Assault weapons

Related:
Create New Tag

8/15/2019 7:25 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 7:26 AM

What are your thoughts on them? Should they be legal or illegal for citizens?
I watched Joe Rogan's podcast with Bernie Sanders yesterday, and he mentioned if he were elected president he would ban them for citizens for personal use. Just curious what everyone thinks on this?

I hope Guy doesn't delete this as I would like to keep it clean and get some honest opinions.

Myself, I've never understood the need for Joe Blow to have an AR15 in his house. Pistols, shotguns, rifles, muzzle loaders are no problem IMO as I own guns myself. I've gotten into discussions with guys before about assault rifles and I've never heard one good argument in favor of them besides being cussed at for questioning them as to why they want them, or the random 'merica response and the 2nd amendment.

Thoughts?

|

8/15/2019 7:41 AM

Legit question for rural Americans - How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

|

8/15/2019 7:48 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 7:48 AM

I consider “assault weapons” to be fully automatic, and an AR15 doesn’t fit that category. The AR15 is just another semi-automatic rifle.

|

8/15/2019 7:50 AM

What makes an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Here's mine.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/15/2019 7:54 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 7:56 AM

early wrote:

Legit question for rural Americans - How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

Hogs won't run into your yard while kids are there playing.

If hogs in your area are that brazen, you most certainly need an AR.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/15/2019 7:56 AM

SEE ARE125 wrote:

I consider “assault weapons” to be fully automatic, and an AR15 doesn’t fit that category. The AR15 is just another semi-automatic rifle.

Can't military style weapons be converted to fully auto fairly easy?

|

8/15/2019 7:56 AM

early wrote:

Legit question for rural Americans - How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Hogs won't run into your yard while kids are there playing.

If hogs in your area are that brazen, you most certainly need an AR.

It's an internet thing

|

8/15/2019 7:57 AM

early wrote:

It's an internet thing

Ah, got it.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/15/2019 7:59 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 8:12 AM

SEE ARE125 wrote:

I consider “assault weapons” to be fully automatic, and an AR15 doesn’t fit that category. The AR15 is just another semi-automatic rifle.

sam hain wrote:

Can't military style weapons be converted to fully auto fairly easy?

Nope. A bump stock would give a similar effect, basically forcing your finger to fire faster than you could physically do yourself, but Trump banned bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting.

I’ll give an example of what the AR15 is. The military has the M16 and M4, civilians get the AR15 which LOOKS the same. This is the equivalent of taking the body off a NASCAR car, putting it on a Ford Taurus, and driving down the road. Yes, it LOOKS like it could do 200mph, but underneath it’s still just a Ford Taurus, and a Ford Taurus isn’t gonna do 200mph. Just like underneath the AR15s big black military themed design is just a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

|

8/15/2019 8:00 AM

Define assault weapon.

If I jab you with a broken bottle, is that not an assault weapon? Based on this logic, any weapon capable of being used in an assault can be banned - not just the rifles you are arbitrarily categorizing.

The thing about the second amendment is that it's very clear "shall not be infringed". As soon as you put firearms in categories, such as "assault weapons", you are now infringing on that right. That is a very dangerous president as then rights like free speech can be categorized and restricted.

Banning "assault weapons" does not restrict someones ability to commit mass murder. It just means they will use a different means, such as training themselves in how to be more proficient with a pistol, which will inevitably lead to semi-automatic pistols being considered "assault weapons" and banned.

Can you tell us why an AR-15 should be banned but not any other semi-automatic rifle? I'm curious about your point of view. Some people want it banned because it looks scary, when in reality and based on function, it's not much different than any other semi-auto rifle out there.

So, you might not consider this a "good argument", but my reason for why law-abiding citizens of the US should be able to purchase firearms is because of the second amendment and to ensure that we the people have a fighting chance if, God help us, the day ever comes when the government becomes tyrannical.

And yeah, the government may have tanks and whatnot, but I'd still rather have a rifle than nothing at all.

And if the 2nd amendment isn't a good enough reason, here are more: personal defense, hunting, sport shooting, relaxing with target practice.


I respect your opinion and you do not deserve to be cussed at or insulted for having a different view than mine on firearms. I'm glad you started the topic, I hope everyone remains civil and we can share opinions.

|

8/15/2019 8:31 AM

Casting wrote:

Define assault weapon.

If I jab you with a broken bottle, is that not an assault weapon? Based on this logic, any weapon capable of being used in an assault can be banned - not just the rifles you are arbitrarily categorizing.

The thing about the second amendment is that it's very clear "shall not be infringed". As soon as you put firearms in categories, such as "assault weapons", you are now infringing on that right. That is a very dangerous president as then rights like free speech can be categorized and restricted.

Banning "assault weapons" does not restrict someones ability to commit mass murder. It just means they will use a different means, such as training themselves in how to be more proficient with a pistol, which will inevitably lead to semi-automatic pistols being considered "assault weapons" and banned.

Can you tell us why an AR-15 should be banned but not any other semi-automatic rifle? I'm curious about your point of view. Some people want it banned because it looks scary, when in reality and based on function, it's not much different than any other semi-auto rifle out there.

So, you might not consider this a "good argument", but my reason for why law-abiding citizens of the US should be able to purchase firearms is because of the second amendment and to ensure that we the people have a fighting chance if, God help us, the day ever comes when the government becomes tyrannical.

And yeah, the government may have tanks and whatnot, but I'd still rather have a rifle than nothing at all.

And if the 2nd amendment isn't a good enough reason, here are more: personal defense, hunting, sport shooting, relaxing with target practice.


I respect your opinion and you do not deserve to be cussed at or insulted for having a different view than mine on firearms. I'm glad you started the topic, I hope everyone remains civil and we can share opinions.

I don't disagree with anything you said, and I'm not even close to being a gun expert. I've hunted off an on most of my life so I'm not anti-gun by any means. Thank you for your explanation.

|

8/15/2019 8:52 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 8:57 AM

sam hain wrote:

I don't disagree with anything you said, and I'm not even close to being a gun expert. I've hunted off an on most of my life so I'm not anti-gun by any means. Thank you for your explanation.

I'm no expert either, but your opinion is just as valid as mine.

We all benefit from learning more about each others perspective.


Edit: Why down vote the guy for being curious and asking for feedback? 98% of other people who start this topic are throwing around accusations and being jerks... sheesh

|

8/15/2019 9:04 AM

I respect that Sam is genuinely asking for input and trying to understand. Wish more folks would be rational in that manner.

As I explained in another thread, the semi-automatic makes it easier to for me to control predators and feral hogs in my agricultural pursuits. To be quite honest, I myself am not a 'hunter' and have zero desire to shoot deer or other game for food. I prefer ribeyes and pork ribs. However, I DO love to shoot firearms at the gun range for sport with my son. Reloading ammo and building rifles is fun to us. But going back to the rifles the media calls "Assault" rifles, I use a few of them for the reasons above, because when those kind of critters show up, you have but a short time to dispatch them before they are gone into the woods. The small size of the M4 and the larger magazine makes it easier to get the job done in a pinch. Because they when they do pop up, you usually in the middle of doing a chore, not expecting that, and have to act fast. But at the end of the day, the M4's semi-automatic action behaves no different than a typical wood stock long rifle with a semi-automatic action. The only difference is the M4/AR platforms people associate with the militarys fully automatic M16A1 ( or M249 SAW) - because they look similar. Truth is, I could use a walnut stock semi-automatic rifle to do the same thing, its just that the M4 is more durable with its plastic components and such and to me more suited to bouncing around the pasture, in the dirt, dust, humidity, etc. Heck sometimes Im out working on fence and a heat shower comes up, and my M4 get soaked.

If you are ever in ole Tejas shoot me a message and lets get a beer.


|

"We don't rent pigs."

8/15/2019 9:07 AM

Casting wrote:

I'm no expert either, but your opinion is just as valid as mine.

We all benefit from learning more about each others perspective.


Edit: Why down vote the guy for being curious and asking for feedback? 98% of other people who start this topic are throwing around accusations and being jerks... sheesh

I'm not gonna down vote ole Sam. I just wonder if we really needed another thread about this. This has been done to death here. A search of the site will prove that out.

I said the other day I don't get into any kind of thread where weapons are involved as far as a debate. I will say this much, and then leave it alone - because to me it is the "be all and end all" to the question of "Why do you need that sort of weapon?"

It's none of your business. Mind your own business and don't worry about mine. The Bill of Rights says I can, and that's all you need to know about the why of it. Further, did you know the Bill of Rights is not meant to limit the citizen? It is meant to limit what government can do to a citizen. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting government - not the citizen. It's really a beautiful document until it gets reinterpreted into meaning something it was never meant to say, and it's not hard to figure out what the founders meant when they wrote it. There are so many writings by them outside of the Bill of Rights making it very clear what they intended with each of the amendments.

Honestly, that's all I'm going to add. Take it or leave it. Sam, don't feel "put upon" by me. You're a good poster and a good guy to have around Vital.

|

Harrison Backmon, Esq.

8/15/2019 10:16 AM

Thank you everyone for your responses, which was exactly what I had hoped for (a clean discussion). I have learned a few things too, so in that regard I'm enjoying the discussion.

|

8/15/2019 10:35 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 10:41 AM

i agree, I dont' think the general public needs a semi auto AR15 or similar, however, i can understand why some people do, so would have them licensed similar to how you licence concealed carry permits now,

they have just been banned here, with a buy back scheme, i always thought that they needed what we call an E Cat licence, which was a higher level of Gun Licence than a std one, but apparently they didn't when they did not meet the defintion of a MSSA, see most below for that

|

8/15/2019 10:39 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 10:42 AM

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

What makes an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Here's mine.

Assault weapon must be one of the most overused and under defined terms,

this is called a MSSA here, Military Style Semi Auto,

here is what they define a MSSA

from Wiki,

The 2013 version of the Arms Code describes a military style semi-automatic firearm as any "self-loading" (i.e. semi-automatic) firearm, other than a pistol, with any of the following features:[5]

Folding or telescopic butt
Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
Bayonet lug
Pistol grip as defined by regulation
Flash suppressor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms

|

8/15/2019 10:45 AM

Harry Backmon wrote:

I'm not gonna down vote ole Sam. I just wonder if we really needed another thread about this. This has been done to death here. A search of the site will prove that out.

I said the other day I don't get into any kind of thread where weapons are involved as far as a debate. I will say this much, and then leave it alone - because to me it is the "be all and end all" to the question of "Why do you need that sort of weapon?"

It's none of your business. Mind your own business and don't worry about mine. The Bill of Rights says I can, and that's all you need to know about the why of it. Further, did you know the Bill of Rights is not meant to limit the citizen? It is meant to limit what government can do to a citizen. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting government - not the citizen. It's really a beautiful document until it gets reinterpreted into meaning something it was never meant to say, and it's not hard to figure out what the founders meant when they wrote it. There are so many writings by them outside of the Bill of Rights making it very clear what they intended with each of the amendments.

Honestly, that's all I'm going to add. Take it or leave it. Sam, don't feel "put upon" by me. You're a good poster and a good guy to have around Vital.

Yep back in the day people use to say. "This is America, You can't tell me what to do". Now they say "Can we do that?"

|

8/15/2019 11:14 AM

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

What makes an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Here's mine.

scott_nz wrote:

Assault weapon must be one of the most overused and under defined terms,

this is called a MSSA here, Military Style Semi Auto,

here is what they define a MSSA

from Wiki,

The 2013 version of the Arms Code describes a military style semi-automatic firearm as any "self-loading" (i.e. semi-automatic) firearm, other than a pistol, with any of the following features:[5]

Folding or telescopic butt
Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
Bayonet lug
Pistol grip as defined by regulation
Flash suppressor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms

Mine only fails the magazine rules, in this case.
It also disallows my 742 Woodsmaster if I install the 10 round magazine.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/15/2019 11:16 AM

^ Nice !!

|

"We don't rent pigs."

8/15/2019 11:17 AM

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

What makes an AR-15 an assault weapon?
Here's mine.

scott_nz wrote:

Assault weapon must be one of the most overused and under defined terms,

this is called a MSSA here, Military Style Semi Auto,

here is what they define a MSSA

from Wiki,

The 2013 version of the Arms Code describes a military style semi-automatic firearm as any "self-loading" (i.e. semi-automatic) firearm, other than a pistol, with any of the following features:[5]

Folding or telescopic butt
Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
Bayonet lug
Pistol grip as defined by regulation
Flash suppressor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Mine only fails the magazine rules, in this case.
It also disallows my 742 Woodsmaster if I install the 10 round magazine.

Thought the pistol grip would disallow it as well ,

|

8/15/2019 11:24 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 11:37 AM

scott_nz wrote:

Thought the pistol grip would disallow it as well ,

That is called a 'classic' stock with a fluted comb. (The other commonly seen would be a Monte Carlo)

This is a pistol grip rifle stock.



|

"We don't rent pigs."

8/15/2019 11:29 AM

Let me throw something else out there, what are you all's opinions on the mental health debate regarding back ground checks?

|

8/15/2019 11:49 AM

The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain the ability of the people to be able to defend themselves against not only foreign enemies, but from their own government, if it ever becomes too corrupt or oppressive. And for those that try to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by dissecting it linguistically, you need only look to the words of the man that helped write it for clarification.


|

8/15/2019 12:05 PM

scott_nz wrote:

Thought the pistol grip would disallow it as well ,

Oh, missed that part.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/15/2019 12:07 PM

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Mine only fails the magazine rules, in this case.
It also disallows my 742 Woodsmaster if I install the 10 round magazine.

scott_nz wrote:

Thought the pistol grip would disallow it as well ,

JAFO92 wrote:

That is called a 'classic' stock with a fluted comb. (The other commonly seen would be a Monte Carlo)

This is a pistol grip rifle stock.



I think he went back to my AR.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/15/2019 12:11 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 12:13 PM

7I3N wrote:

The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain the ability of the people to be able to defend themselves against not only foreign enemies, but from their own government, if it ever becomes too corrupt or oppressive. And for those that try to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by dissecting it linguistically, you need only look to the words of the man that helped write it for clarification.


That's about it in a nutshell.

Now, I have a question.

If a guy is witnessed by many, and there is no doubt
He was the shooter, should he be shot or hung on the spot?

|

8/15/2019 12:47 PM

7I3N wrote:

The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain the ability of the people to be able to defend themselves against not only foreign enemies, but from their own government, if it ever becomes too corrupt or oppressive. And for those that try to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by dissecting it linguistically, you need only look to the words of the man that helped write it for clarification.


motogrady wrote:

That's about it in a nutshell.

Now, I have a question.

If a guy is witnessed by many, and there is no doubt
He was the shooter, should he be shot or hung on the spot?

No. A jury trial must be held. Anything else returns us to a time our founders despised with a passion that cannot be described. That said, once convicted, one appeal, and then death if appeal is denied. The whole process should never exceed six months. Additionally, if there is a shred of doubt, execution should be off the table.

|

Harrison Backmon, Esq.

8/15/2019 1:06 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/15/2019 1:07 PM

motogrady wrote:

That's about it in a nutshell.

Now, I have a question.

If a guy is witnessed by many, and there is no doubt
He was the shooter, should he be shot or hung on the spot?

Gotta read a little further.

Amendment 5
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

|

8/15/2019 1:24 PM

Harry Backmon wrote:

No. A jury trial must be held. Anything else returns us to a time our founders despised with a passion that cannot be described. That said, once convicted, one appeal, and then death if appeal is denied. The whole process should never exceed six months. Additionally, if there is a shred of doubt, execution should be off the table.

Yep

|

"We don't rent pigs."