Ban Assault Weapons

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
An oldy but a goody from the biggest hypocrite of them all...Sen. Feinstein on Concealed Carry.

Also, big government knee jerk reacts over the Sandy Hook tragedy as Obama threatens to illegally by-pass Congress and pass an illegal Executive Order "to deal with guns". You can read it at the The Weekly Standard.

Or, enjoy listening to Vice President "I'm your favorite drunk Uncle" Joe Biden on Youtube.

An Executive Order to circumvent the Bill of Rights? WHAT?! Since when did the President have purview
over the Constitution? And, since when can an Executive Order be used to re-write the Constitution?

The real shame is that John Boehner does not have the balls to write the articles of impeachment.

 
Whats tragic here is, yes, the afterthought of a legislative action/approval.
Some may want to rid us of the house, some arent satisfied with the limitations placed upon our president, but I would remind you all, its only four years, and much harm can be done in that time, both pro and con, which leads to the next election.
If this isnt cowboy mentality, I dont know what is
 
Well, he wont attack web users either, or impede on our privacy.
He also said it was unpatriotic to have spending at levels as high as the Bush admin etc etc.

Doesnt matter, the king has spoken is what Im getting from all this
 

The 5.56 only consistently leads to devastating damage in a human-sized animal if it happens to hit the target in the head. The high velocity impacting a closed space will cause a lot of damage. That is true of pretty much every other centerfire rifle out there as well as nearly all of them push bullets over 2000 fps. The 5.56 otherwise is not an impressive round on anything larger than about a coyote. The bullets are too small, too light, and carry too little energy to kill anything larger consistently with a single shot other than a head shot. A 5.56x45/.223 Remington shot out of a short-barreled weapon like an M4 will push a 64-grain bullet around 3000 fps and produce 1300 ft-lb of energy. Many soldiers complain about the 5.56's lack of killing power and hunters shooting approximately people-sized deer with .223s frequently wound them, to the point that many states ban .223s for deer hunting. The smallest cartridge legal for deer in many places is the .243 Winchester, which shoots a 100-grain bullet at 3000 fps, producing 2100 ft-lb of energy. The .243 is still regarded by many as a marginal deer round even though it shoots a 50% heavier bullet and produces 50% more energy than the .223. The most popular deer round by many sources is the .30-06 Springfield, which shoots a 165-grain bullet at 2850 fps and produces right at 3000 ft-lb of energy. It does have enough bullet diameter, weight, and power to routinely lead to a one-shot kill if the deer is hit in the thorax. Other popular deer cartridges such as the .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, 7 mm Remington Magnum, and .300 Winchester Magnum have roughly similar characteristics as the .30-06. (For you European folks, cartridges like the 7x57, 7x64, 8x57, and 8x64 are similar to the above.) Those are not controversial in the least despite being much more "devastating," and often being used in semi-automatic rifles. The semi-automatic rifles they are used in (Remington 750, Browning BAR, etc.) just aren't "military looking" and attract no specific attention from the anti-gun groups. The whole brouhaha about the .223 and AR-15s is not based in logic at all, completely in emotion.
 

Very accurate explanation. The people who say that the .223 rem is some kind of "super bullet" don't know that it is a varmint round, made to kill ground hogs!
 
Quiet. 30-06 and .308 owners want these idiots to remain idiotic.
 
In the typical emotional reactionary liberal spirit, a town in Connecticut, Southington which is about 30 miles from Newtown, proposed collecting and destroying violent video games in an effort to use violent video games as a scapegoat to the Newton tragedy.

Connecticut Town Holds Drive to Collect, Destroy Videogames

Thankfully, the Town cancelled their plans when more pragmatic and rational heads prevailed in the real world realization that collecting and destroying violent video games is a foolish endeavor which was better served with community outreach and public education.

Connecticut Town Cancels Plans to Destroy Videogames

Imagine that! Public education and community outreach about the influence of violent video games on children actually prevented draconian "book burning" style events incorrectly aimed at an object having nothing to do with the underlying causes of why a psycho goes postal in an elementary school.

Imagine what other grass-root efforts to educate the public about mental health, firearms, and violence in society could do to maintain a rational and informed electorate.

PS - DO NOT propose the NRA's "Eddy the Eagle" firearms education for your local Elementary School; well, at least not in (New Jersey) a die hard blue State. There are just some places TOO liberal even for reasonable children's firearms education.
 
At point blank range in a room full of people up to 50 metres away (where the majority of these things are being used to maim and kill the innocents) there is no difference between the AR15 chambered for .223 and anything bigger.

Your arguement about the .223 being a low powered round is ridiculous and just substantiates the case for taking these things off the streets.

If the so called "responsible" gun owners are living in a dream world then there is all the justification that is needed.

Making a point that the socialists want these off the streets so they can "take over" your government is equally as stupid and simply goes to show that too much fast food and a poor education combined with overindulgent parenting and a society with more than a scattering of xenophobic right wing politicians really produces great results the rest of us can have a giggle about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

Welcome to your future.

 
Hahaha! Very true!

Makes wonder if the libs head's would explode if they knew about what Springfield Armory did to continue selling the M1A when the 1994 assault weapons ban went into effect.
 
Nope, there is a significant difference between the 5.56/.223 and larger calibers at close range. And, by definition the 5.56/.223 is much lower power round when compared to the .30-06/.308. The smaller 5.56/.223 is subject to greater fragmentation upon impact whereas the heavier .30-06/.308 would most likely over penetrate; even if the rounds were FMJ. The smaller bullet of the 5.56/.223 at high velocity is more likely to tumble during flight and fragment upon impact at any range.

As far as it being justification for taking them off the streets, that's more a matter of opinion and debate than it is matter of lethality. If the damage caused by the ammunition being used was truly the concern, then your logic would apply to any small caliber semi-auto rifle. In the right hands, a semi-auto rifle shooting the .22LR with a high capacity magazine could be just as deadly in close quarters as an AR-15. If you scoff and say, "BAH! It's just a .22LR, how lethal can it be!" then it would only show a general ignorance of ballistics. However, based on your previous posts Reynod, you seem to be a reasonable person who seems to have an understanding of firearms and as a result hopefully appreciates the point I am trying to make.

It's not a matter of responsible gun owners "living in dream world", it's a matter of the reality of the situation and the difference between knowing that a psycho who chooses to commit acts of violence is going to commit those acts and that the weapon/ammunition of choice is fodder for misguided debates about gun control.

As I've said before, it's difficult to have a conversation about gun control with an Australian (no offence intended) because of the inherent societal, cultural, and historical differences between America and Australia. The notion that "evil socialists" will take away American's firearms is supported by every despot throughout history making the removal of the citizens means of self-protection a priority before implementing an authoritarian government. Given America's history and reasons for fighting a war of independence, American's as a whole are highly suspect of anyone who proposed any form of control over our Constitutional freedoms. And, given our current President's blatant disregard for due process and the Constitution, the concern over further gun control is warranted.

Friggin' love this movie! Brawdo's got electrolytes...it's got what plants crave...it's got electrolytes.
 


Dear Convict, :)

The .223 is a sporting version of the 5.56. What does this mean? It essentially contains less powder. If I recall, the pressure is measures in something like CUPS or something. Not exact, but if I recall the cup of a .223 is like 15,000 and the cup of a 5.56 is like 40,000. Significantly more powerful. The 5.56 military green tip is consisdered armor piercing up to and slightly beyond 1 inch thick steel. The .223 will penetrate 1 inch steel at around a half inch or a little deeper within 100 yards. I know this as I have personally tested this.
If you go back to Vietnam when the M16 was introduced, you would find interesting information on the development of this round.

First, the round was strictly a FMJ, Full Metal Jacket. The problem with this is that the hole penetration was less than a pencil being stabbed into someone. The human body and skin is designed to squeeze together to drop penetrating blood loss and other things. It wasn't efficient at killing or wounding as people could continue fighting unless critically hit in a major organ. The US military then switched over to a not jacketed round which caused jamming and bullet yaw upon entering the body. The round would spin so much that upon penetration, the yaw would force the bullet out a different projected exit path. This effectively would kill the target.

The purpose of the 5.56 was to wound, not kill. If you kill someone, everyone continues fighting. If you wound someone, 2 to 4 people would need to stop fighting and recover their wounded friend.

The military switched back to the jacket round and developed the 3 round burst. On full auto, without extensive training, you really can't hit crap with an M4/M16. The ones you see on youtube are not using the off the shelf gun. They are using very expensive and very well modified versions of the M4/M16 to do such things.

The benefit of the 3 round burst is that you can hopefully place 2-3 bullet holes into a target. This effectively stops the bodys response of squeezing to cut off blood loss. That's the whole idea.. if the person is bleeidng, they are wounded and would need assistance from others. Less fighters. The idea is to wound, not kill. You can track an enemy when they are carrying their wounded, as opposed to leaving their dead behind.

The military has repeatedly adjusted the 5.56 round to make it highly accurate at the loss of power. Today's US military cermaic plate armor stops the 5.56 round easily and at least the first round from an AK47.

During the Clinton ban, you could buy high capacity magazines chambered in the same caliber rounds and/or larger, more powerful rounds, just in different firearms that didn't meet the look of the "assault" style weapon. For example, a Mini-14 fires the .223/5.56 caliber round. This firearm can use a high capacity magazine and can be purchased as a semi-auto. It was not banned but the AR15 was.

Did you know that before the Clinton assault weapons ban, the AR15 was not a very popular rifle in the US? Because it was specifically banned, people bought it after the ban expired.

Anyhow, the whole purpose of the round was designed to wound a human target. It turns out the round is effective in killing varmits.

The people who want to ban guns fail to realize a simple thing. Guns are very, very simple objects and are very easy to make at home. The AR is very precise and prone to jamming. The AK is very sloppy and but does not jam.

The Aurora shooting, the AR15 jammed due to a combination of the magazine, the rounds being used, and the type of rifle.

Gabby Giffords (sp) life was spared not because of the type of firearm used, but because the shooter used cheaper ammo that was designed for plinking, not the ammo designed to kill. Had he used the correct type of ammo, she would not have survived.

The guy in Oregon with the AR15 was able to get off 2-3 shots before it jammed and another person shot him.

The first Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter was killed by another student or professor who retrieved their gun from their personal vehicle and shot the shooter dead. This lead to Virginia Tech banning firearms on their campus which would later aid in having it become one, if not the worst, school shooting in US history.

Last, if you look at the people who are committing these mass shootings, you find one significant thing: The majority, not all, are far left liberals. You have not seen a far right extremist yet commit a mass shooting. Not to be confused with the anti-government establishment as the "right" does want a government.
 
They changed the manufacturing process of the M1A receiver in order to make it incompatible with M14's. Prior to the 1994 AWB, the parts were (more or less) interchangeable and a civilian could have made their semi-auto only M1A a select fire M1A.

Colt did the same thing with the Colt HBAR.

One of the reasons why, generally speaking, pre-ban (Colt) AR's and M1A's receivers and whole rifles cost so much more than post-ban; if you can even own them in your State, that is.

 
Ya know, driving down the street isnt a right.
Being pulled over and checked out, you dont have a defense against that.
Profiling is illegal.
Owning a gun is a right.
There are already checks to buy firearms in place, and the vast majority of firearm activity in crimes, by wide margins, are done by those who havnt been checked, stole them or bought them illegally.
Understand whats going on here.
Many similiraties, yet one is to assume innocence and not allowed, the other, not as much so.
One isnt even a right.
Where is the balance of common sense here?
 
Do you know what this 2nd amendment is a lot of crap and it should have been never introduced by the founding fathers. This is stirring up a lot of trouble now in the states for nothing.A right to bear arms for what ? that is why we have police, national guard and others to protect us.We are to gun crazy that is the problem now!
 


I firmly believe that the reason that "military-looking" semiautomatic rifles are being targeted by the current Administration is that they are upset that the 1994 Bill Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" was not renewed in 2004. Most of the mass shootings are done with handguns, not rifles. The MA incident that recently reignited the whole issue was perpetrated with handguns, not a rifle. But the Democrats certainly don't let logic get in the way of their politics.



The 5.56x45 and .223 are nearly identical. The differences between the two are that the chamber is ever so slightly longer in the 5.56x45 and that the case brass in the 5.56x45 is slightly thicker. This means you can shoot both .223 Remington ammunition or 5.56x45 in a 5.56x45 chambered rifle, but shooting 5.56x45 that is loaded to a slightly longer overall length may cause excessive chamber pressures in a .223 chambered rifle. The 5.56x45 actually has less powder capacity due to the slightly thicker brass.

During the Clinton ban, you could buy high capacity magazines chambered in the same caliber rounds and/or larger, more powerful rounds, just in different firearms that didn't meet the look of the "assault" style weapon. For example, a Mini-14 fires the .223/5.56 caliber round. This firearm can use a high capacity magazine and can be purchased as a semi-auto. It was not banned but the AR15 was.

Did you know that before the Clinton assault weapons ban, the AR15 was not a very popular rifle in the US? Because it was specifically banned, people bought it after the ban expired.
Click to expand...

Then apparently they found out that it made a pretty good sporting and target rifle too and bought them up by the truckload. Hunters often do like semiautomatic rifles and prior to the AR-15 becoming popular the only .223-caliber semi-auto out there was the poorly acclaimed Ruger Mini-14. The other semi-auto rifles were all chambered for much larger short action, long action, and belted magnum rounds. A lightweight, accurate, low-recoiling, easy to clean (for a semi-auto) and cheap to shoot rifle was just what a lot of people wanted and they bought a lot of them. Add in the fact that it was something the government didn't really want you to have and you guaranteed success of the rifle in the marketplace.

Anyhow, the whole purpose of the round was designed to wound a human target. It turns out the round is effective in killing varmits.
Click to expand...

It should be since the .223 was based on the .222 Remington, which was developed as a varmint round. The .223 slots in there nicely between the .222 Remington and the more powerful .22-250 Remington. The .223 is also very popular in other kinds of rifles because it has more range than the .222 but isn't quite so hard on barrels like the massively overbore .22-250.

The people who want to ban guns fail to realize a simple thing. Guns are very, very simple objects and are very easy to make at home. The AR is very precise and prone to jamming. The AK is very sloppy and but does not jam.

The Aurora shooting, the AR15 jammed due to a combination of the magazine, the rounds being used, and the type of rifle.

Gabby Giffords (sp) life was spared not because of the type of firearm used, but because the shooter used cheaper ammo that was designed for plinking, not the ammo designed to kill. Had he used the correct type of ammo, she would not have survived.

The guy in Oregon with the AR15 was able to get off 2-3 shots before it jammed and another person shot him.
Click to expand...

Break action guns are very simple to make at home- anybody with a milling machine and reasonably decent quality steel can make a break-action gun capable of firing round of at least black-powder power levels. Semi-automatics are complex as far as weapons go and many of them require CNC machines to make. But you are right, the concepts are very simple and some people can and would make their own weapons if the feds outlawed them. Aw shoot, now we will have to register all of our metalworking equipment, lest we make guns with them...

The first Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter was killed by another student or professor who retrieved their gun from their personal vehicle and shot the shooter dead. This lead to Virginia Tech banning firearms on their campus which would later aid in having it become one, if not the worst, school shooting in US history.

Last, if you look at the people who are committing these mass shootings, you find one significant thing: The majority, not all, are far left liberals. You have not seen a far right extremist yet commit a mass shooting. Not to be confused with the anti-government establishment as the "right" does want a government.
Click to expand...

You never hear this in the media since it goes against their ideology. They tried to paint Jared Loughner as a right-wing nutjob and then failed to state that he was actually a registered Democrat once that information became available.



Yeah, or maybe not. Bump firing a weapon is pretty dangerous. The actual select-fire ARs use a considerably different lower receiver to prevent a safe way to modify a semi-automatic weapon to select fire.



The article is VERY UNUSUAL in coming from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. That is one of three papers that are widely circulated in my locale and their editorial pages in the past few weeks have so far been the typical leftist "if there were no guns, there would be no crime" bunk. The article appears to primarily make reference to gang violence. That is very unusual as gangs being the source of a large amount of crime is rarely acknowledged by liberal media. Gangs are largely comprised of minorities and in the current PC environment, minorities can never be the source of anything bad/evil; it always must really come from white men. But there is no mistake in what they are writing. Gang violence is highly localized and highly concentrated in certain parts of inner cities, as that the area of distribution of the gangs. The guns they use are illegally obtained, mainly through trafficking or theft. Restricting law-abiding citizens from obtaining certain firearms isn't going to change this, and the paper even acknowledges this as well as requiring "different solutions than those being discussed to prevent the December school shooting." I am *still* in shock that they wrote this, and that the liberal mayors from Milwaukee and Minneapolis dared to make those kinds of statements rather than follow the party line of "angry white men with military guns kill people, so we must ban them." Maybe a shred of common sense is finally starting to sink in to some of the leftists in this country...
 


Poor grammar, spelling and syntax aside, you are massively ignorant of the history of this country and of other countries in the world. The reason the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution was in reaction to the abuses the British perpetuated on the colonists. The founders did not want their government to become the oppressive government the British had been and tried to prevent that from occurring with the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution was because the founders wanted us to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government like the one they just rebelled against. You can read about that in the Federalist Papers, written by some of the founders of the country. Tyrannical governments such as the British rule the colonists just rebelled against had been limiting the ability of people to challenge their authority in preventing dissidents from assembling, preventing them from having weapons, throwing them in jail with false evidence and without a trial, etc. The British also severely limited the weaponry the colonists could have- they were limited to one small shotgun and had the amount of ammunition they could possess severely limited (and registered with the British) in order to prevent them from taking on their British overlords.

Also look at what gun control legislation is/was in place in the worst dictatorships in history. You will find that nearly all of them disarmed their populations in order to rule over them with an iron fist. It's a lot easier to stomp on an unarmed population than one that can shoot back.
 
It would simply be political suicide , fi they ever want to be more than mere mayors.
This is hunting territory, and as Ive said elsewheres, the Bald Eagle has always fown over parts of this area.
The Gray Wolfs cries were always heard here as well.
Why?
Because the hunter mentality, volunteerism from them, as well as precious monies and time spent.
Now I know those whove never spent much time away from their cities simply cant understand these things, and living in the woods "aint for them", while their forest is filled with a far deadlier critter, far smarter than a simple black bear, which can swipe a mans head off with a single blow, most outside those cities prefer to be with the more civilized black bear.
I wonder how theyre taking this in Alaska, where having a gun is sometimes not only fundamental, but common sensical.
Like I said, those who dont enjoy these things, leave the rest of us alone
 


You know Marv, if you think about what you said.. the South wouldn't have had firearms. The Civil War may have been far different. Could possibly still have slaves today if that 2nd amendment didn't exist.
 
Be careful with this one! Post ban commercially available semi-auto only AR-15 receivers are NOT built the same as pre-ban or the military issue full-auto/select fire receivers. The primary difference being the manufacturing process and the amount of metal between the area where the trigger assembly resides and the magazine well. The less metal on non-military (semi-auto only) receivers can not handle the stress of full auto/select fire and will eventually deform causing malfunction.

 
That's a nice thought but what the Founding Fathers should or should not have done is a moot argument.

They did introduce and pass the 2nd Amendment; it is our history, it is our legacy, it is the reality we live in today. There is nothing stopping you from soliciting your State/Federal Legislators, demanding an Article 5 convention, and proposing that the 2nd Amendment be repealed; go ahead, so how far you get.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The Police are Law Enforcement, not Crime Prevention. The average citizen being safe and secure in their own property with the ability to protect themselves are crime prevention. The National Guard is the modern day version of the militia as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment; the National Guard are volunteer citizens, the National Guard are the People; therefore you are actually for the People protecting themselves and contradict your own proposal.

Americans are not gun crazy, but there is a very loud minority who continue to make a national issue of firearms and perpetuate the false narrative that America is filled with gun toting maniacs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom