Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ... 101718192021222330 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 689
Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #381
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The Constitution says one has the right to bear arms. It is not specific about type or capability.

    Exactly, and that can just as easily be used to make an argument AGAINST any restrictions as for them.


    Sadly, you are once again mistaken. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (and several predecessors) places significant restraints on weaponry. ie. Fully auto capability and barrel length are but two of those limits.

    Actually if you are willing to go through the permit process and pay the applicable fees you can legally own a fully automatic weapon or a short barreled rifle.

    Not surprisingly you continue to make stupid statements that only reveal your ignorance of yet another topic. Which at this point in time is no surprise.

    Your ignorance shines through yet again.
    Just admit it...
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate


  2. #382
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I'm pretty certain that holding legal firearms owners responsible for their guns would be a huge start. Yep, I know this would include having to register every firearm with a legal owner, but from that we'd be able to hold someone accountable for their guns when they turn up as being used in a crime. Ensure legal reporting requirements for those guns "missing" within a short period of time and close any untraceable sales, thus ensuring every firearm found in possession is either legally possessed or the person is charged along with the owner. People would have to be far more cognizant of how their firearms were stored, who borrowed them, and who had access to them. If you have more than one instance of a firearm you own being stolen, you lose the right to posses them. The proof this type of system would work is in the statistics regarding legally owned Class III weapons: machine guns, short-barreled firearms, silencers, etc. You don't see these being misused or in crimes... I for one am far more ready to register all my firearm before I give up the right to possess certain types or parts thereof, as I've committed no crimes and don't expect ever lose this right.
    Sounds like a very reasonable start.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  3. #383
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Nope, but your posts have made it sound like they don't have anything similar to what my state does for dealer sales at a gun show.
    Seeing as not one of my posts has mentioned NJ gun laws....you must have me confused.

    There was someone else that mentioned walking into a gun show and leaving with a gun having no checks done.

    My post was that a phone call to get NCIC lookup didn't seem like enough to me. Ya, I know its the law in your area. I said I think the law (nationwide) should include more.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  4. #384
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    No gun owners I know support magazine capacity bans, registration, or banning of certain currently legal to own firearms.
    I know several who support both. Clearly you don't many people. Are you a loner? Should we be worried?

    Again, inanimate objects do not of their own accord violate any laws EVER. Until you face that fact none of the feel good, knee jerk, punishing law abiding citizens bans you support accomplish anything that you hope for. Punish criminals, fix the mental health care system, and THEN you may see some positive affects...
    That's true about inanimate objects. However laws are made regarding the restriction of their use all the time. I'll ask about a solution to prohibiting the mentally ill from gaining access to firearms. Should potential owners be required to take a test? Should current owners be required to take continuing tests to prove their mental health has not degraded?

    And again, your use of the term "gunned down" makes you Judge, Jury, and Executioner wth no basis in fact other than what a biased anti-gun media portrays. It may turn out that way and it may go that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I don't know, and truth be known, neither do you.
    According to you. It's an accurate depiction of what happened. Zimmerman claims self defense, but he has no proof that he didn't initiate the confrontation or that Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman. This is very possible given that he was confronted by Zimmerman who claims that Martin was doing something illegal with no proof. Zimmerman claims he saw someone like Martin standing between houses looking in the windows. He's yet to prove Martin was doing any such thing, nor has any investigation proved any such thing. Hard to prove self defense when one does that act.

    The reality is there is absolutely NO similarity at all between the 2 incidents. Well, other than both being used by the anti-gun crowd to call for more laws and more bans.
    I've pointed out the similarities several times. Feel free to review them.

    Exactly, and that can just as easily be used to make an argument AGAINST any restrictions as for them.
    Except restrictions have been enacted several times and the laws have been upheld as Constitutional.

    Your ignorance shines through yet again.
    Except I've yet to put forth any such thing.

    Just admit it...The truth will set you free.
    Funny. You continually ignore the truth and facts as they have been presented in the cases we are discussing. Your non counters to my well supported arguments only show how extreme you are in your views.

    Sad.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-11-2013 at 10:27 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #385
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post


    I know several who support both. Clearly you don't many people. Are you a loner? Should we be worried?

    You are a funny man. Too bad your ignorance of this topic outshines that.

    I would wager that since I am an actual gun owner, and avid target shooter, that I know far more gun owners than you do. Not a single one of them support any new laws that affect no one but law abiding citizens.

    This part of your post isn't another fanciful tale of yours is it? Note, I didn't call you a liar THIS time.



    That's true about inanimate objects. However laws are made regarding the restriction of their use all the time. I'll ask about a solution to prohibiting the mentally ill from gaining access to firearms. Should potential owners be required to take a test? Should current owners be required to take continue tests to prove their mental health has not degraded?

    The simple fact about the mentally ill is so many of them were known to have issues LONG before an incident like Sandy Hook occurs. The facts are it is so difficult to get anyone committed or evaluated that many give up and do the best they can for their family member on their own. Those that do get care become part of the revolving door of "here take these meds and you'll be all better," until they stop and go off. Fix the mental healthcare system so it actually works and many of these issues will be solved.


    According to you. It's an accurate depiction of what happened. Zimmerman claims self defense, but he has no proof that he didn't initiate the confrontation. Hard to prove self defense when one does that act. You've claimed repeatedly that Martin was doing something illegal with no proof.

    I never said any such thing. I never used the words "Gunned Down" other than quoting you.

    Reports had Travon on private property up by homes. That IS illegal and is called trespassing.

    As I have said repeatedly, I will wait for the verdict.



    I've pointed out the similarities several times. Feel free to review them.

    Not anything that makes them even mildly related...


    Except restrictions have been enacted several times and the laws have been upheld as Constitutional.

    As has the right to bear arms. The fact that some judges interpretted the consitution their way then, has no bearing on the way a future court may interpret it at a later date. There is nothing in the 2nd Ammendment specifying any type of firearm, or the size of the magazine. I believe it was purposely left vague as our Founding Fathers had the insight to know technology would change and so would firearms design.


    Except I've yet to put forth any such thing.

    You have shown your ignorance of the type of firearms that some want banned, you have diverted into ridiculous positions that manufacturing standards of potato chips somehow relate to what type of potato chips you can buy, comparing that to restrictions on the types of guns YOU would allow people to own, comparing explosives to firearms, trying to compare the Travon Martin incident to Sandy Hook, and then your crowning glory...Playing the race card...

    Oh yes, you have displayed your ignorance by simply not being able to discuss the original topic with any actual, factual knowledge. Diversion is the friend of the ignorant and you are the master of diversion on this topic.



    Funny. You continually ignore the truth and facts as they have been presented in the cases we are discussing. Your counters to my well supported arguments only show how extreme you are in your views.

    Your well supported arguments? Oh my God, not only are you ignorant of the original topic, you are an arrogant a s s trying to hide that by trying to play the "Oh so superior card." Laughable in a sad pathetic manner.

    If you see me as extreme let me say this to you, at least I am out front and completelty honest about where I stand. if you are pro-gun, which I highly doubt, you sure have a funny way of showing it. From the very beginning your posture has been purely anti-gun, despite your pathetic little attempts to say otherwise.



    Sad.

    Yes, your laughable wolf in sheep's clothing attempt to play pro-gun is sad.
    Just admit it...the truth will set you free.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #386
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The Constitution says one has the right to bear arms. It is not specific about type or capability.


    Sadly, you are once again mistaken. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (and several predecessors) places significant restraints on weaponry. ie. Fully auto capability and barrel length are but two of those limits.

    Not surprisingly you continue to make stupid statements that only reveal your ignorance of yet another topic. Which at this point in time is no surprise.
    I openly admit that I know little about guns. I don't own any. At one point in my life I did a little bit of target shooting with a rifle and have handled and shot a friend's shotgun, but I have never been a hunter and haven't touched a gun in over 20 years.

    That being said I do know that Bushmaster - which by the way was actually never used in Sandy Hook - is not an assault rifle by an definition, unlike many in the frenzied anti-gun crowd.

    That being said I really don't have a stake in this fight, but I do believe that the right to own guns, including semi-automatic weapons with any size clip or magazine is a fundamental right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. many of the step[s being talked about by the anti-gun crowd clearly violates the 2nd Amendment and should NOT happen.

    I also don't believe that the right to own those weapons is the issue in these mass shootings, especially since in many cases many of those shot were shot with handguns. In addition, there is data that indicates that gun violence is actually on the decrease since the 1980's. There is data that also indicates that bans on some types of semi-automatic weapons has done nothing to alter to reduce gun violence at the state level.

    So yes, this will not affect me, but as a citizen I have a stake in the fight anytime the government attempts to ban something protected by the Constitution. The anti-gun lobby is clearly wrong. And the pro-gun lobby is clearly 100% right.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-12-2013 at 07:01 AM.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #387
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That being said I really don't have a stake in this fight, but I do believe that the right to own guns, including semi-automatic weapons with any size clip or magazine is a fundamental right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. many of the step[s being talked about by the anti-gun crowd clearly violates the 2nd Amendment and should NOT happen.
    You may believe it. But the courts don't. Again (realizing you haven't the sense God gave a lemon), the Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) is not absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I also don't believe that the right to own those weapons is the issue in these mass shootings, especially since in many cases many of those shot were shot with handguns. In addition, there is data that indicates that gun violence is actually on the decrease since the 1980's. There is data that also indicates that bans on some types of semi-automatic weapons has done nothing to alter to reduce gun violence at the state level.
    Yet it is significantly higher than most industrialized nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So yes, this will not affect me, but as a citizen I have a stake in the fight anytime the government attempts to ban something protected by the Constitution. The anti-gun lobby is clearly wrong. And the pro-gun lobby is clearly 100% right.
    As usual you are clueless about both groups.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-12-2013 at 11:08 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #388
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Just admit it...the truth will set you free.
    I've put forth facts on many an occasion. Sadly you counter with emotional arguments based upon supposition and pedantic nomenclature. Taken parenthetically I can easily make the case that an semi-auto rifle that is magazine fed is an assault rifle.

    Here's how:
    According to American Heritage Dictionary

    Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.
    Rifle: A firearm with a rifled bore, designed to be fired from the shoulder.

    Assault Rifle: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

    So we have a violent or physical attack committed by a firearm that is designed to be shoulder mounted and has a rifled bore.

    Seems to me the Bushmaster fits the definition. Since you're all into the meanings of words, I thought you would appreciate the vocabulary lesson.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-12-2013 at 11:38 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #389
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    True. The right is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly the right (like the other Bill of Rights) is not an absolute. An example being that individual ownership of explosives (ie rocket launchers) are not allowed. There have been several laws passed that restrict the types of firearms one is allowed to own legally and they have withstood any legal challenges.

    Once again you prove your stupidity on yet another issue.
    You do know the difference between firearms and artillery don't you??

  10. #390
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    You do know the difference between firearms and artillery don't you??
    Yes. What's your point?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #391
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yes. What's your point?
    His point quite clearly is you took another idiotic, completely off topic, diversion in an attempt to sound oh so superior when in fact it makes you look like an ignorant a s s.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #392
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've put forth facts on many an occasion. Sadly you counter with emotional arguments based upon supposition and pedantic nomenclature. Taken parenthetically I can easily make the case that an semi-auto rifle that is magazine fed is an assault rifle.

    Here's how:
    According to American Heritage Dictionary

    Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.
    Rifle: A firearm with a rifled bore, designed to be fired from the shoulder.

    Assault Rifle: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

    So we have a violent or physical attack committed by a firearm that is designed to be shoulder mounted and has a rifled bore.

    Seems to me the Bushmaster fits the definition. Since you're all into the meanings of words, I thought you would appreciate the vocabulary lesson.
    And my answer is I posted a definition that differed from yours and was more accurate according to firearms nomenclature, not popular culture definition. You know, like everyone calling facial tissue Kleenex even though Kleenex is a brand name not an item descriptor name.

    Again, just admit it...you are okay with taking rights away from law abiding citizens.
    DeputyMarshal likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  13. #393
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And my answer is I posted a definition that differed from yours and was more accurate according to firearms nomenclature, not popular culture definition. You know, like everyone calling facial tissue Kleenex even though Kleenex is a brand name not an item descriptor name.
    I disagree that your definition was more accurate. It is only more accurate amongst gun enthusiasts who demand a very narrow definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Again, just admit it...you are okay with taking rights away from law abiding citizens.
    Once again, which "rights" am I taking away? I've never advocated for the elimination of private firearms ownership. You continue to make this ridiculous claim with nothing but your own paranoia for proof.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-12-2013 at 01:47 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #394
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I disagree that your definition was more accurate. It is only more accurate amongst gun enthusiasts who demand a very narrow definition.


    Once again, which "rights" am I taking away. I've never advocated for the elimination of private firearms ownership. You continue to make this ridiculous claim with nothing but your own paranoia for proof.
    You wish to restrict firearms accessories, like high capacity magazines. You have railed on and on about about assault rifles, where your definition is NOT anything more than the anti-gun crowd's definition. If you are not anti-gun why arfe you nothing more than a mouthpiece for everything they say?

    If not wanting my rights whittled away by a government that if it can't get its agenda passed by the legislature resorts to executive action to pass unpopular controls on the citizenry makes me paranoid...then I am okay with being called paranoid by YOU, an anti-gun rights person.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  15. #395
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I'm pretty certain that holding legal firearms owners responsible for their guns would be a huge start. Yep, I know this would include having to register every firearm with a legal owner, but from that we'd be able to hold someone accountable for their guns when they turn up as being used in a crime. Ensure legal reporting requirements for those guns "missing" within a short period of time and close any untraceable sales, thus ensuring every firearm found in possession is either legally possessed or the person is charged along with the owner. People would have to be far more cognizant of how their firearms were stored, who borrowed them, and who had access to them. If you have more than one instance of a firearm you own being stolen, you lose the right to posses them. The proof this type of system would work is in the statistics regarding legally owned Class III weapons: machine guns, short-barreled firearms, silencers, etc. You don't see these being misused or in crimes... I for one am far more ready to register all my firearm before I give up the right to possess certain types or parts thereof, as I've committed no crimes and don't expect ever lose this right.
    Here's what I don't understand. Why should myself, you, or any other law-abiding gun owner have to go through some form of registration to prove we're following the law. The guys that commit these crimes don't care about the law! They've proven it!

    Would it no be much simpler (and a smaller list) to have a "restricted from owning a firearm list"? If someone has mental issues, put them on the list. If they're a criminal, put them on the list. If they for any reason whatsoever have no business with a gun, put them on the list.

    Gun registration isn't going to do a damn thing. There are enough weapons out there that aren't going to be registered or are brought in from outside the country that they'll never be able to track them.

    I'm not necessarily against registering guns, but I'm to the point I'm sick of having to jump through hoops due to laws created from a knee-jerk reaction to an incident created by someone who doesn't care about the law and isn't going to follow it. Making new laws only law-abiding citizens are going to follow to "keep an honest man honest" is the last step.

    Registering firearms is like putting a no tresspassing sign up. It doesn't do jack unless the tresspasser fears the reprecussions. Criminals don't fear the reprecussions, because the reprecussions are so light.
    Chenzo likes this.

  16. #396
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've put forth facts on many an occasion. Sadly you counter with emotional arguments based upon supposition and pedantic nomenclature. Taken parenthetically I can easily make the case that an semi-auto rifle that is magazine fed is an assault rifle.

    Here's how:
    According to American Heritage Dictionary

    Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.
    Rifle: A firearm with a rifled bore, designed to be fired from the shoulder.

    Assault Rifle: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

    So we have a violent or physical attack committed by a firearm that is designed to be shoulder mounted and has a rifled bore.

    Seems to me the Bushmaster fits the definition. Since you're all into the meanings of words, I thought you would appreciate the vocabulary lesson.
    Every single solitary unmounted rifle ever sold in world history, from a .177 single shot air rifle (pellet/BB gun) to a Barrett .50BMG M82 fits your definition.

    Your definition of an assault rifle would mean that every single rifle in the USA would become illegal with ratification of any form of an assault rifle ban. That's why FyredUp's definition is not only more accurate, but that kind of specifics is needed for any legislation put down on paper, if you truly aren't totally anti-gun.
    Chenzo likes this.

  17. #397
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    Every single solitary unmounted rifle ever sold in world history, from a .177 single shot air rifle (pellet/BB gun) to a Barrett .50BMG M82 fits your definition.

    Your definition of an assault rifle would mean that every single rifle in the USA would become illegal with ratification of any form of an assault rifle ban. That's why FyredUp's definition is not only more accurate, but that kind of specifics is needed for any legislation put down on paper, if you truly aren't totally anti-gun.
    In fairness, that's taking it a little far. Basically what he's saying is that if it's a semi-auto designed for military use, it's an assault weapon. That would exclude nearly any hunting rifle, including the Ruger Mini-14 (which Obama has listed in his previous plans) and all .22's that I know of.

    If you take the first part and combine "assault" and "rifle", then a number of rifles would fit that description. Muskets, bolt actions, etc. would be defined as an assault rifle.

    If we're going to put the military useage test into play, we need to add a number of shotguns (including pumps) and handguns (including the 1911).

  18. #398
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Here's what I don't understand. Why should myself, you, or any other law-abiding gun owner have to go through some form of registration to prove we're following the law. The guys that commit these crimes don't care about the law! They've proven it!
    While I actually agree with you, we're sadly going to be in the minority overall. If we, like the anti-gun banners take hardlines and make zero compromise, only one side can win. I fear that without some reasonable measures the next step will be wider spread bans, which penalize the same law abiding citizens as registration.

    The registration is not a restriciton on your right to bear arms, merely a means to ensure proper tracing of firearms, it is the most sensible measure that doesn't adversily effect law abidijg gun owners. The teachers unions put up the same argument against being fingerprinted, stating this was a presumption of guilt, when in fact the courts and court of public opinion concluded that ti was a reasonable measure in preventing sex offenders from working in schools.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 01-12-2013 at 05:19 PM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

  19. #399
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    That being said I do know that Bushmaster - which by the way was actually never used in Sandy Hook - is not an assault rifle by an definition, unlike many in the frenzied anti-gun crowd.
    Please cite a credible source for this! That information alone, if true would blow this whole assault rifle ban out of the water. If the media and/or law enforcement participated in a sham to help push an anti-gun agenda there will be a huge backlash. I've seen this "factoid" thrown around by a few people based on some reporters' early quote that a Bushmaster was found in Lanza's car, but this has been refuted by "officials", thus it's a pretty big deal. We can't wish it true, it has to be actual fact.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 01-12-2013 at 05:13 PM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

  20. #400
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've put forth facts on many an occasion. Sadly you counter with emotional arguments based upon supposition and pedantic nomenclature. Taken parenthetically I can easily make the case that an semi-auto rifle that is magazine fed is an assault rifle.

    Here's how:
    According to American Heritage Dictionary

    Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.
    Rifle: A firearm with a rifled bore, designed to be fired from the shoulder.

    Assault Rifle: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

    So we have a violent or physical attack committed by a firearm that is designed to be shoulder mounted and has a rifled bore.

    Seems to me the Bushmaster fits the definition. Since you're all into the meanings of words, I thought you would appreciate the vocabulary lesson.
    Thankfully, I suppose, we don't have to worry about the courts using your American Heritage Dictionary to define "assault weapon". Instead any legislation will make up whatever definition they want to fit (given that it's not a standardly defined term) and it will become the definition of record for that legislation and subsequent ATF rules. Or, they'll not use the term as it's far to subjective, instead banning certain parts or combinations of parts that would make up a banned firearm under their new law.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 01-12-2013 at 05:18 PM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts