# Assault Weapons (not political)



## lumberjoe (Mar 30, 2012)

This is not a thread about gun control. However before you either rally in favor or or against legislation, it's good to understand what an "Assault Weapon" is and what it is not. As pointed out in the article, it has been illegal to buy an assault weapon for the past 30+ years (regardless of assault weapons bans in place or expiring).

I'll let the article explain, it does a better job than I can do

http://www.assaultweapon.info/


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Sorry I missed this when you first posted it, I just read the whole thing and couldn't agree more. In fact it is the same thing that I have been trying to tell people every chance I get only to be told that I'm one of those "gun nuts" that wants my guns more than the safety of children. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## lumberjoe (Mar 30, 2012)

I agree. I am not a gun owner and don't ever plan to be, but I dislike fear mongering and I do agree with the second amendment. It's important to know the facts. I think this slide show separates the facts from the "gun nut" excuse.


----------



## MarkwithaK (Sep 12, 2009)

I saw this a few days ago via one of my fellow enthusiasts. It's amazing how certain sides of the media have used that phrase, "assault weapon", to whip the uninformed into a frenzy. Some even claiming that the AR in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle which of course is not true….but by branding it with that word it brings with it a violent imagery. It does get harder and harder to comment on this subject without it getting political because that is exactly what it has become.


----------



## MNgary (Oct 13, 2011)

In 2011 homicides by any type of rifle accounted for 4% of the gun-related deaths.


----------



## paratrooper34 (Apr 27, 2010)

Removed by author - I will never write on any non woodworking threads again.


----------



## MedicKen (Dec 2, 2008)

The M4 when first introduced WAS a fully automatic machine gun. It DOES have a cyclic rate of about 900 rounds per minute on fully auto.

It is a gas-operated, magazine-fed, selective fire, shoulder-fired weapon with a telescoping stock. A shortened variant of the M16A2 rifle, the M4 has a 14.5 in (370 mm) barrel, allowing its user to better operate in close quarters combat. The M4 has selective fire options including semi-automatic and three-round burst (like the M16A2 and M16A4), while the M4A1 has the capability to fire fully automatic instead of three-round burst (like the M16A1 and M16A3).


----------



## paratrooper34 (Apr 27, 2010)

Removed by author - I will never write on any non woodworking threads again.


----------



## lumberjoe (Mar 30, 2012)

You are right Mike. A little research turned up the M4A1 is full auto and issues to Special Forces (SEALS apparently)


----------



## Kentuk55 (Sep 21, 2010)

I became a gun entusiast after 911. I refuse to be "helpless" if I feel myself, and/or my family is being threatened. The ONLY way to PROTECT you, or your family from a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun. End of story. That's my opinion, and I'm stickin to it. Think how many lives could have been saved at Sandy Hook, if there would have been one, law abiding, gun carrying, citizen. It is very simple, common sense. I think it would be a good idea to have every school principal armed, and IF, any of the working teachers want to carry, oh yes, let them. THAT is one way we can help protect our innocent children.


----------



## paratrooper34 (Apr 27, 2010)

Lumberjoe, I still like your thread though, it is interesting.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

I like my AR-15. After training with the M-16A2 for five years in the USMC, I became very comfortable with the platform. When I decided to buy a rifle for personal use, the AR-15 made the most sense.


----------



## murch (Mar 20, 2011)

Roger - you are assuming that all teachers are good guys. Are teachers just as likely to go nuts as people
in other professions, especially given the stress they are under.
Then what?

Although, kids might have more manners if they knew the teacher had a gun.

But then again, the older kids might bring in guns to defend themselves against a teacher that has become unhinged. Maybe they will be encouraged to bring guns to school by their parents to combat such a scenario.
Probably the best and only way to move forward is to arm every one, from kids starting school , up.


----------



## Parsimonia (Jan 21, 2013)

I couldn't open the link, but that won't stop me from commenting. (ha!)
There doesn't seem to be many adults in the media that understand firearms, but they are good at whipping up a frenzy about guns. They're good at confusing automatic weapons and 'scary' rifles with handles, or saying a handgun is a 'semi-automatic' as if it was an Uzi machine gun. Remember the attempt to outlaw 'Saturday Night Specials', as if that would do anything.
I'm almost willing to concede some kind of licensing, but the paper that posted the addresses of owners cured me of that.
As with most political arguements, I don't like to argue tit-for-tat anecdotal evidence, but instead I believe in a few fundamental truths:
An armed society is a polite society.
The debate should be about facts, not emotions.
The 2nd is to allow us to protect ourselves from the goverment.
I don't need a gun - I just don't want the criminals to know if I do or don't have one.
</rant>


----------



## muleskinner (Sep 24, 2011)

Your first and third truth is in conflict with your second truth.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Just remember that many of the shooters were STUDENTS. With that in mind, just think about the public reaction the first time a student (little angel?) is shot because they presented a threat?


----------



## Swyftfeet (Jun 15, 2012)

I think folks that play barbie(dress up, folding stocks, flashlights, reflex dot sights, flash supressors ect.) with their weapons are a bit off center. I do play barbie with my table saw. But some kid cant pick up my table saw (G0690) and go kill another bunch of kids with it, so I feel better about my choices.


----------



## Swyftfeet (Jun 15, 2012)

Parsimonia *The 2nd is to allow us to protect ourselves from the goverment.*

Ask the loving folks from Ruby Ridge about that.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

I think that it is sad that people want their money protected by guards with guns, they want their congressional representatives protected by guards with guns, they want their president protected by guards with guns, they want their presidents children protected by guards with guns but theese same people don't want their own children protected by guards with guns. What is a guard with a gun? Simply put it is someone that has a gun and is not afraid to train with it so that they can protect what is near and dear to them. A guard with a gun doesn't wait for someone else to protect him or his children. If you don't choose to be your own guard with a gun, then you have chosen to be a victim and you have chosen that fate for your children as well.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Great interview on CNN - 
Andrea Mitchell talked about how we are restricted under the first ammendment - how the FTC regulates what she can say, and how you are not allowed to yell "FIRE" in a movie theatre.

The guest pointed out that you are not Gagged with Duct tape before entering the theatre - we instead punish those that break the law, we don't gag people so they cannot speak.

Same goes for guns. Registering like a sex offender is not the answer to anything.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I can't get the link to work.


----------



## Parsimonia (Jan 21, 2013)

Brian,
"Ask the loving folks from Ruby Ridge about that."

That's the issue isn't it. If you are going to do it, you better be ready for the consequences. You can never do it if you are disarmed. (I'm not advocating anything, to me it's the point of the 2nd that matters).


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

A real assault weapon fires fully automatic the rest are simply hunting rifles that look like assault rifles


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Same manufacturer, fire rate etc.
But in New York- it is the magic of a Pistol grip that makes it "Evil"


----------



## Parsimonia (Jan 21, 2013)

...or black paint and a handle.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

What happens when the first 'student threat' gets shot by an armed teacher or administrator?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Can't do that Mike, corporal punishment is banned and that would be above and beyond.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Not in Texas. I have paddled students myself, in the current decade here in Texas. Still, that does NOT answer the question.

What happens when the first student is shot by an armed teacher/administrator/guard?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

S*** will hit the fan! Teacher probably in prison and in court for at least a decade with civil suits. Bleeding hearts will find excuses and probably make it legal for students to shoot teachers there after ;-(


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

and Cuomo will make another back room deal and lower the 7 shot magazine to 6 shots in NY. Because we know nobody would dare shot someone with an illegal size clip brought in from out of state.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

and no chance they will enforce existing laws, they need the issue to stir the pot ;-(


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

They were talking about Diane Feinsteins bill today…
As expected it bans a crapload of guns. Including all handguns with more than 10 rounds…. so no Glock 17's etc.
In fact it is illegal to make a weopan that is CAPABLE of ACCEPTING a large magazine. So beyond the 10 round clip limit… if it is POSSIBLE to put a larger capacity magazine in it, the gun is illegal.

A puzzling thing I cannot grasp as being legal - - is how do you legally ban the "transfer" of guns. She is proposing that if you own say an AR-15… you may not …. EVER sell it or even give it away, except to a family member…Not sure if she just misspoke on that point or what, but i don't see how you can prohibit people from selling their property.

Will it pass is another story - - but this is really onerous.

Ridiculously she described Assault rifles as "weapons designed to be shot from the hip and spray bullets"...What a maroon!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Thank God she didn't call for a ban on the six shooters our Six Gun Heroes shot from the hip every week back in the 40s and 50s !


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

What I don't understand, they don't want to understand, they just want to pass useless laws. And people voting for them couldn't care less either.

the headline will read, politician so and so passed umteen bills. Of course all of them are a waste of paper.


----------



## helluvawreck (Jul 21, 2010)

Ho hum. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the Bill of Rights.

helluvawreck aka Charles
http://woodworkingexpo.wordpress.com


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Why the hell does this (ME) flaming Democrat find themselves supporting the Republican position on 2nd Amendment Rights? Geez… this ******************** is getting me worried.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Mike

Neither party has our interests at heart. They are more like each other than they are like either of us. People have come to treating politicians like football teams where everything their guy says or does is good and everything the other guy says or does is bad.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

And it was the Republicans that helped make this crooked deal in NY through. All politics and no thought or reason. I used to think democrats just wanted my money and my guns. Now its just become politicians just want my money and my guns


----------



## teejk (Jan 19, 2011)

more "feel good" legislation on the way, after passing they'll head to the finest retaurants in DC and pat themselves on the back (on our dime). In the meantime we put yet another bandaid on something that really requires x-rays and stitches.


----------



## Jim Jakosh (Nov 24, 2009)

I think all the politicians are barking up the wrong tree. People kill people, not the guns no matter what kind they are. TV and the movies are the most effective teachers. If we continue to show mostly sex and violence on TV and have killing in video games the norm, what do you expect the product to be in the kids exposed to this kind of education?


> ?


?


> ?


?
We need to change the teaching and cut the profits from all those media people who we seem to overlook because they contribute so much to the candidates who make the laws.

And, the liberals who want to disarm Americans are using these shootings as a spring board for their platform .
Did you see Oboma bound up to the podium at Newtown when that should have been a somber occasion??
Don't be fooled about what they are doing!!!!


----------



## Jim Jakosh (Nov 24, 2009)

Concerning assault weapons, I thought fully automatic guns were illegal to own in the USA, but I ran across this video and a whole lot more where they have machine gun shoots and there are a bunch of them out there owned by all kinds of people. They have fun with them and do not attack our citizens with them because they are sane people and respect others.

Take a look:


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Jim, You have to pay a tax and be registered with the Treasury Dept to own one. They are legal to own in WA state with proper federal paperwork, but illegal to fire in the state.

That would be a very spendy habit, feeding one of those hungry beast enough ammo to keep it happy ;-)


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Jim* is correct, people kill people … with guns or knives or bombs or whatever else. We don't need laws to control weapons we need to educate, starting at an early age, how bad violence really is and how to avoid confrontations that may escalate.

My children were grew up with a father that smoked but the schools they went to had a strong no smoking education and none of my kids smoke or have ever tried it. In fact, my son-in-law was re-educated by my daughter to give up smoking. It does work!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

It sure looks like the government want to use the "mentally ill" as the scapegoat in their efforts at national *"gun control"*. Those with mental illness are more likely the VICTIM of violent crime, rather than the perpetrator of violent crime. Less than 5% of violent crime is committed by the mentally ill.

*Straight from the NIH:


"...First, mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.


Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence.


Third, substance abuse appears to be a major determinant of violence and this is true whether it occurs in the context of a concurrent mental illness or not. Those with substance disorders are major contributors to community violence, perhaps accounting for as much as a third of self-reported violent acts, and seven out of every 10 crimes of violence among mentally disordered offenders…."

And from another source [Medscape]:
It is essential to keep in mind that most people with mental illness are not violent.[2] A study of psychotic individuals found that those with a mental illness were responsible for only 5% of all violent crimes.[3]


----------



## MarkDavisson (Apr 26, 2009)

This is a thread about gun control.


----------



## moonie (Jun 18, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Mark: "...This is a thread about gun control…."

As it should be, and to discriminate on WHO you control access to guns is what it is all about. To target restrictions only to those who commit 5% of all violent crimes is misguided at best, and criminally negligent at worst. What about the OTHER 95% who commit violent crimes?... Just sayin'


----------



## EdwardR (Mar 24, 2012)

A little history lesson with a bit of devil's advocate.

After the war was over Washington abolished his army. This is what made him a great leader he could have kept his army and became king or what ever. When this happened Jefferson wrote the second amendment to arm a militia of the people since there was no defense at all. NOW when war became evident and armies were reestablished would Jefferson have abolished the second amendment. also with each state establishing a state militia ( National Guard ) do we need a civilian armed militia.

I support the right to bear arms beyond no doubt but i do feel we have gone over the line. The AR-15 by definition is not really a assault rifle but now we add a folding removable stock pistol grip and big clip. This makes the gun mimic a URBAN ASSULT RIFLE.

I must say i am tiered of my fellow gun advocates saying its not auto so its not a assault rifle. NO real assault trained man uses full auto in a attack situation. 3 shot bursts at most.

If you want to protect your family with a fire arm train them to use a ( i use this term loosely) a assault style shotgun ) 3 in. magnum 18in barrel folding stock and pistol grip and add a light for night time. 1500 dollar investment that will do the job better then any pistol or AR-15. You or any family member just has to point NOT AIM in a general direction and fire. If i was invading your house and your wife had a pistol i may take my chances she is to nervous to aim but the shotgun i am exiting quickly.


----------



## moonie (Jun 18, 2010)

I know that this is a thread about gun control but is it realy about gov control dont get me wrong I have done my duty for god and country and after laveing the army I done what my father said I got marred got a home and raised three beautiful girls and the bad part I dont own a gun I have seen death up close I just what know when the time come's that I can steel have


> ?


???


----------



## Dwain (Nov 1, 2007)

Mike,

I see your point, but if a student, generally a teen ager walked into a school, armed and looking to shoot, no common sense media outlet (please emphasize common sense) would present this as anything but a threat. Especially after what we have been through. The golden age of teenager innocence has long ago gone by the wayside.

I'm sorry, but that is just the case.


----------



## MarkwithaK (Sep 12, 2009)

While i won't get into the use of the term "assault rifle" I do have to disagree with this comment:
"If you want to protect your family with a fire arm train them to use a ( i use this term loosely) a assault style shotgun ) 3 in. magnum 18in barrel folding stock and pistol grip and add a light for night time. 1500 dollar investment that will do the job better then any pistol or AR-15. You or any family member just has to point NOT AIM in a general direction and fire. If i was invading your house and your wife had a pistol i may take my chances she is to nervous to aim but the shotgun i am exiting quickly."

Don't get me wrong, they are both well suited to home defense but if given my choice the AR-15 would be my preferred firearm over a shotgun every day of the week. The allure of the shotgun is that it is a very easy weapon to use effectively which tends to lead people to not training with it sufficiently. It is NOT just a point and shoot type of weapon. You can miss with a shotgun and if the person operating it isn't accustomed to it's recoil his can severely effect their ability to re-acquire their target which can be detrimental if they a) miss with their initial shot or b) there are multiple targets.

Then there is the issue of cycling the weapon, that small amount of hesitation can lead to disaster. The AR-15 has, for me at least, a minimal amount of recoil and being semi-automatic I don't have to readjust my site picture after cycling a fresh round. Factor in it's accuracy and unlikelihood of causing collateral damage and the AR is better suited at QC defense. If anyone to break into my house I am in a position to defend it then i want to put rounds into them and not spend the next day patching numerous holes in my walls. In addition it may not be about ending the invaders life but simply putting them into a position where they are no longer a threat and a well placed round of two of 5.56 will accomplish this with no problem. If you are going to keep any firearm in your home for defense then you should train with it repeatedly….just simply having it is a false sense of security.

In regards to the intimidation factor, if someone breaks in and they are unarmed then ANY firearms is going to be a deterrent.


----------



## moke (Oct 19, 2010)

HMike,
With all due respect, after spending 33 years on the street as an officer and commander I could not disagree more with NIH. From my experience all three of their points are wrong. As I survey my career, 95% of violent crime I have dealt with was drug/alcohol related or probably the two most grieveous crime scenes I have attended were as a result of mental issues. One of them occurred after I had a conversation with the perpetrators pyshcologist told me two days earlier that they were in no way a threat of any violence.

From my experience when the violent mentally ill comitt a crime, they are very persistant, not willing to give up until it reaches their expectations. These are truly the scariest crimes to respond to. I should probably not "profile" the mentally ill, but as you can see by the recent violence the violent mentally ill often hold value of life to be very low. Both for their victims and themselves. I am sure that "Mentally Ill" is such a broad term that the violent portion of it could only be 5%...they just leave a very lasting impression.

While we train for these incidents, I have never been to anything like the recent ones….thank God. It is said for the officers that attend those scenes carry very deep scars. Most Officers carry "baggage" the rest of their days, but not like those at Columbine, Aurora, or the recent Conn grade school.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Crap! I have to agree with H-mike.

To Mikes comment at #35 that has him supporting the second amendment…
I suspect that deep down the people that are realists and thinkers from both the left and the right understand responsibility and the constitutional freedoms.

The folks like Chuck Shumer, Piers Morgan and Diane Feinstein (while she herself got her Concealed carry in 1995) thinks that all guns should be taken… don't have the IQ of stale bread.

Just as the mentall ill comit a small percentage of the crimes (perhaps made up for by their bodycount and brutality). The AR15's even though they have the CAPACITY to inflict more rapid damage, only account for less than 1% of the violent murders in the USA. So the gun grabbers want to at BEST, affect (not solve) less than 1% of the crimes. I say affect, because I believe that even if there were NO assault rifles, Adam Lanza would still have taken the handgun to the school, or a bomb made out of a propane tank etc.

Gun control is like trying to clamp jello - it doesn't prevent/dissuade the whacko that wants to kill a bunch of people from their plans - - they just use different methods.
Ask Tim McVeigh…not a single shot was fired.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

If they really wanted to do anything about crime and violence, they would start by enforcing existing law.

This whole debate and grand stand show is about stirring the pot, energizing the base and getting them to the polls for the next election.


----------



## teejk (Jan 19, 2011)

Dwain first…somebody weeks ago said that we can "pretend" that things are as they were decades ago…when I heard that I could only think about "we're not in Kansas anymore Toto". Something has changed but as I have predicted we'll put a bandaid on a gushing wound.

Mark…give me a pump shotgun any day. Open choke at close distance in the dark (would be the only case where I would ever use it) will hit something. Better yet, there is no other sound in the world that could be mistaken for chambering a round into a pump shot-gun. An experienced crook will know the sound and will leave.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

The NRA was successful in stopping the CDC of tracking most gun related violence but they did not succeed in stopping the CDC from all tracking gun related incidents* in homes* of gun owners.

In a many of these cases murder/suicide/fits of anger/self inflicted injuries were typically related to *hand guns* and *not* assault weapons!
So maybe more homes should have assault weapons to bring this statistic down!


----------



## EdwardR (Mar 24, 2012)

Teejk. * got that right. i was going to edit and add that and did not. I guess i should have added my barrel is reworked and vented for reduced recoil and precision.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Teejk, Never underestimate the ignorance of a lowlife scumbag. I had one come for a 2nd look at my 12 gauge. I guess he decided it was real, did not return for a 3rd.


----------



## MarkwithaK (Sep 12, 2009)

"Mark…give me a pump shotgun any day. Open choke at close distance in the dark (would be the only case where I would ever use it) will hit something. Better yet, there is no other sound in the world that could be mistaken for chambering a round into a pump shot-gun. An experienced crook will know the sound and will leave."

Perhaps. But are you really going to wait until you are within ear shot to rack your shotgun just so the guy can hear it? Plus if said intruder were under the influence then that "scary sound" may not register in their mind in which case the intimidation factor is gone. The term experienced crook was used so on that basis someone that is willing to unlawfully enter your home while you are there is not all that unlikely to do so while they themselves are armed. That can lend them a certain sense of security that, again, would negate that old saying.

As far as the scenario you offered (it being dark) let me expand on that a bit. If you are in a dead sleep and are awakened by the sound of someone in your home your adrenaline will start to flow but the grogginess of sleep may still be there while the intruder is wide awake and probably already on the look out for the homeowner. In addition he has no responsibility of being careful not to shoot another inhabitant of the house. The homeowner may not know where the other inhabitants of the house are at that moment and while attempting to down the intruder some shot finds it's way into a family member as well.

I'm not saying a shotgun isn't good for home defense. I am in fact taking the stance that an automatic rifle, the AR-15 in this case, would be better. In fact the shotgun would be my 3rd choice.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)




----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Looks like a topic HMike, Topa and I can agree on it seems.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Though the Washington Times article for Homeland Security to buy 7000 AR15's for "Personal Defense" brought an interesting admission by DHS that indeed the AR15 is a defensive weapon! and they want it with the 30 round clip!

----------------------

While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 "personal defense weapons" - also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.

A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips *"suitable for personal defense use in close quarters."*

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, introduced legislation Thursday that would enact a so-called "assault weapons" ban, prohibiting more than 150 firearms and limiting magazines to 10 rounds.

Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them.

"Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense," Mr Ball said. "On top of that, a recent story reports that two RIT [Rochester Institute of Technology] students who were legal gun owners were protected by an AR-15. The story may have had a very tragic ending, had Governor Cuomo's anti-self-defense bill been in full effect."Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/#ixzz2JIhkPHaF


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Knee Jerk Administration

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended/index.html

(CNN)-A 5-year-old girl chats up classmates while waiting for the bus after school. The topic: Playing with a Hello Kitty "bubble gun" that, with the flick of a finger, blows bubbles everywhere.









"I'll shoot you, you shoot me, and we'll all play together," the kindergartner says.

The next day, that remark-which was made innocently, according to the lawyer for the girl's family, who related the story-landed the young central Pennsylvanian child in the principal's office.

Soon after, she was sent home after being issued a 10-day suspension for a "terroristic threat," as indicated on the suspension form signed by Mount Carmel Area Elementary School Principal Susan Nestico. That and other documents were provided to CNN by Robin Ficker, the lawyer representing the girl and her mother.

--------------------------

*How is it really that a little girl that has a hello Kitty Bubble gun AT HOME - - is labled a *terrorist* and given mandatory 10 day suspension? (Remembering how we are told by these geniuses that Labeling kids is BAD)

Also mandatory visits to a psychologist to determine if they are somehow a closet delusional mass murder?

Sure there are lots of low information fools out there but shouldn't the Principal of the School, actually have a friggin brain in his head?*

Somehow our Zero Tolerance society drops the hammer on 5 year olds if they even make a gun sign with their finger and say pow… then we all prognosticate about why they grow into a real psychopath.

Kids play. They even play cowboys and indians…. kids even do paintball! It doesn't mean they will be recruited by Al Quaeda!


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*DrDirt* you hit the nail on the head and this is as bad as the girl that was suspended from school for supplying drugs when she gave of her friends an aspirin. *Taking the laws to its extreme!*


----------



## ScottinTexas (Jan 24, 2013)

moke - you mention alcohol and drugs - are people on pot violent? I've been told to ask a police officer if they would rather deal with somone on alcohol or marijuana .


----------



## moke (Oct 19, 2010)

Scott,
Good question, I do not recall a violent pot head….they are terrible drivers and make incrediably poor decisions, but not violent.

The new generation of "pot-heads" are using synthethic dope….these people can be violent…..some of the synthetic pot can yield a week long high, making the user think they are bullet proof and 12' tall! Mostly they are dangerous to themselves.


----------



## ScottinTexas (Jan 24, 2013)

oldnovice - "...as bad as the girl that was suspended…."

Or someone needing to urinate on a long trip peeing on the side of the road labled a "sexual predator." True in several states:

http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature

It is pretty easy to see where everything is going if you are even half-way paying attention (which leaves out at least 90% of the people). In addition to these lists (add the absurd "terrorist watch list" - is that even legal? Where is the due process?) they are trying to get everyone on some Big Pharma poison which is bad enough but will also be used to remove rights.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

notice the assault rifle


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Thanks Scott - - Followed your link….it is alarming to say the least! Here is the key paragraph!

Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex-offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely. A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

So teen sex is illegal in 29 states. and requires registration.

I apologize that this gets far off the topic of assault weapon definitions… but shows where society is headed, as we seem to *need *new laws for every perceived grievance.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Ill take a Kate and an ar15 over a shot gun and I will be damned if I will just sit buy and watch this video come to fruition.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Moke I know you don't know first hand about what your talking about since you never smoked any grass there is no such thing as synthetic weed that is some kind of crap the DEA is telling you to keep you paranoid and against a drug that should never have been illegal in the first place. Now you want to see violent crime Alcohol the no1 cause of violent crime.

If the us ends the war on drugs today we can pay off the deficit in less than 36 months. Now lets get serious about ending a unwindable war. instead of sending pot heads to state prison we can send the ones who cant function to rehab for pennies on the dollar. do you have any idea how many non violent drug offenders there are at 7500 dollars a day its no wonder we are taxed to death we are paying for a war Nixon started and we will never win a war no one wants to win.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Dan you must be the only liberal i know that is pro gun


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

not a liberal . registered Republican ... moderate amiable expressive


----------



## darinS (Jul 20, 2010)

Dan,

I've been watching post #68 for awhile now. Where exactly is the assault rifle?


----------



## jeepturner (Oct 3, 2010)

Darin, I too have watched post #68 and I can attest there is a rifle. I never call them assault rifles, but I notice that this one has an excellent recoil absorption system. It definitely helps me keep a bead on target.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

notice the high capacity magazine clip on that baby …. must be one of those that holds over 100


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*thedude is correct, legalize drugs and we can reduce crime and reduce the deficit at the same time.*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Ummm - 
Maybe it could change the culture - and could curb some spending - but the statement:
*If the us ends the war on drugs today we can pay off the deficit in less than 36 months.*

Not accepting the idea that we can pay off the deficit (1 trillion/year every year for the past 5 years) nevermind the national debt in 36 months from drug tax proceeds, and spending cuts to the DEA….
Doubt it is remotely close!

Just as a Sanity Check - here are the US tax revenues from Alcohol. I would surmise - that there are more drinkers than pot smokers. True many are the same group - - but I think that we sell a LOT more budweiser and Jack Daniels in the USA… and thay only gets 5 Billion with a B!~


----------



## ScottinTexas (Jan 24, 2013)

I recoil at the notion of taxing a plant. You will end up with the same enforcment nightmare as when it is illegal. Taxing the manufacture of it if they sell it retail, ok. But it would be like taxing tomatoes you grow. I wouldn't want to go down that path and I don't even have the intention of growing it. In fact, it is the very nature of making everyone a "suspect" and empowering police to become highway robbers seizing property with NO due process that makes me want to legalize them all.

DrDirt, you are right, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be anything like the scale of paying off the deficit (and how do you pay off a defict in 36 months - a deficit is a yearly shortfall. If you pay off one in 3 years you have still added to the debt) However, the money, and this is all about money, would not be limited to taxes and cuts in DEA. We have about 2 million people in prison. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world by a fair margin. Russis is second and a distant 3rd is Canada. And a good portion of those people are in there for minor drug offences. Now, common sense tells you that we pay for all that and we do. The thing is, a lot of people get that money and many prisons are privatized. Beware the public-private partnership - you will see that more and more in many facets (such as in Texas where they are selling off infrastructure to foreign companies and charging tolls on roads) and it is always a bad thing no matter how they sell it. I will end my rant there.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Hey Scott - Agree - however there is only a small part of the prison population that is there SOLELY for posession. Usually it is part of the overall sting. For example - you get a domestic violence/abuse call. The police head down to the bar/park to pick up the perp and he has some weed in his pocket. 
They are busted for the original call + the drug charge.
So indeed there are many folks in prison who have a drug charge as PART of their sentence. But it is a small percentage of folks that are doing time for posession of pot. It is usualy driven by the assault or robbery/carjacking charge.

On ASSAULT WEAPONS - - 
Now Missouri has legislation pending for confiscation of all "assault weopans"

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

The whole bill is 3 pages - and teh first two are all of the "evil attributes" that make it an assault weapon like:

c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

*AKA having a forestock to hold/steady the rifle!!*

Second to last part of the bill is key 
--------------------

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have *ninety days *from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

-------------

No Buyback involved!
There is no provision to compensate you for your legally acquired rifle! You Sell it, or turn it in for destruction- or have it confiscated for destruction along with doing time as a Class C Felony.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Damn, that link that Drdirt just put up kinda says it all. If mo is putting that out there then who is next?


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

CUT AND PASTE is more fun then links2 me …

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 545

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.023, to read as follows:

571.023. 1. As used in this section the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Assault weapon", any:

(a) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock; or

d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

(c) Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

a. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

(d) Semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock;

d. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or

e. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

(e) Shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or

(f) Conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Assault weapon does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable;

(2) "Detachable magazine", an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm and includes a magazine that can be detached by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with a finger or by use of a tool or bullet;

(3) "Fixed magazine", an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action;

(4) "Large capacity magazine", any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;

(b) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine.

3. This prohibition shall not apply to:

(1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon or large capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;

(2) The manufacture of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees, provided the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal and state laws; or

(3) The sale or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a dealer that is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

•


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

This one is the same *"find the assault rifle challenge"* as #68
...








...

...
*watch for this one on Odie's Blog this Saturday.*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Who is next? CA & WA http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-ban-bills-three-states-including-wash-could-make-citizens-criminals?CID=examiner_alerts_article


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Facts, just the facts:

FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director 
NRA Past President

On February 13, 2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for all firearms purchases.

The letter lays out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know-just the facts, no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts.

To view a copy of the letter from the NRA-ILA's Executive Director Chris Cox to the U.S. Congress regarding so-called "universal background checks" click here.

THESE ARE THE FACTS - READ THEM - LEARN THEM - SHARE THEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS

NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Dealers
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.

Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.

Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]

Gun Shows
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.

A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from "street/illegal sources" or "friends or family."
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]

Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]

"Universal Background Checks"
While the term "universal background checks" may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly "universal" background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of "universal background checks" depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession - a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

In the Washington (state) examiner -
.*Home inspections for gun owners proposed by Washington state lawmakers*

Biz Pac Review reports today that a bill sponsored by three Seattle Democrats would require owners of assault weapons to submit home inspections annually conducted by the county sheriff. The proposed legislation, SB 5737 - 2013-14, bans the sale of assault weapons but allows those who already own them to keep them but submit to the home inspections.

The part of the bill regarding the home inspections is this, "In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

The Biz Pac Review article reports that two of the bill's sponsors made a mistake in putting that provision into the bill. "As it turns out, two of the bill's sponsors - Sens. Ed Murray and Adam Kline - took a cue from their congressional brethren and didn't bother reading the bill before signing on to it, the article said."

*Murray, the bill's sponsor admitted that the home inspection provision is "more than likely unconstitutional."*
------

So why write a bill that you already think will be unconstitutional rather than trying to craft inside a Constitutional framework?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I'm surprised they didn't slip in a repeal of the 3rd Amendment and claim to not have read it. They could have a full time tattle tail in the home!


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------

