Which guns would be banned?

[AbNo]

imported post

Don't worry, I had to look it up to make sure I'd overheard someone correctly.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Under an Obama presidency, a pea shooter will be an assault weapon.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

assault weapon.

You make an interesting point.

I think a lot of people miss the threat that the invention of this small term really posses to us.

They have made-up a phrase that scares everyone and gains support of the masses. Since they made it up, it can be ANYTHING.

Nothing has been done, ever, to combat this pece of propaganda. I have never heard the NRA or the GOA say: "There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon.' It is simply a made-up scarry name that ALL guns are grouped into to trick the unknowing into supporting their cause."

If you do not strike the root...

 

[nepawolf]

imported post

It doesn't matter if it is an assualt weapon, the second ammendment has us covered. All that needs to be said is "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?," and anyone with a minor comprehension of US law should understand that ALL arms are legal to ALL citizens. Whether they like it or not it is a RIGHT and not a privelege and it can't be infringed by law. It has been regularly, but legally it can't be. If anyone in this country were to be so inclined, they could have tomahawk missiles for target shooting or home defense or whatever. As George Washington said, (and I'm paraphraising) anything the military can buy, the people should be able to buy too. I'm not saying that citizens should be able to buy WMD's, but if I want to drive a loaded tank down the road, it doesn't matter what they label it as, I'm legally allowed to do so.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

A tyrant's ears are perpetually deaf to all but his own agenda. Yes, we have those rights, but since generations before me let it slide so far, exactly how shall we restore them?

Knee deep in hot brass.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

rodbender wrote:

assault weapon.

You make an interesting point.

I think a lot of people miss the threat that the invention of this small term really posses to us.

They have made-up a phrase that scares everyone and gains support of the masses. Since they made it up, it can be ANYTHING.

Nothing has been done, ever, to combat this pece of propaganda. I have never heard the NRA or the GOA say: "There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon.' It is simply a made-up scarry name that ALL guns are grouped into to trick the unknowing into supporting their cause."

If you do not strike the root...

As for the term, "assault rifle", there is such a term, but it is horribly misused and deliberately so. We can thank Josh Sugarman for that in 1989 and the press for picking up on it and drilling it into the American public's head. What's truly sad is when gun people use this term when describing firearms that are clearly not assault rifles (or assault weapons now). We are supposed to know better, yet so many gun people have fallen into the same trap and now use this term no differently than those who do not know any better.

 

[TheMrMitch]

imported post

Yeah...don't forget "assault pistols", "automatic revolvers", "cop killer bullets" and a slew of guns that spray thousands of rounds a second, .50 cal rifles that can take out jet planes, low orbit sattellites and blow up tanks.

What goes clip clop BANG clip clop.....? Drive by Amish shooting. With drive by bayonettings running wild too.:banghead:

 

[ecgoin]

imported post

I heard on NBC this morning..an evening news program (didn't catch which one) tonight or Mon. maybe Brian Williams, is going to air a segment on this. We need to take notes and be actively rebutting to anyone with an e-mail or physical address. If you know when it's to be aired, please share. I can't seem to find out for sure.

2nd amendment needs our help.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

I don't know, maybe we should actually embrace the term "assault weapon" since it CLASSIFIES these weapons. As Justice Scalia so aptly put it, banning them would be unconstitutional, since that "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

 

[2a4all]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I don't know, maybe we should actually embrace the term "assault weapon" since it CLASSIFIES these weapons. As Justice Scalia so aptly put it, banning them would be unconstitutional, since that "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

Virginia already defines an "assault firearm".

A search of http://leg1.state.va.us/000/lst/LS918266.HTM reveals

• 18.2-308.2:01 [size="-1"](show hits)[/size] ..Possession or transportation of certain firearms by certain persons.. (3)
• 18.2-308.2:2 [size="-1"](show hits)[/size] ..Criminal history record information check required for the transfer of certain fi.. (3)
• 18.2-308.7 [size="-1"](show hits)[/size] ..Possession or transportation of certain firearms by persons under the age of 18;.. (2)

Note that shotguns are only mentioned in the definition in 18.2-308.7.

The descriptions given in 18.2-308.2[:01, :2] also appear in other statues (e.g. concealed handguns).

Also note that only firearms "...designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock..." are classified as "assault firearms".

So I guess if you did a little "after market" gunsmithing, you wouldn't have an "assault firearm"?

 

[.40 Cal]

imported post

Would these be banned?

 

[longwatch]

imported post

All those pictured have been at one time or another.

 

[.40 Cal]

imported post

I couldn't live without my Nagant!