Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 236 (668882)
07-25-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by DevilsAdvocate
07-25-2012 1:09 PM


Re: Gun control question
I just posted where it states restrictions on magazine capacity in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 immediately after discussing the restrictions on assault weapons. You have just selectively cherry picked from the bill without reading it in its entirety. The bill DOES mention restrictions in magazine capacity. Here it is in its entirety with the restrictions on magazine capacity highlighted:
*sigh* You're not getting it...
I'm calling the AWB stupid because of the way it defines "assault weapon" as I explained in Message 49:
quote:
Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
Upon request, I reiterate my point in Message 133:
quote:
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban. Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
To which you reply:
So restricting magazine capacity and ammo/gun stockpiling is stupid.
and then I go:
quote:
It doesn't restrict magazine capacity, its restricts pistols from having magizines that attach outside of the grip.
To which you get into the parts of the bill that don't have anything to do with defining what an "assault weapon" is, that is, what guns are called "assault weapons"... which is what I was talking about.... which is what makes it stupid.
To address the parts you highlighted:
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
This is a qualification for an exempltion from classification as an assault weapon. It does not define an assault weapon by magazine size.
If your "assault weapon" cannot hold a mag that holds more than 5 rounds, then it doesn't actually count as an "assault weapon". That doesn't mean that a gun that does hold more than 5 rounds is an "assault weapon".
SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
This bans specific types of magazines but doesn't have anything to do with the defining of an "assault weapon".
Do you get it now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 1:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 236 (668888)
07-25-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Modulous
07-25-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Gun control question
Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law.
Do you have any support for this claim?
No, none at all. It was totally off the cuff and completely biased by my hatred for cops and the anecdotes I've heard from individual ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 2:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 236 (668897)
07-25-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Briterican
07-25-2012 3:14 PM


Re: Gun control question
outspoken supporters of violence
Oh fuck that bullshit lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Briterican, posted 07-25-2012 3:14 PM Briterican has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 236 (668948)
07-26-2012 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dr Adequate
07-25-2012 10:48 PM


Re: Gun control question
The rules about whether a semi-automatic rifle was considered an assault weapon did not in fact involve the size of the grip, the shape of the stock, or the placement of the magazine. The criteria were two or more of the following:
* a folding or telescoping stock
* a pistol grip
* a bayonet mount
* a flash suppressor
* a grenade launcher
You almost were exactly wrong....
the size of the grip
* a pistol grip
Whether or not a grip is a pistol grip is determined by its size.
the shape of the stock
* a folding or telescoping stock
Whether or not a stock is folding or telescopic is determined by its shape.
the placement of the magazine.
This is where you weren't wrong, but only because it doesn't pertain to rifles... its for pistols. A pistol can be classified as an "assault weapon", according to the AWB, if it takes the mag somwhere other than the grip.
Because this criteria doesn't distinguish "assault" weapons, I concur that it was written by people who are stupid when it comes to guns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2012 10:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2012 1:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 236 (668970)
07-26-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2012 1:52 AM


Well I'm not going to put any effort into this if your just gonna play dumb and nit-pick. Let me know if you have a point to make.
If you do, take it to the Gun Control thread.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2012 1:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024