Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:43 am

Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:14 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:09 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.
Your premise is faulty. The framers could have never imagined the World Wide Web. Should the First Amendment not apply to it?
It already doesn’t. Any company that provides you space on its server or lets you have an account on its platform can ban you or remove you or censor you for any reason. The government has nothing to do with that. The first amendment is between you and the government and it means that they cannot arrest you for speaking your mind. That is the ONLY ONLY ONLY thing that it means. Anybody else can shut you the hell up. Now if they pummel you half to death so that you can no longer say whatever pissed them off that would be assault but it would not be a first amendment violation.

It’s the same thing with Josh Hawley whining about Simon & Schuster dropping his book. It’s a business decision that they have a right to perform as they see fit. It is NOT NOT NOT a first amendment issue no matter how badly he wants to lie and dupe people into thinking it is. He knows better.

You simply don’t have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want without repercussions from those individuals unless they are the government and as long as such actions are not going to cause harm such as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

My premise isn’t faulty, your assumption that the first amendment applies to the internet in any meaningful way is.
I didn't say anything about private individuals or business deciding what type of firearms they decide to sell and to whom. As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment applies to the government.

So you're fine with the GOVERNMENT censoring speech, thoughts and ideas on the www because it wasn't created or imagined by the Framers?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:03 am

Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:43 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:14 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:09 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.
Your premise is faulty. The framers could have never imagined the World Wide Web. Should the First Amendment not apply to it?
It already doesn’t. Any company that provides you space on its server or lets you have an account on its platform can ban you or remove you or censor you for any reason. The government has nothing to do with that. The first amendment is between you and the government and it means that they cannot arrest you for speaking your mind. That is the ONLY ONLY ONLY thing that it means. Anybody else can shut you the hell up. Now if they pummel you half to death so that you can no longer say whatever pissed them off that would be assault but it would not be a first amendment violation.

It’s the same thing with Josh Hawley whining about Simon & Schuster dropping his book. It’s a business decision that they have a right to perform as they see fit. It is NOT NOT NOT a first amendment issue no matter how badly he wants to lie and dupe people into thinking it is. He knows better.

You simply don’t have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want without repercussions from those individuals unless they are the government and as long as such actions are not going to cause harm such as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

My premise isn’t faulty, your assumption that the first amendment applies to the internet in any meaningful way is.
I didn't say anything about private individuals or business deciding what type of firearms they decide to sell and to whom. As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment applies to the government.

So you're fine with the GOVERNMENT censoring speech, thoughts and ideas on the www because it wasn't created or imagined by the Framers?
No. It’s still speech. It’s simply an electronic version of a newspaper in many cases. No more powerful. No different.

An AK-47 and a musket are two different things.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:17 am

Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:03 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:43 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:14 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:09 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.
Your premise is faulty. The framers could have never imagined the World Wide Web. Should the First Amendment not apply to it?
It already doesn’t. Any company that provides you space on its server or lets you have an account on its platform can ban you or remove you or censor you for any reason. The government has nothing to do with that. The first amendment is between you and the government and it means that they cannot arrest you for speaking your mind. That is the ONLY ONLY ONLY thing that it means. Anybody else can shut you the hell up. Now if they pummel you half to death so that you can no longer say whatever pissed them off that would be assault but it would not be a first amendment violation.

It’s the same thing with Josh Hawley whining about Simon & Schuster dropping his book. It’s a business decision that they have a right to perform as they see fit. It is NOT NOT NOT a first amendment issue no matter how badly he wants to lie and dupe people into thinking it is. He knows better.

You simply don’t have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want without repercussions from those individuals unless they are the government and as long as such actions are not going to cause harm such as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

My premise isn’t faulty, your assumption that the first amendment applies to the internet in any meaningful way is.
I didn't say anything about private individuals or business deciding what type of firearms they decide to sell and to whom. As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment applies to the government.

So you're fine with the GOVERNMENT censoring speech, thoughts and ideas on the www because it wasn't created or imagined by the Framers?
No. It’s still speech. It’s simply an electronic version of a newspaper in many cases. No more powerful. No different.

An AK-47 and a musket are two different things.
So the web is no different or more powerful or provides more reach than a news pamphlet. Gotcha.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:49 am

Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:17 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:03 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:43 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:14 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:09 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:15 am
Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:19 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:38 am
Bryce wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:11 am
Please define "Assault Rifle."
A gun used in a military assault. You know... not the kind of fight you bring a handgun or a shotgun to...
With very few exceptions, those rifles, the actual rifles used in combat by our military, are not available to the general public.

Could you be a bit more specific. Brand? Type? Name?
You are attempting to bait me into saying AR-15 or AK-47... note that these are derived from military weapons. But the reality is that a gun that had a high capacity of bullets that can be fired at a high rate is not something the average person needs nor is it in keeping with the original intent of the framers. It couldn’t be. Such weapons did not exist. Admit that or forfeit the right to ever talk about the original intent of the framers again because it will be impossible to take you seriously at that point. You can’t pick and choose what original intent you wish to follow if that is truly a tenet of your beliefs in how the government is supposed to function.
Your premise is faulty. The framers could have never imagined the World Wide Web. Should the First Amendment not apply to it?
It already doesn’t. Any company that provides you space on its server or lets you have an account on its platform can ban you or remove you or censor you for any reason. The government has nothing to do with that. The first amendment is between you and the government and it means that they cannot arrest you for speaking your mind. That is the ONLY ONLY ONLY thing that it means. Anybody else can shut you the hell up. Now if they pummel you half to death so that you can no longer say whatever pissed them off that would be assault but it would not be a first amendment violation.

It’s the same thing with Josh Hawley whining about Simon & Schuster dropping his book. It’s a business decision that they have a right to perform as they see fit. It is NOT NOT NOT a first amendment issue no matter how badly he wants to lie and dupe people into thinking it is. He knows better.

You simply don’t have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want without repercussions from those individuals unless they are the government and as long as such actions are not going to cause harm such as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre.

My premise isn’t faulty, your assumption that the first amendment applies to the internet in any meaningful way is.
I didn't say anything about private individuals or business deciding what type of firearms they decide to sell and to whom. As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment applies to the government.

So you're fine with the GOVERNMENT censoring speech, thoughts and ideas on the www because it wasn't created or imagined by the Framers?
No. It’s still speech. It’s simply an electronic version of a newspaper in many cases. No more powerful. No different.

An AK-47 and a musket are two different things.
So the web is no different or more powerful or provides more reach than a news pamphlet. Gotcha.
The modern version of one. An AK-47 is not a modern musket. It’s only common feature is firing bullets.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:36 pm

Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:49 am

The modern version of one. An AK-47 is not a modern musket. It’s only common feature is firing bullets.
Unfortunately, you are either too obtuse or just plain stubborn to understand that the WWW is not a modern hand operated printing press set up in someone's barn, setting the type, printing by hand, then passing them out one at a time in the town square. The only common feature is words and thoughts. The method of delivery is vastly different in both.

Now that I think about it, 24 hour cable news broadcast to millions was beyond their ability to foresee too.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:53 pm

Bryce wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:36 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:49 am

The modern version of one. An AK-47 is not a modern musket. It’s only common feature is firing bullets.
Unfortunately, you are either too obtuse or just plain stubborn to understand that the WWW is not a modern hand operated printing press set up in someone's barn, setting the type, printing by hand, then passing them out one at a time in the town square. The only common feature is words and thoughts. The method of delivery is vastly different in both.

Now that I think about it, 24 hour cable news broadcast to millions was beyond their ability to foresee too.
Just a logical advancement in technology... being able to fire at 10x speed not so much. There’s no logic there.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:43 am

Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:53 pm

Just a logical advancement in technology... being able to fire at 10x speed not so much. There’s no logic there.
Wow...

By the way, did you figure out what an assault rifle is yet? I'll even help you out. Here one is...

Image

Here are the specs...
Weight (Without Magazine) 6.36 pounds
Length (Buttstock Closed) 29.75 inches
Length (Buttstock Open) 33 inches
Muzzle Velocity 2970 feet per second
Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 700-970 rounds per minute
Maximum Effective Range (Point Target) 500 meters
Maximum Effective Range (Area Targets) 600 meters
Maximum Range 3600 meters

Should this rifle be "banned" from civilian ownership?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:45 am

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:43 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:53 pm

Just a logical advancement in technology... being able to fire at 10x speed not so much. There’s no logic there.
Wow...

By the way, did you figure out what an assault rifle is yet? I'll even help you out. Here one is...

Image

Here are the specs...
Weight (Without Magazine) 6.36 pounds
Length (Buttstock Closed) 29.75 inches
Length (Buttstock Open) 33 inches
Muzzle Velocity 2970 feet per second
Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 700-970 rounds per minute
Maximum Effective Range (Point Target) 500 meters
Maximum Effective Range (Area Targets) 600 meters
Maximum Range 3600 meters

Should this rifle be "banned" from civilian ownership?
It’s a trick question. That’s fully automatic. So the next step down is semi-automatic which should do nicely mowing down unsuspecting civilians. Your move.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:56 am

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:45 am
Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:43 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:53 pm

Just a logical advancement in technology... being able to fire at 10x speed not so much. There’s no logic there.
Wow...

By the way, did you figure out what an assault rifle is yet? I'll even help you out. Here one is...

Image

Here are the specs...
Weight (Without Magazine) 6.36 pounds
Length (Buttstock Closed) 29.75 inches
Length (Buttstock Open) 33 inches
Muzzle Velocity 2970 feet per second
Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 700-970 rounds per minute
Maximum Effective Range (Point Target) 500 meters
Maximum Effective Range (Area Targets) 600 meters
Maximum Range 3600 meters

Should this rifle be "banned" from civilian ownership?
It’s a trick question. That’s fully automatic. So the next step down is semi-automatic which should do nicely mowing down unsuspecting civilians. Your move.
Are you dense boy? That's the point. You said earlier that an assault rifle was...
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:45 am
A gun used in a military assault.
The M4 A1 is the go to for special forces when conducting a military assault. Should it be banned? It already is. As is the standard M4 used by the military. Your definition is covered.

Would you care to redefine what you consider to be an "assault rifle?"


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:57 am

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:56 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:45 am
Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:43 am
Rate This wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:53 pm

Just a logical advancement in technology... being able to fire at 10x speed not so much. There’s no logic there.
Wow...

By the way, did you figure out what an assault rifle is yet? I'll even help you out. Here one is...

Image

Here are the specs...
Weight (Without Magazine) 6.36 pounds
Length (Buttstock Closed) 29.75 inches
Length (Buttstock Open) 33 inches
Muzzle Velocity 2970 feet per second
Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 700-970 rounds per minute
Maximum Effective Range (Point Target) 500 meters
Maximum Effective Range (Area Targets) 600 meters
Maximum Range 3600 meters

Should this rifle be "banned" from civilian ownership?
It’s a trick question. That’s fully automatic. So the next step down is semi-automatic which should do nicely mowing down unsuspecting civilians. Your move.
Are you dense boy? That's the point. You said earlier that an assault rifle was...
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:45 am
A gun used in a military assault.
The M4 A1 is the go to for special forces when conducting a military assault. Should it be banned? It already is. As is the standard M4 used by the military. Your definition is covered.

Would you care to redefine what you consider to be an "assault rifle?"
I made an omission in my original post.. that should read DERIVED FROM.

So if I had been paying attention:
A gun derived from a rifle used in a military assault. These exist. Just like each of a thousand other things the military came up with and then transferred the technology to private hands a couple decades later.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:07 am

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:57 am

I made an omission in my original post.. that should read DERIVED FROM.

So if I had been paying attention:
Paying attention? Maybe if you wouldn't feel obligated to post nonsense in every single thread on the board, you could concentrate better on the ones you do.

OK, in your opinion, which one of these is an "assault rifle?"

Image

Image


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:09 am

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:07 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:57 am

I made an omission in my original post.. that should read DERIVED FROM.

So if I had been paying attention:
Paying attention? Maybe if you wouldn't feel obligated to post nonsense in every single thread on the board, you could concentrate better on the ones you do.

OK, in your opinion, which one of these is an "assault rifle?"

Image

Image
First off... I’m sarcastic on some of these threads and deadly serious in a sarcastic way in others, if you don’t like it then ignore it. Don’t be a prick towards me about it. You post your share of sarcastic nonsense responses yourself.

Now back to the little game we are playing...
I’m gonna go with the one with the higher capability of firing rounds with maximum accuracy on a per minute basis with the caveat that it has to have fast reload Capability.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:14 am

And which one would that be?


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13968
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Rate This » Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:19 am

Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:14 am
And which one would that be?
One would suspect the top one. But I would like to compare specifications first.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Banning Assault Riffles and Background Checks - Now is the time!

Post by Bryce » Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:50 am

Rate This wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:19 am
Bryce wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:14 am
And which one would that be?
One would suspect the top one. But I would like to compare specifications first.
The top rifle is a DSA SA-58 the bottom a Remington 7400. Both are quite similar as far as functionality. Both have a pistol grip, shoot the same round and deliver the same rate of semi-automatic fire.

Here are the biggest differences.

The Remington 7400 costs about 500.00 with the SA-58 coming in at around 2,000.00
The Remington 7400 is more accurate at long distances than the SA-58 when shooting multiple rounds.
The 7400 has a 4 round and a 10 round clip. The SA-58 a 20 round clip. Keep in mind, some of the newer hunting rifles by Remington have a 15 round clip available.

So, you see, just as putting a spoiler and fancy rims on a Toyota Corolla doesn't make it go any faster or preform any better, just because a gun has military stylings doesn't make it more "dangerous." When people throw around the word "assault rifle" most haven't a clue as to what they are talking about. Laws banning "assault rifles" may just take away my Remington 7400 that I've owned since 1985.

Before you bring up the clip difference, I can drop and replace the clip in my 7400 in under 1.5 seconds.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic