And here they come for the guns...

[baldgriff]

According to the Washington Examiner:

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

http://http://www.washingtonexaminer...rticle/2650087


Almost all guns are semi-automatic.

[Teenwolf]

Time to exercise your constitutional rights to form a militia!

[baldgriff]

I dont own any guns - but I get completely frustrated when I hear people say that the Dems dont want to take your guns. They do want to disarm people. It starts with this

1 - We need to stop the use of "assault rifles"
2 - Well assault rifles have been taken - but these other rifles fire at the same rate
3 - Oh wait - these pistols also fire at the same rate as the rifles above.....

This introduced bill may be a bit of a misstep in the process as it jumps straight to step 3.

Honestly - all semi-automatic weapons will fire at roughly the same rate, essentially as fast as you can pull the trigger. They have been able to do that for almost 100 years now.

[TranaGreg]

... but I get completely frustrated when I hear people say that the Dems dont want to take your guns. They do want to disarm people. ...

I get completely frustrated when somebody says "the dems want", or "the repubs want", as though it's a common trait that everyone in the party share. It just further polarizes the discussion (which is actually something that you've complained about in the past).

[baldgriff]

Actually - the Republicans dont want to take the guns from people. The Dems want to eliminate "assualt weapons" from our streets - it is part of the Democratic Party Platform for 2016.

http://http://www.presidency.ucsb.ed...pdf/117717.pdf

page 39 "To build on the success of
the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen
background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections
gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large
capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets.

And as we all know (or I hope we do now). The term assault weapon is just a way of classifying certain semi-automatic weapons based on various cosmetic attributes. So back to my post above - if

we can 1 eliminate the scary assault weapon, then 2 and 3 fall in line because they operate at the same rate of fire as those scary assault weapons do.

Trana -
I dont expect that all Dems believe that - however, the National Party platform is to rid these guns from the streets. Its in their documentation. So when I say the Dems want to take the guns - they want to take the guns.

And yes I do believe that if they can get step one they will work towards step 3 - which is why I say I think they jumped there plan a bit quickly.

[Mithrandir]

According to the Washington Examiner:

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

http://http://www.washingtonexaminer...rticle/2650087


Almost all guns are semi-automatic.

The link isn't loading.

[baldgriff]

The link isn't loading.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2650087

New link

[gcstomp]

Assault weapons ban. The majority of public does not want such easy availability of AR 15 which is the go to weapon for mass shootings. Las Vegas concert. An Orlando night club. An elementary school in Newtown, Conn. A Texas church. School in Parkland, AR 15.

We all read the doctors account of vast difference between the wounds suffered by a pistol, and that which was described as a weapon of war with 3 times the penetrating power. Pistol leaves a thin pencil trail through an organ, likely resulting in survival of victim unless shooter was highly skilled. The other weapon explodes the organ like a mallet to a water balloon, and ruptures surrounding tissue. The majority of public, democrats, as well as majority of republicans want a ban on what is perceived to be a very narrow band of weapons. Shouldnt a majority position in the overall pop of a country hold weight? Doesnt matter, of course nothing can proceed without the go ahead of nra who has bought and paid for congress.

[gcstomp]

BTW, I think congress should mirror the population it purports to represent, rather than congress following lead of nra. I know that is not way world works, and its vastly more likely we will be rid of all fossil fuel burning vehicles, plus all carbonated sugary beverages, before we give up guns. Its more headed to a gun in every crib as a more ubiquitous item than tube socks and t-shirts with silly printing.

[baldgriff]

Just for clarification (again).... I dont now or ever have owned a gun. I am not or ever have been a member of the NRA.

Wound size is proportional to the size of the bullet and velocity of the bullet being used. Hand guns have smaller bullets so they may do less damage than a rifle. However, if you look at the entry and exit wounds from a 45 caliber the entry is a dime and the exit is almost a half dollar hole. Additionally, some bullets are manufactured to do more damage internally than others - typically this would be for use when hunting larger animals. The argument in and of itself in my mind is inane - so are we now asking for "safer bullets"? I think we all understand that bullets do damage, which is why they are used over and over and over again to shoot animals from ducks to bears. The size of the bullet is relative to the size of the game you are hunting.

I just dont understand why we are trying to legislate to the .0001% of a percentage of illegal usage regarding these weapons. There are over 5 Million AR-15's in peoples houses currently. Of those 5 million rifles - a minuscule percentage of them get used illegally. Seriously, we are talking less than 1 percent of these guns. What type gun gets used more often in a crime? Hand guns account for a large percentage of gun crime.

http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/22/fa...with-handguns/

"Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data. Handguns killed nine times as many persons as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders."
““Little wonder then that a 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the federal ban [on assault rifles] didn’t lead to any decrease in gun crime or gun deaths. For starters, rifles, assault or otherwise, are rarely used in gun crime,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA Law School, wrote in a 2015 Los Angeles Times op-ed.

Gun crime in the U.S. is “overwhelmingly handgun crime,” he wrote.


What is being perceived as a "very narrow band of weapons" in fact is essentially an attack on all semi-automatic rifles. The term assault weapon has absolutely NOTHING to do with the guns ability to fire. These assault weapons are semi-automatic weapons that fire at the pull of the trigger. One pull - one bullet. Popular hunting rifles also are semi-automatic and fire just as fast as the scary assault weapon. The only thing that makes these semi-auto weapons "assault weapons" are the accessories.
There is no functional difference. So I go back to if you ban the "assault weapon" step 2 and step 3 of my premise become more and more real.

The AR 15 was made in the 1950's, and other gun manufacturers started before that. So we have had these guns available in our homes - used for hunting for almost 75 years. What has changed in that 75 years that makes the AR-15 or other comparable guns any more dangerous now than they were before?

[The Feral Slasher]

What has changed in that 75 years that makes the AR-15 or other comparable guns any more dangerous now than they were before?

Well clearly something has changed if you look at how many people they are used to kill compared to 75 years ago. It's probably easier to restrict access to AR-15's than try to get agreement on what it is that has changed and figure out how to fix it, if it can even be fixed

[baldgriff]

These are capable of the same rate of fire and use the same bullets.

Guns.jpg


One could conceivably modify the wooden stock to a plastic stock and get a pistol grip - they are essentially comparable so banning one over the other is silly as banning one still leaves other semi-automatic weapons "legal" and they can do the same damage. These weird semi-automatic guns have been around for over a century (and available to the public).

[baldgriff]

Well clearly something has changed if you look at how many people they are used to kill compared to 75 years ago. It's probably easier to restrict access to AR-15's than try to get agreement on what it is that has changed and figure out how to fix it, if it can even be fixed

Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data. Handguns killed nine times as many persons as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders. (from prior post)

These rifles are not the problem - it is the illegal usage of the hand guns causing the murders.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Assault weapons ban. The majority of public does not want such easy availability of AR 15 which is the go to weapon for mass shootings. Las Vegas concert. An Orlando night club. An elementary school in Newtown, Conn. A Texas church. School in Parkland, AR 15.

We all read the doctors account of vast difference between the wounds suffered by a pistol, and that which was described as a weapon of war with 3 times the penetrating power. Pistol leaves a thin pencil trail through an organ, likely resulting in survival of victim unless shooter was highly skilled. The other weapon explodes the organ like a mallet to a water balloon, and ruptures surrounding tissue. The majority of public, democrats, as well as majority of republicans want a ban on what is perceived to be a very narrow band of weapons. Shouldnt a majority position in the overall pop of a country hold weight? Doesnt matter, of course nothing can proceed without the go ahead of nra who has bought and paid for congress.

What the doctor wrote about was basically the difference between a handgun and a rifle. A rifle has much higher muzzle velocity, therefore it is going to do a lot more damage. The vast majority of shootings are committed with handguns because they are easy to carry and conceal. But if a shooting is committed with a rifle, all else equal, it will be more deadly.

[Mithrandir]

These are capable of the same rate of fire and use the same bullets.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1042[/ATTACH]


One could conceivably modify the wooden stock to a plastic stock and get a pistol grip - they are essentially comparable so banning one over the other is silly as banning one still leaves other semi-automatic weapons "legal" and they can do the same damage. These weird semi-automatic guns have been around for over a century (and available to the public).

In the picture the top gun doesn't look like it can shoot 30 rounds. Where are the 30 bullets coming from? The bottom gun has the cartridge attached so i can see the where the 30 rounds are stored. Does that make sense?