A little education on so called "assault weapons"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope all you "Urban Mommies" enjoy life when the only weapons you and your families have to protect yourselves against murder, rape, etc are based on physical force, e.g. baseball bat, knife, etc. A firearm is the equalizer between you and a far more physically powerful attacker. Gun rights = women's rights. Good luck with your ban.

Sorry, guns don't have rights, as much as the NRA wants to glorify them as social equalizers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all you "Urban Mommies" enjoy life when the only weapons you and your families have to protect yourselves against murder, rape, etc are based on physical force, e.g. baseball bat, knife, etc. A firearm is the equalizer between you and a far more physically powerful attacker. Gun rights = women's rights. Good luck with your ban.

Sorry, guns don't have rights, as much as the NRA wants to glorify them as social equalizers.

We have a right to own them. Country was founded on it. You like getting on here to say what you want. Thats the 1A, and the 2A protects the first.

[Anonymous]

OK OP, ignoramus here. I'd like to ban the sale of guns that are designed to kill a lot of people really quickly. OK?

Keep your shot gun and deer rifle. Everything else should be off the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of rifles in this country are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means that for each pull of the trigger one and only one bullet is fired. The AR15 style rifle that is being portrayed as an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR15 are not fully-automatic. Fully-automatic means that for every pull of the trigger multiple bullets are fired. Fully-automatic rifle are heavily regulated, extremely rare, and extremely expensive. And by expensive I mead upward up $20,000. And although the semi-automatic AR15 looks like the rifle that is used in the military it is very very different. The military version is fully-automatic. Contrary to what the media is telling us, semi-automatic rifles like the AR15 do not spray bullets.

The term "assault weapon" is being used to describe semi-automatic rifles because it is similar to the term "assault-rifle" which technically describes fully-automatic rifles.

That actually describes what I thought of as an "assault weapon" pretty well! I wasn't envisioning a machine gun. Just a gun where you can fire maybe one bullet every 5 seconds. Bam. Bam... Bam.... like that. Is that about how fast they can fire, OP?

It sounds pretty bad to me. And I can't see why you would need an AR15 for hunting either. I hope this weapon will be banned.

Oh i see. You describe every modern gun. Single shot bolt actions aka Hunting guns aka sniper rifles, and shot guns and revolvers and semi automatic pistols. So in your mind every guns is an assault weapon. Thus we conclude you wish to ban every gun. Congrats ! You are a super genius!

Most guns, probably, if they are all as fast as you are saying. Are they?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/how_many_times_can_you_shoot_a_handgun_in_seven_minutes.html

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of gunning down 13 people at Fort Hood on Thursday, managed to fire 100 rounds with a semiautomatic handgun between the start of his rampage at 1:20 p.m. and the time he was shot at 1:27 p.m. How many rounds can a handgun shoot in seven minutes?
At least 1,500. Modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a round and load the next bullet into the chamber faster than even the nimblest of fingers can pull the trigger. FBI studies have shown that a novice can fire three shots in less than a second, and a trained shooter can double that. (Two of the officers in the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting emptied their 16-bullet magazines in about four seconds.) That means an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan's gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. You just press the magazine release button with your shooting hand and insert the new magazine into the grip with your offhand. * Experts holster extra ammunition on the side of their nonshooting hand to speed the exchange and can have the new magazine loaded before the empty one hits the ground. So each 20-round magazine would take no more than 5.3 seconds, including time to reload. That means you could fire off 1,575 shots in seven minutes—provided you were carrying 79 magazines on your person.

Seriously? All guns are like this, you say? I didn't realize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all you "Urban Mommies" enjoy life when the only weapons you and your families have to protect yourselves against murder, rape, etc are based on physical force, e.g. baseball bat, knife, etc. A firearm is the equalizer between you and a far more physically powerful attacker. Gun rights = women's rights. Good luck with your ban.

Sorry, guns don't have rights, as much as the NRA wants to glorify them as social equalizers.

We have a right to own them. Country was founded on it. You like getting on here to say what you want. Thats the 1A, and the 2A protects the first.

No the 2a doesn't protect the first.

The judicial branch of the government protects out 1st Amendment rights, and they do it without needing citizens carrying guns to do it.

The ACLU also helps out, again without using gins, or needing to carry guns or keep them in their homes.

You are providing a romanticized interpretation of how important the second amendment is that really has no bearing on the 1st amendment at all.

[Anonymous]

OK gun person -- how many rounds of a modern revolver can you fire in a minute? Seems a lot slower. Are people using these revolvers in mass shootings?

The slowest handguns on the market are revolvers, which hold five or six bullets in multichambered cylinders. The original revolvers were single-action—in between shots, the user had to cock the gun with either the thumb of his shooting hand or the thumb or palm of his nondominant hand. (Still, a skilled shooter could squeeze off five or six rounds pretty quickly.) Modern double-action revolvers don't require this extra motion, but the triggers are much stiffer than those of semiautomatic pistols—12 pounds of finger force is required, as opposed to five or six. Reloading is also more complicated. Placing the bullets into the chamber individually can take several seconds. A speed loader, a plastic device that lines up over the chambers and drops the bullets in at the turn of a knob, is faster but still can't match the speed of a semiautomatic pistol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 2A is not about hunting, lets just look to china to how it takes care of its people, who dont have guns......
Not well. The 2A never mentions 'guns are only for hunting'. If read right, then if the military has it, so should we.

If you are part of a well regulated militia... that is.... loners and "do it my own way individualists" need not apply....

[Anonymous]

And if the judicial branch gets packed with activist judges who strip away our rights? And if the ACLU gets rendered ineffective, or branded a "terrorist organization" by our overzealous and growing DHS? Enjoy your boxcar ride, comrade!

Soap Box
Mail Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Cartridge Box

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of rifles in this country are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means that for each pull of the trigger one and only one bullet is fired. The AR15 style rifle that is being portrayed as an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR15 are not fully-automatic. Fully-automatic means that for every pull of the trigger multiple bullets are fired. Fully-automatic rifle are heavily regulated, extremely rare, and extremely expensive. And by expensive I mead upward up $20,000. And although the semi-automatic AR15 looks like the rifle that is used in the military it is very very different. The military version is fully-automatic. Contrary to what the media is telling us, semi-automatic rifles like the AR15 do not spray bullets.

The term "assault weapon" is being used to describe semi-automatic rifles because it is similar to the term "assault-rifle" which technically describes fully-automatic rifles.

That actually describes what I thought of as an "assault weapon" pretty well! I wasn't envisioning a machine gun. Just a gun where you can fire maybe one bullet every 5 seconds. Bam. Bam... Bam.... like that. Is that about how fast they can fire, OP?

It sounds pretty bad to me. And I can't see why you would need an AR15 for hunting either. I hope this weapon will be banned.

Oh i see. You describe every modern gun. Single shot bolt actions aka Hunting guns aka sniper rifles, and shot guns and revolvers and semi automatic pistols. So in your mind every guns is an assault weapon. Thus we conclude you wish to ban every gun. Congrats ! You are a super genius!

Most guns, probably, if they are all as fast as you are saying. Are they?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/how_many_times_can_you_shoot_a_handgun_in_seven_minutes.html

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of gunning down 13 people at Fort Hood on Thursday, managed to fire 100 rounds with a semiautomatic handgun between the start of his rampage at 1:20 p.m. and the time he was shot at 1:27 p.m. How many rounds can a handgun shoot in seven minutes?
At least 1,500. Modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a round and load the next bullet into the chamber faster than even the nimblest of fingers can pull the trigger. FBI studies have shown that a novice can fire three shots in less than a second, and a trained shooter can double that. (Two of the officers in the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting emptied their 16-bullet magazines in about four seconds.) That means an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan's gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. You just press the magazine release button with your shooting hand and insert the new magazine into the grip with your offhand. * Experts holster extra ammunition on the side of their nonshooting hand to speed the exchange and can have the new magazine loaded before the empty one hits the ground. So each 20-round magazine would take no more than 5.3 seconds, including time to reload. That means you could fire off 1,575 shots in seven minutes—provided you were carrying 79 magazines on your person.

Seriously? All guns are like this, you say? I didn't realize.

yes but they are limits. as if you had say one pistol and a bunch of mags. then wanted to shoot them all at once as fast as you can. well your finger and hands would be very tired and you would shoot slower and slower. imagine 100 flights of stairs you wish to run up. go as fast as you can. first few will be fast, but on the 5th, 10th, 20th flight well you probably wont be going as fast as the first.

not to mention the gun would become so hot it would be hard to hold.

but really anyone can be taught to reload in a few seconds. with practice you can do it in one or two seconds. so arguments on limiting magazine size are quite silly as all you did was buy people some extra seconds. literally. seconds

do you really want to make felons out of people for the mere possession of magazines ? i guess some of you do. *shurg*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if the judicial branch gets packed with activist judges who strip away our rights? And if the ACLU gets rendered ineffective, or branded a "terrorist organization" by our overzealous and growing DHS? Enjoy your boxcar ride, comrade!

Soap Box
Mail Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Cartridge Box

You are going to what? Overthrow the government with your guns, if you don't get your way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK gun person -- how many rounds of a modern revolver can you fire in a minute? Seems a lot slower. Are people using these revolvers in mass shootings?

The slowest handguns on the market are revolvers, which hold five or six bullets in multichambered cylinders. The original revolvers were single-action—in between shots, the user had to cock the gun with either the thumb of his shooting hand or the thumb or palm of his nondominant hand. (Still, a skilled shooter could squeeze off five or six rounds pretty quickly.) Modern double-action revolvers don't require this extra motion, but the triggers are much stiffer than those of semiautomatic pistols—12 pounds of finger force is required, as opposed to five or six. Reloading is also more complicated. Placing the bullets into the chamber individually can take several seconds. A speed loader, a plastic device that lines up over the chambers and drops the bullets in at the turn of a knob, is faster but still can't match the speed of a semiautomatic pistol.

in one minute i bet someone with minimal practice could do 30 or 40 easy. that includes time for reloads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: as if you had say one pistol and a bunch of mags. then wanted to shoot them all at once as fast as you can. well your finger and hands would be very tired and you would shoot slower and slower. imagine 100 flights of stairs you wish to run up. go as fast as you can. first few will be fast, but on the 5th, 10th, 20th flight well you probably wont be going as fast as the first.

not to mention the gun would become so hot it would be hard to hold.

but really anyone can be taught to reload in a few seconds. with practice you can do it in one or two seconds. so arguments on limiting magazine size are quite silly as all you did was buy people some extra seconds. literally. seconds

do you really want to make felons out of people for the mere possession of magazines ? i guess some of you do. *shurg*

Honestly it is all Greek to me. I don't know a lot about guns and I don't really want to.

But let's make it easy. How about this:

You can only own guns that would allow the average, typical user, to kill, say, ... I don't know.... what's reasonable? 3-5 people per minute? Keeping in mind whatever physical limitations on reloading, trigger finger fatigue, etc. you deem appropriate.

So just ban the weapons that allow civilians to kill more than three people per minute.

Now, if you are going to tell me that ALL modern firearms give you the ability to kill 3-5 people per minute.... I am going to cry. Because I seriously didn't know that.

As for making someone a felon for the "mere" possession of magazines? Well... I don't know. If through the democratic process, the majority of "we the people" decide to elect people who working democratically, make laws outlawing a certain type of gun, or magazines, or whatever... yes, I do expect you to follow the law, or else be a felon. Yes, I do.

*shrug* Someone who cares so much about his 2nd amendment rights should probably care equally about the rest of the Constitution, and the democratic process as carried out in the US of A. I should hope.

I'm getting a little concerned about all the posters who seem to think the Second Amendment is there to allow for overthrow of our democracy whenever things the democratic process happens to go against their preferences!

[Anonymous]

Please take a few minutes to watch this report.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8091875

Banning guns is not the answer. We need to create a different mentality. The framers of the constitution intended for us to be an armed society! Don't believe me? Read a history book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: as if you had say one pistol and a bunch of mags. then wanted to shoot them all at once as fast as you can. well your finger and hands would be very tired and you would shoot slower and slower. imagine 100 flights of stairs you wish to run up. go as fast as you can. first few will be fast, but on the 5th, 10th, 20th flight well you probably wont be going as fast as the first.

not to mention the gun would become so hot it would be hard to hold.

but really anyone can be taught to reload in a few seconds. with practice you can do it in one or two seconds. so arguments on limiting magazine size are quite silly as all you did was buy people some extra seconds. literally. seconds

do you really want to make felons out of people for the mere possession of magazines ? i guess some of you do. *shurg*

Honestly it is all Greek to me. I don't know a lot about guns and I don't really want to.

But let's make it easy. How about this:

You can only own guns that would allow the average, typical user, to kill, say, ... I don't know.... what's reasonable? 3-5 people per minute? Keeping in mind whatever physical limitations on reloading, trigger finger fatigue, etc. you deem appropriate.

So just ban the weapons that allow civilians to kill more than three people per minute.

Now, if you are going to tell me that ALL modern firearms give you the ability to kill 3-5 people per minute.... I am going to cry. Because I seriously didn't know that.

As for making someone a felon for the "mere" possession of magazines? Well... I don't know. If through the democratic process, the majority of "we the people" decide to elect people who working democratically, make laws outlawing a certain type of gun, or magazines, or whatever... yes, I do expect you to follow the law, or else be a felon. Yes, I do.

*shrug* Someone who cares so much about his 2nd amendment rights should probably care equally about the rest of the Constitution, and the democratic process as carried out in the US of A. I should hope.

I'm getting a little concerned about all the posters who seem to think the Second Amendment is there to allow for overthrow of our democracy whenever things the democratic process happens to go against their preferences!

ill just reply to the part in bold. That criteria includes every modern and not so modern gun out there.

Revolvers. Shot guns. Hunting Rifles. Pistols. Single shot guns. Muskets. Every single one of them. So what you are proposing is a ban on everything.

I do find it an odd criteria. As i can kill 3-5 people in a minute with a knife. A Bat, A Car, a swimming pool. A golf club, my fists etc etc the list is endless.

as fo the i expect people to obey the law. would you obey a law, duly passed in a democratic process that required you to punch a black woman in the face each hour? or how about i make it easier. would you obey a law that required a black person to sit in the back of a bus or require then to drink out of a black only water fountain ?

law is the law right? those laws were passed where the majority of "we the people" elected people to make laws outlawing the sharing of water fountains with the darkies. All A-OK, Right ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please take a few minutes to watch this report.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8091875

Banning guns is not the answer. We need to create a different mentality. The framers of the constitution intended for us to be an armed society! Don't believe me? Read a history book.

The framers intended us to have slavery, too. Well, they were wrong and we changed it.