The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on April 05, 2023, 09:01:57 AM
-
jmowreader (49,052 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217788518
An assault rifle definition that would really work
Without preamble:
Janes Information Services publishes extremely expensive books on warfare systems. There are twenty-seven of them. If there's a piece of military equipment out there whose existence has been admitted to the public, you'll find it in one of these books.
The tome I will discuss today is "Janes Weapons: Infantry," which originally was titled "Jane's Infantry Weapons." It's full of information about rifles, pistols, machine guns, shotguns, grenade launchers and just about anything else an infantry soldier can use to defeat his enemies in battle. Some of these weapons have been recreated in semiauto-only form, and those are the ones we lovingly call "assault rifles."
My proposal is that an "assault rifle" be defined as "a firearm based on a rifle listed in Jane's Infantry Weapons or Janes Weapons: Infantry, with exception that a weapon designed so that the operator must cycle the action by hand for each shot shall never be an assault rifle."
:thatsright:
So... all semi-automatic weapons...
Fullduplexxx (6,849 posts)
1. here's an easy one. AR stands for you shouldnt own one
Star Member paleotn (15,820 posts)
2. Or AK for that matter..
Avtomat Kalashnikova, i.e. automatic Kalashnikov or AK.
jmowreader (49,052 posts)
3. This is true, but define what an "AR" is.
There are also a lot of assault rifles that are not ARs. Consider the HK93. The only thing from an AR that will fit on that rifle is the ammunition. However, it's DEFINITELY an assault rifle - it's based on the G3 rifle that half the armies in the world used.
AR = Armalite Rifle
Zeitghost (2,447 posts)
4. What is the legal definition
of "based on"? All semi-auto firearms are based on a few basic actions.
We need to stop obsessing with "Assault Weapons". There is nothing functionally different about military pattern or "tactical" semi-automatic rifles when compared to any traditionally styled semi-automatic rifle. They all shoot a single bullet with a single pull of the trigger and none are particularly more deadly than the rest.
Semi-automatic is the only real dividing line that can be made as a definable characteristic that actually has at least a small effect on the firearms ability to cause death and destruction and can't be easily defeated by small largely cosmetic design changes.
jmowreader (49,052 posts)
8. Definition of "based on"
Consider the AR-15. All the ARs I've seen in ads or in gun stores are based on the Army's M16A4 rifle. And most of those rifles, you can take an M16A4, set it next to an AR-15, pull all the operator-removable parts off one rifle and put them on the other, and the reassembled rifle will work.
:thatsright:
Star Member Straw Man (6,226 posts)
24. Yup.
What is the legal definition
of "based on"?
Exactly. That should make for interesting Supreme Court arguments.
Semi-automatic is the only real dividing line that can be made as a definable characteristic that actually has at least a small effect on the firearms ability to cause death and destruction and can't be easily defeated by small largely cosmetic design changes.
Yes, and if you think the battles over assault-weapons bans are heated, wait until you see what happens with any attempt to ban all semi-auto firearms.
A compromise solution would be licensure of same -- just as many states do with CCW for handguns -- with background checks, character references, etc. To make it even more palatable, I would suggest exempting .22 rimfire.
Star Member Disaffected (3,511 posts)
6. Easy (in principle) solution:
Ban all semi-auto guns, rifle or hand. Who actually needs one anyhow?
Star Member NutmegYankee (15,757 posts)
9. I'd make it even simpler.
Any weapon that can propel a bullet to a velocity greater than 1800 feet per second must be manually reloaded (lever, bolt, pump, etc) between shots.
Star Member NutmegYankee (15,757 posts)
26. The velocity is the difference between an AR gunshot and a pistol gunshot.
One is survivable in many instances, the other is not. Kinetic Energy is 1/2MV^2 - a 1400 ft/sec round will do a lot less damage than an AR-15 round at 3000 ft/sec.
Yes... because everyone ever shot with a AR was instantly vaporized...
:thatsright:
Zeitghost (2,447 posts)
49. There are no functional differences
Between a standard AR-15 and those that comply with the various bans in different states or the 94 federal ban. The manufactures have engineered work arounds to any meaningful regulations and the everything else was cosmetic.
You can look at large retailers online and see what is for sale right now in California.
Star Member Straw Man (6,226 posts)
22. Not well-defined at all.
First of all, the listing of specific models leaves the door wide open for new designs, with new names, that do the same thing, rendering the section completely useless.
Secondly, the only meaningful elements in the descriptive definition are semi-automatic and detachable magazine. The rest is simply cosmetic or ergonomic, and has nothing to do with lethality. If you propose to ban all semi-auto firearms, you are talking about banning something that has been in the public sphere for over 100 years. Essentially, you would be limiting civilian gun owners to 19th-century technology. And that's going to be a very hard sell.
Star Member Red Mountain (1,359 posts)
17. 'assault rifle'
isn't really a category that matters.
Fully automatic is illegal.....except with an expensive permit and background check.
Semi-automatic is legal.
Single shot is legal.....with certain restrictions. Barrel length, etc.
Semi auto is what has to be regulated. You can start with magazine size or the bump stock obscenity but the ability to fire multiple rounds quickly without reloading is what facilitates the mass murders we experience frequently.
Semi auto weapons are EVERYWHERE and there is absolutely no stomach for dealing with them except around the edges in ways that won't matter in terms of people getting killed.
They aren't going away and we don't have a path to controlling them in a meaningful way......because the American people want them.
Insurance? Repukes argue: "Criminals don't care"
Long mandatory jail terms for gun violence? Life? Better decriminalize drugs first or plan on building a LOT more prisons.
Anything else?
We have a cultural problem. Guns are popular.
It's killing our kids.
pansypoo53219 (20,035 posts)
21. i think only 1776 era weapons would be legal. and ****ing use the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment.
:thatsright:
-
:thatsright:
So... all semi-automatic weapons...
AR = Armalite Rifle
:thatsright:
Exactly. That should make for interesting Supreme Court arguments.
Yes, and if you think the battles over assault-weapons bans are heated, wait until you see what happens with any attempt to ban all semi-auto firearms.
A compromise solution would be licensure of same -- just as many states do with CCW for handguns -- with background checks, character references, etc. To make it even more palatable, I would suggest exempting .22 rimfire.
Yes... because everyone ever shot with a AR was instantly vaporized...
:thatsright:
:thatsright:
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...
-
In Heller and Bruen, the Court has already expounded on the definitions of every word of the Second Amendment and add a term that trumps your asinine "assault rifle" definition: "IN COMMON USE". If a weapon of any kind is IN COMMON USE for ANY lawful purpose by the citizens of the United States, government at every level under the US Constitution has ZERO AUTHORITY to ban said weapon. The definition in play for the term IN COMMON USE was set on the USSC ruling barring Massive-Two-Shits from banning stun guns amongst their citizenry: ~200,000 to 250,000 in private hands.
Given how many millions of AR platform rifles alone are out there, you stand absolutely ZERO chance of getting an AR ban to pass legal muster, DUm'Rat.
-
I have the ultimate solution, enforce the existing laws on the books and lock up the criminals that break the law with Guns.
When criminals are arrested don’t plead down the gun charges and also go after the gangs that are creating havoc
-
I have the ultimate solution, enforce the existing laws on the books and lock up the criminals that break the law with Guns.
When criminals are arrested don’t plead down the gun charges and also go after the gangs that are creating havoc
That's racisss...why you hate black people??/s
-
It's amazing how many comments leftists make on topics they know nothing about, which is virtually all topics except how to petition the gov't for freebies. And even then, they stumble around for a while trying to figure it out.
.
-
Want to keep "weapons of war" out of the hands of killers?
How about we don't release an international criminal arms dealer known as the "merchant of death" in exchange for a drug addicted lesbian that hates the U.S.A.. Thanks Brandon.
How about we don't unconditionally surrender in Afghanistan and leave 100 billion dollars worth of our top shelf military weapons including 100 thousand + actual assault rifles in the hands of our enemy and terrorists? Thanks Brandon
How about the democrat party not run actual assault weapons to Mexican drug lords. Thanks Eric Holder and Hussein Obummer.
-
jmowreader (49,052 posts)
8. Definition of "based on"
Consider the AR-15. All the ARs I've seen in ads or in gun stores are based on the Army's M16A4 rifle. And most of those rifles, you can take an M16A4, set it next to an AR-15, pull all the operator-removable parts off one rifle and put them on the other, and the reassembled rifle will work.
Not quite true while some of the fire control parts will fit its illegal by batf regulations and the auto sear will not fit. The only m16 part that can be used is the bolt carrier.
All the other parts are the same and have nothing to do to make it select fire
-
How about anyone who lies on form 4473 and then throws a semi automatic handgun into a public trash next to a school can be put in prison for life?
If it saves even one life. Right DUmmies?
-
How about anyone who lies on form 4473 and then throws a semi automatic handgun into a public trash next to a school can be put in prison for life?
If it saves even one life. Right DUmmies?
Exactly or as that old hag pelosi would say”do it for the children “
-
"Weapons of war" are precisely the weapons the framers had in mind when they authored the second amendment.
-
"Weapons of war" are precisely the weapons the framers had in mind when they authored the second amendment.
The founders forgot to include "only for hunting and target shooting" when they authored 2A. :hyper:
-
The founders forgot to include "only for hunting and target shooting" when they authored 2A. :hyper:
They also forgot to add a spec for velocity in the 2A. Anything that shoots at 1800/ft/sec so as to keep it from being too deadly should be excluded. ::)
-
Wait... what's wrong with the current/correct definition? Oh, right. It doesn't suit the dems' agenda.
-
Even with any kind of solid definition, any moonbat with an grain of self awareness ( :rotf: I know, if they had any, they wouldn't be moonbats) knows how well they abuse and work around wording and definitions, so should know that the exact same thing could be done to work around whatever definition of an assault rifle.
-
"Weapons of war" are precisely the weapons the framers had in mind when they authored the second amendment.
High five.