The intention is that incase the government becomes oppressive, the people will be able to form a militia and revolt. At the time the second amendment was authored such weapons with such a scope of destruction did not exist, there was no rational reason to separate what the military and civilians had.

    So you have the right to bare arms, but which arms do you have right to bare? Does one have right to nuclear arms? How about a tomahawk cruise missle? The scope of destruction that some weapons carry have greatly exceeded what would even be imagined by the founding fathers, and the idea of the american government becoming a radical oppressive regime that would require revolt, or that under such a regime in the US that a revolt would be possible, is a bit silly.

    People do have the right to defend themselves, but the country needs to take a long hard look at what is acceptable in the hands of civilians. Some of these ams, meant for defense, are causing more of a threat then a safety. Which those are, is going to be a hard long fought battle filled with irrationalities on both sides.

    Personally I don't see much reason for a civilian to own anything outside a long gun for defense and hunting. And a handgun for those at great risk (such as those needing to be in witness protection). Of course my country has no equivalence to the second amendment, and its working quite well for us. So I'll bow out of most of the debate here.

    Though I do have a question, other then vanity, and "because i want to", what reason is there for the average civilian to own an assault weapon? Emphasis on average, not talking about going radically right or left with special exceptions. The average, able bodied, person.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by chevre View Post
    for self-defense, for sport, etc. They're designed to kill people. And lots of them. You might say the 2nd amendment allows it, but all rights end somewhere. I don't really want my neighbor to have a bazooka stashed at his place.
    My first point. Killing can be self defense. Would you mess with anyone that has a assault rifle? Really most people will stop in their tracks and run once they see it those who don't are either very crazy or on drugs. If they are willing to run at you while your pointing a assault rifle at them they are most likely willing to do anything else. That includes anything to you and your family.

    If the person is hoped on on some drugs like speed, meth or some hardcore stuff like that then a regular hand gun won't stop them unless you kill them with it.

    Anyways its hard to say if we should be able to keep assault weapons for ourselves. If we do then people like gang bangers might steal them, on the other hand its our right to bare weapons.

    Then again criminals can already get their hands on such weapons. A few years ago this Ex military gang banger in Ceres, California killed one or more police officers with a assault rifle. I forgot where he got it from but the point is he got it by some means and he showed his gang banger friends it. After that all the cops in that town started to carry assault rifles in the back of their cars or in the front where the shotgun might be kept.

    Anyways if your neighbor had bazooka would you mess with him at all? Plus owning such a thing is pretty dumb for self defense it would take some time to get it ready for firing not to mention aiming in such away you don't get hurt and minimal structure damage to your household.

  7. #7

    Default

    The only reason I would need as assault weapon would be if many criminals where I live also have them, and I'd probably at some point be involved in either a shoot out or combat. However, in Canada such weapons are extremely illegal and aggressively pursued by law enforcement. This means that only hardcore gangs end up getting their hands on them, and they are much more apt to shoot rival gangs and dealers than me. This is great for everyone.

    However, if you make such weapons widely available, then they get into the hands of petty criminals and thieves. The murder rate will spike to American levels, and I don't want that.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    My first point. Killing can be self defense. Would you mess with anyone that has a assault rifle? Really most people will stop in their tracks and run once they see it those who don't are either very crazy or on drugs. If they are willing to run at you while your pointing a assault rifle at them they are most likely willing to do anything else. That includes anything to you and your family.
    A gun isn't made to scare people. a gun is made for shooting.
    and were does this scenario take place? if it's in an enclosed area with limited maneuverability then a handgun would make more sense. if someone isn't afraid of a handgun then what makes you think that an assault rifle would scare them?




    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    If the person is hoped on on some drugs like speed, meth or some hardcore stuff like that then a regular hand gun won't stop them unless you kill them with it.
    and that would? you can shoot someone in the knee. btw meth and speed are the same thing.




    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    Anyways its hard to say if we should be able to keep assault weapons for ourselves. If we do then people like gang bangers might steal them, on the other hand its our right to bare weapons.
    how far do you think that right goes? or should there be no limits? do you think it should be legal to own a.50 machine gun? how bout a stinger AA missal or a howitzer? what about an M1A1 tank? were do you draw the line? let people own a F-22? how bout a bomber? or an ICBM? and what about the ultimate self defense weapon, a Thermonuclear bomb?




    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    Anyways if your neighbor had bazooka would you mess with him at all? Plus owning such a thing is pretty dumb for self defense it would take some time to get it ready for firing not to mention aiming in such away you don't get hurt and minimal structure damage to your household.
    a bazooka wouldn't be for self defense. if you tried to use one in that way you would die. bazookas are made for blowing up structures and armored vehicles. the point that he was making was were do you draw the line on what's legal and whats not. Plus owning an assault rifle for self defense is pretty dumb. if you need 30 rounds to stop someone in tour house then you suck at aiming.

    the best home defense weapon is a shot gun, not an AK-47.

  9. #9

    Default

    I could go into this but I would piss someone off.
    Fact: it is not hard to convert semi to fully auto just so you know.
    Fact: I love the south for our gun laws.

  10. #10

    Default

    An "Assault Weapon" is a scary looking gun some people in the government *cough*Barack Obama*cough* says I can't have because they look scary and can kill someone more dead then a regular gun.

    Oh, and we can't have them because they look scary and their bullets are magically more deadly then any other gun, and if you touch one you will become a mass shooter and a white supremacist and an islamic terrorist and an evil member of the gun culture.

Similar Threads

  1. Two Tough Questions
    By starshine in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2008, 15:41
  2. Answers to your questions!
    By Tommy in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 20-Sep-2008, 03:47
  3. My random questions
    By Jade in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14-Jun-2008, 07:52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.