Good.

FUCK YOU, NRA

How is selling weapons more important than the lives of fellow humans - I'll never get it

When you are a sociopath, what not to get?

their zeal.

Is the NRA opposing a law that would have kept him from firing 152 bullets in less than five minutes? If so I haven't heard of it.

Three round magazines, maybe.

Seriously. What law are they opposing that would have lowered his rate of fire?

Seriously. Why are you an NRA apologist?

Do you really care what shape grip his rifle has? Really?

How many times do we have to keep saying this? The assault weapons ban doesn't limit how fast a gun can fire, it limits what the fastest-firing type of gun can look like.

If the NRA had not sunk the Assault Weapons Ban and blocked attempts to limit magazine capacity, this guys would not have had this gun, and all the high capacity magazines that go with it. The NRA has Newtown, and Aurora, and Gifford's blood on their hands. And a whole lot more. And yet you continuing spounting their talking points and defending them.

and the semi-auto he used wasn't banned.

And they use folks like you. It's disgusting. I'm sick of it, and all the gungeoneers on DU.

If somebody does that I could probably be on board, but nobody has yet.

I hate how gungeoneers hijack threads. It is so....boring and predictable.

How is it that if this law is so important to you, you haven't even bothered to read what it actually does?

Go read it. It's on thomas.loc.gov.

The section relevant to the AR-15 says it cannot be sold under a list of names (including "AR-15" and "Bushmaster&quot and cannot have a specific set of features. The only feature on that list it has is its grip shape, so the manufacturers will have to

1. Change the brand name
2. Change the grip shape

Why are you so angry at people for pointing out what the law that you support really says?

"Assault Weapons" are defined in CT law from other guns based on characteristics- presence / absence of things like: pistol grip, barrel shroud, removable flash hider, collapsible / foldable stock.

In order to make a gun not an 'assault weapon', you simply change the features. Weld on the flash hider, pin the collapsible stock, put on a non-collapsible stock, or eliminate the pistol grip with a thumbhole stock.

Same gun, different appearance- it's suddenly not an 'assault weapon'.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand the law, what basis do you have to call someone else a liar?


eta: Let me give you a different example. Much as I hate to analogize guns to cars, it may shed some light.

Let's say you want to ban 'sports cars'. How do you define a 'sports car'? Well, you could select some features common to 'sports cars' and say that cars with those characteristics are banned. If it has two of the following features, it's a 'sports car': lower than 4" to the ground, has a spoiler, has low-profile tires, has a muffler that produces sound more than 100db, has a five-point restraining harness, and has an air intake scoop on the hood.

Now, if a person had such a 'sports car', they could avoid the ban by changing tires and muffler; or removing the harness and going to stock air intake.

the NRA has much sway in the Northeast. Frankly I am sick of all the controler types of the world but what are you going to do?

Why does nobody ever pay attention?

The original AWB was even more farcical than the currently proposed one. The 1994 edition banned semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more features from a list including pistol grips, collapsible stocks, bayonet mounts and detachable flash hiders. If an AR-15 were manufactured under a different name, say the "Killemall VF-39", with only one of those features, it was not covered by the "ban".

THIS RIFLE WAS LEGALLY PURCHASED DURING THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN PERIOD:



I'm not trying to shoot your efforts down (nor making an "NRA talking point" - haven't read a single word they've put out in years); you're making a factually incorrect statement when you say "these guys would not have had this gun". Not a matter of opinion, or of weasel words, or some "guns don't kill people, people kill people" slogan...you're simply wrong about the law.

I'm fine with you not wanting people to own these guns, I respect your support for restricting or even confiscating them - but the laws you support don't do what they think you do! Best part is, the solution to your confusion is to simplify the proposed law:

"I support a ban on detachable-magazine firearms." Or just rifles, if you wish.

No ban-by-name, no lists of features, no technical minutae or "loopholes". A simple, literally single-page statute.

Sorry, thanks for playing. Pointing out facts and the truth has absolutely nothing to do with NRA talking points.

(The gun Adam Lanza took from his mother and used in that massacre was sold during the 1994-2004 AWB)

I often ask him for help with gun information, he is a retired Marine and Purple Heart recipient, I trust his judgment. He says you are full of hooey. Do you want his email address to discuss this further? Hooey, and he was being kind. I won't tell you what else he said about you gun experts on DU.

I was at 29 Palms for a tour too. There's no way around this; just read the law.

Got a Purple Heart? Seen combat? Sorry not buying your poorly peddled goods.

Which part of what I said does he call "hooey", anyways? I'm just quoting the ****ing bill.

Hooey is what he calls your posts. All 14 that I sent him.

Bye now, ignore is so great!!!!

dview.

And a bit childish, too. I'm interested in what is incorrect about his post.

that is freely available to view on Wikipedia?

In fact, I don't see what the implication of military service has to do with understanding CIVILIAN LAW at all. That's just a total non-sequitur.

Everything that poster said, was completely accurate given that state's laws. (CT had a more restrictive law than the federal AWB, the Federal AWB would have allowed the pistol grip and removable magazine, as long as it had no threaded barrel (welded flash suppressor) no adjustable stock, and no bayonet lug. (And as long as a certain number of parts were made in the US)

what part of the post(s) he says are wrong. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Please share.

Because I'm not really interested in your Marine's opinion if he isn't a lawyer, a lawmaker, or a paralegal, or at least familiar with the laws as they existed and exist. The one fellow here is pointing out what is and is not legal under the AWBs, federal and state.

You're saying you know a dude who can shoot. Can your dad beat up his dad, too?

Though I would add that having a Marine legislative analyst probably would have helped Congress a lot back in 1994, when they created a very accurate list of the things that made guns look scary, without radically inhibiting their ability to kill lots of people at once.

Here is the link to the text of Dianne Feinstein's bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s150/text

Here is the link to the text of the original AWB:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

Connecticut's definition of an assault weapon is described in Section 53-202a of their code.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/titles.htm

You all want to argue the law? CITE THE FUCKING LAW!

This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB:




This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB:



They are both Ruger Mini-14s. They fire the same bullets at the same rate of fire.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

I think you need to take the time to read the law and understand what it will actually do.

change that part of the law so that the gun is banned regardless of what kind of grip it has.

Though it occurs to em that the pistol grip may have a purpose in making the gun easier to fire. Otherwise why have it at all?

So not allowing the grip might have an effect

You'd have to ban semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines. It would cause an absolute shitstorm, but so has the AWB, and a complete semi-auto ban would at least have the benefit of doing what its supporters think it does.

Much more natural to hold it like that at the shoulder. There's a reason the military uses it, and it's not to enable 'spray and pray' which pretty much just wastes ammo.

...out error is low IMHO

regards

Of course it wouldn't have taken more time to change magazines 14 times than to change them 4 times. Of course not. That's why military forces don't use belt fed automatic weapons, because reloading takes no time, anyway.

Like I said, 3 rounds, conceivably. 10? No.

So let's do 3, I sure have no problem with that.

So, yes, let's go for 3.

SUSTAINED rate of fire!

Did you think nobody would notice?

Here's a better comparison:

Yup! Beyond you.

Let me simplify the equation........

Why is the one so much faster than the other? Cyclic rate is the same for both tests.

Understand now?

When mass murderers start using full-auto guns, your concerns might be valid.

Did you watch my video? The difference between 3 x 10 round magazines and 30 round magazines, with aimed fire, is minimal. Which is why a magazine size limit will have little impact.

Or you can continue to regurgitate a full-auto video as though that has some relevance.

I take it you didn't watch the video I linked above?

Carry on in blissful nescience.

......... is the one you don't have to make.

What gun control law are they ever NOT opposing?

drum magazines and even 30 round clips is absolute bullshit. Ted Cruz ia a god-damned evil monster.

not one ReTHUG voted to support DiFi's bill.
They are all enablers.

We all know he and his cohorts are full of shit.

for disaster at sea

Lanza had no trouble reloading many times, according to the coroner when he spoke to the press.

At the Aurora theater shooting, the shooter used a beta-c drum mag like you described, but was unable to reload it. They are notoriously unreliable. Especially in the hands of a novice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/james-holmes-gun-jammed-aurora-colorado-dark-knight-shooting_n_1692690.html

Drum magazines have a reputation for jamming. So do the 30+ round mags for handguns.

magazines. That is not particularly fast. Deadly nonetheless.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck the NRA.

Fuck those fuckers.

enablers

Yeah. Fuck him, too.

who would not act to prevent such an atrocity. Fuck Cruz and the NRA he rode in on.

but not the hard-core gun humpers. They've hunkered down for the upcoming battle.

Sadly, I believe there will be more Newtown-like carnage in the future.

and they lost

do not last hundreds of years with proper care and maintenance. They are used quite quickly after they are produced.

I'll bet you think that the post replied to says something about a conspiracy. Maybe you saw it somewhere else online.

Are you sure you're in the right thread??

eom

That disgusting repuke from Texas blabbing about the Constitution---asshole.

I can't believe how many defenders the NRA and it's policies have here. Fuck the NRA

fuck you nra and gop

How many 10 round mags would this murderer have had to carry?

This is a comparison of high cap 30 round mags with 100 round magazines.

video thanks

No fully automatic rifle made after 1986 is legal for sale/possession by civilians in the United States.
People don't fire semi-auto's that quickly, unless they are bump firing. Which makes the reload time much MUCH less of a factor.

If you are not using a full-auto gun, the mag change times do not play into the duration as much.
I would take three of the normal-capacity 30-round mags over one of those 100-round mags any day.

Semi- or full auto....... mag change time remains the same.

SO ...... what's the point you're trying to make?

Change times obviously do play into the duration since mag changes are required to get the number of rounds fired.

My point is that in semi-auto rifles the rate of fire is slow enough that the mag change times become less of a factor.

Seems it's YOU who is confused........semi- or full auto.....

45 seconds spent on mag changes is 45 seconds .......... period!

Probably more; reports are he left several partially-full magazines scattered around.

This would have been acceptable if he had walked into the place with "only" 60 rounds to shoot?

Really?

It was 11 minutes from the first shot to the last. You really think that reloading speed was his limiting factor?

could have been on the toilet the whole time.

Or on break at the other end of the building.

Or out on the playground or the parking lot running an errand.

Or nodding off in a closet from the excruciating boredom.

Or the first person shot and killed before he knew what was happening.

POW! POW! POW!

Time's up.

Assault rifle, high capacity ammo clips, all of it.

If you don't support that then you support the murder of children.

A supposedly civilized society does not need such weapons.

I have yet to hear any good reason why the average person has to have such killing machines at their disposal. They are not used for hunting. They are not used to shoot skeet. They're good for only one thing. Destroying other human beings.

Rachel ripped off the scab last night, but it needs to be ripped off until this country gets it. If it ever will.

or have you forgotten Va Tech?

like they do here in Canada. You might not prevent every shooting, but you prevent the 'crimes of passion' types and it makes it easier for the cops to catch you if you are planning something like Va Tech. My SIL - a cop - bought a handgun to do more target practice on her own time b/c her employer doesn't allow enough time (in her opinion) for target shooting. She still had to jump through a lot of regs to get her gun. That's how it should be in the US. And ban all the assault rifles and high capacity mags. Register all the guns, oh and pass laws about storage and transport of guns. And then enforce them.

if they weren't all brainwashed by the media and at school. Besides, a VAST majority support some gun control. Let's start there.

but the notion of a total ban on semi-automatic rifles and national registration defies reality.

Every response you receive is answered with the same question re-qualified. I believe it's called moving the goal posts.

Shame, that.

it is not unreasonable to assert it has no chance of ever happening in America. I would call it injecting a measure of reality into the conversation.

But just "regulate the fuck" out of the ones used in ~6,000?

If I were inclined to support strict gun control, I'd be doing it the other way around. You'd probably have less opposition to a handgun ban, too - the creepy fetishistic gun-loonies do seem to have much more of a hardon for ARs than handguns. I seriously think by promising not to touch their rifles you just might be able to pull some good legislation on handguns.

I know it wouldn't sit well with your gut, but your brain can't argue with it.

except hunting rifles without semi-auto capabilities for rural owners or hunters. I was simply trying to come up with something other than 'ban all handguns', something workable. Since you (and the other poster) say it's not...then fine. Ban handguns too. Sits fine with my gut. Let's prevent a good portion of those 6300 deaths a year sounds good to me.

About as absurd as saying that if you don't support the banning of swimming pools, that you support the murder of children.

There are some reasonable measures that might actually reduce gun crime but none that have anything to do with "assault weapons" or magazine capacity.

Mind if I use your phrase when I write my senator and rep?

When Cruz started blathering about the second amendment she should have said:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."

The second amendment rights are endowed by MEN. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is endowed by GOD; at least according to the Declaration of Independence,

Phrases from the Declaration of Independence have no legal significance. DF understands the Constitution - that is why she did not do what you suggested.

Everyone had such little time to react. That makes it all the more amazing the way teachers and other staffers rose up to hide and protect the kids.

That is how the police and military try to work - you train in advance so that when you need to instantly react, you react without needing to think.

I have only seen it attached and incorporated within a AWB. As a standalone item I think it would have more popular support and maybe a chance of passage.

Unless it called for confiscation of the 50 million or so high cap mags that are out there, not sure why you would think it could be effective. I doubt any confiscatory law change would have a hope in hell of being enacted.

Unless the popular calibers changed. And even then it would take years to have a impact just as CAFE standards take years to raise the fleet mileage. As a stand alone item it's a very minor inconvenience. Arguably a windfall for current mag owners. IMO It won't have a significant impact in most regular shooters ability to put 50rds downrange. But may be able to impede the spree killer.

How many gun deaths involve more than 15 shots being fired? I honestly don't know the answer to that question but if I had to guess, I'd bet that it's a very, very small percentage of gun deaths, with the possible exception of those caused by law enforcement. A capacity limitation would have such a minuscule impact as a detriment to gun violence, as to be un-noticeable.

I'll support measures that may actually have an impact, like enhanced background checks that included access to mental health records, requiring that all sales be done through an FFL holder, increasing penalties for straw purchases and requiring a federal gun owners license that would be required to be shown when purchasing guns or ammo but an assault weapons ban that focuses on cosmetic features or a magazine capacity ban don't fall into the category of effective regulation.

Mag restrictions will only effect a very small number of high profile events. In raw numbers it's still handguns as the leading problem.
AWB always was feel good legislation. Which is why I only picked out the Mag issue from it.

Personally I would go for graduated licensing. Such as Single Shot .22 little.no restriction. MAC-10/Mini-Uzi regular follow-up every couple years so we know owner isn't becoming ill/unstable and weapons are stored appropriately.

So not sure what your last line's point was.

This is for assault weapons.

All are way too much! Why compromise on the amount?

"None" works well.

"None" will not kill, no bullets equal just a protest.

No bullets mean, no dismembered Kids.

None, zilch, zero.

Get rid of assault weapons there is no need for them.

If you need to fire even five rounds for hunting to get your prey, learn how to shoot.
If you need three rounds in rapid succession to get your prey, give up you suck!

ONE. You say you are a hunter, show your expertise. ONE bullet in the chamber
I have hunted. I killed a fox at 150 meters with one shot. This is said with experience.
No need for more than one, unless you can't aim.

There is absolutely no need for rapid fire weapons in the hands of civilians.

None, no need, no use for it.

Fuck you NRA.

Please don't answer this in the negative, I will not listen. Thank you!