Skip to main content

View Diary: Retaining assault weapons has no rational basis (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Part of the problem is the term and definition of (3+ / 0-)

    "assault weapon"
    Defining it by it's physical characteristics or features leaves too many loopholes that the gunloons WILL exploit to defeat it.
    Defining by function is what's needed.
    The salient function is the ability to kill many people in a short period of time without pause.
    154 bullets in less than 5 minutes and that included walking from one room to another.
    That's the criteria that should be specified. Who cares if it has a grip or a bayonet or folding stock, those things matter much less that the kill rate and ammunition capacity.
    But it hardly matters how the bills are written, the NRA and their fellow travelers are steadily pushing back the laws:
    and making it easier for criminals and disturbed people to gain access.
    Any kind of gun law in Congress is being blocked. It doesn't matter that substantial majorities want tighter regulation, stronger background checks, limits on lethality and capacity, the gunloons and their MIC backers/beneficiaries dominate the legislative agenda.
    And they are doing it in the sickest way possible: they play on the fears and delusions of the gunloons, pumping up their paranoia and feeding their fantasies of macho heroism, playing on racism and decades of propaganda against the "other".

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:03:43 AM PDT

    •  RE AR-15 (3+ / 0-)

      Others have noted it may not be an "assault" weapon. It was first designed for the military to KILL PEOPLE. Recent civilian variations still have a 20-30 round magazine with up to 60 possible. Why do we have them in people's houses? For what purpose?

      •  Wrong, sort of. (4+ / 0-)

        The AR-15 was designed in 1963 as the semi-auto civilian use version of the M-16 that Colt bought the design of from Armalite.  Armalite did call their design the 'AR-15' but it was never brought to market.

        The design was made to be a lighter combat rifle that was chambered in the NATO 5.56 round as opposed to the .308 round that the M-14 was chambered in.  The weight of the M-14 and three magazines of ammunition is the same as two M-16s and ten magazines, so the weight savings allowed soldiers to be more manuverable.

        I have one in my house, loaded with home defense ammunition in case I need to defend myself, my son and my wife from a home invastion.  Yes, I do understand that the chance of someone breaking into my house while we are home is far less than the chance that they would if we were not at home.  Considering that we have been broken into, I am not taking any further chances.

        We have fire extingushers in our car, our kitchen and our basement for the same reason.

        If you live next door to the police station, maybe you'd feel differently.  In my neighborhood, it takes the police about the same amount of time to respond as the Newtown police do, 15 to 20 minutes.

        Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
        Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
        Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

        by ErikO on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:33:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site