Happyfew, you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge and experience concerning firearms.
You said: "They are easier to use at close range and have much less 'kick' than hunting rifles."
1.) Recoil.. "Kick"... is a function of caliber size and the weight of the firearm. Hunting rifles are available in the same caliber as 'assault rifles', and are almost always heavier than the lightweight assault rifle. Therefore, recoil is usually less in a hunting rifle of the same caliber used in 'assault rifles'.
2.) Hunting rifles are just as easy to fire at close range, if you hold them at your hip and fire like the mass murderers do.
You admitted your lack of experience when you said; "At least the 'ONE' I shot". Shooting ONE 'assault rifle' doesn't qualify you to generalize about 'assault' and hunting rifles.
I could go on, but I think you will get the picture.
A comment has been posted claiming that Assault weapons " are easier to use at close range and have much less kick than hunting rifles and are very accurate... AT LEAST THE ONE I SHOT. This makes them much more effective at multiple quick accurate shots at close range."
This is all wrong and the result of little knowledge of, or experience with, firearms.
1.) "Much less kick than hunting rifles". WRONG! Felt recoil is the result of the caliber of the cartridge, and the weight of the gun. Hunting rifles can be bought in any number of calibers, including the caliber the 'assault rifles' use. Hunting rifles are almost always heavier than the lightweight assault rifle. Therefore, felt recoil in a hunting rifle would be less than in an assault rifle. You would know this if you had any experience with firearms.
2.) "They are easier to use at close range, "at least the ONE I shot". WRONG! Many hunting and sporting semi-auto rifles are almost the same length as assault rifles and just as easy to fire at close range. It all depends on how you hold the gun.
happyfew, the previous AWB was a failure in reducing the number of deaths via firearms. Study after study has shown this. The only place where it was a success was in creating a demand for these firearms. They were NOT used at Ft Hood. And yes, they are the same as a hunting rifle and many are used for exactly that. The low recoil is due to the small caliber, low power of the cartridge.
The assault weapon ban was not a failure. How many of these type weapons have been sold since the ban was lifted? How many were sold before? How many more mass shootings will involve these weapons? sandy hook, fort hood, Orlando and many others have used them with horrific results. they are easier to use at close range and have much less kick than hunting rifles and are very accurate... at least the one I shot. this makes them much more effective at multiple quick accurate shots at close range. they are fun to shoot but don't say they are the same as a hunting rifle, they are not.
The article misinforms you. The AR15 and other Assault Rifles sold to the public shoot no faster or better than almost every semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle or pistol made since 1903. They shoot one bullet each time you pull the trigger, and only one bullet.
Some Assault Rifles and pistols sold to the public come with large capacity magazines. Large capacity magazines have been available for hundreds of semi-auto hunting/sporting rifles/pistols for decades. If a rifle is not designed to accept large capacity magazines, kits have been widely available for decades that will convert a rifle to accept large capacity magazines. All it takes is a screwdriver and 10 minutes.
Legal kits have also been on the market for decades that allow you to convert a semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle to look and feel exactly like the “Assault Rifles” sold to the public. All you need is a screwdriver and 30 minutes.
The lunatics who have used AR15s and other publicly sold “Assault Rifles” to commit their mass murders, could have accomplished the same results just as efficiently with almost any semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle or pistol.
And, the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a FAILURE according the the Justice Department. A 2004 Justice Department-funded evaluation found NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE BAN SAVED ANY LIVES. The guns categorized as "assault weapons" had only been used in about 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. "Should it be renewed," the report concluded, "the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."
"We must fix the assault weapon problem" - John Morse
The "assault weapon problem" is that people like you have no clue what they are talking about.
"military-style weapons" - John Morse
You know, when I was in the military, we carried .38 caliber revolvers. So I supposed in your mind that makes them "military style".
"We will hear that this isn't about guns." - John Morse
And it isn't. Whenever these things happen, people like you make it about the guns. You are obsessed about the object used and completely ignore the behavior, the causes of the behavior, and the person's responsibility. This is the problem.
"When we fall short, as even the best of people do, the person we miss can go to the local Cabela's, purchase an AR-15 and more ammunition than will ever be needed. He/she will be required to wait three days. " - John Morse
Not in this state. No waiting period. And waiting periods are pretty useless as it is pretty uncommon for a firearm to be used in a crime within 15 days of purchase -- the average time of possession to criminal use is over a year.
"Americans have the right to a handgun in their home for their own protection. They don't have the "right" to military-style assault rifles. Scalia says so, right in the opinion." - John Morse
You misread the opinion. He doesn't say that they don't have a right to them, he says that is a separate question from the one being decided.
"Can we hold bars responsible for drunk-driving accidents? Yes." - John Morse
Only if they know the person was impaired. And the same holds true for firearm dealers -- by federal law they can be held responsible if they sell a firearm to someone they think is impaired or intends to use them in a crime. So you are barking at the moon with this argument.
"Knives serve many very useful purposes in everyday life. Military-style assault weapons don't. " - John Morse
The firearms you speak of are very popular for recreational shooting, competition, personal/home defense, and hunting.
"Military-style assault weapons don't. They belong on the battlefield, " - John Morse
Then please explain why the military does not use the semi-auto AR-15 or the semi-auto version of the AK-47.
"It is illegal to sue a gun manufacturer or gun seller for any shooting involving their gun. It shouldn't be." - John Morse
Yes, it should be.
And switching back to knives for a minute, are you aware that you are more than 5 times as likely to be killed by an attacker using a knife or other stabbing/cutting instrument than to be killed by an attacker using one of these so-called "assault weapons".
Also, multiple studies have shown that the previous AWB had no demonstrable reduction on deaths involving firearms. In fact, it had the unintended consequence of people buying more effective calibers, higher power ammo, and more effective bullets.
In short, you continue to show the same ignorance that cost you your Senate seat.
The left just doesn't get it. For crying out loud, use some logic. Looks aside, there's little difference between a (so-called) assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Both fire when the trigger is pulled. Both have magazines that can be replaced quickly. True, some magazines hold 30 rounds and no hunter needs 30 rounds to kill animals, but if so-called assault rifles are banned, how long will it be before the left goes after all rifles?
Final question and I quote from this article: what does a "deranged man (in Orlando who) declared his allegiance to ISIS and (hates) gays" have to do with millions of Americans here and elsewhere, who own one or more (so-called) assault rifles? Do these millions of law-abiding citizens constitute a danger to society? Do their rifles suddenly jump out of the safes and mow down innocent people? The problem isn't guns; it's who owns or gets possession of them.
Loons like John Morse won't agree with me because they are after guns. If it were not guns they would be after something else because that's what loons do -- they look for solutions in all the wrong places. The logical answer lies in identifying crackpots and having a better system to keep guns out of their hands.
Hey, Susan. Again, if a single woman doesn't have any babies, is she a murderer for allowing the eggs to die without becoming fertilized? Then ALL WOMEN would be murderers just for having their periods, and men are murderers for allowing their sperm to die when they masturbate? This just doesn't make sense.
CORRECTION- Maybe God wanted it this way so pre-born or fetus' AREN'T considered murdered by abortion, miscarriage or contraception. Makes more sense to me than your opinion, wouldn't you say???.
Maybe Lil Mick can find an example of a mass shooting in the US where the gunman was on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List at the time the firearms were purchased?
"I said repeal, and rewrite." -- Lil mick
You can do one or the other.
"50 dead Americans, another 53 injured.
We won't let someone on the terror watch list board an airplane, but they can buy a military style assault weapon. That is just stupid!!" -- Lil Mick
First, you mix up the Terror Watch List and the No Fly List. They are not the same.
Second, there is no due process in the Terror Watch List. It was only designed for information and intelligence gathering and sharing and nothing else. Studies by the GAO and ACLU show that the majority of the people on the list actually have no ties to terrorism. And it wasn't all that long ago that people were complaining that they were being placed on the list because of criticizing the government.
Third, the gunman was not on either list at the time the firearms were purchased or at the time of the shooting.
"Don't get rid of it, but we need to be a bit more explicit than "arms". "
Arms is pretty explicit.
"This amendment as is... is useless!! "
Not at all.
Hey, Susan. Why does the Bible say we don't have life till God breaths life into us and gives us what is referred to as "breath life" or "soul life"? When we die it is said we "give our last breath" and our soul goes back to God. Maybe God wanted it this way so pre-born or fetus' are murdered by abortion, miscarriage or contraception. Makes more sense to me than your opinion, wouldn't you say???
Hey, Susan. Your logic on the egg and sperm being alive is faulty. Get your head out of your Church's doctrine and look at biology instead!
If a woman has a miscarriage, is God a murderer? If a woman doesn't have babies with all of her eggs, then is she a murderer for letting them "spoil" without the man's sperm? I have never been with a man and I am 54 years old. Does this make me a murderer too?
Hey Susan....you must be a real hoot to party with. :(
Donald Trump was right. Abortion is murder and the person who hires the hit man is just as guilty as the abortion doctor.
Life begins before conception.
A woman's egg cell is alive. It is human life not mouse life or plant life. A man's sperm cell is human life, also.
If a woman's egg cell is not fertilized by a man's sperm cell it will die. Contraception is wrong because it denies the egg cell a chance for life. Using the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy is wrong for the same reason.
In order for a man's sperm cell to have a chance for life it must be inserted into the vagina of a woman who has ovulated. For this reason masturbation is wrong and homosexuality is wrong. The rhythm method should be used to increase the chances for pregnancy.
Obviously abortion is wrong. Give life a chance.
50 dead Americans, another 53 injured.
We won't let someone on the terror watch list board an airplane, but they can buy a military style assault weapon. That is just stupid!!
Nothing will happen, if we try to bring the assault weapon ban back again, the NRA will invoke the second amendment and that will end it.
This will go on forever unless we sit down, accept the wording of this amendment no longer works and update it.
Don't get rid of it, but we need to be a bit more explicit than "arms". We also need to get rid of the whole militia wording as that has no use in 2016 either.
This amendment as is... is useless!! And a hinderance to our progress in trying to evolve and move forward as a country and a people in the third millennium.
Steve Schriener appears to only be familiar with a couple people in the NRA, not the entire 75 person board.
"Seriously Robert, simply stating "The Second Amendment" is not a conversation.
It's not even a complete sentence,"
Oh Lil Mick, so intent on displaying your ignorance. The 2nd Amendment is most definitely a complete sentence by any grammatical standard you would like to throw at it.
"The problem with the second amendment, it is without a doubt the worst worded amendment in the constitution. "
Only for those who slept through High School English. The structure of the 2nd is quite clear.
"No one can define, legally, what an "arms" is. "
So, having completely embarrassed yourself over grammar, you decide to embarrass yourself over law. The legal definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd has been established for a very long time; in a nutshell, items of common use for individual combat.
" Can you really imagine that, armed U.S. citizens fighting ISIS, or any other threat we may face, that is a joke."
Not a joke at all.
"As in the actual second amendment, the virginia clause (thank you Robert for showing us that, I found it educational). also states a reason for the amendment, it is to maintain a militia ready when called, as opposed to a standing army."
Not quite. The amendment uses the necessity of a militia as one reason, but not necessarily the only reason, to not infringe the right. The right pre-exists, all the amendment does is protect it.
Nice piece. Let's try to use "People with Disabilities" instead of "The Disabled" in your headlines in the future OK? Please?
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation