DUmmies discuss Assault Weapons

[BamaMoose]

There are few subjects that reveal the ignorance of the DUmmies more explicitly than gun topics.  But this thread is stellar.

Mortos (2,210 posts)

What is an "assault rifle," he asked sarcastically.
   
When, inevitably, some gun collector snarkily asks me to tell them what an "assault rifle" is, I like to respond with this:

An assault rifle is a weapon that cowards use in the commission of mass murder to kill the most human beings possible, in the shortest time possible. An assault rifle is a weapon that killed 17 high school students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in unders 6 minutes, it is a weapon that killed 20 elementary school children and 6 teachers in Newtown in under 5 minutes. An assault rifle is a weapon that killed 49 people and wounded 58 at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, most were killed or wounded in the first 7 minutes. Assault rifles are weapons that killed 16 people and wounded 22 in under 3 minutes at a San Bernardino Christmas party. Assault rifles with a still legally obtainable bumpstock ($250 online) are weapons that killed 58 people and wounded 851 in under 10 minutes at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas

An assault rifle is a weapon of war, slightly modified for civilian use that has the capability of putting enough firepower in the hands of physically and mentally weak people to give them a capability they otherwise would not have; the ability to kill and wound dozens or even hundreds of people in a few minutes.

It is a weapon amazingly similar to the rifle I carried in the US Army, except mine had a 20 round magazine instead of 30, 50, or 100, and could fire automatic 3 round bursts, the civilian model can be legally modified to fire fully automatic 100 round drum magazines. It fires the exact same high velocity round as my military issued rifle, designed to tumble upon impact with human flesh   <How do you design a round to tumble upon impact?> causing the maximum tissue damage and lethality possible. It is weapons like the AR (ArmarLite Rifle), <Armarlite?>which was designed specifically for military infantryman to be able to carry more ammunition into war. It is any weapon that has the capability of firing multiple .223 or 5.56 (bullets designed for weapons of war during Vietnam) <Umm .223 Remington was around long before Vietnam> rounds at an extremely high velocity, with minimal reloading, for the primary purpose of killing human beings quickly and by those with nominal firearms training, proficiency or precision. They are for sale to anyone over 18 who can pass a simple background check, in a dozen stores near you. They are available most weekends in gunshow parking lots or from people on the internet with no background check at all. They are legally available to mentally ill people and subjects on the terrorist watch list. <Don't even know what to say about this garbage>They are the preferred weapon of mass shooters who use them more frequently and with more lethal efficiency, every year since the assault weapons ban, staunchly opposed by the NRA, was allowed to lapse by a Republican President and Congress on September 13th, 2004.

An assault rifle is the weapon of choice of mass murderers who want to slay as many defenseless men, women, and children as possible.

Any more questions? 

Sure, I have a question, how many of the weapons used in those mass killings were banned by the 1994 AWB?  I believe the answer is around zero.  Typically, they don't have a clue what they are attempting to talk about.  But I brought this one over for this exchange:

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

92. Police use SWAT tanks too. That doesn't mean civilians should. nt

aikoaiko (27,639 posts)

95. Technically, civilians can have tanks. Not many people want them.

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

104. No, it is illegal for a civilian to drive around in a SWAT tank.

For a number of reasons, not the least of which is it is illegal to impersonate a police officer.

And if you are talking about military tanks, no as well, unless there are substantial modifications that render it less tank, more Hummer. Civilians in some states can own decommissioned military tanks. The guns and firing control systems must be disabled. You cannot drive it on most public roads without special permits, and you'll need rubberized treads to avoid damaging the roadway.

Again, just because the police or military use something does not mean civilians should have it. But that is just the sort of outrageous justification the gun folks resort to for the unjustifiable: civilians having assault weapons.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making that argument.

This is where the Dummy firmly establishes their ignorance on NFA devices.

Adrahil (11,357 posts)

206. Just to be clear...
 
You can own a fully operational tank, including the gun, and machine guns. You just need to go through the proper NFA process and pay tons of money. I know a guy who operates a fully operational Sherman tank. He only fire blanks form the gun, because each individual shell is considered an NFA "destructive device."

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

218. Thanks for your concern about "clarity."
 
But if he can't fire real shells, it's not "fully operational." And it's definitely not street legal.

 

Adrahil (11,357 posts)

222. He CAN fire real shells. He doesn't. Different point entirely.
 
And no, you wouldn't drive it on the street, but who's talking about that.

My point is that a lot of things people assume are illegal, are not in fact.

But the NFA imposes some previous significant burden to getting the device. You can't just go down to the local Bubba's Gun Store and buy a tank gun and bring it home.

Same with machine guns.

<Snip>

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

223. It would be illegal to fire real Sherman tank shells.
 
He can't drive it off his property and it is not fully operational. What he has is a museum display piece.

Adrahil (11,357 posts)

225. wrong on all points..
 It would be perfectly legal to shoot a live shell, and people do it. But those shells are EXPENSIVE. And they individually considered to be destructive devices. But some folks with way too much money have certainly done so.

His tank IS, in fact, fully operational. And he drives it off his property all the time (literally all the time... his property is too small). He trailers it to WWII reenactments, air shows, armored vehicle shows, etc. It also has an operational M2 .50 cal machine gun on the turret.

But again... the point: He had to jump through a LOT of hoops to get it.

Same is true for machine guns. You have to jump through some hoops and pay a lot of money.

And you almost never see them used to commit crimes. That's why I say we do the same for semi-auto rifles and high cap mags.

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

227. It is not "perfectly legal" for a civilian to shoot a Sherman tank shell.
 
And he may trailer it to other locations, but he sure as **** doesn't drive it on the street. Come on.

La-La-La I can't hear you

Adrahil (11,357 posts)

228. Yes, it IS legal to shoot the gun.
 
And people do it.

Just like it's legal to shoot a machine gun. Or a cannon.

And no one said he drives it on public streets. Did I ever suggest that? I think not. The tracks would tear the street up.

 

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

239. The "tanks are perfectly legal" talking point is demonstrably false.
 
Trying to rescue it with sophistry is just a waste of your time and my time.

Goodnight.

 

Marengo (2,928 posts)

251. You have made several demonstrably false statements in this discussion and have been corrected.

Here you double down and claim that’s sophistry to cover the obvious fact that you are misinformed on this topic. Odd and amusing.

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

261. I have shown it is illegal, at least in California, the jurisdiction I am familiar with.

Odd that you would find that "amusing."

To each his own I guess.

Marengo (2,928 posts)

327. Uh oh, looks like youre wrong again. Legal with a permit from the California DOJ, 12305(b).

Most people at this point would acknowledge that there are legal options for a private citizen to own and live-fire a tank, but this is DU.
 

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

333. Marengo, it is you who is wrong. Again.
 
The section 12305 you reference is for a narrow, strictly controlled uses approved by CA DOJ, like movie shoots. Such a permit explicitly requires that DOJ approve the specific use, the location be inspected and each shell must be accounted for.

So, by that you mean legal right?

Marengo (2,928 posts)

334. LOL! You claimed it is illegal to possess a large bore destructive device in CA, turns out its not
 
With the proper permit issued by the CDOJ. In this game of semantics, you’ve been owned by your own citation.

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

335. It is illegal, as you will find out if you try to do it.
 
You can't just shoot a tank cannon for shits and giggles, let alone tool around in a fully operational tank in CA You will end up in jail and/or fined. It is not "perfectly legal." You simply cannot compare what you are suggesting to, say, a CA DOJ approved and supervised movie shoot firing of a tank cannon.

Marengo (2,928 posts)

339. Sorry, your own citation proves a process exists to allow individuals to apply for a permit to....
 
Possess a large bore destructive device. You claimed it is illegal, it is not if the permit is issued.

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

340. That's like saying because a surgeon can cut someone open, it is "perfectly legal" to cut someone.
 
Sure, a process exists that makes it legal for a specific individual with an individual permit to slice someone open, but no one in their right mind would say that it is perfectly legal to cut someone.

Wait.  What?

EX500rider (4,818 posts)

343. I'd stop digging if I was you.
 
No one claimed you wouldn't have to jump thru hoops to own a tank with a working main gun but that fact is you can if you fill out the right forms and pay the fees.

SunSeeker (28,240 posts)

345. I'd stop making shit up if I were you.

It's not just a matter of filling out a form and paying fees. Firing a destructive device/cannon in California is illegal, that is the rule. Just like an individual cutting someone open is illegal.

Because firing a cannon is illegal, there are strict procedures a person/organization must follow to avoid arrest and fine in the few uses, like movie shoots, that the CA AG may approve, but you must obtain a CADOJ permit /approval for each firing, it must be supervised and you must account for every shell, as stated in 12305(b).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210410678

I love how she keeps moving the goalposts and acknowledging that private ownership of fully functioning tanks is heavily regulated, but legal, yet she still keeps insisting that means they are illegal.  There are regulations for driving a car on a public street.  Does that mean driving a car is illegal?  I'm not sure.  I think the voices in her head are not talking to each other.

[SVPete]

The ignorance/deception in the OP is so palpable that even this life-long civilian can spot some of it.

First, the 5.56 NATO was developed in the mid-late 1950s, well before the Vietnam War.

Second, many/most civilian rounds are versions of military rounds, so the 5.56//.223 round used in the AR-15 type rifles is not unique in this respect.

Third, that the muzzle velocity of the 5.56 NATO is supersonic is not unusual. The 7.62 NATO is similar in muzzle velocity, as is the .308 Winchester civilian round from which the 7.62 NATO was derived. I haven't done the math, but it is very possible that the 7.62 NATO hit the target with greater energy that does a 5.56 NATO.

Fourth, the "tumbling" thingy has been disproved. The large entry wounds that gave rise to the tumbling myth were found to be due to bullet fragmentation.

Fifth, the military's basic issue battle rifle went from the semi-automatic M1 Garand to the full automatic M14 (early 1960s), M16, and M4. Other than for experimenting with the 5.56 NATO round, nothing like an AR-15 was in general use in the military. There are a couple of ways in which, "It is a weapon amazingly similar to the rifle I carried in the US Army," could be a lie. He may be conflating for DU-ignorami the M1 Garand, which does not resemble an AR-15 and fires a different round, and the AR-15. Or he may be conflating the semi-automatic AR-15 with the full automatic (if so selected) M16. Either way, "Mortos" is lying and playing with the general ignorance and confirmation bias of most DU-folk.

[docstew]

The ignorance/deception in the OP is so palpable that even this life-long civilian can spot some of it.

First, the 5.56 NATO was developed in the mid-late 1950s, well before the Vietnam War.

Second, many/most civilian rounds are versions of military rounds, so the 5.56//.223 round used in the AR-15 type rifles is not unique in this respect.

Third, that the muzzle velocity of the 5.56 NATO is supersonic is not unusual. The 7.62 NATO is similar in muzzle velocity, as is the .308 Winchester civilian round from which the 7.62 NATO was derived. I haven't done the math, but it is very possible that the 7.62 NATO hit the target with greater energy that does a 5.56 NATO. Very likely true, given equivalent velocity between projectiles.  Kinetic energy is a physics formula applying to all moving objects and doesn't have a special multiplier for "just assault weapon rounds".  The reason for 5.56 having a large wound track is the cavitation caused by the velocity.  A supersonic projectile will create a temporary wound cavity (bubble) approximately 40x its diameter, and a permanent wound cavity approximately 4x its diameter.  The same factors would apply to ANY supersonic projectile, i.e. 7.62, .50 BMG, etc.

Fourth, the "tumbling" thingy has been disproved. The large entry wounds that gave rise to the tumbling myth were found to be due to bullet fragmentation. Mostly correct.  The 5.56 round DOES yaw 180 degrees and go ass first at approximately 14 inches of penetration in ballistics gel.  This causes a larger wound track and frequently the sheer forces shatter the round.  That is why military rounds are "full metal jacket", meaning fully encased in metal, to reduce the fragmentation.  That is a requirement of the Geneva Conventions, and does not apply to civilians.

Fifth, the military's basic issue battle rifle went from the semi-automatic M1 Garand to the full automatic M14 (early 1960s), M16, and M4. Other than for experimenting with the 5.56 NATO round, nothing like an AR-15 was in general use in the military. There are a couple of ways in which, "It is a weapon amazingly similar to the rifle I carried in the US Army," could be a lie. He may be conflating for DU-ignorami the M1 Garand, which does not resemble an AR-15 and fires a different round, and the AR-15. Or he may be conflating the semi-automatic AR-15 with the full automatic (if so selected) M16. Either way, "Mortos" is lying and playing with the general ignorance and confirmation bias of most DU-folk.

Comments attached

[SVPete]

  doc! Clarifications, corrections, and s are welcome!

IIRC, the equation for kinetic energy is (1/2)(M)(V^2). The muzzle velocity for a 7.62 NAT) or .308 Winchester is about 10% lower than that of a 5.56 NATO or .223. OTOH, the mass of those first two bullets is much greater.

[BadCat]

OTOH doc, we're talking military rounds that are FMJ.  My ARs are loaded with 62 gr hollow points.  They act a bit different.

[Wineslob]

OMG! Swat Assault Tanks!   

[Old n Grumpy]

Ammo over .50 caliber is not a destructive device unless it is explosive.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Wow, Sunseeker sure is a complete moron.

To follow up on Old & Grumpy, if it's over .50, yeah, you need an NFA tax stamp for it...same tax stamp for a .55 BOYS bolt action rifle as an 81mm mortar or a 155mm How, a PAK 40, or an M79.  You can fire all the inert shells (TPT, AP shot, dummy projos, canister, etc.) you can make or buy out of it with no additional paperwork, but  every single shell with an HE filler (Frag, HEAT, AP with a burster, ICM, whatever) is a 'Destructive device' that has to have its own $200 tax stamp...so even if you could  find one available legally, nobody could actually afford to shoot one.   

[YupItsMe]

Hope they never see the 155mm Howitzer in my backyard.  I'm pretty sure most VTers would be upset.

[Old n Grumpy]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/03/luis-valdes/breaking-vermont-legislature-passes-gun-control-republican-governor-said-he-will-sign/

Another state falls.

[landofconfusion80]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/03/luis-valdes/breaking-vermont-legislature-passes-gun-control-republican-governor-said-he-will-sign/

Another state falls.

They were already a liberal wasteland. They tried to put universal healthcare into effect when Obama care didn't go far enough for their tastes. That fell on its face when they realized it would bankrupt the state.