Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Writing a Paper

  1. #1
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576

    Writing a Paper

    So I am writing a paper for my English Composition class, and I chose a rather risky topic, considering how liberal (and almost openly anti) my professor is. I was told to write a definitional argument essay, and I chose to write about how I believe the term 'assault weapon' is a joke, and how the term 'modern sporting rifle' could better be used in its place.

    This is my rough draft so far. Not accounting for the conclusion that I have not yet written, it still needs about 450 words. If anyone would like to comment about what else I can logically place in my paper, I am all for suggestions. (Also if you see mechanical errors, PLEASE let me know!) The paper is in MLA format, and I have not completed my works cited page either, but that will come.

    Here is my draft.


    There has always been a considerable amount of debate when it comes to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently, however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the laws previously and currently on the books, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.

    The government used to define the term ‘assault weapon’ differently than it does today. In 1994, Congress passed a federal ban on ‘certain semi-automatic assault weapons’, according to Babay. Babay goes on to inform that these weapons were characterized by a rifle having a detachable magazine and at least two military style features, such as flash suppressors and pistol grips, as well as others. This was the old definition.

    The new definition, as proposed by Diane Feinstein in her bill short titled the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”, reduces the number of ‘military features’ allowed to just one. This bill lists six properties that a semi-automatic rifle can have to make it on the list of banned weapons: A pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel.” The bill also lists a host of makes and models of firearms that would be banned, including all AR type models. (United States).

    The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.

    Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning.

    The term ‘assault rifle’ is also sometimes thrown in the mix. The term ‘assault rifle’, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a “military firearm… that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire” (Assault Rifle). This is an important distinction. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed (18 USC § 921).

    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    Last edited by Esanders2008; 02-11-2013 at 12:37 PM. Reason: ETA: MLA format note
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    ...‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning...
    You could easily expand this and discuss the psychology of purposely using an emotional term to hide the meaninglessness of the actual bill.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-11-2013 at 12:41 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You could easily expand this and discuss the psychology of purposely using an emotional term to hide the meaninglessness of the actual bill.
    Oh very nice.

    How does this look?


    Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning. The individuals that wish to take away one of the basic American freedoms have purposefully chosen this term for its fear factor. By using a term with a negative connotation, they may be able to persuade people who think emotionally, rather that looking at a topic with reason. This has become even more rampant in the wake of the incident in Newtown, Connecticut.
    Last edited by Esanders2008; 02-11-2013 at 12:45 PM.
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    ...Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed (18 USC § 921).

    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    Actually, assault rifles have been highly regulated and registered long before that by the National Firearms Act. It was in 1986 that no new assault rifles were allowed to be added to the NFA registry, making them much harder to obtain and much more expensive.

    There are thousands of fully-automatic AR-15 rifles. The M16 is just a very specific configuration of a fully-automatic AR-15, as adopted by the military. It was semi-automatic AR-15's that were later designed for civilian sales (not needing to be registered as machine guns), but full-auto AR-15's have always been available, though much more expensive to obtain after 1986.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Actually, assault rifles have been highly regulated and registered long before that by the National Firearms Act. It was in 1986 that no new assault rifles were allowed to be added to the NFA registry, making them much harder to obtain and much more expensive.

    There are thousands of fully-automatic AR-15 rifles. The M16 is just a very specific configuration of a fully-automatic AR-15, as adopted by the military. It was semi-automatic AR-15's that were later designed for civilian sales (not needing to be registered as machine guns), but full-auto AR-15's have always been available, though much more expensive to obtain after 1986.
    not doubting you, but could you please provide a cite so that I can update my paper?
    I mean about the second part, I know about the first part.
    Last edited by Esanders2008; 02-11-2013 at 12:55 PM.
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    Fixed the part about the NFA


    Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, and even more so since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed. This act made it so no new rifles could be added to the NFA registry, effectively prohibiting their manufacture. (18 USC § 921).
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    Shameless bump. I need more ideas!
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    *snippers*
    There has always been a considerable amount of debate 1)when it comes to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently, 2) however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as 3)the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. 4) I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the laws 5)previously and currently 6)on the books, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.
    1) Reword
    2) Strike
    3) Reword. The civilian version is an AR-10. I would use: Civilian version of AR-style rifles...or something along those lines.
    4) Reword
    5) Redundant...pick one.
    6) It's an academic paper, correct? No, "on the books." Use the term: Statute.

    I recommend you tighten your focus to the terms: Assault Weapon, and Semi-automatic Rifle. It's apparent you have a political agenda; don't let it bleed into your paper. Stick to the terms; stick to defining them; stick to pointing out either/and misinformation and disinformation.

    It may behoove you to scrap the paper, and draw distinction between AR-10, and AR-15. Point out the civilian version, and the so-called "battlefield" version are cosmetically the same, but function differently. Point out the uses a civilian AR-style rifle serves--stay away from "self-defense," and focus on hunting; unless you are looking to poke your instructor in the eye with some hardcore pro-Second Amendment stuff!

    I must warn you...I'm a Libtard.


    The government used to define the term ‘assault weapon’ differently than it does today. In 1994, Congress passed a federal ban on ‘certain semi-automatic assault weapons’, according to Babay. Babay goes on to inform that these weapons were characterized by a rifle having a detachable magazine and at least two military style features, such as flash suppressors and pistol grips, as well as others. This was the old definition.

    The new definition, as proposed by Diane Feinstein in her bill short titled the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”, reduces the number of ‘military features’ allowed to just one. This bill lists six properties that a semi-automatic rifle can have to make it on the list of banned weapons: A pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel.” The bill also lists a host of makes and models of firearms that would be banned, including all AR type models. (United States).

    The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.

    Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning.

    The term ‘assault rifle’ is also sometimes thrown in the mix. The term ‘assault rifle’, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a “military firearm… that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire” (Assault Rifle). This is an important distinction. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed (18 USC § 921).

    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 02-11-2013 at 05:50 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    1) Reword
    2) Strike
    3) Reword. The civilian version is an AR-10. I would use: Civilian version of AR-style rifles...or something along those lines.
    4) Reword
    5) Redundant...pick one.
    6) It's an academic paper, correct? No, "on the books." Use the term: Statute.

    I recommend you tighten your focus to the terms: Assault Weapon, and Semi-automatic Rifle. It's apparent you have a political agenda; don't let it bleed into your paper. Stick to the terms; stick to defining them; stick to pointing out either/and misinformation and disinformation.

    It may behoove you to scrap the paper, and draw distinction between AR-10, and AR-15. Point out the civilian version, and the so-called "battlefield" version are cosmetically the same, but function differently. Point out the uses a civilian AR-style rifle serves--stay away from "self-defense," and focus on hunting; unless you are looking to poke your instructor in the eye with some hardcore pro-Second Amendment stuff!

    I must warn you...I'm a Libtard.
    Unfortunately, I can't 'scrap the paper', since it is due as a 75% rough draft tomorrow morning. Furthermore, the AR-15 IS the civilian version of the M16. The AR-10, is chambered in a completely different caliber (close to .308, vs .223 for the AR-15). Thank you for number 6 though. I was searching for that word but my brain kept coming up short.
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    I've made a few recommended changes, so here is the newest draft:


    There has always been a considerable amount of debate when it comes to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently, however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the previous and current statutes, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.

    The government used to define the term ‘assault weapon’ differently than it does today. In 1994, Congress passed a federal ban on ‘certain semi-automatic assault weapons’, according to Babay. Babay goes on to inform that these weapons were characterized by a rifle having a detachable magazine and at least two military style features, such as flash suppressors and pistol grips, as well as others. This was the old definition.

    The new definition, as proposed by Diane Feinstein in her bill short titled the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”, reduces the number of ‘military features’ allowed to just one. This bill lists six properties that a semi-automatic rifle can have to make it on the list of banned weapons: A pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel.” The bill also lists a host of makes and models of firearms that would be banned, including all AR type models. (United States).

    The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.

    Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning. The individuals that wish to take away one of the basic American freedoms have purposefully chosen this term for its fear factor. By using a term with a negative connotation, they may be able to persuade people who think emotionally, rather that looking at a topic with reason. This has become even more rampant in the wake of the incident in Newtown, Connecticut.

    The term ‘assault rifle’ is also sometimes thrown in the mix. The term ‘assault rifle’, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a “military firearm… that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire” (Assault Rifle). This is an important distinction. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, and even more so since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed. This act made it so no new rifles could be added to the NFA registry, effectively prohibiting their manufacture. (18 USC § 921).

    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    Last edited by Esanders2008; 02-11-2013 at 05:59 PM.
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    Unfortunately, I can't 'scrap the paper', since it is due as a 75% rough draft tomorrow morning. Furthermore, the AR-15 IS the civilian version of the M16. The AR-10, is chambered in a completely different caliber (close to .308, vs .223 for the AR-15). Thank you for number 6 though. I was searching for that word but my brain kept coming up short.
    Precisely why you ought to use the term; AR-style rifle. Since the AR-15, and AR-10, non-FA, are civilian versions of the M-16. I'm not sure if you pointed that out. So: M-16 v. AR-style, AR-15, AR-10, lol.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Precisely why you ought to use the term; AR-style rifle. Since the AR-15, and AR-10, non-FA, are civilian versions of the M-16. I'm not sure if you pointed that out. So: M-16 v. AR-style, AR-15, AR-10, lol.
    Last paragraph:


    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    [QUOTE=Esanders2008;1896537]I've made a few recommended changes, so here is the newest draft:


    There has always been a considerable amount of debate 1)when it comes to the Second Amendment 2)to the United States Constitution. Recently, however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. 3)The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the previous and current statutes, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.

    Just bouncing crapola off you, remember:

    1) Reword: Regarding.
    2) "of the."
    3) You take a kind of weird turn here. There is a number of problems to the theory that banning certain firearms will reduce gun violence. I would strike-out the reason being used for banning firearms, unless you wish to make that part of the paper. Stick to the definitions, throughout the paper...you could write a lengthy paper on Definitions.


    The government used to define the term ‘assault weapon’ differently than it does today. In 1994, Congress passed a federal ban on ‘certain semi-automatic assault weapons’, according to Babay. Babay goes on to inform that these weapons were characterized by a rifle having a detachable magazine and at least two military style features, such as flash suppressors and pistol grips, as well as others. 1)This was the old definition.
    What/who is Babay?
    1) An old definition, or an not accurate one?


    The new definition, as proposed by Diane Feinstein in her bill short titled the 1)“Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”, reduces the number of ‘military features’ allowed to just one. 2)This bill lists six 3)properties that a semi-automatic rifle can have to make it on the list of banned weapons: A pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel.4) 5)The bill also lists a host of makes and models of firearms that would be banned, including all AR type 6)models. (United States).
    1) Comma inside paren.
    2) What Bill? You mean Feinstein's Bill?
    3) Is it "properties," or "attributes"--or something along that line.
    4) Strike
    5) What Bill?
    6) Use something other than Model.


    The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.

    Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning. The individuals that wish to take away one of the basic American freedoms have purposefully chosen this term for its fear factor. By using a term with a negative connotation, they may be able to persuade people who think emotionally, rather that looking at a topic with reason. This has become even more rampant in the wake of the incident in Newtown, Connecticut.

    The term ‘assault rifle’ is also sometimes thrown in the mix. The term ‘assault rifle’, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a “military firearm… that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire” (Assault Rifle). This is an important distinction. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, and even more so since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed. This act made it so no new rifles could be added to the NFA registry, effectively prohibiting their manufacture. (18 USC § 921).

    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    Last paragraph:


    The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
    Nice. I like the little factoid at the end. To be honest with you, I didn't read the full paper until my second post. I didn't want to fire-off a lengthy response, so I stuck with the first paragraph, out the gate.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 02-11-2013 at 06:14 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576
    [QUOTE=Beretta92FSLady;1896546]
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    I've made a few recommended changes, so here is the newest draft:


    There has always been a considerable amount of debate 1)when it comes to the Second Amendment 2)to the United States Constitution. Recently, however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. 3)The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the previous and current statutes, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.

    Just bouncing crapola off you, remember:

    1) Reword: Regarding.
    2) "of the."
    3) You take a kind of weird turn here. There is a number of problems to the theory that banning certain firearms will reduce gun violence. I would strike-out the reason being used for banning firearms, unless you wish to make that part of the paper. Stick to the definitions, throughout the paper...you could write a lengthy paper on Definitions.




    What/who is Babay?
    1) An old definition, or an not accurate one?




    1) Comma inside paren.
    2) What Bill? You mean Feinstein's Bill?
    3) Is it "properties," or "attributes"--or something along that line.
    4) Strike
    5) What Bill?
    6) Use something other than Model.
    Thanks for the suggestions. My wife just got home, and I have to greet her. I'll edit this post to reflect changes.
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I don't like the term "modern sporting rifle" any better. It's a rifle, just that simple.

    Do we call TVs "modern watching TVs" just because they are more capable than the TVs of ten years ago?

    We may describe a TV based on its salient features, 60" plasma or 72" LED. Sometimes we describe rifles similarly, .308 bolt-action or .556 semi-automatic. Folks who refer to rifles by names that don't really describe them have ulterior motives.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't like the term "modern sporting rifle" any better. It's a rifle, just that simple.

    Do we call TVs "modern watching TVs" just because they are more capable than the TVs of ten years ago?

    We may describe a TV based on its salient features, 60" plasma or 72" LED. Sometimes we describe rifles similarly, .308 bolt-action or .556 semi-automatic. Folks who refer to rifles by names that don't really describe them have ulterior motives.
    I call 'em "politician checkers" ... cause they keep them in line

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    As I said, "Folks who refer to rifles by names that don't really describe them have ulterior motives."

    That was meant to be a pejorative comment. It still is.

  19. #19
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Esanders2008 View Post
    The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.
    you could further expand upon this entire paragraph as well, possibly including explanations for each individual characteristic. And a hair further, even explaining the the banned characteristics should in fact be encouraged characteristics because they promote SAFER operation of firearms.
    IE:
    -collapsable stock = adjustable stock. it does NOT make a full sixed rifle become the size of a pistol allowing it to be concealed in a jacket sleeve or a pants pocket. it is simply to allow shooters of various sizes and preferences to fine-tune the distance between shoulder and strong hand to be the most comfortable, have the firmest and safest grip on the firearm, and prevent unintentional discharge and misfires. it isn't exactly safe to have tiny people attempting to fire a ginormous rifle beyond their physical ability, and it isnt quite safe for a large person to fire a gun so small that he/she can barely hold onto it. it is for safety and comfort, comfort being a direct relation to safety.
    -barrel shroud = heat guard + cooling chamber. it serves only two purposes: 1) protects from getting burned by the hottest part of the firearm. and getting burned not only injures the person being burned (obviously), but if burned at an inopportune time, it could case the user to unintentionally fire a round and/or twitch while firing a round intentionally or unintentionally, largely increasing the chance of a stray bullet or poorly aimed bullet making contact with something/someone it was not intended to make contact with. effectively, it prevents innocent children from accidentally being shot. and 2) it creates a chamber around the hot area of the firearm, with cooling ports specifically placed in a manner that encourages ambient temp air to flow through at a higher velocity than it would if there were no shroud. having ports/chambers directs the air specific ways to have the highest effect, similar to an alectric baseboard heater's design as compared to just laying a heating element flat on your livingroom carpet. this enhanced cooling keeps the firearm in better condition for a longer period of time, and allows it to function much more consistently and aim more consistently, all which prevents accidental discharge and improper aiming among many other damaging factors.
    -pistol grip = just a different wrist/arm position, allows the firearm to be handled more comfortably and thus in a much safer manner. it's literally a personal preference. some people feel safer and more comfortable with a standard stock grip, some feel safer and more comfortable with a more vertically angled grip (typically labelled pistol grip)

    and a tidbit you may not need to include, but I feel like sharing it; the flash hider. they realyl don't hide the flash all that much if at all. the alternative is a muzzlebreak which is legal. muzzlebreaks reduce recoil, allowing for faster target aquisition, and higher tolerance of the firearm by the operator; which can be debated to both be safer and less safe, depending on how you look at it affecting the firearm's use. flash hider does not reduce recoil, it just looks kinda kewl, and allows a 14.5" barrel to be used on a firearm requiring a 16" barrel because the flash hider (1.5"+ long) is considered as part of the barrel even though it does not operate as a part of the barrel. and keep in mind a muzzlebreak also is legally deemed as part of the barrel length same as a flash hider.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  20. #20
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't like the term "modern sporting rifle" any better. It's a rifle, just that simple.
    x2
    I know you didn't want to go on a tangent about AR's being used for self defense, but calling it a modern sporting rifle essentially expresses an intentional or unintentional opinion of an AR being only for sporting purposes, eliminating the possibility of it being used for self defense. I would call it something that accurately describes it: semi-automatic rifle, multi-purpose rifle, a firearm chambered for 5.56/.223 ammunition, and so many other possibilities.
    some people buy AR's specifically for sporting purposes, some people buy them specifically for self defense purposes. but ALL of these people buy them knowing they are capable of both, designed for both, and commonly used for both.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  21. #21
    Regular Member Esanders2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    576

    Writing a Paper

    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    x2
    I know you didn't want to go on a tangent about AR's being used for self defense, but calling it a modern sporting rifle essentially expresses an intentional or unintentional opinion of an AR being only for sporting purposes, eliminating the possibility of it being used for self defense. I would call it something that accurately describes it: semi-automatic rifle, multi-purpose rifle, a firearm chambered for 5.56/.223 ammunition, and so many other possibilities.
    some people buy AR's specifically for sporting purposes, some people buy them specifically for self defense purposes. but ALL of these people buy them knowing they are capable of both, designed for both, and commonly used for both.
    My issue is that if a political term has to exist, I would rather MSR than AW.
    ...To make my bullets go faster!

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Writing a Paper

    No, that is the precise tangent I was shooting for. I just didn't get around to mentioning it in my post. Thanks for elaborating.

    The best spokesman for the RKBA ever is Suzanna Gratia-Hupp when she testified before Congress when they proposed the Clinton-era ban. She pointed out that so-called "assault weapons" DID have legitimate defensive purposes, citing the shop owner who held off a mob that would have looted and destroyed his store had he not been on the roof with an "assault weapon."


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    ...and a tidbit you may not need to include, but I feel like sharing it; the flash hider. they realyl don't hide the flash all that much if at all...
    I must disagree with that. I have fired identical .223 rifles side-by-side, at dusk and night, one with a flash hider, one without. The one without had a blinding fireball the size of a pumpkin. The flash hider only had some short jets of fire that hardly even disturbed your night vision. The difference was spectacular.

    That said, a flash hider is not evil. It is for safety of night vision, and less (though not eliminated) chance of giving away your position on a congested battlefield.

    I'm sure the differences would depend on your barrel length and the powder used in your particular ammunition.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-11-2013 at 11:52 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    ...allows a 14.5" barrel to be used on a firearm requiring a 16" barrel because the flash hider (1.5"+ long) is considered as part of the barrel even though it does not operate as a part of the barrel. and keep in mind a muzzlebreak also is legally deemed as part of the barrel length same as a flash hider.
    Good point, but ONLY if the device is "permanently" attached. In other words, attached with a blind pin or welded on, not just screwed on and torqued down.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Posting Permissions

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