Assuming the entire FBI was "corrupt" as you say, are you also saying that an FBI that wasn't corrupt would have convicted Ayers? You certainly do seem to have a lot of conspiracy theories... Well, there you go again placing blame without proof. Please point out exactly where Nixon "had his operatives burglarize" the office. Are you saying Harry Truman trumped it up? Kennedy and (especially) Johnson increased troops in that "quagmire". Nixon brought it to an end. Hyperbolic load of nonsense, just like you say. Everyone in this country has access to the health care system. Walk into an emergency room and you'll see. A majority of people in this country don't view Obama's insurance reform legislation favorably. Oh, is it specifically "assault weapons" now or is he trying to prevent them by the use of ANY firearm? It seems as if his recent Executive Orders deal with ANY firearm. After all, if he doesn't restrict the right of our citizens to carry ANY firearm, there will undoubtedly be some nut job out there who uses a pistol to indiscriminately murder people. Is that what you want him to do - restrict our right to bear arms? You used the term in describing the so-called "out of control tyrannical government" you claim William Ayers was fighting against so in this case, to use your own definition, you are a "Democrat Party whacko". If you think it's OK for Ayers to fight against whatever he perceived to be a "tyrannical government" and to use violent tactics in an attempt to achieve his goal, why don't you think it's OK for those people today who feel the same? Now, you either won't answer or you're avoiding my question, "Should William Ayers be allowed to carry a firearm"? A simple "NO" would suffice as I'm certain you don't want violent people like him wandering our streets. Or am I wrong about that?
You keep using that term, but you don't even know what it means. I keep asking for your definition, but it has not appeared yet. So how about I give you a hint. Is this an "assault weapon"?
According to some people, this could probably be considered an assault weapon. With its scary, standard, 15 round clip. View attachment 1207
Probably not by many, Stu. But, now I'm curious...what features would you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of an "assault weapon"?
Part of the legislation desired is the banning of more than 10 round clips. That Glock comes with a 15 round clip. That is why I think some people would lump that in as a 'assault weapon'. Merriam defines Assault Weapon as "any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms;" First use 1973 Pretty damn vague. And, BTW, that definition could also include the Glock I posted. And how do I define it... I define the word as bastardized, political, made up term that has doesn't really have a specific meaning. A term that is used to make people think that Assault Rifles* are being talked about when, in actuality, the term is meant to be much more encompassing. Just the fact that one has to come up with their own definition should speak volumes that the term is too vague and should not really be in any discussion of legislation. *An Assault Rifle, on the other hand, is, basically, a 'machine gun'. M16, SA80, AK47. Etc. Don't confuse the two terms.
I would say that yes, it's a political term more than a definitive one, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I would appreciate a concise definition in law that makes sense (the legal one doesn't to me). That's a big part of the current problem though, the definition of an "assault weapon" is subjective, and unclear legally. For me, I start by saying the term "weapon" should refer to firearms, then I look at the definition of "assault", using historical references. Historically, "assault" was a term used to describe what one group of people intended to do to a more or less stationary target, such as a camp or village...the group would assault the target, typically with the intention of securing the target for their own purposes. An "assault" on a camp or village was typically part of the process of laying siege on the camp or village. For me personally, the definition of "assault", in the context of laying siege, means "prolonged attack", as in not having (or needing) to cease attacking (a target) due to a lack of ammunition readily accessible. As long as the group was capable of continuing the assault, as long as the group had ammunition to use, it would continue the assault. Using that, my personal definition of an "assault weapon" (in relation to firearms) begins with a person having no need to cease firing for long periods* due to a lack of ammunition capacity in the firearm, or available for rapid reloading (*defined here in terms of seconds, ten seconds or more passing without the capability to fire disqualifies a firearm, IMO). Any and all single-shot firearms are therefore not included in my definition, since the person must physically chamber a single round before each discharge of the weapon. Capacity is the most important aspect in my determination of what constitutes an assault weapon. A 15-round clip qualifies, IMO. The reason being that, with 15 rounds, you can essentially "lay siege" at a target. My personal limit is half a dozen shots...anything more than that is overkill, IMO (pun NOT intended).** One loophole there** is having multiple clips. In other words: The law must also include a limit on clips available to an owner to be effective...but that is highly unlikely to pass, as it is effectively unenforceable. Another criteria I personally have is the intended, or expected, use of the firearm. A "hunting" rifle is one used for hunting, for example. An AK-47's primary (some would say "sole") purpose is to kill people. That leads me to my personal opinion of what constitutes an "assault weapon" (in relation to firearms). IMO, an assault weapon is any firearm used with the intent to subdue a target using sustainable and prolonged fire. That means that yes, IMO, a handgun with a 15-round clip qualifies. Think about it...with 15 shots at your disposal, what does that mean to the target? It means the target will have to defend itself against 15 shots, and that is overkill. Such a gun is capable of killing more than 15 people, btw. Assuming the target's heads line up, it's not impossible, and it happened here where I live, in a home during the 1913-1914 Mine Strikes. Two men were killed by one bullet, it went through both of their heads as they slept. Two children sleeping on the same bed in a nearby room survived after a bullet went through their pillows. Another bullet went just above their heads...talk about lucky!
Here's an interesting link: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm Some selected quotes: I'm not particularly in favor of using the term "assault weapon", preferring to address specific aspects about specific types of firearms, but everything needs a title, right? Still, it's a bit like the term "terrorism", which I loathe, and that rubs me the wrong way. Eh, I can live with it, I guess, as long as the specifics are addressed in plain language within the law. The term is the civilian equivalent of the military definition, but is too vague. A return to "assault rifles", with the addition of "and handguns" is somewhat better, but still isn't fully appropriate, IMO. The term "assault" really needs to be addressed within the document in clear and concise terms that make sense. As I've stated before, my personal definition of assault (in relation to firearms) is one where a sustained and prolonged attack is possible. A lot of that is bs, IMO. (1994, AWB)Specific guns due to their specific capabilities, which I agree with in principle. I agree. Those issues can now be addressed, if America so chooses...and the NRA allows it. Amazing they managed to address any issue with any gun, considering the political climate in relation to guns in general. Do the facts in the quote above mean America can't address issues with guns today? Nope. It does indicate where work is needed though, what loopholes to close, what parts to adopt, what parts to discard. It's a relatively sound foundation, IMO, but needs clarification here and there. I have an issue with the CDC and crime rates here. For one, I don't consider the CDC to be the correct agency for such a study. Secondly, "crime rate" isn't the issue, IMO. To me, other stats, such as "number of people killed per minute" in relation to each incident is more telling, and less stupid. But, that isn't necessarily the case today, especially after 20 kids lives were taken using a single gun.
That's the rub. You can get a 10 round clip for the Glock I showed above or you can get a 30 round clip for it. Other than the 30 round clip looking ridiculous, do you know what the difference is between a 30 round clip and 3 ten round clips? Probably a second or two to a qualified and prepared shooter. And there is no way to really enforce how many 10 round clips a person could have if 10 round clips are legal. And an unenforceable law is a law better left not passed. There is no way I would want to qualify a semi-automatic handgun in itself as an 'Assault Weapon'. Even though I carried one in Afghanistan, it was for defense not assault. There is a reason tactical teams use assault rifles and not their handguns. Personally, I see handguns as valid home defense weapons. Not my personal first choice (tactical shotgun) but still a valid home and defense weapon. But I am cool with limiting manufacture of clip sizes to, say, 10. But not banning a handgun just because it could accept a bigger clip if one was made - that would pretty much be all of them. I am also ok with most of the rest of the old AWB... as long as I can keep my beloved bazooka next to my bedpost.
Most hunters would think of it along lines similar to this: An assault rifle has to fire a rifle round, so no small calibers like 9mm or 45acp. Has to be semi or fully automatic and capable of throwing several rounds down field quickly, has to have a small or light-weight form factor that is easy to carry and durable, and is expandable to include 100 round magazines and other accessories regular rifles cannot have or are not necessary for hunting. FYI - most states have a limit on the number of rounds carried for hunting, in New York State, they force me to have a wooden plug in my shotgun that restricts me to 3 - 3.5" shells (which they outlaw for game-bird hunting anyways), and I can carry no more than 6 rounds in magazine in calibers over .22LR for game other than fox, coyote, squirrel, muskrat, skunk, mountain lion, beaver, etc.
You can't do any serious hunting with the low-velocity rounds in a glock, or almost any handgun for that matter. So, the only real use of a pistol is for killing people, not game. They are fun to throw-off a few dozen rounds at a range or target, but they are not really for sporting. For home defense? I'd take my .45-70GVT semi-automatic bush-rifle over that shitty little hand-gun any day. It can only hold 6 rounds, but if you get hit by 1, you're not going to move anymore. Or a shotgun as you mention, provided it can take 12Ga 3.5" shells, I'm not trusting my ass or my family to 2.75" shells, I've shot duck with 2.75" and they kept on flying for almost a full minute before flopping.
There are a lot of differences of opinion on what is the best home defense weapon. I know people that swear by a handgun. A lot like the rounds and maneuverability. Personally, I pray that if there ever is an intrusion, the universally recognized sound of a pump shotgun chambering a round is all it takes to end it. lol But I do like your choice. No getting up, that is for sure. And I can say this...I don't know anyone who has an AR15 for home defense. I know people who own them. But as what I consider a 'toy', not a tool.
exactly my thoughts. I have no problem with the range owning the AR-15's and people renting them to use on site, but they have no practical use outside of target practice and killing people (and even then not in a short range situation like required for home defense)
Nope. Standard issue M9. Only other option was M16. Since I was not combat exposed (AF at the theater hospital), I volunteered to be a weapons courier to and from for our group so I could get the M9. Easier to work on the equipment carrying it. I learned that lesson in Iraq when I had to carry the M16. I always joked that, as Air Force working with the other services, I was going to throw all my extra clips but one to the nearest Soldier or Marine anyway if the sheet hit the fan.
Caliber by itself isn't enough to disqualify a weapon, IMO. The reason being potential damage, which I neglected to address earlier. Potential damage, as I am using it here, is the amount of damage a target sustains within a set amount of time. An example of that is the 22, which is not typically considered very lethal (incorrectly, IMO). Send enough of them at a target and eventually you get the same amount of overall damage as you could with a single shot from a rocket launcher. The factor here being time. It only takes a second or so for the rocket to damage the target, while only a super-fast, fully-automatic, computer guided weapon could do an equal amount of damage. Don't laugh, researchers are always tinkering with new technologies. One I'm aware of sent 10s of thousands of bbs per minute at a target, reducing it to shreds in less than a second. In other words, that bb gun had the potential damage of a rocket launcher...though hardly as portable (it was huge) lol Therefore, I amend my "most important aspect" to being the potential damage of the weapon (as I've defined above).
I'm not a hunter myself, but I live in an area full of 'em and I've always fully supported the hunting and sports-shooting here.
Btw, those two guys (*English "scabs") killed in 1913?...they were not killed by an "assault weapon", but by a single soft-nose 30-30 bullet, fired from a hunting rifle. *I wanted to give De Orc and the anti-unioners here something to rant about. De Orc: "What! Damn you Yanks! Damn you to hell!" Yes De Orc, Hell is indeed in Michigan...especially if you are a British "scab" in 1913.
Bobby Kennedy was killed with a .22 LR......... The anti gunners crack me up. I even read on this forum where the dead baby grave dancer called the second amendment antiquated and applies only to flintlocks ( to paraphrase ) Well then Mr dead baby grave dancer, your 1st amendment only applies to speaking and print media. So shut off your television, radio and internet ya moron.
