Head of Moms Demand Action defines "assault weapon" as 10+ rounds fired in 1 minute
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
- Status
Pizzapinochle,
What is the definition of an Assault Weapon?
Answer:
Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.
So..........when you anti-gun folks say that you want to ban "Assault Weapons", you're saying that you want to ban all guns because, by it's vague difinition, any gun (or bow and arrow or lance for that matter) can be an assault weapon. The reason you want to intentionally maintain the vagueness of the term is so that you can apply it to any weapon, in the future, that you feel needs to be banned. Your goal is to eventually make it illegal for all law abiding citizens to own all weapons. The only "smear campaign" that's being waged is by you and your people against law abiding citizens.
What is the definition of an Assault Weapon?
Answer:
Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.
So..........when you anti-gun folks say that you want to ban "Assault Weapons", you're saying that you want to ban all guns because, by it's vague difinition, any gun (or bow and arrow or lance for that matter) can be an assault weapon. The reason you want to intentionally maintain the vagueness of the term is so that you can apply it to any weapon, in the future, that you feel needs to be banned. Your goal is to eventually make it illegal for all law abiding citizens to own all weapons. The only "smear campaign" that's being waged is by you and your people against law abiding citizens.
red04montels
Member
This about sums up my opinion on this situation...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
1 round every six seconds? You could shoot a single shot break open shotgun that fast (and every shot could throw 9 .32" projectiles to boot.
josiewales
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 694
I can do twice that with a h&r single shot 20 ga. Must be full auto.
Godsgunman
Member
I don't see what all the fuss is about. By definition NO gun can shoot 10 bullets in 1 minute, heck it can't even shoot one. I'll just have to make sure I only pull the trigger 9 times a minute with my AK 
.
.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Nothing too surprising about that, it's a basic characteristic of fanatical belief. It's a combination of groupthink (I don't need to know about them since I'm not "with" them) and cognitive dissonance (I don't like them, so thinking --let alone learning-- about them makes me uncomfortable). I think the latter is responsible for media bias, the former for why we can never deal with these people in negotiations.
A lot of "our" side shares these flaws as well, which makes tackling the issue even harder --it's more difficult to approach any problem rationally than emotionally. A big reason why pro-gun voices are often not taken seriously is because of their zealous beliefs regarding other issues --which have nothing to do with guns, mind you-- but which cast doubt on their ability to reason on this issue.
I can understand fairly well the other sides' motivations of trying to get at crime/violence by focusing on the tools that make the baddies so effective amongst the unarmed; yet in reply I am often told I'm in favor of shooting black teenagers and destroying the nation with guns I've buried in the back yard
. I am actively "groupthinking" when I categorize so-called "anti's" as the "other side", but since I am aware of this, I can try to work against the impulse to rationally appreciate and understand their stance when conversing. I rarely, if ever, see similar effort from pro gun-law folks (we occasionally get someone who reaches out to us here, but they are quickly shouted down by our own howler monkeys )Too many on both sides are content to see the other as green, two-headed monsters worthy only of being slain --but I still rarely hear gun-nuts call people like Bloomberg baby-killers and be taken seriously (even though it could be rationally argued, that...
). Most gunnies aren't anarchists and most anti's aren't fascists --but if either side is given free reign to pursue their ideology to its conclusion, that's where we would end up. And that's why we have to work with these people, rather than "conquering" them as so many around seem to believe is the correct approach (or even possible).TCB
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
If you're talking about informing people that actually want to learn the facts, etc and get them to reconsider their views so they'll come over to our side, sure.
But if you think Doomberg, Diane Fineswine and Chuck U. Schumer will settle for anything less than complete confiscation (for the children) then you got rocks in your head. And they must be defeated.
and Bloomberg is pretty close to being a fascist....guy wants to control every aspect of people's lives.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
Threads like these are very useful for identification purposes. All organizations have moles in them that pop up from time to time in order to cause confusion and misdirect folks from the real problem. If you look not even too closely you should be able to identify a few without much trouble.
I've seen people shoot two clays thrown at the same time with a single shot, breakdown shotgun. That puts them shooting a round every 3-4 seconds or so with a single shot. My handy dandy elementary math class taught me that's about 15-20 rounds a minute. So not only is it an "assault weapon" it's a double assault weapon.
I repeat, Twitter = No Context.
She performed the equivalent of shouting some nonsense across a crowded cafeteria.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
SuperNaut, you clearly don't understand Twitter. The statement she made was in reply to a specific statement from a specific person, no more random than replying to a thread here on THR.
BarnBWT, when i have more than two minutes, i'll write a reply to you. Your post is very well put.
BarnBWT, when i have more than two minutes, i'll write a reply to you. Your post is very well put.
Gun control is not about guns. Never has been. Neither is it about safety, never has been. It is about a select few people controlling the masses because they feel we, gun owners, are too dangerous and stupid to be trusted. Gun control, and anti gun bias in general, is an emotional response to something that makes them feel uncomfortable, not from logic or reason.
I can not recall a single instance where the banning of a single type of firearm has lead to the reduction of violent crime. In fact we see the exact opposite, when guns are severely limited or banned we see a massive rise in violent crime. When the people are disarmed the criminals know they are free to prey on whom they will.
It is a fact that laws only apply to those that would abide by the law. So how then does restricting law abiding person's ability to defend themselves reduce violent crime?
I can not recall a single instance where the banning of a single type of firearm has lead to the reduction of violent crime. In fact we see the exact opposite, when guns are severely limited or banned we see a massive rise in violent crime. When the people are disarmed the criminals know they are free to prey on whom they will.
It is a fact that laws only apply to those that would abide by the law. So how then does restricting law abiding person's ability to defend themselves reduce violent crime?
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,840
For the record, I posted a few respectful and civil opinions on that page; they disappeared very quickly, and I must now be 'facebook blocked' as I can no longer make comments.
Apparently they don't really want a 'non-partisan conversation', but simply cheering from the uninformed masses.
Larry
Apparently they don't really want a 'non-partisan conversation', but simply cheering from the uninformed masses.
Larry
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Wikipedia--Groupthink
Wikipedia; Groupthink said:
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia--Cognitive Dissonance
The operation of these groups makes a lot more sense if you frame it by the idea we're supposed to still be screeching at each other in the treetops
"All organizations have moles in them that pop up from time to time in order to cause confusion and misdirect folks from the real problem."
The real problem is there are more uninformed or apathetic people in urban areas susceptible to emotive arguments of the Anti's than rational, motivated gun owners. They could care less about guns, and want crime reduced. Crime comes at the point of a gun in many cases, so that becomes an easy target to waste energy on. And that wasted energy is enough to trounce us if we aren't on our game, all the time.
We can have the best arguments in the world, the greatest legal protections money and court rulings can offer. But the fact is, so long as there are more of them than us, it's all borrowed time. They will find a way to make the majority dictate on this issue, because money, court rulings, and the Constitution are ultimately paper, and have a finite protective power without people to enforce them. The only defense is to take the majority from them to save our rights.
Show the folks on the fence that there are better ways to combat the problems they care about, while also not trampling on our sacred rights, and we can find common ground. Show them results, and we'll get them on our side. I believe this can be done. I believe our idea(l)s can be marketed effectively, but we've been too closed-minded until recently to try and reach out to uninterested urban dwellers. Too many gunnies are content to rail against the city slickers from afar as their numbers inevitably grow and their influence becomes ever greater, until there's nothing that can be done to counter them.
The cities are where this battle is waged; always has been. Until very recently gunowners have not only been on the defensive, but on the retreat; fleeing the northeast, then the west coast, next large mid-western cities, and now large southern cities. Cities would inevitably become more and more restrictive, driving off more and more liberty-minded people and accelerating the trend. All because it's easier to move (nowadays) to an area more accommodating of our individual preferences. Well, we've just about run out of them, and beach heads are opening all around us. Every state now has a large city that threatens to dominate governance (or does) and no place is safe for passive gun owners anymore. Our logic is sound, our ideals just, and our resources formidable. If we actually bother to rise to the challenge in these areas, we will prevail and protect our existence. But we have to be constant and unending in our pestering of officials to endorse our freedoms; just as the antis are in demanding their restriction.
In my humble estimation, we have been "awake" since the '94 AWB, and "wide awake" since its expiration. Favorable court rulings renewed faith in our cause and re-opened formerly cold battlefields (Detroit). Gun rights are much less a fringe than they were, no one has illusions about hunting rights being worth new infringement, and more and more people than ever are taking their lives into their own hands by carrying daily. We show no signs of slowing down, but forever is a long time, especially considering our goal isn't as simple as forcing those who oppose us to do what we want at the point of a gun, like the anti's ironically do. Several devastating court losses or national elections could very easily drive us back into the woodwork, probably never to be seen again.
I'll feel better when we have our own unassailable city-state fortresses that the Anti's would not dream of spewing their garbage in (even Arizona would be at risk if the big cities got big enough). To do that, we need to get cities on our team, instead of trying to defeat them.
TCB
*you know, the store on 3rd and main
(I'm referring to all the various gun advocacy groups here, lest anyone claim this as evidence that I am an "infiltrator" )DeadMoneyDrew
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 265
If you comment anything even remotely pro-gun on their Facebook page, they will delete the post and block you from posting on the page. I know this from experience
justice06rr
Member
Oh the stupidity of some people... in this case any anti-gun retard.
Might as wel ban all alcohol and smoking products because they kill millions of people every year. Ban celphones and cars too!
Might as wel ban all alcohol and smoking products because they kill millions of people every year. Ban celphones and cars too!
Taurus 617 CCW
Member
Well by their logic, a Thompson Contender is now considered an "assault weapon." The main thing that is happening here is that the anti's are trying to redefine what an assault weapon is so they can have more ground to gain. The most effective way to fight this nonsense is to educate non-gun people every chance you get. Not the ones that are heavily anti but the ones that are indifferent. Start them out right, build confidence with a gun they can handle, get some training, and they are on their way. We train countless new folks each year and it is very rewarding to see the progress they make over time. The best reward is seeing them bring someone else that is completely new and the cycle starts over again.
Mike1234567
member
I guess I'd better hide my walking stick because I'm sure I can bash someone with it ten times in one minute.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
