CarpeDiem3 0 #26 November 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote "But, it's not technically an assault weapon!" According to your understanding, what is the legal definition of an assault weapon? Whatever the government says it is. so you don't personally have an understanding of what you would like to see removed from the public. That's what I take from that statement in response to my question. Because he, like most, do not know where term came from or what it ACTUALLY means. It doesn't matter what it meant originally back in WWII when the concept was created. Since then, the government has redefined it to mean something else. And that's what they're regulating with the assault weapon ban. So it no longer matters what it meant in WWII - that's past history only. What matters now is what the definition means NOW. If the government bans AR15's as assault weapons, and your defense is that AR-15's weren't assault weapons in WWII, then you'll lose. Have fun sitting in prison, explaining to your fellow criminals how you're innocent because assault weapons are only machineguns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #27 November 28, 2012 QuoteHave you had a twinkie recently? Not to worry about the Hostess Bakery shut down, resulting in 18,000 laid-off workers. The government is going to help them all out. The Obama administration will hire all of these terminated employees: The State Department will hire the Twinkies, the Secret Service will hire the Ho Hos, the Army generals will sleep with the Cupcakes, and all the Ding Dongs are going to work for Congress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #28 November 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteHave you had a twinkie recently? Not to worry about the Hostess Bakery shut down, resulting in 18,000 laid-off workers. The government is going to help them all out. The Obama administration will hire all of these terminated employees: The State Department will hire the Twinkies, the Secret Service will hire the Ho Hos, the Army generals will sleep with the Cupcakes, and all the Ding Dongs are going to work for Congress. And the Muslims get appointed to leadership positions in national security agencies.Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #29 November 28, 2012 >And the Muslims get appointed to leadership positions in national security agencies. Next thing you know they'll be letting Jews into the treasury department . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #30 November 28, 2012 Thanks for the info. I can see that there are some legitimate reasons to have concern over losing some access to guns. Obama does seem to be anti-gun, but I don't get the impression that any kind of extreme gun regulation is at the top of his agenda (as some of my paranoid facebook friends seem to think). And even if he actually does want to take everyone's guns away (which I doubt), I don't think he could get very far with that. Anyhow, I'm sure the gun industry is loving having four more years of Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #31 November 28, 2012 I thought we already had one "at the top". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #32 November 29, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote "But, it's not technically an assault weapon!" According to your understanding, what is the legal definition of an assault weapon? Whatever the government says it is. so you don't personally have an understanding of what you would like to see removed from the public. That's what I take from that statement in response to my question. Because he, like most, do not know where term came from or what it ACTUALLY means. It doesn't matter what it meant originally back in WWII when the concept was created. Since then, the government has redefined it to mean something else. And that's what they're regulating with the assault weapon ban. So it no longer matters what it meant in WWII - that's past history only. What matters now is what the definition means NOW. If the government bans AR15's as assault weapons, and your defense is that AR-15's weren't assault weapons in WWII, then you'll lose. Have fun sitting in prison, explaining to your fellow criminals how you're innocent because assault weapons are only machineguns. You're still wrong, the GOv can't figure it out them selves, DF hasn't a clue, and of course you can't use it on your argument, since you don't know what one is either. The term "Assault Rifle" is younger than you think, very well defined by a set of parameters (that gun ban folks seem to forget), and requires a Class 3 FFL for a common citizen to even ask for the chance to purchase. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #33 November 29, 2012 Despite my very clear answer in the other thread, he obviously doesn't know what an assault weapon is. The military definition includes burst or auto fire which, as you said, requires dealign with NFA hassles. The AWB law defines assault weapons by purely cosmetic features. If you take off something like a bayonet lug, suddenly your AR is NOT an assault weapon. I will never understand why these people call .223 semi-auto black rifles "high power" guns.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #34 November 29, 2012 Because they think it sounds like something average citizens shouldn't have. And you DO remember all the drive-by bayonettings that were thwarted by the AWB, don't you? And all the people beat to death with the pistol grip? And the way the flash suppressor made them pass through metal detectors unnoticed? How about how the collapsible stock was used to crush baby seal heads?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #35 November 29, 2012 QuoteDespite my very clear answer in the other thread, he obviously doesn't know what an assault weapon is. The military definition includes burst or auto fire which, as you said, requires dealign with NFA hassles. The AWB law defines assault weapons by purely cosmetic features. If you take off something like a bayonet lug, suddenly your AR is NOT an assault weapon. I will never understand why these people call .223 semi-auto black rifles "high power" guns. You are both confusing the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" One is a technical term, based on function, capabilities and intended use. The other is a generic term promoted by anti-gunners and defined by politicians and bureacrats. It's based on emotion and primarily addressed cosmetic features, not actual function. They took rifles that look scary and gave them a scary name. And, like often happens in advertising, they used a name that is similar, but not the same as the correct name for something they want the public to mistake for what they are promoting. And the useful idiots fell for it (not surprising)."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #36 November 29, 2012 QuoteYou are both confusing the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" One is a technical term, based on function, capabilities and intended use. The other is a generic term promoted by anti-gunners and defined by politicians and bureacrats. That's what I keep telling them. But they keep clinging to the idea that only machineguns are assault weapons, and they'll take that belief all the way to prison when their illegal semi-auto AR15's are confiscated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #37 November 29, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou are both confusing the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" One is a technical term, based on function, capabilities and intended use. The other is a generic term promoted by anti-gunners and defined by politicians and bureacrats. That's what I keep telling them. But they keep clinging to the idea that only machineguns are assault weapons, and they'll take that belief all the way to prison when their illegal semi-auto AR15's are confiscated. Semi-autos are not illegal. Full-autos are. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #38 November 29, 2012 Are we talking about an "assault weapon ban" or current fully automatic weapons laws? Political definitions of weapons is a minefield. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #39 November 29, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are both confusing the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" One is a technical term, based on function, capabilities and intended use. The other is a generic term promoted by anti-gunners and defined by politicians and bureacrats. That's what I keep telling them. But they keep clinging to the idea that only machineguns are assault weapons, and they'll take that belief all the way to prison when their illegal semi-auto AR15's are confiscated. Semi-autos are not illegal. Full-autos are. Not now. But we're talking about the assault weapon ban, and when that was in effect, some semi-autos became illegal to purchase, or even to own in some places like California. And if the assault weapon ban is re-nstituted as Obama rightfully wants to do, then this wouild be the situation once again. If you think just because your AR15 is a semi-auto that it won't be in jeopardy, then you're wrong. Even machineguns aren't currently illegal. You just have to do some special paperwork and pay a fee to own one. That needs to change too. It's ironic how all these gun guys don't seem to understand the gun laws under which they operate. And me, a gun-hater, knows more about gun laws than they do. Ha! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #40 November 29, 2012 Oh wise one, let us eat the crumbs from your table. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #41 November 29, 2012 I was only trying to correct his statement about semi-auto owners. As far as I'm concerned, there is too much knee-jerk on the part of a minority of people who don't like guns. I also feel that there is a lack of common sense about guns by this minority. Preventing honest sensible citizens from owning guns is not the answer. The bad guys will still have guns. I can understand going after abusers of gun laws. To deny good citizens their right to own guns is just not the answer. I'm tired of 'bubble-dwelling' minorities trying to control the majority of our country. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #42 November 29, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou are both confusing the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" One is a technical term, based on function, capabilities and intended use. The other is a generic term promoted by anti-gunners and defined by politicians and bureacrats. That's what I keep telling them. But they keep clinging to the idea that only machineguns are assault weapons, and they'll take that belief all the way to prison when their illegal semi-auto AR15's are confiscated. Semi-autos are not illegal. Full-autos are. Not now. But we're talking about the assault weapon ban, and when that was in effect, some semi-autos became illegal to purchase, or even to own in some places like California. And if the assault weapon ban is re-nstituted as Obama rightfully wants to do, then this wouild be the situation once again. If you think just because your AR15 is a semi-auto that it won't be in jeopardy, then you're wrong. Even machineguns aren't currently illegal. You just have to do some special paperwork and pay a fee to own one. That needs to change too. It's ironic how all these gun guys don't seem to understand the gun laws under which they operate. And me, a gun-hater, knows more about gun laws than they do. Ha! Have you personally ever been on the 'business end' of a gun or had a bad experience with a gun that caused you to hate guns? Or do you just fear and hate something that you don't understand? Obama is wrong in denying us our 2nd. ammendment right to keep and bear arms. Like I said earlier, I'm tired of being pushed around by people like you. You want your rights and privilages as you like them. Well, so do a lot of other people in this country. Maybe, if you gun haters would get mad enough about the 'bad guys' who have guns and do something about them, you might get somewhere. Get this straight, not all gun owners are out to kill you!! Just because honest citizens own guns does not mean they are suddenly evil. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #43 November 29, 2012 At first I thought this Sock Puppet was Dream Dancer but he is so obsessed with guns that I now am also suspecting that its JR trying to wrong foot us by pretending to be a 'Gun O phobe' as JR would have said in his previous incarnation.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 36 #44 November 29, 2012 Quote What exactly did Obama say about taking guns away? No fear, he's unlikely to take the Shotguns away... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #45 November 29, 2012 Quote Quote What exactly did Obama say about taking guns away? No fear, he's unlikely to take the Shotguns away... Really? http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/258513/"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #46 November 29, 2012 A little help... Full autos are not illegal. Silencer are not illegal (I have two). Sawed off shotguns are not illegal. This is all under federal law. States can have more restrictive laws. Full autos, silencers and sawed off shotguns were taxed specially because they were highly favored by the gangs of the 1920's. At the time, a tommy gun was $50. So, the feds quadrupled that number and made the transfer tax on an auto or a silencer $200. To own one, you must fill out paper in duplicate and send it in with your transfer tax to the BATF. In about 90 days, they will notify you and your dealer that you are cleared and send you one set of your paperwork back with tax stamps on it like you see on cigarettes. This is your proof that you have paid your tax. You are now good to go. If you sell the device, the new purchaser has to go through the same routine. Oddly, sawed off shotguns and some other deadly devices like grenade launcers only have a $5 tax, but you have to do the same paperwork. Hope that helps.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #47 November 29, 2012 Yessir, understood and agreed! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #48 November 29, 2012 I noticed a bit of obsession with guns in all the posts on the subject. I don't think DD could inundate us with that many posts on the subject. Now that you mention it, it does sound a little fishy. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #49 November 29, 2012 Good info! Thanks! Here in Texas, it is now legal to hunt game using suppressors! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #50 November 29, 2012 QuoteAt first I thought this Sock Puppet was Dream Dancer but he is so obsessed with guns that I now am also suspecting that its JR trying to wrong foot us by pretending to be a 'Gun O phobe' as JR would have said in his previous incarnation. I thought DD at first too, but it's absolutely JR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
