Trump meeting with NRA to ban people on terror watch list from buying guns

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

21 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Year?

 

[Goosey 3,017]

33 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Year?

"A new model from Bushmaster in 2001"

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

4 hours ago, Goosey said:

"A new model from Bushmaster in 2001"

...And this weapon was sold legally during the first ban on these weapons??

 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

...And this weapon was sold legally during the first ban on these weapons??

Definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" (rifles) under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-folding or telescoping stock
-pistol grip
-bayonet mount
-flash suppressor or threaded barrel
-grenade launcher mount

The post-ban rifle only has one of those features, a pistol grip. Other rifles decided to get rid of the pistol grip, for example, thumbhole stocks. This Daewoo rifle was sold legally under the ban:

 

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

3 hours ago, Goosey said:

Definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" (rifles) under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-folding or telescoping stock
-pistol grip
-bayonet mount
-flash suppressor or threaded barrel
-grenade launcher mount

The post-ban rifle only has one of those features, a pistol grip. Other rifles decided to get rid of the pistol grip, for example, thumbhole stocks. This Daewoo rifle was sold legally under the ban:

 

 

So they got around the ban then basically...

 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

So they got around the ban then basically...

Yes and no.

As pictured, what's the effective difference between this rifle...

 

And this single-shot rifle?

 

 

Answer: there is no effective difference, because the AR-15 above is pictured without a magazine. In this case they're both single shots.

 

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned high-capacity magazines. That was the big difference. So the point is, there's no reason to ban AR-15s specifically, because the only difference between an AR and a traditional rifle is the large magazines.

 

 

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

27 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Yes and no.

As pictured, what's the effective difference between this rifle...

 

And this single-shot rifle?

 

 

Answer: there is no effective difference, because the AR-15 above is pictured without a magazine. In this case they're both single shots.

 

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned high-capacity magazines. That was the big difference. So the point is, there's no reason to ban AR-15s specifically, because the only difference between an AR and a traditional rifle is the large magazines.

 

 

 

But those large magazines are the KEY... And that is why I DO think they should be banned.  Either ban those, ban the large magazines, or BOTH!  

 

[Goosey 3,017]

7 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

But those large magazines are the KEY... And that is why I DO think they should be banned.  Either ban those, ban the large magazines, or BOTH!  

In Canada people can own these rifles but they have 5-round magazines. Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and in certain states such as Colorado, California or New Jersey, the limit is 10 rounds.

Here's a Canadian-spec AR-15. 5-round magazine.

 

 

This is the M1 Garand. It's currently sold to civilians by the US Government under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Has an 8-round magazine.

 

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

In Canada people can own these rifles but they have 5-round magazines. Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and in certain states such as Colorado, California or New Jersey, the limit is 10 rounds.

Here's a Canadian-spec AR-15. 5-round magazine.

 

 

This is the M1 Garand. It's currently sold to civilians by the US Government under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Has an 8-round magazine.

 

 

Why so many rounds for tho?  What is the purpose of that?!?

 

[Goosey 3,017]

2 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Why so many rounds for tho?  What is the purpose of that?!?

5 rounds is standard and it's hard to think of any repeating gun which holds less than 3.

 

5 rounds

 

4 rounds

 

5 rounds


6 rounds

10 rounds

 

10 rounds

 

12 rounds

15 rounds

[PartySick 172,545]

On 6/17/2016 at 8:04 PM, En_Sabah_Nur said:

NOTHING is acceptable to those folks, I'm surprised they don't try and buy tanks & say its their constitutional right to have one!  SMH 

 

To think our police actually have tanks and brag about it 

I'm pretty sure civilians are allowed to own tanks too...but with a nonoperational cannon/gun, of course  wouldn't want something crazy dangerous in the hands of someone who may not be trained to use it or may have not even had a background check

Oh, btw...I learned today that my cousin actually owns an undocumented AR15 that he got at a gun show. No background check, no waiting time, just flashed his ID, gave the money, and left with his new killing machine

On 6/17/2016 at 8:43 PM, teo said:

I'm not even going to comment the exotic laws that allow people in the US to have an arsenal for a small army in their houses, cause that's a different discussion, but like giving fire arms to potential terrorists, criminals and mentally ill people is just not normal... This is not hurting any rights this is just common sense like how you don't allow toddlers play with kitchen knives or let them drink bleach.


 

It's funny you would mention that  23 people have been shot by toddlers in the U.S. this year

On 6/17/2016 at 11:45 PM, teo said:

Yes! Even if you support guns with the argument of protection you can do that with a stupid handgun. Why should crazy people be allowed to have grenade launchers, flamethrowers and fully automatic riffles? It's ridiculous. What are you protecting yourself from - the zombie apocalypse?!
 

Those are all actually banned though  but semi-automatic rifles need to be next. They were banned for a short period, I say we bring that ban back permanently. Nobody needs a gun that can mow through a crowd of people in minutes 

[Goosey 3,017]

3 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Those are all actually banned though  but semi-automatic rifles need to be next. They were banned for a short period, I say we bring that ban back permanently.

They were never banned, not ever in America. So-called "assault weapons" were banned, and are still banned in a couple states.

This is a semi-automatic rifle, and most people would say this is quite a traditional hunting weapon:

 

[teo 609]

12 minutes ago, PartySick said:

To think our police actually have tanks and brag about it 

I'm pretty sure civilians are allowed to own tanks too...but with a nonoperational cannon/gun, of course  wouldn't want something crazy dangerous in the hands of someone who may not be trained to use it or may have not even had a background check

Oh, btw...I learned today that my cousin actually owns an undocumented AR15 that he got at a gun show. No background check, no waiting time, just flashed his ID, gave the money, and left with his new killing machine

It's funny you would mention that  23 people have been shot by toddlers in the U.S. this year

Those are all actually banned though  but semi-automatic rifles need to be next. They were banned for a short period, I say we bring that ban back permanently. Nobody needs a gun that can mow through a crowd of people in minutes 

I hope you're right! I actually remember reading that owning a grenade launcher, flamethrower and a fully automatic riffle(if it's produced before idk what year) are actually legal but maybe the info was dated? But yeah owning certain kind of weapons needs to at least be regulated somehow.

 

And OMG @ them toddlers...

[PartySick 172,545]

11 minutes ago, Goosey said:

They were never banned, not ever in America. So-called "assault weapons" were banned, and are still banned in a couple states.

This is a semi-automatic rifle, and most people would say this is quite a traditional hunting weapon:

 

Get rid of it

Nah, I'm not a legislator, just an optimistic pacifist talking on GGD  I literally could care less about guns and imo the fewer guns the better. I'd support a total ban but I know that's highly impractical as removing every gun from the country is just impossible. Plus there are responsible owners who use them for leisure, hunting, sport, etc. So strict regulation, thorough background checks done by law enforcement, and harsh penalties for any gun related crime is what I'd like to see...thank you Bill O'Reilly for letting me know that it's not a federal crime to rob someone at gun point  A nationwide ban on large magazines would be nice too.

More careful and resourceful regulation of the terror watch list too. Make it so that it's not a total joke and we can actually justify taking someone's second amendment right away from them for being on it.

This whole issue of having hundreds of mass shootings in a year goes well beyond gun control though. I just wanted to clarify that for anyone that thinks I'm saying these things are 100% responsible

2 minutes ago, teo said:

I hope you're right! I actually remember reading that owning a grenade launcher, flamethrower and a fully automatic riffle(if it's produced before idk what year) are actually legal but maybe the info was dated? But yeah owning certain kind of weapons needs to at least be regulated somehow.

I'm sure @Goosey could tell ya

[teo 609]

3 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Get rid of it

Nah, I'm not a legislator, just an optimistic pacifist talking on GGD  I literally could care less about guns and imo the fewer guns the better. I'd support a total ban but I know that's highly impractical as removing every gun from the country is just impossible. Plus there are responsible owners who use them for leisure, hunting, sport, etc. So strict regulation, thorough background checks done by law enforcement, and harsh penalties for any gun related crime is what I'd like to see...thank you Bill O'Reilly for letting me know that it's not a federal crime to rob someone at gun point  A nationwide ban on large magazines would be nice too.

More careful and resourceful regulation of the terror watch list too. Make it so that it's not a total joke and we can actually justify taking someone's second amendment right away from them for being on it.

This whole issue of having hundreds of mass shootings in a year goes well beyond gun control though. I just wanted to clarify that for anyone that thinks I'm saying these things are 100% responsible

I'm sure @Goosey could tell ya

He knows his guns alright...I try not to cross him and quote him on the topic ever since we argued for like two pages on a gun rights related thread a few months ago. But it's nice that he brings diverse opinions on the issue, cause he's like the only person on the forum with these views...