You see I don't have a problem with someone having a differimg opinion than mine. What I have a problem with is people like you and SC talking about a topic you don't have any technical knowledge of and believing that is okay.
May or may not have been posted already.. forgive me if it's a dupe.
Good info on "Assault Weapons": http://www.assaultweapon.info/
It is a made up term that VAGUELY describes a category of firearms.. so vague in fact that some of the catch-alls could be interpreted to apply to all Semi-automatic firearms.Quote:
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."
Be afraid of the Scary Black Guns! Even though it's been shown that the 223 is less dangerous(from a wound channel and over-penetration perspective) than most hunting rifles (308..etc).Quote:
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.
Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Mag caps won't work to stop situations where a bad person has time to plan their attack. As shown with Columbine and VT, the bad guy will just bring more mags.. or more firearms.Quote:
At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.
Magazine size DOES impact Home defense.. a much more emergent and dynamic situation where the homeowner may not have time to grab multiple magazines.
Also keep in mind that it's not the movies. People don't always stop on the first shot. There was something in the news where a lady (protecting her kids) hit the intruder 7 times with a 38 and the guy was still able to drive away.. darkness, multiple intruders..etc.. point to possible situations where a magazine > 10 rounds would be necessary for HD.
SCOTUS has already established, through the Heller and McDonald cases, that firearm ownership is an individual right, and that 2A applies to weapons "in common use" by military and law enforcement.Quote:
It has been estimated that at least 3.3 million AR-15 rifles were sold in the United States between 1986 and 2009. In its ubiquity, the AR-15 is a modern musket—the default rifle with which law-abiding Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
A analogy: When I'm on duty with the FD I'm 100% ready to jump on the Engine, arrive on location, get a line in service, and put out the fire. That doesn't mean when I'm off duty and home in bed that I won't forget some parts of my home evacuation plan if the smoke detectors wake me up in the middle of the night.
In MY opinion the wording of the 2A implies inherent limitations in that it talks about firearms (Arms).. which in typical definition equate to rifles, pistols or other portable guns.. basically portable and usable by a single person. That would disqualify many of the oft-touted "What about..." things like Nuclear Weapons, Tanks, and hand grenades... the I admit in my definition above HAND grenades would be limited but a grenade launcher (being portable/used by a single person) would be ok.. <shrug>.
The bigger point is that semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15 and similar are definitely in common use among the military, law enforcement, and civilian circles and would be covered under previous SCOTUS rulings.
What if? What if? Are you effing kidding me? WHAT IF the criminal didn't break numerous laws to begin with?
But thats what criminals do, break laws. That's what makes all your little feel good bans and restrictions just plain asinine.
We protect our children with signs that state guns are banned here, what could possibly go wrong?
Either way, in almost all cases the default situation is 'not banned' and it is up to the Banee to show that said Ban would be beneficial. Similar to Innocent until proven guilty. In this case how can you recommend a ban if it has been shown (by Columbine and VT) that magazine limits have no impact?
I believe that if someone were to pursue a case that the NFA violates 2A based on Heller/McDonald it would stand a chance of being ruled unconstitutional.
For those taking the SAT's:
I do believe that in those few times that the victims were able to "rush" the gunman, it was not so much that the suspect was changing mags, but in fact a malfunction had occurred and they were unable to bring his/her weapon back on line before being "rush".
I've been in a gun battle and trust me, the thought of counting rounds and hoping I was right and he was making a mag change, so I could "rush" him never entered into my mind.
Once again you prove your inability to read what is written versus what you believe is written.
If you want responses to your replies, feel free to use the quote function appropriately. I'm done cutting and pasting.
Ah, now you want to be the forum cop. You still can put me on ignore if you don't like the way I do things. Otherwise shut your pie hole about how I post.
Has everyone noticed the number of states that have passed or are proposing laws that make it illegal for the feds to enforce any guns laws that infringe upon the 2nd Ammendment and if they attempt to enforce them they will be arrested?
How about the growing list of Sheriffs that have sent letters to the president saying they will not enforce illegal laws that infringe upon the rights bestowed by the 2nd Ammendment.
This is going to get REALLY ugly before it is over boys and girls. Even law enforcement and state governments are seeing the fed is overreaching their power on this issue.
By the way how about this tidbit for those that believe modification of the 2nd Ammendment is okay.
You say that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the firearms of today when writing the 2nd Ammendment. I would bet you they never envisoned the telegraph, telephone, radio, television, iPhones, iPads, computers, tablets, Kindles or any other hi-tech media commonly in use today. Maybe we should look at modifying the 1st Ammendment due to technological changes too!
Almost all of those state and local laws would be struck down for violating the supremacy clause. Fed laws always trump state or local ones. While they make a good show, such laws would do little to stop enforcement of the fed bills if they become law.
It is nice to see some state or local officials stand by the highest law of the land. Unlike those from my fine state who would use it like a roll of charmin.
The only way that a State/Local law enforcement officer can enforce a Federal Law is if it was/is adopted by the State in which they have jurisdiction. For example, for years the Federal law stated that a convicted felon could not possess a firearm. N.C. State law used to prohibited felons from only possessing hand guns, but allowed them to own/possess a long gun in their home for self protection. N.C. only finally adopted a complete ban on felons possessing a long gun in their homes several years ago.
When state/locally law enforcement try to enforce Federal laws they end up in trouble. Example Federal immigration laws