So Homes used an assualt rifle? Really?

Bingo.

Use defines purpose. The "original intent" argument is asinine.

 

That looks like a Finnish Mosin Nagant....?

 

I don't think this is a very good argument to push. For as easily as you can argue the ban accomplished nothing, the other side can argue, "so what's the big deal then?". The constitutionality of gun ownership is the mainstay. That cannot be lost or distracted from, or inevitably, the anti-gun crowd will win.

I think a good rule of thumb is whatever local law enforcement can posses, a citizen should be able to posses. This seems like a constant rule that differentiates between free societies and police states. If police can have a gun on their hip, than so should the citizenry be able. If police can have an AR in the trunk, than so should the citizenry be able.

 

Guns? no. Idiots with guns? Only their fellow idiots are unconcerned.

 

As valid as the OP definition.

You can call it a high capacity penile implant for all I care the purpose of these weapons in this configuration is to kill large numbers of people quickly.

 

"Assault weapon is a term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]
The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next bullet without human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[1] In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.[1]
Although the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, several states have their own assault weapons bans, which sometimes differ from the former federal law. For example, in California, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 bars a number of specific firearm models as well as firearms that have one of a number of features.[3]"

 

Please show a single instance where I have promoted banning firearms or ownership.

I guess the opposite side of that coin is that you want guns so you can murder women and children.

If you want a gun get one. But don't try to tell me that owning a weapon with the capability of firing 50 or 60 rounds per minute without reloading addresses anything more than self loathing over personal shortcomings.

Perhaps, if your lucky, addressing your issues won't cost the loves of your wife, children, friends, co-workers, church members, or maybe just some random strangers.

 

Right. Then why does the legal definition of an "assault weapon" go from the 1994 AWB to nearly all semi-automatics in HB 1022? The ban did not in any way effect assault rifles.

Next.

 

Wolverine is usually quite reasonable and probably even leans left on most issues. On this issue he is completely unreasonable and inflexible.

On Thur he was taunting gun control proponents to debate him. By Sat he wanted nothing to do with it because this thread is for informational purposes only. (WTF?)

Bottom line is that there is no need for mega capacity magazines beyond killing the most people in the least amount of time, exactly as you have stated. Each and every time I attempted to engage him and others with that dialog, they clinged tighter and tighter to their precious definition of "assault rifle." (As if the two are mutually exclusive, or something?)

I give up. Some people just aren't interested in reason.

 

Ummmmm... you are probably confusing this thread wither another. The thread is to give people the proper definitions If you are going to for certain firearms.

If you want to debate the issue, use the proper terminology. If someone is going to tell me what I can and cannot own, they should know just as much or more about the issue than me. Want to tell me I shouldn't be able to own an assault rifle? Thats cool, if you are referring to an automatic firearm. But my prairie dog gun? lol Why should I or anyone else learned in the topic take the arguments seriously if they do not make sense?

As for your comments about high capacity magazines; you claim that they only have one purpose. People can only need them for one reason, blah blah blah. Very few of these magazines are used for such, so if the actual use of these magazines in reality contradicts your biased claim, where does that leave your argument? Null and void. I didn't dodge the issue. My reality based rebuttal is quite clear and concise.

Use defines purpose.

 

It is one of the most sought after Russian M91 with that little finger rest behind the trigger. Only the oldest have them and most have been refurbished with different trigger guards. You can find a stock once in a great while that has had that area filled.

 

For a total out lay equal to the cost of a couple of pistols and after a little practice I can build a magazine of about any capacity I choose for about any weapon with a detachable clip. So are you going to outlaw next springs or sheet metal?

You can't keep criminals from getting whatever they want in the way of fire arms and accessories. The only thing you can do is limit the ability of the citizenry to defend themselves. Buy the way in the last year for which we have complete data more people were beaten to death by means of fists than were murdered with rifles by nearly 2-1.

 

Nope, you spun a 180 between Thu and Sat.

The only confusion is yours; confusing "wants" and "needs." You may want mega capacity magazines but you most certainly do not need them.

 

What is this needs test then? How do you define need?

Please, tell me how you decide what other people need.

 

Awesome, I did not see the finger rest.

 

So if I want an ICBM for use only as lawn decoration does use still define purpose? Your defense of Mega capacity magazines is just plain silly. It's like saying it's okay to use cocaine as long as weight loss is the purpose.

 

So if I want an ICBM for use only as lawn decoration does use still define purpose? Your defense of Mega capacity magazines is just plain silly. It's like saying it's okay to use cocaine as long as weight loss is the purpose.

 

I will ask again.

What is this needs test then? How do you define need?

Please, tell me how you decide what other people need.

Address the question.

 

Let's ask a manufacturer about purpose:

(Emphasis mine)

http://www.surefire.com/mag5-100.html

Perfect for Holmes' ambush, not NEEDED for target practice or self defense.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

 

hey Wolverine, what will you do when the "Demon" Gun grabbers come for your AR15?

You don't beleive in GOD sooo.......who will you trust?

 

Meh. Fallacy.

Use defines purpose. I have a multitude of firearms, but I will use two as an example.

I have a 1891 Mosin Nagant rifle. This rifle was produced WWII with the intent of providing firepower to a Soviet soldier so that he may initiate an act of violence against the Third Reich.
I have an Anschutz Achiever ST .22 target rifle. This rifle was designed with the intent of punching holes in paper with a high degree of accuracy for the sake of competition.

If I use the Mosin Nagant to target practice and the Anschutz to kill game, what relevance is the original intent? None. That is why your argument of original intent is bogus. What % of magazines are used for the purpose described in your link? LOL Someone buys the mag and they use it to prevent ambushes? LOL

Laughable.

 

Meh. Fallacy.

Use defines purpose. I have a multitude of firearms, but I will use two as an example.

I have a 1891 Mosin Nagant rifle. This rifle was produced WWII with the intent of providing firepower to a Soviet soldier so that he may initiate an act of violence against the Third Reich.
I have an Anschutz Achiever ST .22 target rifle. This rifle was designed with the intent of punching holes in paper with a high degree of accuracy for the sake of competition.

If I use the Mosin Nagant to target practice and the Anschutz to kill game, what relevance is the original intent? None. That is why your argument of original intent is bogus. What % of magazines are used for the purpose described in your link? LOL Someone buys the mag and they use it to prevent ambushes? LOL

Laughable.

 

Another nonsensical post by 4horsemen.

 

you should feel honored. He even uses ad homs poorly

 

The problem isn't the gun. Many people have been killed by a 22 pistol. The problem here is he got ahold of a 100 round magazine. There is where the problem lies. Limit the size of the magazine and people have a chance to get him as he is reloading.

Police chief: Suspect bought over 6000 rounds of ammunition - CNN





www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/justice/colorado-shooting.../index.html


Jul 21, 2012 – (CNN) -- Authorities in the Colorado movie theater massacre found an AR-15 rifle drum magazine Friday capable of carrying 100 rounds, and the ... various weapons had been bought online in the weeks prior to the shooting.