Republican Peter King Supports The Ban on Assault Rifles - Polidicks

[QUOTE=laserguided;39083773]Thats not an assault rifle, the first assault rifle designed and deployed was the StG 44.[/QUOTE] Well. No. In mass production, yes. But the first assault rifle designed and deployed was Russian. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat[/url]

I'm not sure why assault rifles are getting all the flak when, for example, Cho killed 37 people with handguns, neither of which had extended magazines (i.e. more than 15 rounds,) and Lanza never touched the AR-15 during his shooting spree.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39083883]Well. No. In mass production, yes. But the first assault rifle designed and deployed was Russian. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat[/url][/QUOTE] Thats a Battle rifle.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39083909]I'm not sure why assault rifles are getting all the flak when, for example, Cho killed 37 people with handguns, neither of which had extended magazines (i.e. more than 15 rounds,) and Lanza never touched the AR-15 during his shooting spree.[/QUOTE] B-b-b-b-but assault rifles name sounds scaaaaaary!

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;39083589]Yeah, let's ban cars too![/QUOTE] Whether or not you agree with the ban, this is a stupid argument. Cars are a pretty necessary form of transportation, and while it's sad to hurt collectors guns are far from a necessity.

[QUOTE=Elspin;39083937]Whether or not you agree with the ban, this is a stupid argument. Cars are a pretty necessary form of transportation, and while it's sad to hurt collectors guns are far from a necessity.[/QUOTE] Banning or getting rid of something because they don't need it is dumb. Why do people need gas guzling sports cars or oversized trucks? Hobby's aren't about need.

[QUOTE=Elspin;39083937]Whether or not you agree with the ban, this is a stupid argument. Cars are a pretty necessary form of transportation, and while it's sad to hurt collectors guns are far from a necessity.[/QUOTE] Actually in the vein that someone can pick up a car and commit vehicular manslaughter, it still stands - sort of. And that 99% of us don't do that. But no, I agree, I'm getting tired of the car argument too - because everyone wants to jump it. It just doesn't hold all too well. If we want to trot a different round, how about alcohol? It's certainly not essential and it causes many deaths. And the number I'm sure, of people who have maimed/killed others under the influence of alcohol, is probably even over 1% per all imbibers. Yet, we don't see anyone going "fuck everyone else, ban alcohol." (Well, we did once, didn't really work out too well.)

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39083988]Banning or getting rid of something because they don't need it is dumb[/QUOTE] No one suggested that

[QUOTE=RobL;39084000]No one suggested that[/QUOTE] I wasn't implying anyone was. I was adding reasoning to the "ban cars" argument.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39084028]I wasn't implying anyone was. I was adding reasoning to the "ban cars" argument.[/QUOTE] Everyone should drive a Honda because I own a Honda, love it, and don't see why anyone would want anything else!

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39083909]I'm not sure why assault rifles are getting all the flak when, for example, Cho killed 37 people with handguns, neither of which had extended magazines (i.e. more than 15 rounds,) and Lanza never touched the AR-15 during his shooting spree.[/QUOTE] They want guns banned period, and if they can ban "assault weapons" they can ban the other guns. It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE=Doom14;39083992]Actually in the vein that someone can pick up a car and commit vehicular manslaughter, it still stands - sort of. And that 99% of us don't do that. But no, I agree, I'm getting tired of the car argument too - because everyone wants to jump it. It just doesn't hold all too well. If we want to trot a different round, how about alcohol? It's certainly not essential and it causes many deaths. And the number I'm sure, of people who have maimed/killed others under the influence of alcohol, is probably even over 1% per all imbibers. Yet, we don't see anyone going "fuck everyone else, ban alcohol." (Well, we did once, didn't really work out too well.)[/QUOTE] Banning assault rifles isn't banning all guns, but banning alcohol is banning... well, all alcohol And just for the sake of this sort of argument, alcohol brings enjoyment and pleasure to a large majority of the population along with playing a role in bonding people socially, whereas assault rifles don't really do any of that and just kill people and damage things

[QUOTE=Fish_poke;39083701][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle[/url][/QUOTE] That's a battle rifle, not assault rifle IIRC fully automatic battle rifles are banned too, not that it matters since most people can't fire them fully automatic anyways

[QUOTE=RobL;39084174]Banning assault rifles isn't banning all guns, but banning alcohol is banning... well, all alcohol And just for the sake of this sort of argument, alcohol brings enjoyment and pleasure to a large majority of the population along with playing a role in bonding people socially, whereas assault rifles don't really do any of that and just kill people and damage things[/QUOTE] I've met a lot of people and made a lot of friends at gun ranges (and even dated a lady friend I met at a range for a while), all while shooting my "assault weapon" (AK-47) thats apparently only capable of killing people and damaging things. Firearms ownership is still a hobby, it's not all that different from building model airplanes or working on cars, or getting drunk every Saturday with friends.

[QUOTE=RobL;39084174]Banning assault rifles isn't banning all guns, but banning alcohol is banning... well, all alcohol And just for the sake of this sort of argument, alcohol brings enjoyment and pleasure to a large majority of the population along with playing a role in bonding people socially, whereas assault rifles don't really do any of that and just kill people and damage things[/QUOTE] And people like either collecting firearms for the sake/history thereof, or want a more powerful home defense/hunting weapon. It's not the most important holy grail in the world to them, but if they're not harming anyone - what's the point? The real danger lies in people and mental health, not weapons. The revised AWB they're trying to pass bans anything with the capability to carry more than ten rounds. Though it's highly unlikely it will pass - that literally bans everything under sun sans old rifles and shotguns with internal magazines of less than 11 that cannot be modified to carry more than 10 in any fashion. That would ban all conventional pistols, all modern rifles - pretty much anything with a detachable magazine. That is, if we're going under "Assault Weapon" as per what silly Congress thinks is an "Assault Weapon." Last time it was just bayonets, silences, bipods - shit that had nothing to do with the weapon really. As per conventional assault files - ala paramilitary type deals (fully automatics)? Those already require a Class III license, I thought, which is a ripe bitch to get. It's no overnight ordeal. (I assume, in most states. I'm not going to call myself an expert.) Why there's suddenly this big renewed hoo-hah over people's imaginations of "assault weapons" is really confusing me. Under the 1994 ban, we haven't even seen that version of AWs used in nearly any crimes. The fact is that most are done with plain ol' generic pistols and shotguns - which is hilarious because even the insane newly proposed AWB wouldn't technically ban all shotguns. :v:

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39083739]Thats a light machine gun, it's too heavy, too big, and shoots a rifle round, so it can't be classified as an assault rifle. Assault rifles shoot a intermediate cartridge, like a 7.62x39mm, or 5.56x39mm.[/QUOTE] It's not a light machine gun either, any machine gun that uses a full sized rifle cartridge qualifies as a medium machine mun or general purpose machine mun (GPM)

[QUOTE=Fish_poke;39083779]>light machine gun It's handheld. You can fire it from your shoulder. You don't need the Bipod to fire it, unlike LMGs where you are going to hit dick all without one. If you want a WWI LMG, it most certainly is not the BAR.[/QUOTE] Good sir, have you considered writing firearms legislation for Congress?

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39083651]Ah another stupid argument. Cars are used all over the world and were not invented to kill life.[/QUOTE] Cars are the modern descendant of the Roman war chariot, used the carry troops into battle. [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39085927]Good sir, have you considered writing firearms legislation for Congress?[/QUOTE] He might write for the New York State Senate: [url]http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1422-2013[/url] [QUOTE]The New York state legislature finds that semi-automatic assault weapons are military-style guns designed to allow rapid and accurate spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans. The shooter can simply point - as opposed to carefully aim - the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with a hail of bullets.[/QUOTE]

Not to get into a debate, but I have a question. Can someone cite a reliable source that says that Lanza didn't use the AR-15 during the shooting? I can't find anything due to the sensationalism that is occurring, and it is really annoying with all of the talk that is advocating for the complete and total ban of such a nice weapon as the AR-15 and any other exotic looking rifle.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39083231]Also the title is wrong assault rifles have been banned since the 20's.[/QUOTE] I can't stand this rhetorical "assault weapon" shit. It's created to deceive.

[QUOTE=Reviized;39087148]Not to get into a debate, but I have a question. Can someone cite a reliable source that says that Lanza didn't use the AR-15 during the shooting? I can't find anything due to the sensationalism that is occurring, and it is really annoying with all of the talk that is advocating for the complete and total ban of such a nice weapon as the AR-15 and any other exotic looking rifle.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;98TV7OFazFU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98TV7OFazFU[/video]

Since some people on here don't really know what an assault rifle is, it's a selective fire rifle that uses a detachable magazine and fires an intermediate cartridge.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39087306][video=youtube;98TV7OFazFU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98TV7OFazFU[/video][/QUOTE] All articles I've seen since then indicated that an AR-15 was used and that the initial reports were inaccurate.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39087758]All articles I've seen since then indicated that an AR-15 was used and that the initial reports were inaccurate.[/QUOTE] Interesting to watch the narrative change, isn't it? 2 handguns, 2 handguns and an AR, 4 handguns, only the AR.

[QUOTE=Fish_poke;39083779]>light machine gun It's handheld. You can fire it from your shoulder. You don't need the Bipod to fire it, unlike LMGs where you are going to hit dick all without one. If you want a WWI LMG, it most certainly is not the BAR.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you got all your firearms knowledge from video games and TV.

I guess maybe this'll get right wingers after Peter King, seeing as his Muslim-American witchhunts haven't made them bat an eye about constitutional rights or anything.

it's great that it's literally impossible to talk about gun control because an army of big fat pedants will nitpick every word used its almost as if some big, powerful, moneyed organization came up with that strategy conciously as a means of stifling debate...

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39083676](Assault rifles didn't exist in the 1920's)[/QUOTE] Automatic weapons in general were all but banned.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39088816]it's great that it's literally impossible to talk about gun control because an army of big fat pedants will nitpick every word used its almost as if some big, powerful, moneyed organization came up with that strategy conciously as a means of stifling debate...[/QUOTE] Maybe if the people wanting to control guns actually knew what they were doing and didn't ban weapons based on false information or how scary they look, it would be less of an issue. I don't mind gun control, to an extent. What I do mind, is people who have no idea what they're talking about, trying to regulate an industry and culture as foreign to them as Mars. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is a key example of shit gun control legislation written and signed by legislators who had no idea what they were doing; it banned weapons based on looks rather than functionality, even more ridiculous when you realise that all the most common murder weapons in this country are all legal under AWB standards. During the ban, the 1997 North Hollywood shootout occured, weapons that were illegal by both normal and AWB standards were used to injure eleven police officers and seven civilians (a miracle that none of them were killed), and prompted the LAPD to issue AR-15's to their SWAT units (the SMG's they had used failed). There's also the fact that the weapons used in the most recent shooting which has started talks about another AWB. Bushmaster in particular is the new favourite scape goat since the recent shooting, despite the fact that none of their rifles (no rifle at all in fact) was used in the shooting.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39089175]Automatic weapons in general were all but banned.[/QUOTE] It was pretty much fair game until the National Firearms Act in 1934, which began to regulate things like machine guns and suppressors. In 1986, as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, the registry was closed to machine guns, so civilians can only buy ones made and registered before then.