hahaha

JimGov, the Clips and AR ban is not a 'no brainer' Universal I am fine with. What is an AR btw, care to explain that to me, since the Bushmaster is NOT an AR in any way shape or form

@stressed - Yeah, the last part should not have been a part of the "no brainer" comment. But the Bushmaster...Are we talking about the same weapon?

http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1143590

Sorry. I used the wrong phrase. I should have said assault weapon. According to the Assault Weapon law that was allowed to expire,

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. Some definitions in "assault weapon" legislation under consideration (in 2013) are much broader to the point of including the majority of firearms, e.g. to include all semi-automatic firearms or all firearms with detachable magazines. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:
a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

By that definition, the Bushmaster has semi-automatic firing, a detachable magazine, a protruding pistol grip and a flash suppressor. Assault weapon.

I can fire that Bushmaster no faster than I can any other Rifle. Give me a 22, I can fire it just as fast.

AR 15s do NOT come with a all of those, they must be added

basically you are telling me if I add all that 'junk' to a .22 rifle, it is an AR? Keep in mind here Jimgov, I am a vet, and I know what an AR really is, regardless of how the Government wants to classify it, THAT is not an AR.

I have fired an Ar -15 Not a bad weapon, but I am not going to go into combat with that thing, and it does not have any automatic, or even 3 round burst feature on it that I am aware of.

Wait, Detachable magazines? I have quite a FEW rifles with such a feature.

You guys are batshit crazy. he could have killed just as many people with a 9mm pistol, and three 20 round clips ashe did with that AR 15, which I am still not convinced was the weapon used, since I remember the CNN vidoe when it was happening, of how the Bushmaster was in the TRUNK of the car.

Grenade luancher....okay, sure, see them all the time around here.../endsarcasm

By your very definition there are actually pistols that are Assault weapons.


now, where didyou get YOUR definition of what an AR is?

USDD defines it as the following, straight from their book:

As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

the Bushmaster can not fire Automatically. What definition you using for this, where did you get that? I think you got that from the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which made up a new definition than the one on the books and defined by the military.

This is why this bill failed. Put a bill with ONLY the Universal Background check, and it WILL pass, promise you.

@stressed - I really don't care what you think is an assault weapon. Here is the definition from HR 3355, Title XI, SEC. 110102, b, B

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3355/text

This is the assault weapon ban that was allowed to expire. And the AR15 IS an assault weapon. I already said that I misspoke by writing assault rifle. That would require full auto. The AR 15 is semi auto. You have no wiggle room on this one. You are wrong.

I think the real point is that the bill was bloated and had shit in it that one side or the other didn't like so it failed. If Congress would get back to just simple bills that focused and stop putting other often unrelated crap in, more might actually get done.

So you use the definition from an expired bill?

According to our defense department it is not an assault rifle one gocernment agenysays Iit is not (the one that deals with wePons) and an expired bill says it is

The bill is no longer a bill so this the definition is no longer valid or am I wrong?

@Draug - That is a more than likely scenario. But riddle me this - What is the last bill that wasn't bloated as shit? It's kind of what Congress does best.

@stressed - So by that logic, the bill never happened? The US Government defined assault weapon. That is good enough for me. Just because the bill was allowed to expire, does not mean that the definition is suddenly null and void.

And I hate to use Wikipedia, but...

Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.

@jimgov - I'm not arguing that. I agree completely. We need to *get back* to a time when a bill was for a single purpose and all things in it directly related to that purpose.

@Draug - I don't know when it EVER was like that. Maybe way back in the founding father's day. Maybe. But for as long as I have been alive it seems like every bill has some extra crap attached to it. Remember when (and I can't remember the exact time) when they tried to give the President line item veto rights? That shit got shot down fast.

As well it should have. Congress gets to pick and choose what they present as a package. The PResident doesn't get to pick and choose what he approves and force congress to then have to override it. That is SCOTUS' job. :-)

Jimgov, again, we alla gree on the Universal background, and that is what the majority of Americans support, not a new Assault weaposn ban, which support for is much much lower.

Most people think that a new ban wont stop school massacres (see Columbine for an example, and 8 other school shootings during the ban as my example and evidence it does not work)

Most people think it is lunatics allowed to get guns, and how to stop THEM from getting them,.

There are certain PARTS of the bill, I have no problem with, there are other parts you wont ever get me to agree with.

perhaps, we find the things we all agree on, and get THAT part done, and then we can haggle over the rest, and krellin is right, he is acting like a brat..


heis only angry because it did not pass his Senate, and instead got shot down in the REpug house so he can point his fingers at them and said "see, they want more children killed"

I have never heard krellin use racist words (but I dont read a lot of forum threads either) and I did not get the impression this was racist either when I read it.

@stressed - I bet that we could sit down and come up with a bill that we could both live with. Unfortunately, in Congress, one side has to win and the other lose. That's why shit doesn't get done.

As for the last part, I said my piece on that earlier in the thread. I stand by my previous comments.

@Stressed He has before, but it's whatever.

So if a new ban won't work what do you suggest? Currently it's easier to get a gun then to get mental health treatment. Would you suggest we focus on helping these people find the medical attention they need or some other way?

@Celtic / Stressed -- Sure, I have used "racist" words before, whatever that means.

Apparently "BOY" is a racist word. Thank god I have daughters.

I have also used the word NIGGER before....but I hardly consider that a racist word any more, because it is *PREVALENT* within the Hip Hop industry, of which I am a huge aficionado.

Further, no less than the President of the United States of America has *hosted* individuals that are very open and public with their use of the word Nigger...

So...if that is a racist word, then no less than the President of the United States of America is a purveyor of racism.

So...sure...I have used racist language in the forums. I admit it. I have even called the President apparently a racist word.

What all of you fail to realize, apparently, is that my use of "racist words" is in mockery of racism.

I **REJECT** the power of words.

THIS TOO is something you should know about me, Celticfox. So I would implore you, when you claim you have seen me use racist words, that you ALSO state that you acknowledge that I deny the power of language to harm people, unless the *hearer/reader* first grants the power of words to harm. I reject the power of words....which are this:

Random letters on a piece of paper/computer screen that, when spoken, have a particular pattern of sound waves.....which in and of themselves can cause NO phsycial harm to an individual.

I would LOVE to have a discussion of racist language any time you want....Start a thread. We can ALSO discuss, in the same forum, FUCK, CUNT, DOUCH BAG, ASSHOLE and any number of other "offensive" words. Throw in GAY, FAGGOT, etc for good measure.

All words which are ONLY offensive and "hurtful" if you let them be.

Hey I didn't say it necessarily bothered me just that you had used them knowing what people would say. It's not like it's not common knowledge.

Either way what would your answer be to stopping these massacres Krellin since I know you're not in favor of gun control. I'm asking for honest open dialogue here not to change the subject with arguments about using racist terminology.

Celtic -- what is my answer to stopping the masacres? I would suggest that it is *impossible* to stop massacres, without giving up 100% of your freedom.

I.e. You can not go where you want to go, can not commuinicate with whom you want to communicate, can not but what you want to but, can not do what you want to to do...and even then, there will still be human violence...

and thus is the key word....human violence. It is inherent in the species, and you can not legislate it out of existence.

Here is a FACT: EVERY human being is going to die.

Deal with it.

Stop trying to stop death, because you can't.

Every time government tries to protect you from an obscure form of death, they most likely inhibit the vast majority from a form of pleasure....

I'd rather have a life of pleasure and an early death, than live a life of restrictions and live forever.

There is a starting concept for you to chew on.

I patiently await your reply.

@krellin - So there is nothing, in your opinion, that can be done to stop massacres? So we should just not try? We shouldn't try to keep military grade weapons out of the hands of lunatics? We should let dangerous criminals go to gun shows and buy all the weapons they want? We should all just lie here and take it? No thanks. I prefer trying, not dying.

Jim that's exactly what I was going to say.

@ jimgov

None of those "banned" features make a weapon *any* deadlier

Folding/telescoping stock - increase compactness and decrease weight. Does not directly increase weapon performance, but can make the weapon aesthetically more intimidating to the uneducated eye

Pistol grip - Makes recoil more manageable under full auto fire, but no "assault weapons" have full auto capability. Pistol grips can make the weapon look more intimidating to the uneducated.

Bayonet lug - Really? REALLY? No one owns bayonets, and even if they did, no one uses bayonets to kill people if they have the option of shooting them, which they would if they have a loaded rifle.

Flash suppressor - It is physically impossible to hide the flash from anyone other than the shooter. Flash suppressors are designed to reduce flash from the *shooter's* perspective, allowing a better sight picture post-shot and reducing vision effects during night firing.

Grenade launcher - Functional grenade launchers are already banned as a destructive device under other federal laws.

"Assault weapon" is a made-up propaganda term intentionally designed to be similar to "assault rifle". Legally-defined "assault weapons" function no differently from their less-scary-looking counterparts. Assault weapons bans only ban cosmetic features.

jimgov -- Then, smart boy...TELL ME...What can we do to 100% STOP murder.

Give it to me, Mr Authoritarian? I'd *love8 to hear your version of Utopian HELL...

@Celtic...You too, babe...tell me what in YOUR mind will stop any violence?

After all, your are inherently criticizing me because i can't imagine a way to stop violence...so enlighten me!

Well we can't stop all violence, but we can try to stop some of it. Like with aiding people to get the mental health help they need. Also, by closing the gun show loopholes and requiring background checks. I'mm not for making guns illegal btw, but just harder for the mentally unstable to get a hold of.

@ jimgov

"We shouldn't try to keep military grade weapons out of the hands of lunatics?"

No one has had access to military-grade weapons since 1934. It is also important to note that until 1934, Americans had access to weaponry that was as good or better than the military, and guess what? Crime was reasonably low.

Grenade launcher = Arms.....i.e. let's ban ARMS. Maybe legs, too, because people can kick grenades...

Flash surpessor....= tin can and "wadding" material....let's ban tin...aluminum...and cloth...

Bayonet lug.....let us not ban duct tape....

Pistol Grip....let's ban duct tape and a piece of wood...

Folding sxtock...I'm tired of the game....sorry..figure this one out on your own...

@ jimgov

Tell me the functional difference between these two rifles:

http://www.crazyhorserifles.com/mm/stationery/A_SlideShow/_MG_2126.JPG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_F_ZyVOpu07M/S7AZv_aeXhI/AAAAAAAABog/ADheZFZP0TY/s1600/m14+rifle.jpg

@Celtic -- your "gun show loophole" have NOT ONCE been the cause of a massacre.

You are a victim of media hype.

Mental health issues....i don't even know how to address this? so what...everyone who has ever taken a pill for ADD...or taken one of the pills pushed on the media for "depression" can no longer but a gun? Define for me, EXACTLY, what mental health issues will cause me to be not be able to buy a gun, and is this a permanent ban? Or can doctors secrectly ban me on a Federal Database...as the Democrat law has suggested is possible, with a "Guilty before Inncocent" mindset...a TRULY UN-AMERICAN concept...

I have NO IDEA what "mentally unstable" is...and neither do you.

YOU would say that I am mentally unstable.

I would say that 50% of this forum is mentally deficient.

So who is right?