Not good enough. Not even close.

Have another cup of fail.

"Not good enough" for what?

It's also idiotic to only put suicide barriers on one side of a bridge. But it works.

result in an AR-16. There are millions of these rifles in private hands, what happens to them? Grandfather? Government buy?

2 days to change the nomenclature and it will take a year to ban it. This simply can't be accomplished without defining assault weapon, a task which has never been accomplished..

Why can't we be out there getting in their way and complicating their lives and making it harder and harder and more and more expensive for them to stay ahead of us?

OF COURSE they'll look for other ways around whatever they think they have a right to get around. WHY CAN'T WE RESPOND IN KIND? Does that mean we have to give up, shut up, go sit down over there in the corner and just let them have their way? Does that mean we should just shrug and say - "oh well, it's no use, so I might as well give up and go back to watching my reality show or my football game?"

As long as they WON'T give up, WE CAN'T GIVE UP.

The SCOTUS determines weapons which can be more heavily regulated or banned based on US v. Miller in 1939. That standard is, "in common use for lawful purposes". The case that "assault weapons" are not "in common use for lawful purposes" is going to be a challenge given the literally millions in private ownership. There are also issues of restriction of enumerated civil liberties/rights without a demonstration that the restriction will have the desired effect which creates a challenge too, one which I believe will effect any restrictions. There is a lot of calls for things which simply can't happen constitutionally. Some things can and likely will happen.

restricting high-capacity magazines than about banning any particular weapon (which is a relatively sensible restriction; there's not much legitimate sporting use for a 30-round magazine, let alone 50 or 100). The problem with high-cap mags in .223 rifles is that the relatively low recoil of the round makes it much easier for a shooter to place a relatively high volume of fire on target with reasonable accuracy. This is a useful thing for military and law-enforcement purposes, but one doesn't really see why the average firearms owner needs it.

They can keep the big clips/mags/whatever terminology the gun nuts want locked up at the place of competition.

I think saving thousands of lives a year is worth the "sacrifice".

I also understand how the tiny minority of Delicate Flowers think America must bend to their wishes.

A clip just holds bullets. The M-1 Garand used clips - you put one in the rifle, pushed the rounds in with your thumb, and removed the clip. (And if you didn't move your hand fast enough the bolt would close on it, giving you M-1 Thumb.)

A magazine has a spring in the bottom of it that pushes the rounds up so the bolt can pick them up and push them into the chamber to be fired. An M-1 has a fixed magazine, as do most bolt-action repeating rifles like Remington 700s and Weatherby Mark V's. To load one that doesn't use a clip, you just pull the bolt to the rear and push rounds in through the ejection port. An M-16, AR-15, AK-47 or whatever other nut gun you have, has a detachable magazine. You can unload the gun by taking the magazine out and pulling the bolt to the rear to eject a round in the chamber, or reload it by removing an empty magazine and replacing it with a full one.

Nutcases are inspired to do horrible things by the look of those things. It's just like how those people copy the movies and games they worship.

Every time I see that little yellow guy, I have to emulate him and EAT!!!

PAC man caused the drug culture where people sit in dark rooms and eat pills!

if there were some way to access short movies that would show us how things work? You know, so you could see for yourself how long it takes to switch magazines or the differences between different kinds of rifles? Maybe it could even be free because people who know a lot about those sort of things would donate their time and trouble to produce that content for the edification of others.

Yep, that would be swell.

Golly gosh thanks.

If something could be done to address the apparently crippling terror that so many people in the US seem to labour under. Because most of the reasons people give for owning guns? If they aren't hunters, or sport shooters? Come down to "I'm really scared of (home invasion/being a victim of violence/the government)".

People have been robbing and killing each other for about a million years, and I don't think getting rid of guns will make much of a dent in that. But it makes for good political theater. Advocacy groups (lobbyists) can get on board and fling accusations at each other. Studies can be conducted to see who is doing what to whom. Preachers, politicians, pundits, posers and piss ants will swing their sanctimony over their heads and they all make a pile of money doing it. But nobody will say word one about the disparity of force between a two hundred pound aggressor and a one hundred pound defender.

It takes about two seconds to switch a mag. An AR15 is just a semiautomatic rifle. There are about a zillion of both in the United States. I can't imagine anyone actually doing anything about them when they are that popular. I expect the most they will do is outlaw something nobody wants anyway. And after all that strum and drang and the incineration of forty tons of political capital some wisenheimer in marketing will come up with a variation on the theme of the same old thing that just barely skirts the law and we can start all over again.

They've got a greater likelihood of dying on their car on the way to work but people don't sit around and obsess over the dangers of their car.

I expect most Democrats don't like them because they are the Republican totem, so they figure they are supposed to hate them. It doesn't help that the AR15 positively screams Viet Nam, which has both bad and good memories for most liberals.

It's mostly about symbolism.

That was a statement from an organization you are a member of and support.

One man does not an organization make.

Any help on that progressive organization that supports 2nd amendment??

Still waiting.

You asked if I support the NRA. I do.

I don't support much, if anything, of what LaPierre says, and much of what NRA leadership does.

However, I also don't believe he deserves to get shit on either. There is no solution to one rogue whack job doing unthinkable hings, whether that's with a bomb, a machete, or a gun. Armed guards are just as logical as trying in vain to ban or confiscate weapons.

I still support the NRA's support of the second amendment and their ongoing education programs. Something that is now needed more than ever.

Get it straight pal.

You clearly support him. He spoke on behalf of an organization you support. Indeed, the only public statement since the Newtown massacre. There is no opinion from the NRA other than his. You give your money and support to all or none. Then, you defend him. He was not speaking as an individual, but as the NRA itself. You are the NRA. LaPierre spoke for the NRA. Own it, pal.

It's right there in your TITLE!

Nothing about supporting LaPierre - "Do you still support the NRA"

Jesus. Seriously.

So I guess the answer to your NEW question is, yes.

We put guards on our money.

We put guards on our state secrets.

We put guards on our President.

Why don't we guard out most valuable assets?

Other than that I refer you back to my earlier post, I don't support much of what NRA leadership does or says.

I support nothing YOU say or do in regards to RKBA.

It's no worse than a national registry on gun owners.

We already restrict gun ownership based on mental illness, so expanding it to include non-judgmental mental illness seems a logical step.

However, I don't want such a list being used as a club on the mentally ill.

So far, I am failing to see it.

You defend them, agree with the most asinine positions, support them, freely give them your money and are a proud member. How "don't support much of what NRA leadership does or says?"

If the NRA wants to give money to politicians of both parties they deem worthy of 2A support, that's fine.

But the attacks on the president, the active campaigning against Kerry, and the post Oklahoma City comments from LaPierre are all issues that I disagree with.

The sad thing is that all you see is those things. You think that because they do a few shitty things that I should disassociate with all the great things that they do. As I've stated repeatedly before, I support the NRA for all the great things they do in regards to RKBA and safety; something no other organization can say they do.

Now I have a question for you: Do you agree with every single thing that the Democratic party does, or ever will do? Because that is the same thing. I have issues with the Democratic party on several things and those vary from week to week depending on where the political wind blows, but there is no place else for me to go.

I support the core of what the NRA does. The rest, I could give a shit about, or don't agree with. But that doesn't mean I should ditch them, it means I should work to change attitudes.

Also, anything Ted Nugent says is usually bullshit. Usually.

you have a greater likelihood of dying in a traffic accident than of ever being in any situation where you have to use a gun in self-defence. So why do you need one?

I have problem animals on my property.

I hunt to feed my family.

I target practice to facilitate both of those.

However, I also have a right to own a firearm for whatever reason I deem necessary.

It is not in your authority, or the authority of anyone to determine my "need." That is my right and mine alone.

there are reasonable restrictions in place on all sorts of things. You may decide you need a full-auto SMG or anti-personnel mines. The law would however disagree with you. The basic argument here seems to be the idea that the individual trumps society.

I would still have it. Or I would have sold it for an enormous amount of money. You can still buy fully automatic weapons, silencers, and heavy guns with proper permitting.

I have no need for anti-personnel mines. They serve no purpose. They also are not a firearm.

But for those of you claiming that there is no reason to own a gun except to kill people, or that because we are scared of the world, you are wrong.

Those of you claiming that we don't "need" a gun, guns, or certain types of guns, have missed the entire point of freedom in general, and America in particular.

It is no one's right or authority to determine what I do or do not need. If I want a gun, I can get a gun. If I want an uzi, I CAN get an uzi. I have to go through a lot of trouble, but I can get it. You've seemingly missed the entire point.

That's what a civil society is. That's what representative government is. The larger society can place limitations on the absolute freedom of individual members to do whatever they want. The right of any individual person to own a gun doesn't trump the right of society in general to be reasonably free of the threat of violence. This is how the issue is understood in the rest of the world outside the USA. And you conflate "need" and "want"; they are not the same thing.

You do not have the right to judge what I do or do not need.

I have a right, as a legal citizen who has never been convicted of a crime or had a mental illness, to purchase whatever legal firearm I so choose.

There is no restriction on whether or not I need it, nor should there be.

There is no such restriction on anything else in society, yet you feel you have a right to construct such a restriction out of whole cloth.

If society chooses to put in place a new paradigm, and such paradigm is ruled constitutional, then that is another issue.

However, I have a firm belief in law and providence that such a thing will never take place.

Your opinions on the matter not withstanding.

a) society through the institution of representative government can and does enforce restrictions on all sorts of other things.

b) guns are not "anything else in society", they are specifically weapons designed for killing (try buying C4 plastic explosive sometime and see how far you get with that).

which is kind of the point. Firearms? No licensing required in most states, nor any background check for long guns (or handguns, in a lot of cases). Why should guns be exempt from the same licensing restrictions in place on explosives? Or cars, for that matter?

I live in Indiana, which surely has some of the most lax gun laws in America and I had to have a background check for a 10/22. I am no expert on this, but I find it unlikely. I definitely had one on the shotgun and the AR-15.

Then lets TALK about licensing. Lets talk about saying "you can't buy a gun unless you've got a ccw". Let's talk about THAT instead of "REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!1" and "GUNS ARE ONLY FOR MURDER!!!!!@"

you can't buy a gun unless you have a certificate of having passed a mandatory firearms safety course and have provision for separate secure storage of any firearms and ammunition.

I'll agree to that, and I'd even advocate making the course come with a hefty fee ($150+) to fund gun safety and/or mental health.

They are about 10,000 times more lethal than that car you Delicate Flowers are so fond of comparing them to.

3 times more people die in car accidents than are murdered by firearms every year.

And yet, there are more firearms than cars. Seems like cars are the real killers.

Cars have tens of billions of hours of use, cumulatively per year, in the USA.

Guns, not so much. In fact, nowhere near as much, as in orders of magnitude less.

If you understand statistics, the fact that cars are many times less dangerous is obvious. But, if you're too scared to walk in the sunlight without a gun, you lose sight of reality.

Your false equivalency shows that you aren't willing or able to have an honest discussion about firearms or anything related to them.

FYI, I don't conceal carry, and I have no fear of the world.

I still have a right to own a firearm.

Good start. A start, anyhow.

Maybe we could move towards enforcing existing transfer laws, if this is some sort of give-and-take.

Like I said in other threads, I'm most interested in how much hot lead a gun can fire in a specific period of time.

The higher the rate of fire, the deadlier the weapon.

Ways to limit or handicap the firing rate: Limit civilians to break-action, bolt-action, lever-action, and pump action weapons, and maybe tolerate semi-autos (but not full-autos) IF AND ONLY IF there are ways of limiting the rate of fire or forcing breaks in firing - banning hi-capacity magazines is one way, requiring semi-autos to have fixed magazines instead of removable magazines, so reloading involves stopping and inserting bullets one. at. a. time. instead of slapping a fresh clip in.

As long as the firing rate is slowed down, or handicapped with frequent and long interruptions for reloading, I don't care if the gun is painted Baby-Killing Black, has collapsible stocks, pistol-grips or racing stripes.

Look at the available semi-automatics with detachable magazines.

Look at the actual semi-automatics with detachable magazines used in mass shootings.

That really is beyond randomness.

the old AWB failed because it banned weapons that only LOOKED scary.

Interesting item, when someone once tried to "call me out" on this issue they only listed a small part of the list and claimed "that was all". Further, as I listed WHY each of the items of this truncated list was effective, another poster called me out on one of them because I had listed the SECONDARY reason, rather than the PRIMARY reason. Which, in effect, proved that there was an actuall reason this item was included other than cosmetically "looking scary".

Regardless, they ignored the most important part of the ban - the fact that high-capacity magazines were banned.

If the AWB failed, it was because of all the weapons and magazines that were grand-fathered in.

Lastly, if you think that the definitions of Assault Weapons were absurd, then help us to better define an Assault Weapon. For once, be part of the solution rather than a part of the problem.

Or do you honestly think ALL of us need to own AW's, whether we want to or not? What about the rights of the rest of us?

new manufacture and import was banned. Brand new extended capacity magazines manufactured before the ban went in effect, were available for the entire 10 years the ban was in effect.

The definition of "assault weapon" is the problem. Even the head of the BATFE couldn't figure out a way to define assault weapon without eliminating typical hunting guns. The first AWB simply resulted in minor changes cosmetically. Some of his testimony before congress is toward the end of this video..

ownership was grandfathered in.

Tomato, tomahto.

The problem was NOT the definition, it was (as you point out later) that they must be grandfathered or bought.

By attacking the definition of an AW, you are supporting RW talking points.

Personally, I don't care about the guns themselves, I care most about the mags.

Anything over 3 is unnecessary. anything over 5 is just ego. Anything over 10 is simply ridiculous.

or fiscally impossible solutions we move closer to nothing happening at all. The exact same gun with very minor cosmetic differences was legal and on the market during the last AWB..the definition of assault weapon is everything in any attempted ban.

politicians tried to sum up the sick gun culture and conflate it with the scariest weapons they could and march/brandish them in front of town hall meeting. Shock media via scary looking guns. It worked and they passed their legislation, but the problem was that the AWB targeted rifles that comprise less than 3% of the annual gun-deaths. Even if the old AWB didn't grandfather in all those scary looking evil rifles and it magically disappeared all of them from America... the homicide rate could only have been affected by less than 3% (and that's assuming a simple handgun isn't substituted for a lack of assault rifle).

Regarding the effective defining of an "Assault Weapon"... Magazine-fed semiauto. That's it. It's that simple.

GRAB GRAB GRAB GET EM ALL!

that it is a magazine-fed semiauto. You could make a case that the pistol grip makes shouldering & shooting more controllable & pleasant. Everything else that people like to associate with "assault weapon" is pretty much cosmetic/preference.

So if you want to get rid of the characteristics that make an "assault weapon"... you might as well just aim for almost all handguns and most rifles. Good luck trying to pass legislation that rolls back technology nearly 70-90 years. I suppose excluding rimfire from a ban would be OK though

Because you're knowledgeable on the subject and this isn't the first time you've gotten specific on regulation.

my AR-15 orange can i keep my 10 Round Magazine?

is strong in the ways of the troll.