What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?

[rbird7282]

JFC, I made the mistake of coming back to this thread this morning. What a cluster foxtrot. My head hurts.
They want to ban them all no matter what they call them. End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[outrider58]

JFC, I made the mistake of coming back to this thread this morning. What a cluster foxtrot. My head hurts.
They want to ban them all no matter what they call them. End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^This. A waste of band width.

It's another useless "next worst thing" argument. As soon as they ban the "worst thing", the next to the worst thing becomes the worst thing.

 

[E.Shell]

The good news is that we got it out of the other thread...

 

[FrankZ]

^^^This. A waste of band width.

It's another useless "next worst thing" argument. As soon as they ban the "worst thing", the next to the worst thing becomes the worst thing.

It's just common sense after all.

 

[rbird7282]

The good news is that we got it out of the other thread...

Lol, can we get it out of this thread?

 

[outrider58]

Lol, can we get it out of this thread?

Easier said than done...

Lol!

 

[Bob A]

EDIT: It wasn't the OP; I was referring to MattFinals718, who seemed to me to have taken over the thread, at least in my mind. Apologies for my failure to backtrack. . . . [He] seems to ignore countless suggestions to take his case to those who can do something about it: MD GA and VA legislature.

Pissing and moaning and stirring up sh!t here is more than a waste of time. I have some doubts regarding his bona fides in that regard.

Also particularly voluble, putting even Fabrizio in the shade. Is he a lawyer? Is his particular issue not so much resolving a question, as tying us up in pointless argument over pointless topic that is not ours to resolve in the first place?

It's an election year, and the GA is in session. That is traditionally troll season. Perhaps it's understandable that I have suspicions?

 

[outrider58]

OP seems to ignore countless suggestions to take his case to those who can do something about it: MD GA and VA legislature.

Pissing and moaning and stirring up sh!t here is more than a waste of time. I have some doubts regarding his bona fides in that regard.

Also particularly voluble, putting even Fabrizio in the shade. Is he a lawyer? Is his particular issue not so much resolving a question, as tying us up in pointless argument over pointless topic that is not ours to resolve in the first place?

It's an election year, and the GA is in session. That is traditionally troll season. Perhaps it's understandable that I have suspicions?

Who's the OP again?

 

[rbird7282]

OP seems to ignore countless suggestions to take his case to those who can do something about it: MD GA and VA legislature.

Pissing and moaning and stirring up sh!t here is more than a waste of time. I have some doubts regarding his bona fides in that regard.

Also particularly voluble, putting even Fabrizio in the shade. Is he a lawyer? Is his particular issue not so much resolving a question, as tying us up in pointless argument over pointless topic that is not ours to resolve in the first place?

It's an election year, and the GA is in session. That is traditionally troll season. Perhaps it's understandable that I have suspicions?

The OP of this thread was E. Shell, he is not the one responsible for this sh*t show. He merely started this thread to get all of the assault weapon thread derail BS out of the other thread.

 

[rbird7282]

The good news is that we got it out of the other thread...

Thank you for that Sir.

 

[Bob A]

Who's the OP again?

My mistake!

Big apologies to @Ed Shell; i's MattFinals718 who turned this into a morass of excess verbiage.

Thanks, B, for calling me out.

 

[Bob A]

The OP of this thread was E. Shell, he is not the one responsible for this sh*t show. He merely started this thread to get all of the assault weapon thread derail BS out of the other thread.

Got it; again, apologies.

Trainwrecks all around, and I didn't help.

 

[outrider58]

My mistake!

Big apologies to @Ed Shell; i's MattFinals718 who turned this into a morass of excess verbiage.

Thanks, B, for calling me out.

Not calling you out Bob. This thread was hijacked long ago. What Ed did was genius. He moved the hijack over here where it does little harm. Kudos to Ed. Like you Bob, we have grown weary of this thread and mainly return to it in the hopes of seeing a final consensus. No f**king chance though.

 

[Bob A]

Not calling you out Bob. This thread was hijacked long ago. What Ed did was genius. He moved the hijack over here where it does little harm. Kudos to Ed. Like you Bob, we have grown weary of this thread and mainly return to it in the hopes of seeing a final consensus. No f**king chance though.

Whatever you choose to call it, thanks for pointing out my screwup. Much respect for Ed Shell, and gratitude for those who keep the record straight.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Anyway: Are you still going to tell me that it's "subjective" that my Glock 34 does not shoot as quickly or as controllably as my Steyr SPP?

Yes ! It absolutely is .


9mm ( from full size pistol ) has only modest recoil.

Balance and ergonomic properties are more operative factors than marginal recoil dampening from the weight .

Not to pick on specifically G34 and SPP . Would apply across the respective category of each class .

 

[Biggfoot44]

If you seriously believe that, you are beyond delusional. You must also partake in magical thinking on a regular basis.

In it's Era ( of over 100 years ) , the Brown Bess was world class , state of the art military arm .

 

[rbird7282]

Got it; again, apologies.

Trainwrecks all around, and I didn't help.

Got it; again, apologies.

Trainwrecks all around, and I didn't help.

Not your fault at all, I wasn’t calling you out, just reminding who the op was and that he was merely trying to get this mess out of the other thread. No worries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BurkeM]

To be a true assault weapon...the firearm must meet five specific criteria...

1) It must be a Carbine;
2) It must fire an intermediate round;
3) It must fire from a locked breech;
4) It must have a detachable magazine;
5) It must be select-fire.

We already had a definitive answer

 

[MattFinals718]

I'll tell you what, when we no longer have to fight the anti's over the legal definition, then we can discuss the practical differences, until then, I and others will continue to argue the legal definition.
I do agree with you on your "constitutional argument" comment about military firearms being the most protected, but again, we have to fight the legal definition game. Until we can get the courts to agree to the actual legal rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, we will continue to fight that battle as well.

Fair enough. I never said that I have a problem with us correcting mistaken impressions on the "other side." If you see somebody who confuses the AR-15s that we can buy as Title I firearms with select-fire M16s or M4s, you're in the right to set them straight. Not telling you otherwise.

I just think that if you're going to stick to the legal definition, do so. Don't counter with, "Without full-auto capability, an AR-15 is just another rifle."

Matt, I gotta tell you, I have seen the light. Your powers of argument are just too overwhelming.

You should go to Annapolis or DC and enact your plan immediately.

What plan? This isn't about a legislative proposal on my part. It's about better ways for us to make our case that don't seem dishonest or counter to common fvcking sense.

You're guilty of being lazy. It's audio- if you believe in the argument you're trying to make, LISTEN to the Oral arguments for Bianchi and the HQL lawsuit.

Know your opponent.

Yes, I'm being (somewhat) lazy. That doesn't mean that I'm in the wrong. I'm not spending 90 minutes trying to dig up your evidence, when you can post at least a specific time reference. I'm also not holding you to a higher standard here than I've held myself. The last time I posted a lengthy video, I cited a specific point in the video that supported my argument. (I'm talking about the Forgotten Weapons video with Larry Vickers that I mentioned much earlier in the discussion.)

When you wrote research papers back in college, did any of your professors ever tell you that it's OK to cite an entire book, without citing a specific page that supports a point that you are trying to make? Might wanna have a conversation with Boats about that, as he's shown himself to be quite the stickler for citing correct, credible sources.

^^^This. A waste of band width.

It's another useless "next worst thing" argument. As soon as they ban the "worst thing", the next to the worst thing becomes the worst thing.

You're more than welcome not to participate. Like Bob, your real problem here is that you're afraid of what I have to say. That is the main reason that I'm catching so much sh!t in this thread in general.

You've already demonstrated that you feel the need to suppress information in an older thread in the "Rifles" section, where you told me that we shouldn't discuss the absurdities of MD's HBAR criteria for AR-15 legality, because you're afraid that we're educating the "other side."

EDIT: It wasn't the OP; I was referring to MattFinals718, who seemed to me to have taken over the thread, at least in my mind. Apologies for my failure to backtrack. . . . [He] seems to ignore countless suggestions to take his case to those who can do something about it: MD GA and VA legislature.

What's my "case"? I'm not making a legislative proposal. I am trying (and clearly failing) to encourage this community to retire arguments against AWBs that (IMO) don't work and undermine our credibility. I've told you that repeatedly, even if you choose to act like an insolent child and stick your fingers in your ears and say, "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I'm not listening to you!"

So yes, I'm ignoring you because you're really not doing anything other than trying to shut me up, because you don't like what I have to say. Stay out of the debate if you want, and let that be it.

Pissing and moaning and stirring up sh!t here is more than a waste of time. I have some doubts regarding his bona fides in that regard.

How so? Are you (like Boats) accusing me of working for the other side? You do know that I've posted pics of my AR-15s in other threads, right? More than happy to send you some more pics of the guns I own.

Also particularly voluble, putting even Fabrizio in the shade. Is he a lawyer? Is his particular issue not so much resolving a question, as tying us up in pointless argument over pointless topic that is not ours to resolve in the first place?

It's an election year, and the GA is in session. That is traditionally troll season. Perhaps it's understandable that I have suspicions?

What is understandable is that you are somebody whose worldview is threatened by conflicting information, and you would prefer to suppress honest intellectual discussion rather than re-considering whether what you believe, and your approach to fighting against FSA2013, might have flaws. I don't think our cause is wrong; I think that how we're going about fighting it is wrong (in this instance). I've said so repeatedly.

Let me remind you how this debate got started: In the other thread, somebody posted a scholarly article which made an argument that I agree with: Weapons that are designed for military use are the most constitutionally protected of all. I made the point that I agree with this argument, and that we should rely on that argument, instead of trying to argue that the "assault weapons" that the antis either banned under FSA2013, or want to ban in the future, are somehow just harmless sporting weapons simply because they are not select fire. I stirred up a sh!tstorm by making that point, which I did not expect, but should have, in retrospect.

Yes ! It absolutely is .


9mm ( from full size pistol ) has only modest recoil.

Balance and ergonomic properties are more operative factors than marginal recoil dampening from the weight .

Not to pick on specifically G34 and SPP . Would apply across the respective category of each class .

Having both guns side by side, I would say that the difference does not amount to "marginal recoil dampening;" it amounts to significant increase in controllability with the Steyr vs. the Glock, when controlling for other factors (i.e., they are both 9mm weapons). That is because the Steyr has its lineage in an SMG design, which means that it was designed with the expectation that it would be fired rapidly. Same applies to any other "assault pistol" (antis' term) that is derived from a submachine gun.

In it's Era ( of over 100 years ) , the Brown Bess was world class , state of the art military arm .

Cool, but the Brown Bess is not a belt-fed machine gun. Machine guns were designed (at the outset) to lay down a high volume of fire against many targets, while the Brown Bess was not. Isn't that pretty intuitive?

 

[BurkeM]

Yes, I'm being (somewhat) lazy. That doesn't mean that I'm in the wrong.

In this case, BOTH of the recent Oral Arguments in Richmond are worth listening to- in their entirety. Neither has a single "aHa" moment. (Bianchi and HQL)

Cool, but the Brown Bess is not a belt-fed machine gun. Machine guns were designed (at the outset) to lay down a high volume of fire against many targets, while the Brown Bess was not. Isn't that pretty intuitive?

Historical ignorance. The Brown Bess was designed and deployed as an ASSAULT weapon (minus rifling).
Tactically, the Army used the .75 cal musket for Volley fire against area targets, exactly the same way we employed machine guns after 1898.

The infantry fired - most commonly- by BATTALION volleys, intending to cause 30 to 300 casualties in the enemy formation in less than 2 seconds, followed by a volley from the Second rank, followed by a volley from the Third rank, while the First rank was completing a reload, prepared to fire another controlled volley.

The enemy typically broke and ran before a 4th volley was delivered.

---
The modern machinegun (Maxim and beyond) emulated the demoralizing effect of MASSED fires.