Gun Control

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here is something I'm pondering...

The assult weapons ban is reasonable. However, there should be a special permit for individuals who qualify and demonstrate a need for an assult rife. Closing the gun show loophole might also be a reasonable change. Beyond that, I'd focus on school security & screening, and lifting bans that prohibit "staff" with concealed carry permits to carry on school property, businesses, and in churches. This way, not only is there some restraint on firearms implimented, but there is also an expansion of gun rights and the ability to protect one's self and the community.

Freedoms come with limits. For example, I have free speech... but I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded building. I have the right to own a weapon... but not a nuclear warhead.

I believe I have said this on another thread but I don't remember. Randy was right "assault weapons" have never been legal to own. The AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" Your post keep repeating the terms "automatic assault weapons", "semi-automatic assault weapons", and "assault weapons" in general.

Let me clear up some definitions here so we can have a productive conversation going forward.

The liberal left has instituted the term "assault weapon" to label any weapon that resembles in appearance that of a military issue weapon. In this case the AR-15.

The true definition of an "assault weapon" is a weapon capable of "killing en mass". Weapons that are classified as "assault weapons" are fully automatic. This meaning that when one pulls and holds the trigger, the weapon will fire continuously until the trigger is released or the ammunition is depleted. Machine guns are a good example; however, M-16's and M-14's(which is what the AR-15 was designed after) also have the capability to fire in fully automatic mode.

A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round when the trigger is pulled, then the user must release the trigger and pull it again to fire another round. These are not considered "assault weapons".

Now, "assault weapons" as defined above are illegal. It is against the law to own an "assault weapon" in the United States without special pemits. These permits are not easy to come by, most dealers and even collectors can not obtain one and most who do still are required to have the "fully automatic" feature disabled.

So, what are we really dealing with here. Well lets use the weapon used by the Newtown shooter as an example. In this case it was the AR-15. The AR-15 is a clip fed, semi-automatic weapon that shoots a .223 calibur round. It "looks" like a military style M-14. Now, you can go into any Wal-Mart and purchase a Browning, Remington, Winchester, etc. deer rifle that is clip fed, semi-automatic weapon that also shoots a .223 round. Essentially there is no difference in the two types of weapons. Yet these are not called "assault weapons".

So what has happened is the liberal left has labeled weapons such as the AR-15 as "assault weapons" when essentially they are not, and in reality they are no different from any deer rifle. So to ban a weapon because of the way it "looks" is kind of ignorant wouldn't you say?

Now there is the attack on high capacity clips. This is enables a shooter to load a clip with up to 30 rounds at one time instead of the standard 8 -10 rounds. Any responsible gun owner will not have a problem with banning high capacity clips as they are essentially useless. A prime example is the Aurua theater shooting. He had a high capacity clip but half way through it the weapon jammed and he was forced to retreat to the parking lot where he was captured. Most weapons can not handle having that many rounds fired through it without a pause for internal components to cool down. Making these clips essentially useless.

Hopefully all will see that this attack on gun ownership is being driven by those who wish to label a weapon as an "assault weapon" based on nothing more than ignorance and what it looks like.